The Sweeney Todd Box Office Tracking thread- Page 11

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 7:27pm

I'm sorry, I earlier said that the film had already opened in the U.K. It hadn't when I wrote that.

It really pisses me off that WB didn't learn their lesson from Phantom of the Opera's domestic performance. Both the films performed virtually the same, and both would've performed a hell of a lot better if only they had the sense to OPEN WIDE ORIGINALLY. Because neither was ever given a chance to expand. By the time Sweeney finally got a few more theaters, clearly, interest had waned. People were INTERESTED in this film when it opened, it could've done considerably better than just okay if they put it in 2,500 theatres off the bat.

On the other hand, the very early numbers from overseas have been encouraging.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 7:28pm

Can someone please validate Yankeefan?

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 7:31pm

I wouldn't agree that it tanked, and I would say the biggest thing getting in the way of it doing better than it did is the studio itself.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 7:38pm

THIS JUST IN--

Sweeney opened the gates in some new markets and is now the NUMBER ONE MOVIE INTERNATIONALLY with $18.7 million over the 3-day weekend.

Opening weekend in the UK alone was $8.7 million.

Overseas total is now an estimated $30 million

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117979712.html?categoryid=19&cs=1
Updated On: 1/27/08 at 07:38 PM

[phantom8019]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 8:08pm

The movie did not tank in the US. Walk Hard tanked, with its $18 million final gross. The Golden Compass tanked in the US. All things in perspective, please. Yeah, Sweeney Todd did not perform to expectations, but it did not tank. It did so-so. Not terrible, not great.
But consider all the competition out there and the subject matter of the movie. Consider the cancelled awards show. Lots of stuff went against this movie. Could have been MUCH WORSE.
By the way, it is in the top 10 R-rated movies of 2007. Much of this has to do with the R rating. If high school and middle school kids could have seen this on their own, I bet that would have added 20 or 30 million. That is what made Hairspray so successful.... the kids.
And yes, it is doing very well overseas.
And for those who think a movie has to make back 2.5 or 3 times its budget to break even... someone in the industry told me that those formulas have been outdated for years. If a movie (not Sweeney, I know Sweeney cost more) costs $40 million to make.... do you really think the studio expects it to gross 120 million? Because that rarely happens. Only 22 movies broke 120 million this year. So does that mean the movies that didn't break 120 million and had budgets that were over $40 million are considered flops? Because that would be A LOT of movies.





Updated On: 1/27/08 at 08:08 PM

[bk]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 8:33pm

The formula is not outdated and never will be - that is the formula for a film to break even at the box-office. Other revenues add to the tally, of course. Right now, while I don't think the film "tanked" in the worse sense of the word, I do believe it's a fairly big loser right now when you add the marketing money on top of the 65mil the film finally cost. I'm sure you're savvy enough Phantom, not to think that the studio has actually received the fifty mil from the US take. They've probably recouped most of the marketing money, but none of the budget. And they don't get ALL the International either - just a percentage. At the end of the day, it will not make money. The best they can hope for is to not lose too much.

[bk]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 8:36pm

And BTW, several of last year's bigger-grossing films cost under fifty million, which actually surprised me. Cloverfield, which is doing very well, cost 25.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 8:50pm

I disagree with you about the formula, because my source knows what he is talking about. But it's fine. We will argue about that forever, so let's just agree to disagree. But that formula has been around for years apparently, before cable, DVD sales, and all that other stuff came into play.
As for the studio not seeing all that money from the gross, yes you are right. But again, it's like that for all movies, not just this one.
And you are right, studios dream of Cloverfield and stuff like that, because they cost very little and make a lot back. But that balances out some of the underperformers. People sometimes don't remember that studios have many movies going at once... a flop and a hit can balance each other. Sometimes the prestige or the quality of the film itself is worth taking a small hit.
I am glad you agree it didn't tank. See, people will see that word TANK and believe it and put Sweeney on the same level as The Golden Compass, which simply isn't fair.
Anyway, I am glad we agree a bit on this. It's nice. Have a nice evening.
Updated On: 1/27/08 at 08:50 PM

[bk]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 9:03pm

Unless Golden Compass does big numbers overseas, it will be one of the biggest disasters of the decade. Sweeney is hardly in that class.

