Jeebus...

[Tom Chick]

I figured maybe $60 million. Boy was I wrong. Harry Potter took in just shy of $90 million this weekend.

[Tom Chick]

On a related note, 8 Mile was down from $55 million on its opening weekend to $21 million this weekend. That's nothing to sneeze at, but I was hoping it would have done a little better based on the critical acclaim and word of mouth.

Also, it looks like Punch Drunk Love pretty much tanked. It's not a bomb of Pluto Nash proportions, but I'm sure Sony is disappointed that Adam Sandler's name didn't bring in more of an audience. I'm guessing PT Anderson is just going to be an art house director from here on out.

-Tom

[Jim Preston]

Tom, I thought you were one of those purists who disdained discussions of opening weekend grosses, second week falloffs, and films that have "legs." I thought it was all about the art with you.

If not, please post any salacious rumors about nubile young starlets you know of or feel like starting.

Thanks.

[Tom Chick]

Tom, I thought you were one of those purists who disdained discussions of opening weekend grosses, second week falloffs, and films that have "legs." I thought it was all about the art with you.

Well, yeah, of course. But I live in Los Angeles, so I can't very well help it. Even our homeless people talk like this.

-Tom

[Mark Asher]

"Also, it looks like Punch Drunk Love pretty much tanked. It's not a bomb of Pluto Nash proportions, but I'm sure Sony is disappointed that Adam Sandler's name didn't bring in more of an audience."

I know I continually use my kids as anecdotal evidence, but what that heck, I've paid for them so far. Anyway, my oldest is a HUGE Adam Sandler dumb-jokes-and-all fan and he refuses to see this movie. He wants Sandler the clown, not Sandler the not-clown. Apparently the buzz that preceded this one killed the movie for him.

[Dirt]

Seems like only Robin Williams is the only one who has been able to branch out from his clown act. Dead Poets Society was a godsend for him and now, he's branching into being a psychotic. The Majestic was a big flop for Jim Carey. And sounds like Punch Drunk Love was Sandler trying to branch out too.

Is is just me or have movie goers become slightly more savvy? Used to be that having a big name automatically made a movie a seller. Doesn't seem quite that way anymore.

[Desslock]

More shocking, by far, is the fact that mediocre, no star, feel-good indy, Fat Greek Wedding is still going strong, and is now one of the top domestic films of all time ($200 million), and will probably pass the numbers of movies like Terminator 2 and Saving Private Ryan, etc.

What the hell?

[Mark Asher]

Must be more fat Greeks than anyone knew.

As to comic actors turing serious, don't forget Tom Hanks. He went from a sitcom where he dressed as a woman to his current Mr. Dramatic roles.

[Jason McCullough]

If literally every middle aged American goes to see a given movie (based on word of mouth, in this case), it's going to be pretty big.

[Jason Becker]

"What the hell?"

And Jackass: The movie has made almost $60 million.


So who beside me will admit they went and saw it? :)

[Chris Nahr]

Is is just me or have movie goers become slightly more savvy? Used to be that having a big name automatically made a movie a seller. Doesn't seem quite that way anymore.

For one thing, the names aren't really that big anymore. Maybe it's just me but I can barely remember the names of the supposed "stars" of contemporary cinema. They all seem more or less interchangeable to me...

[chet]

More shocking, by far, is the fact that mediocre, no star, feel-good indy, Fat Greek Wedding is still going strong

It is the Dirty Dancing effect.

Play to middle aged women and they will go see the same movie 50 times.

Chet

[Tyjenks]

Seems like only Robin Williams is the only one who has been able to branch out from his clown act. Dead Poets Society was a godsend for him and now, he's branching into being a psychotic.

I can't stand his comedic stuff anymore and will only see him in serious roles. All his stream of conciousness rambling in interviews drives me insane. It was funny 20 years ago, but it seems like Robin doing an impersonation of himself now. Is he going to be 80 years old with the wacky gesturing and the nonsensical riffs? *heavy sigh*

[Dirt]

"It is the Dirty Dancing effect.

Play to middle aged women and they will go see the same movie 50 times."

Contrare, it's the Moulin Rouge effect.

