To say it isn't a blockbuster is obvious, since it is a platform release and was never intended, marketed, or distributed as a blockbuster. In Birman's first week, it was on FOUR screens. Up until last week, it was only on 470 screens, and now that it is in wide release as of last Friday, it is still only on 857 screens. Notice how those numbers started smaller, and keep going up?
Comparatively, Fury opened on 3,173 screens, and then downgraded to 2,382 screens recently.
So, you are not comparing similar things, similar strategies, or similar release models. The approach of Birdman is start small, build word of mouth, open a bit bigger, build more word of mouth, and maybe it can do that steadily for a while.
Plus, this movie will never lose money, even if it came out of theaters next week, after you factor VOD/digital/BluRay. etc. And it will likely break even way before that, if not turn a tidy profit.
but advertising income something something
Just saw this one. I have to say, it is my second favorite film of 2014 so far. Michael Keaton is outstanding, and deserves all the Oscar chatter of late. The entire supporting cast was wonderful as well. Very much enjoyed this one.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/18/11
I admired everything about this picture other than the screenplay. I left feeling as though it has been over hyped to high heaven. The performances, score and photography were aces but the story left me cold. It's as if Samuel Beckett and Harold Pinter collaborated on an episode of Superman: The Last Stand.
That is disturbingly accurate; well, I don't like Pinter, so that explains why I didn't like this movie.
Fantod, you need to do your research before you assert them as fact. It was never meant to be a $100 million blockbuster. Its not tanking and is probably one of the best reviewed films of the year. Not trying to be cruel, but if you want others to take you seriously on this board you need to do some research. Does it matter if they got the seating count of the St.James wrong?
What do you mean if I want others to take me seriously? I am not kidding, and Birdman is not doing that well at the box office. And $100 million does not make a movie a blockbuster. In fact, with advertising and theatre cuts, if a movie makes 100 million that usually means it failed at the box office. Birdman is not tanking (I already said that I used too strong of language earlier) but it does not have the success that movies like Black Swan or Silver Linings Playbook had, which went after similar markets and was far more successful. And how come I have to do my research before I post on a message board (even though I was accurate) but the movie is allowed to make wildly inaccurate statements about the theatre business and I get criticized for pointing them out?
Updated On: 11/25/14 at 10:40 PM
No one had an issue with you pointing out the inaccuracies. No one cared about them. Which is different.
As for the box office, it is hard to compare the final box office grosses of two movies after their run to a movie still in the midst of increasing its number of screens and still earning money. If it opened big and was shrinking, you could more easily make predictions. It's not, though, so you can't.
On a similar note, though. Who cares? If you like a movie, and it doesn't make a profit, is it any less of a movie. Or, in your case, if you dislike a movie, why do you need the box office to show that you were on the right side on this movie?
Similarly, will all the people who love Side Show be wrong about the show when it closes early and doesn't recoup?
Updated On: 11/25/14 at 10:54 PM
"Wildly inaccurate" almost made spit out my coffee. Are you using a film that has a man hallucinating and talking bird costume and poster as fact? Do you expect that to be an accurate portray of anything? Existentialism. Talk to me when you graduate high school. You have a lot to learn.
Anyhow, this film made me fall in love with film again. Check it out
Oh yes, anybody who doesn't like this movie has a lot to learn because they are not on the intellectual level as BroadwayNYC2. And existentialism is "a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will", not a generic term for whenever something tries to be "deep" but comes off as annoying, preachy, and pretentious. And my response to you was about box office, not about the quality of the movie, so there is no need to be rude.
Updated On: 11/25/14 at 11:09 PM
Oh and haterobics, I didn't say that it was wrong for somebody to love this film, I was just saying that it wasn't doing as well at the box office as people made it seem, not that that fact had anything to do with the quality of the movie.
But to say every film that doesn't make $100 million is a failure, which is ludicrous, and to not take into account the number of screens Birdman is playing on when you make such a proclamation is poor analysis.
A movie on 800ish screens can only make a fraction of a movie on 3,000+ screens, which seems obvious.
And whether this movie continue to add screens and increase its box office over time, or shrink and tank... is still completely unknown.
I never said that every film that didn't make 100 million was a failure, just movies with a budget of fifty million including advertising, or more, which is many movies. Birdman had an 18 million dollar capitalization and usually add on half the budget for advertising costs, which would make it a 27 million dollar movie total. Birdman has only made 15.3 million to date, and because studios only get half of the gross, it will half to make 54 million to break even. I'm not saying that it's not possible, only that it has been in theatres for almost 40 days and hasn't even reached halfway to that point.
