Phantom officially a flop?

Posted: 12/27/04 at 9:28pm

So it made 4 million this weekend to come in 10th place... I know it wasn't a full release--but for a limited release it seemed pretty pervasive--is Phantom officially a flop? more to the (scary) point--does this mean the end of studios risking money on musicals again?

E

[geekchic]

Posted: 12/27/04 at 9:33pm

I honestly doubt it. For one, like you said, it did just come out. Second, hollywood is on too much of a musical high right now to completely throw broadway-turned-film to the wind.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/27/04 at 9:33pm

No, it's not a flop. Go to boxofficemojo and look at the per-screen numbers. Phantom is doing fine in that department.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 12/27/04 at 9:34pm

Random facts:

1. 'Phantom' had the second highest per screen total of any movie this weekend. That means it did quite well in the theaters where it was showing (which is the only level comparison to be made.) The fact that it is still in limited release has everything to do with where the movie placed in totals vs. movies showing on four or five times as many screens.

2. Lloyd Webber paid for the 'Phantom' movie himself which means no studios put any money into it in the first place.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 12/27/04 at 9:35pm

so the movie made four million in one weekend. do you know how long it would take the stage show to even make one million?

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 12/27/04 at 9:37pm

Didn't Chicago come in 10th place while in limited release? Just the fact that it cracked the top 10 in less than 1,000 theaters is REALLY good.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/27/04 at 9:39pm

CATS, that has nothing to do with anything and you know it. Theater has an entirely different set of economics than film.

[pab]

Posted: 12/27/04 at 9:47pm

Oh come on, it hasn't even opened nation wide yet.

Posted: 12/27/04 at 10:03pm

Woah back off--I was just asking a question I, for the record, really enjoyed the film and was just a bit disappointed.

I couldn't find the per screen average though--thanks I'll look that up (I agree, that's the true judge of its success)

Even if ALW did fund the full 40 mill tho the studios paid for advertising etc--and if the film does flop nervous producers will see it as a sign

E

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 12/27/04 at 10:37pm

No - it's just the first weekend, plus it's a limited release. Hopefully, more fans will flock in when they open it in other theaters.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/27/04 at 10:39pm

Can it be considered "official" before the film's even had a full release, anyway? Seems a tad premature.

[zepka102]

Posted: 12/27/04 at 10:59pm

are you kidding me?

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 12:12am

You guys, I think EricMontreal22 just didn't like the movie and so he's hoping it's a flop or trying to make others see it as a possible flop to get poeple on his side.

Posted: 12/28/04 at 12:14am

Ummm I largely loved the movie

argh

E

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 12:15am

did they really spend 40 million dollars on the movie?

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 12:19am

Just don't borrow trouble. No sign anywhere of a flop.

Yes, IMDB says 40 million which I think is way too low. Why didn't he just let Warner Bros. make the damn movie and actually do some stuff on location and hire Sam Mendes or Stephen Spielberg to direct.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 12:25am

$40 million is too low? That's a perfectly good budget for a movie musical, even one as elaborate as this one. Tell me, where do you think expenses were spared? The production values were as gorgeous and elaborate as they come. If the movie failed, it wasn't because of money issues.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 12:26am

Lay off Eric. He's been a POTO proponent for the longest time (even I remember reading his posts). It's not like he's asking about Wicked or something of substance like that.


Does anyone have the per screen average? That's the relatively best indicator of a film's success.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 12:28am

And while Sam Mendes would have been an interesting choice, I can't imagine liking Spielberg for this flick. I think the film would become cheesier and more melodramatic than it already is.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 12:28am

Here, Tiff.

And bronx, the budget of Phantom was $70 million according to this site, which I trust more than IMDB.
Box Office Mojo

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 12:34am

Thanks Plum. $6,433 is not bad - not a phenomenal success ($13k + for Fockers? REALLY??) but I think >$4,000 is usually pretty healthy, so POTO would probably not be considered a flop and this stage anyway. (As a side note, it's likely not indicative of POTO's wide-release success because chances are the crowds likely to go - or not go, for that matter - are different than the ones who have already seen the film in limited release.)

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 12:35am

Yeah, ok, at least it wasn't about WICKED or BROOKLYN.

There's a big difference between 40 and 70. Well I don't know. Could one be just the production budget and the other be including distribusion and ads?

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 12:36am

I mean it's notceable for me that the entire movie is on a set especially the outside scenes and the first outdoor scene you can so tell it's a backdrop of the Paris skyline.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 12:39am

Maybe, but $30m on distribution and ads seems like a lot of dough - someone correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't find there to be an excessive amount of POTO ads (esp. relative to other over-hyped blockbusters like Fockers, Ocean's 12, etc.) but I don't know what the distribution cost should look like. That could be it though.

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 12/28/04 at 12:57am

I saw it this afternoon, and if I had rope with me I would have hung myself right there in the theatre.