Box office report (07/16/07)…

The last two weeks have really turned Hollywood’s fortunes around this summer.  Following a terrific May with three blockbuster sequels (Shrek, Spider-Man and Pirates of the Carribean), things slackened off quite a bit in June.  In fact, not only was there a slow-down, but the season’s first major league bomb, the hideously overpriced Evan Almighty, was released.  As well, Fantastic Four 2 has underperformed.  Although saying it bombed would be an exaggeration, it will need to rely on ancillary sources (home video, TV rights) to break even.  Still, the Studios had to have been nervous.

Then we got the summer’s first ‘original’ smash when audiences flocked to the (comparatively) economically-budgeted Transformers.  This was followed by the mid-week appearance by the latest Harry Potter sequel.  Like May’s string of sequels, the critics largely considered it less impressive than previous chapters, and also like May’s string of sequels, audiences didn’t appear to care very much.

Budgeted again at a comparatively modest $150*m (compared with the third chapters of Spider-Man and Pirates, both costing in the area of $300m), Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix conjured up (sorry) a magical (really; very, very sorry) $77m over the weekend, which added to its mid-week take added up to a monstrous $140m, the sixth highest five-day take on record.  This beat the previous Potter record of $120m by Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.  It should be noted, however, that all the previous Potter movies opened on a Friday, so that’s an inexact comparison.

[Actually, other sources put the budget closer to $200, which is still a bargain all things considered.]

Meanwhile, the film also has already raked in an additional $190m over the same period, meaning that at $330m worldwide in less than a week, the film is *already* functionally in the black.  And even if the higher budget figure quoted above is correct, the film will be hitting the breakeven point in another day or two.  Obviously it looks to be another huge money-maker for Warner’s. 

Also already in profit territory is the number two picture, Transformers.  Despite the Harry Potter onslaught (and the fact that Potter ate up a gigantic 4,300 screens nationwide), Transformers held well for a summer blockbuster, dropping only 49% from its opening weekend.  Adding another $36m to its take, the film has earned a more than impressive $223m stateside, along with another $146m in foreign coin.  The film is now officially the biggest hit ever for the oft-derided director Michael Bay, and a sequel is surely in the works. 

The other major releases held well, also.  Third place went to Pixar’s Ratatouille, which slipped only 38% from the previous frame, and now stands at a robust, if not record-breaking, $143m.  With kiddie fare sparse, the film could sneak its way up to the $200m mark when all is said and done.  However, as of yet it has only added another $18m in foreign take.

Falling 39% was Live Free or Die Hard, which took in an additional $11m, for a total take of $102m.  Given its $110m budget, the additional $91m it has taken overseas means that it is nearing the break-even point  (since the studio gets about half the take),  the film looks to make a decent amount, but can’t really be considered a huge hit.

License to Wed, a typically appalling-looking Robin Williams comedy, dropped only 29% to bring in another $7.4m, for a total take of just over $30m.  However, it has not been released at all overseas, and given how comedies translate in foreign markets, it might not be.  This one will probably be relying on ancillary revenue sources to turn any sort of profit.

Meanwhile, horror flick 1408 scared up another $5m to go to $62m total.  Again, this has not been released overseas as of yet.  With a modest $25m budget, this will end up turning a nice piece of coin in the end, albeit obviously shy of the bigger movies mentioned above.

On the other hand, the movie really scaring Hollywood is the season’s one certified megabomb, Evan Almighty.  It added nearly another $5m, but only has boarded $87m for a rainy day.  With a paltry $4.3m in foreign take added in, this one has pretty much already sunk beneath the waves, courtesy of its moronically large budget.  Needing in the area of $350m before it would break even, the film has turned a worldwide total of $92.2m so far, and is largely spent.

So while the comparatively unsatisfying nature of the films doesn’t appear to have harmed things too much, it should be noted that all the sequels this summer (although it’s too soon to say this for Potter) made less than their preceding chapters, at least domestically.   These lags range from 6% for Ocean’s Thirteen to 10% (Spider-Man 3), 25% (Shrek and Pirates 3), and, of course, 55% for Evan Almighty, which also cost over double the amount to make as the first film.

Luckily, next summer’s movies seem like they might actually be a better slate of films, and that never hurts.

  • El Santo

    Just wanted to say that my girlfriend and I hit the drive-in movie for the second time this year last weekend and got to see the “Transformers”/”Live Free or Die Hard” double feature.

    We enjoyed ourselves greatly — seriously, this has to be the most movie-watching I’ve done since college. I have to say, though, that the accumulated testosterone levels of both movies made is difficult to sleep that night, especially since the double-feature ended at around 2:30 am.

  • Ed Richardson

    Wow. A drive-in still exist somewhere? Much less one showing major blockbuster double features? Cool.

