Sweeney Tanks in 2nd Week of Release- Page 4

[SpellingBeeFan4Ever]

Posted: 12/30/07 at 8:53pm

I freaking hate National Treasue!

[JRybka]

Posted: 12/30/07 at 8:58pm

Alright so I am totally wondering just how gross this movie is...
I mean will I not want Spaghetti Sauce for a couple days?

[allofmylife]

Posted: 12/30/07 at 9:13pm

Okay, bk, can't let that go by without a comment.

Yes, I hate myself for causing my own pain and suffering and not valuing me for what I am truly worth, but I'm a lover, not a fighter, so I'm trying to go easy on myself and take it out on the furniture instead.

Now, as to Sweeney. I'm told the cost before prints and advertising was $50 million. That means the studio will consider themselves happy with anything above 75 million. It's heading toward 30 and it hasn't broken that wide yet. Apparently, they will add theaters in January.

At 50 million, frankly, it's a very cheapfilm for a retasker and by that, you know I mean this film will be around for decaeds and they'll make $$$ off of it with every iteration - DVD, Blue Ray, cable, local and whatever the next delivery system is and athe one after that and the one after that. Let's face it, musicals have shelf life.

Depp, Burton, Sondheim and perhaps Carter will get Academy nods and that's great studio prestige. And again all for 50,000,000 in an era when big films typically cost 100 to 200 million.

The cost of this film, per hour to manufacture was very low. The returns will still be rolling in long after you and I are dead.

Doesn't sound like tanking to me.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 12/30/07 at 9:23pm

allofmylife, what would Sondheim get a nom for? I thought pre-written scores could not be nominated.

[bk]

Posted: 12/30/07 at 9:29pm

I did not use the word "tanking" so credit it elsewhere, all of my life. You're forgetting one little thing - while the film's budget may have started out at fifty, it's been reported elsewhere that with F/X overruns it's more like sixty-five. When you say the studio will be happy with seventy-five, I think you simply don't understand how box-office works. They don't GET all that money, you know. At the BOX-OFFICE, a film has to make two-and-a-half times its negative costs to cover its production costs. This is a very old formula and it's how box-office has worked for many years. That doesn't take into account all the ancillary sales - those are separate and, of course, will help the film get closer to break even. Then you're also forgetting that pesky marketing, prints, and advertising costs, which most people who know about these things are pegging at around thirty million. So, seventy-five will not cut it, nor will it be anywhere near cutting, and again, I ask who cares? If the studio doesn't (and they clearly don't), then why is it so important for everyone here to think that it's doing better than it is? It's doing what it's doing - that's the end of the story, really. It is clear to all who WANT to look at it in a dispassionate way, away from what they feel about the film, that the film is not going to be a big grosser. Maybe, ultimately, it will make its costs back and maybe it won't, but to try and say it's doing well or even really well at this point in time is just not understanding how things work. Jackie's post that includes the box-office analysis from someone who's been doing that for years, says everything that needs to be said. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of armchair experts doing their endless thing.

[hermionejuliet]

Posted: 12/30/07 at 9:52pm

"hermionejuliet---You have a great point about a PG-13 rating on a musical film. It might not have helped it out at all.

But would it have been possible to release an effective and thrilling "Sweeney Todd" with a lesser rating than R?

Yep. It would."

Oh, I agree it would have, but in a way I respect Burton for going all out. Especially the the subject matter would never be appropriate for children regardless of the actual gore shown in the movie. Many parents don't have the actually "parental guidance" thing down, so perhaps this detered a few children from being scarred for life. Not that it is really the director's responsibility.

****SPOILER****
*
*
*
*

And I completely agree about the oven scene - they could have left that out...

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 12/30/07 at 10:25pm

It is amazing to me that there are people who are not quite swift enough to take note of how few theaters this is playing in and still making so much money.

[roquat]

Posted: 12/30/07 at 11:10pm

As I pointed out on another thread--at the screening I attended, someone came in with an 8-MONTH-OLD BABY. She kept going in and out of the theatre when the baby (of course) screamed, but did not get the point and leave. R-rating notwithstanding, some parents are just STUPID.

[jo]

Posted: 12/30/07 at 11:23pm

I haven't seen it but I will be there when it opens here in Manila in January. I am not a great fan of Johnny Depp but he was probably a good choice for the cinematic interpretation that Tim Burton gave to this stage musical.