[Desslock]

>"It is the Dirty Dancing effect.
Play to middle aged women and they will go see the same movie 50 times."
>Contrare, it's the Moulin Rouge effect.

Well, it's got to be something more than that, since Fat Greek Wedding has made 3 times as much money as those two movies combined, and is still going strong. Seriously, it's made more money than every movie released in the last 10 years, other that Star Wars/LoTR/Harry Potter/Titanic/Spiderman and a handful of others. That's pretty wacky.

It's the most profitable movie of all time by a huge margin.

[Brian Koontz]

It's the most profitable movie of all time by a huge margin.

Restricted to North America maybe. Worldwide it doesn't come close to being the most profitable.

[Supertanker]

Is he going to be 80 years old with the wacky gesturing and the nonsensical riffs? *heavy sigh*

Yes, just like his hero Jonathan Winters. May God have mercy on us all.

[Desslock]

It's the most profitable movie of all time by a huge margin.

Restricted to North America maybe. Worldwide it doesn't come close to being the most profitable.

Sure it does. What tops it? Profitability = return on investment.

[Brian Koontz]

It's the most profitable movie of all time by a huge margin.

Restricted to North America maybe. Worldwide it doesn't come close to being the most profitable.

Sure it does. What tops it? Profitability = return on investment.

I don't have the worldwide numbers for My Big Fat Greek Wedding, but the United States has rung up $210 Million in revenue. That's before VHS and DVD action of course.

I believe Titanic approached $1 Billion in worldwide ticket sales. Lets forget about VHS/DVD since I have no idea what they would be, but that's surely going to benefit your position anyway.

I don't have cost of production figures, but I can make reasonable guesses...

Titanic: 200 Million
My Big Fat Greek Wedding: 20 Million

Now... the movie industry isn't drowning in profits. I'm not sure what the average rate of return is in the movie industry, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say 20 percent.

Ok, so your movie had 20 Million in outlay and gained 190 Million.
The 180 Million "left over" (the cost savings of your movie over mine) results in a mean gain of 36 Million.

So the profitability of your movie given 200 Million in cost (20 Million for your movie plus 180 Million in future movies) is 226 Million.

Titanic on the other hand had 200 Million in cost and gained 800 Million, outprofiting your movie by a whopping 574 Million.

In short, Titanic is a far greater way to spend 200 Million dollars than your movie + 180 Million in future movies.

[Sean Tudor]

Adam Sandler reached his use-by-date about 3 films ago.

[Lunch of Kong]

...reasonable guesses...
My Big Fat Greek Wedding: 20 Million

The production cost was 1/4th of your guess: $5 million.
If we're going on production costs alone, Titanic returned 5 to 1 on its investment, and MGFGW returned 40 to 1.

But, you must ad the costs of advertising, marketing, distribution, and cost of prints. For BFGW, the total goes up to $30 million.

Titanic's production cost + interest was $230 million +$360 million marketing +$100 million distribution +$50 residuals + $30 million print costs = $770 million.

So the Return on Investment is about 3 to 1 for titanic, 7 to 1 for MBFGW.

THE ROI winner is still Blair Witch Project. It cost $35,000 and grossed about $140 mil in the USA.

[Ben Sones]

Now... the movie industry isn't drowning in profits. I'm not sure what the average rate of return is in the movie industry, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say 20 percent.

No Hollywood movie ever turns a profit.

[Desslock]

I don't have the worldwide numbers for My Big Fat Greek Wedding, but the United States has rung up $210 Million in revenue. That's before VHS and DVD action of course.

I believe Titanic approached $1 Billion in worldwide ticket sales. Lets forget about VHS/DVD since I have no idea what they would be, but that's surely going to benefit your position anyway

You're comparing world-wide revenue for Titanic to domestic revenue for BFGW, for one thing, and your numbers are way off. The cost of BFGW was less than $5 million ($2 million by some estimates), and it has returned about $210 million, and is still going strong.

It made more than 105 times its cost.

Titanic, on the other hand, made $600 million domestically, and cost $200 million, so it only returned 3 times its cost. They're not even in the same ballpark. Even comparing international numbers (BFGW is at about $240 million, while Titanic earned much more than you indicated - $1.8 billion), the rates of return aren't even close.