    The last time I went to a drive-in was around ’80 and it was called The New Moon (now the New Moon Driving Range). The family piled into a van and it was more a tailgating event than a theater one. I remember first there was The Octagon, then a Corman sci-fi horror flick that frightened the 10 year old me. People shipwrecked on a strange, malevolent planet. Can’t remember the name. I remember they played a preview for Scanners. I also remember getting eaten up by mosquitoes – but that’s Louisiana.

    I don’t know if any of you have had the pleasure of watching a movie via DVD projector, but it would be quite something to show one outside, say, on the side of a house or barn. I was extremely skeptical of them and figured the picture must be faded somewhat, certainly not better than a large plasma. Was I wrong. I dated a nurse who had one set up in a room in her house and I was blown away. The clarity is better than any HDTV I’ve seen and I’ve owned two HDTVs. While not a movie screen, you could certainly get a great experience throwing a movie party outside.

    Ken,

    They’re certainly having a great summer. The Spidey/Pirates/Transformers/Potter DVDs will give them a great winter as well. I wonder what DVD sales average percentage-wise in the total take of a blockbuster. How often does one hear “I’ll wait for the DVD.”? It’s got to be huge. Unlike a cinematic release, the DVD sales never really close.

    I change my mind about a Transformers 2 – they’ve probably already got a script. I just wonder if Bay will direct.

  • I expect Bay will be back. Directors aren’t as expensive as stars, and it Hollywood tends to stick with what’s working until it’s not working anymore.

    I too miss drive-ins, but mostly because of the movies. I guess I’m a bit weird, but I can’t describe how wistful I am for an age when you could go to the drive-in and see a double bill of Killer Shrews and The Giant Gila Monster. I find that idea a hundred times more interesting than a Transformers / Die Hard bill.

    Of course, cars are a fifth as big as they used to be, too. That’s one big reason drive-ins fell out of favor, I think.

  • El Santo

    Yup, there’s a rather well-frequented drive-in about 5 minutes from my house in Everett, WA. It’s cool to be able to bring your own food; lie back in plushy car seats; talk during the movie without worrying about bugging anyone; listen by dialing in on your car radio (no more window-mounted speakers — which is OK, since my car has a pretty good speaker system); and see rather recent blockbusters on a very large screen.

    The only problems are 1) movies don’t start until sundown (usually 9:30 pm), so if you’re in for the double feature, you’ve got to be prepared to stay late, and 2) drive-ins are very, very popular with smokers, so if you roll down your window, there’s a good chance a slight breeze might send some second-hand smoke your way.

  • Ed Richardson

    Seeing Grindhouse reminded me of the drive-in experience of my lost youth. Well, up until Death Proof anyway. I remember they just ran anything – Five Deadly Venoms, Piranha, Saturn V, Rabid, Shivers, etc. When the local cinemas were running the ’76 remake of King Kong (which was a commercial success, I remember 7-11 have Kong Slurpee cups) the drive-in would be running something like Silent Running or Good Guys Where Black.

    I once walked into a bank in Manhattan that had a prodigious collection of beautifully matted, large black and white photos of abandoned drive-ins taken from all around the US. They were different yet all the same. The large screens stood in overgrown fields like the Monolith from 2001. Speaking of Manhattan, you can get an outdoor movie experience in the summer behind the NY Public Library and Central Park. They erect movie screens and will annually premier movies at both locales.

    What would bring drive-ins back would be the digitization of the distribution process. Movies are already shot digitally, but unformtunately they are transferred to countless reels of very expensive film. One could make the DVD projector argument, but the bulbs on those things are the most expensive part of the units and their life span is not that encouraging.

    Two technologies are emerging that may decrease the cost of distributing movies and both involve the screen itself. Years ago in Austin some researchers developed a screen that was made out of thousands upon thousands of tiny mirrors. A DVD could be put into a projector and it would hit one mirror then spread out, using the mirrors like pixels on a screen. Great concept but the screen was prohibitively expensive. The second idea I like better. Some researchers in France have made a plastic through which one can run an electrical current. This could lead to plastic TV screens, plastic monitors and plastic movie screens. A projectionist would then simply slip in the DVD (or by that time probably just run the movie from a hard drive somewhere) and the movie would appear on the screen – not more film, no more projector, no more beam of light. A cinema or drive-in would then just be a collection of ultra-large plastic movie screens. Cost to distribute the movie to a thousand cinemas? Nothing. They just download it to a device.

    We’ll see though.

  • Hasimir Fenring

    Directors aren’t as expensive as stars, and it Hollywood tends to stick with what’s working until it’s not working anymore.

    Too bad nobody told the Salkinds that when they fired Richard Donner. ‘Your film’s a smash, Dick. Oh, and you’re fired.’