And I want to be very clear - the two-and-a-half times formula has been around forever and is very specific to box-office. That formula is still applicable to box-office and, as I said, always will be. By box-office I mean the take from theaters.

Obviously all the ancillary income helps break films even and put them into profit. All I've been saying all along has been that even from week one it was clear that the domestic box-office was going to be a disappointment. And I, too, put some of the blame on the studio, especially the marketing department. But, at the end of the day, none of it matters one or even two whits, because the people who adore the film can still adore the film, and the people who don't don't ever have to see it again.

The big surprise for me is Michael Clayton, a film I thought worked really well and which I really enjoyed for any number of reasons. It's only done 40mil, although it seems to be getting a bump because of its Oscar noms, something that interestingly did not happen with Sweeney - in fact, Sweeney lost over 500 theaters this week. But Clayton's less than stellar box-office doesn't stop me from saying it's a terrific film, but just because I think it's terrific doesn't mean I have to pretend its box-office is better than it is. It, too, hasn't tanked, and both Sweeney and it have gotten good reviews and a whole lot of people have liked them. But I'd say that both Clayton and Sweeney are domestic box-office disappointments.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 9:22pm

Sure, I do agree with all that.

I think a huge issue with adult-themed movies is that well... adults just don't go to the movies like they used to. Many of us wait for the DVD. And many of us simply refuse to sit in a noisy theatre or pay $300 for a ticket (ha ha). I only see movies before noon now, when it is cheap, and to ensure the theatre is not full of loud idiots. For me a movie is a deeply personal thing, and I cannot stand to have someone ruin it for me.
Thus, a lot of these Oscar movies are not doing stellar business... (except for Juno, which appeals to more than just adults).






Updated On: 1/27/08 at 09:22 PM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 9:37pm

"Unless Golden Compass does big numbers overseas, it will be one of the biggest disasters of the decade."
Actually, Golden Compass is indeed doing excellent business overseas, but it failure in the U.S. will probably forever be remembered more than that.

[bk]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 11:35pm

I no longer go to movie theaters. I go only to screenings, most at the DGA (of which I'm a long-time member), or the Academy or various studios during the Oscar season. I cannot stomach being in a movie theater where people are texting and sucking down food as noisily as they can, or carrying on conversations as if they were in their own living room. And they think they have the RIGHT to behave like that because they paid to get in. Then again, I have the right to think they're scum-sucking pigs.

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 1/27/08 at 11:56pm

I went to the Theater to see it with all of those,"scum sucking pigs" and we liked it. I don't go very often but for some Movie's like Sweeney I will. I have that amazing ability to focus or move if someone annoys me so I don't allow little things like that bother me. Or else I would never go into a Live Theater either, if I let that bother me too much.

It should do well on DVD. Not too many expected too much from it at this time of the year, so how can anyone call it a disappointment, with that rating? If they wanted more money they would have released it earlier when the Market could have been better. The Market is still out there and it will probably do well then. If it picks up on some merchandising, it will do even better but it is still some time before the next Halloween, when all of it's theatrics, can really pay off. It does have plenty of memorable characters to play off of. It will only help the live Theatres more by bringing the story to a larger audience through the Movie experience.

[bk]

Posted: 1/28/08 at 1:54am

This is all hindsight - the studio hoped it would do well or they wouldn't have opened it at this time of year - it was a miscalculation and they now know that. Prior to this film opening when the studio was sending people onto the chat boards to get the buzz going, EVERYONE thought it was going to do well or was hoping it would. This "nobody expected too much from it" all comes after the fact - but what else is new?

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 1/28/08 at 6:10am

Uhm...no. I was one of the critics who felt the Movie would suffer from a December release. Some other critics who saw it as an Art Film also felt it had a limited Market because of theme and it being a Musical. Those who hoped for more weren't reading those articles very well. Some fans thought because of the casting it was a sure hit but I wouldn't say that was too many here, who are well aware of how Musicals do on film these days.