Updated On: 11/25/14 at 11:25 PM
You keep using the metrics for how to judge a movie with a different release strategy than Birdman. Here is the definition of a platform release:
"A platform release is a limited release strategy, whereby the film opens in only a few theaters, then gradually expands to more theaters as word of mouth spreads and the marketing campaign gains momentum. Depending on the film's success, there is even the possibility to expand into a wide release. The advantage of this strategy is that marketing costs are conserved until a film's performance has been established. This way, if a film turns out to be very popular or critically acclaimed, the distributor may opt to spend more money than originally planned and push for a wider release; if the movie flops, the distributor can withdraw from the campaign without having spent much money promoting and advertising the film.
In the early stages of a platform release, the key metric is the per-theater average gross, not the total box office gross. Art house and independent movie theaters like to see a high per-theater average, as proof that they will be successful if they release the film. A distributor using this release strategy must take care that they do not expand the release too quickly: If a film is successful early on, many theaters will be interested in playing it; but if the distributor releases the film into too many theaters at this stage, the limited audience will be spread over multiple theaters, lowering the per-theater average and making the film appear weaker."
I'm not tracking the box office strength of this movie, since... well, I liked it, so who cares?! But, if you do insist on tracking it and making predictions based on the raw box office total, that info might be good to take in. The reduced up-front marketing, the total being less important than the pre-screen average, etc., etc. How widening it too fast could be a bad thing...
This has nothing to due with whether or not you liked the film. It has to do with the fact that you have lots to learn about release strategy. I wasn't trying to be cruel in my original post, I just think it is important to educate you on something you don't know about. Read Haterobics post, they are very informative. If you ever want to succeed in this industry, you have to learn.
The movie is now considered to be in wide release. The averages in limited release were extremely high, but on the first weekend of wide release it had a $2,884 average, which is quite low for any movie, and has since dropped. It might expand even further (that information isn't out yet) but it probably won't be going into the 1,000+ theatre range, and so that is why I don't believe it will make back its money. I could be way off target, and I am not saying you are wrong for believing it will make back its money, I am merely explaining my position because you are claiming that I am wrong, which is not factually true, and I have my reasons for my thinking.
Oh, and I know how limited release works, but it doesn't always work.
Once the Academy Awards are announced, however, the film could re-expand if it is nominated for best picture, and I could eat my words and be totally wrong, but on the current track that it is on, I don't think it will make back its money, unless rentals are really strong, but movie studios don't publish that information.
Updated On: 11/25/14 at 11:54 PM
"I could be way off target, and I am not saying you are wrong for believing it will make back its money, I am merely explaining my position because you are claiming that I am wrong, which is not factually true, and I have my reasons for my thinking."
I actually don't track the box office, since I doesn't affect how I view the movie. Nor would awards or anything else. If a movie ends up on critics top ten lists that I didn't see, then it is useful, same with nominations, but beyond that, I really don't have much interest in awards.
To me, box office and awards are easy ways for people to discuss art without saying anything interesting.
Just got back from seeing this. I loved nearly every minute of this. I adored the cinematography, the characters and the performances, although I will admit, it is still turning over in my feeble mind.
I went to the 1:15 showing and it was packed. Granted, it was in a small theater at the megaplex, but I had people sitting in seats on either side of my party...no empties. I can't remember the last time I've had that experience.
If I were alone, I would have turned around and watched the film again. Now I can't wait to do so.
The drum score has stayed with me the most after seeing it, not that the performances were not stellar. I hope the score gets a nomination, along with Gone Girl's.
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/4/04
It would make a fun jazz drumming double bill with Whiplash.
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/19/05
Enjoyed the movie and having seen Side Show three days earlier and hanging out looking at the Phantom sign. it added something though the credits were the most annoying thing I've ever seen. I never leave before the credit are done but I bolted.
What were the credits like? I can't recall... nor can I imagine credits so annoying that they lent themselves to not be viewed.
Who talks about a film like this in terms of financial success, for ****'s sake? That's like sneering that a show playing at the Public isn't packing its houses.
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/19/05
haterobics, the names were breaking up and coming together, I just found it really annoying as if I had epilepsy they cause a seizure...
wexy... hmmm, I can't recall them. weird.
Kad, did you miss the part where the movie said the St. James had 910 less seats than it really does?!
Videos