Dreamgirls number 4 in Highest Domestic Grossing Film Musicals since 1974- Page 2

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 3/21/07 at 6:38pm

I'll ask again: what is your point?

Is the purpose of this thread now exclusively so you can hurl these incomprehensibly lame insults and follow them up with PMs incase I might have missed your brilliantly thought out posts?

Perhaps we should rename it, then. The Dark Angel Sees All, Knows All thread, perhaps. Then maybe you could consider returning to the topic at hand.

Posted: 3/21/07 at 7:12pm

Ha I guess I knew this would generate into a fight.

I dunno Bk--I *get* what you mean, it's not that i don't get the concept but I honestly am not sure the studio expected to make the 275 mill + you seem to think they'd need for it to be a hit. DVD sales (and the fact that three different dvds are planned) do play a large factor--although I *do* bet the studio thought that they had a film that was a sure thing for a big Oscar sweep so prob were ok with losing money because of that.

Still I mean--Moulin Rouge made significantly less on its money compared to budget and advertising rev though I read in Ent Weekly (prob another source you don't trust--but what sources do you trust? :P) they finally recouped on DVD. My point is compared to most recent movie musicals Dreamgirls I think can be counted as a solid success. Oh and all of BoxOfficeMojo's lists tstart in the mid 70s--although I think to have a list of the grossing musicals back when they still routinely grosse dbig (30s-mid 60s) would be a lot less interesting to look at.

Sean--I'mw ith you on Funny lady though back then Streisand was still a big box office draw in nearly antyhign she did I guess...

ANd yeah--it's far far from a perfect list guys--movies used to open very differently, etc. But for what it is I do find it interesting--*shrug*

Dark Angel I think you missed my point in creating this thread--I foudn the list interesting and purely for the numbers shown--yeah lotsa people can't stand the film of SOund of Music--lotsa people can't stand the film of Titanic--doesn't mean it wasn't a *commercial hit*

[GoSmileLaughCryClap]

Posted: 3/21/07 at 7:30pm

Any movie that makes in excess of 100 Million in domestic release and cost 80 million or less to produce will at worst be a wash.

On demand cable.
DVD sales and rentals.
premium channel sales.
network sales.
off network sales.

The revenue streams are varied and complex after initial release, and many of the deals are cut when the movie is being released or at its peak performance.

It's a success.

[Paulyd]

Posted: 3/22/07 at 5:33pm

songanddanceman2 - where did you get 37 million gross from?

[bare_nakedlady]

Posted: 3/22/07 at 6:02pm

Allow me to point out that "hit or not" DREAMGIRLS is #19 highest grossing movie of 2006. And there are only 19 movies that broke the $100 million mark in Domestic release. In my book, which is just my opinion, I'd say that's pretty good.
Yearly Box Office 2006

Posted: 3/22/07 at 6:03pm

I know some on here think to quote BoxOfficeMojo is laughable *rolls eyes* but they say/claim whatever that Dreamgrils as of this week has made around 47mill foreign boxoffice

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 3/22/07 at 6:44pm

Any list that would put "Night at the Museum" as the #2 grossing film of the year -- I mean, please, it was around for, what, a month before disappearing? And saying it made more than "Cars"? Uh, right.

[bare_nakedlady]

Posted: 3/22/07 at 7:40pm

Night at the Museum is still playing in 610 theatres nationwide. So it's possible.

[bk]

Posted: 3/22/07 at 8:06pm

O, experts, tell me where you are getting the 30mil promotion figure - there are two people here who have now used it as if they KNEW. Well, I do know - and it's not 30mil. So, please enlighten me as to where that figure is being touted. Most likely at a place that was sent the info by Dreamworks/Paramount. I know people involved and the figure I'm quoting is what was told me.

The standard rule of box-office thumb (about how films break even) has been around for decades - look it up, it's simple.

People get so heated about these things, as if this was personal. It's a movie. People love it, people hate it, people are in between. Why this obsession with movie box-office? Those of us who are older didn't grow up running to look at grosses every week. We went to the movies. Period. Now it's grosses for theater and this new producer game of who can break even fastest. I just don't get it, frankly.

The reality is Dreamgirls has not broken even. Will it? At this stage of the game my prediction would be no, because I think at the end of the day the grosses, like Phantom, will not be quite as high as they are now. I've said it before and people don't want to hear it, box-office mojo is frequently wrong, they're frequently fed incorrect figures, and then, at the end of the year, their tallies suddenly change, just like magic. People argue with me all the time about POTO, but it happened. They were reporting grosses of close to eighty or ninety mil. At the end of the year, it was suddenly 51. Magic!

Posted: 3/22/07 at 8:51pm

I admit they can be wrong (largely due to misinformation form the studio themselves) as can Ent Weekly bt I read both weekly and NEVER saw Phantom listed much higher than 50-55 mill domestic at either.

And I agree at this point it doesn't really matter--nor seem liek any of us are gonna change our opinions or what we consider to be the facts

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 3/22/07 at 9:35pm

>> Night at the Museum is still playing in 610 theatres nationwide. So it's possible.

Second run dollar houses, which dont make that much impact on a film's financial future. That figure is hooey.

[GoSmileLaughCryClap]

Posted: 3/22/07 at 10:00pm

Conspiracy theories really should be left to world affairs outside of Hollywood movie grosses. All any news outlet has is the reporting of the studios. Estimates are made at the end of each weekend, and day to day based on trends and some pretty rational equations that hold up 95% of the time.

There is really no huge variance between early reporting and actual grosses. If there were, competing studios would be crying foul every day of the week.

Their market share is vital to their shareholders, and if there was some really crazy bookkeeping going on, it would be jumped on by the competing studios.

That's not to say that there isn't marginal reporting done by every company within 2 to 3%. But to suggest that wildly unsubstantiated grosses are the rule is, in a word, wrong

Posted: 3/22/07 at 10:03pm

Yeah it seems a bit high to me too--although Night had the benefit of being a hit family film over Xmas when there were oddly few hit family films (people stayed largely away from Charlotte's Web, etc)--whereas Cars was in a much busier Summer season./ -- looking it up in our paper though a mid size city like Victoria, BC, where I am right now still has Museum on 2 *first run full price* screens although only limited times.

ANYWAY my point in posting this originally was more at the surprising figures of some of the films in that list--bk, I really enjoy your posts and offer you a lot of respect cuz of your knowledge--and great recordings--but I gotta disagree here, you basically say that people here get heated etc, yet you seem to get just as heated as anyone else when ever this is brough up.


Updated On: 3/22/07 at 10:03 PM

[jv92]

Posted: 3/22/07 at 10:04pm

Nice to see All That Jazz on that list.