Their not choosing a strong vocal cast would discourage the Broadway Crowd and it being a Musical causes some of the Actor's devoted fans to scratch their heads. So being somewhere in the middle is more of a reasonable expectation. I think they wasted some serious money on advertising but it's their pocket book.

Life has been good in the advertising business. Even for the not so good ones unfortunately. I think they are going way overboard but then life must be good here! So many sites do depend on their advertisers. As long as they are good, I don't mind, its' those obnoxious ones that gnaw at you to the bone.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 1/28/08 at 9:10am

"I have that amazing ability to focus or move if someone annoys me so I don't allow little things like that bother me."

I don't have that "amazing ability." It is hard for me to focus when people are loud, and sometimes there is nowhere to move in a crowded theater. Plus, moving in the middle of the movie can be distracting to others. I am quiet and respectful in a movie, even if I am not liking the film. I just don't understand why this seems so difficult for so many others.

[Pippin]

Posted: 1/28/08 at 10:38am

sorry, already posted by scarywarhol.
story

Updated On: 1/28/08 at 10:38 AM

[GoSmileLaughCryClap]

Posted: 1/28/08 at 2:20pm

Having grossed 30 million after its first week overseas, it's obviously going to have a very lopsided final worldwide take. It looks like it's going to play very similarly to Moulin Rouge, which is often cited as starting the revival of movie musicals. That made 57 million in the States and 120 Million Internationally.

Quite frankly, why does it matter where a movie makes its money to be a success?

[artscallion]

Posted: 1/28/08 at 2:36pm

Some people just seem to want to be able to say that it failed, even if it's in this one very specific area. No, it wasn't a smash. But I don't think people really thought it would be. Many were optimistic. But I think we all were, in reality, hoping it would simply do as well as it's doing. I don't know anyone who cares in which specific category it's succeeded or failed. I look at the whole picture and don't consider the final figures to be in yet as it's just reached Europe.

Beyond that, the seemingly burning need some have to label it a disappointment is really beyond me.

Updated On: 1/28/08 at 02:36 PM

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 1/28/08 at 5:32pm

I don't have that "amazing ability." It is hard for me to focus when people are loud, and sometimes there is nowhere to move in a crowded theater. Plus, moving in the middle of the movie can be distracting to others. I am quiet and respectful in a movie, even if I am not liking the film. I just don't understand why this seems so difficult for so many others.
by Phantom8019


The problem is that many don't go to Theatres all of the time. You get stuck with someone who is bored or doesn't like the Movie, they might complain. If they are already being a nuisance, It wouldn't bother me to inconvenience them by moving somewhere else, rather than allow them to bother me more.

I am not sure if it's great that you like to torture yourself like that but it's your choice. If it was that unpleasant, you could probably leave early and ask the Mgr. for a voucher or ticket to see it at another time. That is extreme but since this bothers you so much it seems like a reasonable request. Most good Mgrs. will honor such a request.

Most of the time, it is just bad luck. I try to see Movies when I know they won't be crowded. Sometimes for Premiers I enjoy being a part of the crowd because it is exciting. Especially if it is something I have been anticipating for awhile.

The worst was a midnight Premier of Return of King and the person next to me started snoring. Though my sense of humor usually pulls me through those times. I just nudged the guy awake so I didn't have to listen to the added audio for the rest of Movie.

[artscallion]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 3:23pm

As of February 17, Sweeney brought in $52.3 million domestically and $70 million internationally for a total box office take of $122.3 million in its first 59 days.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 2/21/08 at 7:17pm

Bump...I finally updated the O.P.

Great performance overseas...

[artscallion]

Posted: 2/27/08 at 7:46pm

Add another $11 million to the Sweeney pot this week.

[artscallion]

Posted: 3/5/08 at 7:36pm

Add another $9 million to the Sweeney Box Office take, bringing the total to $142.2 million in just under 11 weeks in the theaters.

[Gobstopper]

Posted: 3/5/08 at 8:12pm

So I finally got to see this last week! For a really long time it was only in theatres an hour away, but it finally moved to the cheap second-run theatre 20 minutes away. Best $3.00 I've spent in a long time, so I'm glad I contributed to that additional $9 million!