The only movie that even comes close is Blair Witch Project -- while the basic film was made for under $100,000, the actual costs of the film were closer to $3 million by the time it was glossied up (excluding the extensive advertising), and it made $140 million domestically -- about 44 times its cost -- much lower than the 105x return BFGW is kicking along at.

It's really the biggest movie story of the year, and it's almost impossible to explain, since it's not even a decent movie.

[Lunch of Kong]

I don't have the worldwide numbers
I don't have cost of production figures
I'm not sure what the average rate of return is in the movie industry
...
Titanic is a far greater way to spend 200 Million dollars

I don't want to be mean, Brian, but:
1. you don't have a clue about what you're talking about,
2. you are too lazy to do basic research on the subject matter,
3. you know arithmetic, but don't know how to interpret the results.

In the past, I thought people who called you an idiot were picking on you. But, if this post is representative if your posting style, I can understand their frustrations.

[Mark Asher]

Then there's always the idea of gross adjusted for inflation. I, too, will choose to be lazy and rely on something I read after Titanic without doing any further research, but I think if you look simply at gross with inflation factored in, Gone With the Wind is the all-time grossing movie.

[Desslock]

Then there's always the idea of gross adjusted for inflation. I, too, will choose to be lazy and rely on something I read after Titanic without doing any further research, but I think if you look simply at gross with inflation factored in, Gone With the Wind is the all-time grossing movie.

Yes, at least domestically, although Star Wars isn't far behind. Sound of Music is third.

Yeah, box office totals by themselves aren't really meaningful -- you can essentially half the total box office a film makes today to get an idea of what it would have made only 10 years ago. Cripes, ticket prices have gone up significantly the past several years -- it's now $13.50 a movie here, and it was a big deal when ticket prices reached $10.00 in 1999 (concurrently with the release of Phantom Menace). That's a pretty huge increase in only a few years.

I wish data was available solely on "ticket sales" -- that would be the most meaningful. i.e. which movie did more people pay to see.

[Tyjenks]

I wish data was available solely on "ticket sales" -- that would be the most meaningful. i.e. which movie did more people pay to see.

That would be handy as I have heard that the majority of Titanic viewers were kids who went back multiple times to see Leo in all his locked gate rattling glory. Kids tix are cheaper so that kinda skews the Gross results when you are comparing films. You would really need a ticket count and types of tickets sold: students, children, adults, seniors.

[Brian Koontz]

It made more than 105 times its cost.

Titanic, on the other hand, made $600 million domestically, and cost $200 million, so it only returned 3 times its cost. They're not even in the same ballpark. Even comparing international numbers (BFGW is at about $240 million, while Titanic earned much more than you indicated - $1.8 billion), the rates of return aren't even close.

As long as you understand that doesn't matter we'll be on the same page.

I'll begin with this question...

Which would a company rather do? Shell out 5 Million and take in 240 Million, or shell out 200 Million and take in 1.8 Billion? Since companies want to maximize profitability this answer determines which is more profitable.

My point which is valid yet is being oddly ignored is that the cost savings of your movie over mine, 195 Million, is then used to finance future films, or thrown into the stock market, or whatever. The *expected rate of return of THAT money* is what matters.

This isn't that hard, people... this can't be above Econ 301 level.

I could care less whether 20 percent expected rate of return is highly accurate... it definitely isn't MORE than that. Its a safe figure.

20 percent of 195 Million is 39 Million.

So your movie's profit + the expected profit over the next 195 Million spent is 274 Million.

My movie's profit (according to your figures) by THAT SAME 200 Million dollars is 1.6 Billion.

Again, the exact dollars here are irrelevant... the PRINCIPLE I am explaining is the point. And by that valid principle, Titanic is more profitable.

I sure as hell won't be asking for any business advice in this forum.

[Jason McCullough]

And we won't be asking you for any Kraaaaaazy MMORPG advice.

[Matthew Gallant]

Which would a company rather do? Shell out 5 Million and take in 240 Million, or shell out 200 Million and take in 1.8 Billion?

I think they would rather shell out 5 million 40 times and get a 9.6 billion return. Duh.