Perhaps we should not overly worry over its box office failure nor trumpet its box office success ( depending on how we view it) as I don't think it was expected to show very healthy box office numbers at all. I think its the critical acclaim that it may continue to achieve which is important...plus that another stage musical has been successfully interpreted for the film medium...and that it may further pave the way for other movie musicals that we should rejoice about

[jo]

Posted: 12/30/07 at 11:25pm

I haven't seen it but I will be there when it opens here in Manila in January. I am not a great fan of Johnny Depp but he was probably a good choice for the cinematic interpretation that Tim Burton gave to this stage musical.

Perhaps we should not overly worry over its box office failure nor trumpet its box office success ( depending on how we view it) as I don't think it was expected to show very healthy box office numbers at all. I think it's the critical acclaim that it may continue to achieve which is important...plus that another stage musical has been successfully interpreted for the film medium...and that it may further pave the way for other movie musicals that we should rejoice about

[allofmylife]

Posted: 12/30/07 at 11:57pm

bk, you're correct that the film need to make 2 1/2 times its cost to be profitable. I really meant that if the film makes 75 million domestic, in its lifetime, it will gross 150 to 200 million with all streams of income in place.

It's already closing in on 30,000,000 in it's second weekend. That's impressive for a film without kiddie or action fan or even romcom appeal. And it only had a 14% drop in the second weekend which is a very good indication.

Nowadays, the average film makes way less than 50% from domestic. There are so many income streams that need to be counted and I was just trying to simplify things.

Oh, and P&A deals nowadays are often handled by investment companies who do not look at any one film but at a slate and they average their success over a five year period. This allows the studio to continue cranking out the films no matter what happens.

This is the type of film that could easily break wider, or could stay in a number of houses and bring in 1.5 to 2 million dollars a week for months. It has a market in most of Europe and let's face it, if Depp gets an Academy nod or even wins, again there will be an uptick in sales.

I do not think this film will be a loser for the studio in the long run and BTW, I'm not an armchair amateur.

Thirty this week. SIxty bt the end of January.

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 12/30/07 at 11:58pm

I come to message boards like this to read the intelligent and insightful discourse among fellow theater lovers. I can totally understand why some folks love 'Sweeney' and why some folks hate it, but I cannot understand the glee that some folks take in announcing that a movie has 'tanked,' without any offering any context. Given how few movie musicals get made, I'm sorry to see that some get a bigger kick out of reporting something has 'failed,' as opposed to artistically succeeding (86% Fresh rating at RottenTomatoes; Golden Globe nominations, etc.).

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 2:24am

Who knows what is troubling Yankee so? Either way, once Sweeney goes to Video it will do just fine. It isn't a blockbuster but I find it better casted than Hairspray. I certainly am accounting for the time of the year this is being released and the tight security being enforced because of the ratings.

I would never want this less than an R rating as well. In complete agreement with many Parents who have not gotten far past Puberty. Some kids are more mature but the subject matter is not for young Children. Older Children who aren't disturbed by the subject matter should judge accordingly.

These factors stand out. Had it been released earlier it would have made even more money. Over time, it should break even.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 2:31am

The reason for the hyperbole? It gets attention. Saying, "oh, hey guys, the numbers dropped a little," isn't nearly the catchphrase that is saying it "TANKED." Apparently it's better to say something that makes it look like you're reporting some huge event rather than a small piece of information, regardless of the fact that it's, you know, false. In cases like this, a failed attempt to sound super-informed and insightful actually makes you look obnoxiously pretentious and uninformed.

Updated On: 12/31/07 at 02:31 AM

[defygravity2]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 2:52am

Ok..I'm back. Again, I am the squeamish one, and I did not like the gore factor. I was not planning on taking my younger kids to see this movie G, PG, PG-13 or R rating. Completely inappropriate...I get that (and I am FAR past puberty, Tkt2Ride)!

I think with the Johnny Depp popularity, this movie would bring in more money as a PG-13 movie (not fair to make a Rent comparison-no big box office names in that movie). I agree that sometimes showing less can be more scary, but I am in no way debating Burton's artistic choices...it's just not for me. I paid my $9.50, and I will buy the soundtrack, but I will not be buying the DVD.

BTW, I hope everyone involved makes a 'killing' financially on this movie.

[GoSmileLaughCryClap]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 11:12am

I just got back from Paris, where Sweeney Todd posters seem to be in every other wall ad in every Metro station in the city weeks before it opens. This is the type of movie that could very well do significantly more business overseas than domestically.

It's performing exactly the way every other high profile prestige movie is performing. Atonement, Diving Bell, Kite Runner, No Country for Old Men and Charlie Wilson's War have all been among the best reviewed movies of the year, and none of them are going to do 100 Million dollar business in domestic release.

The only movie that's breaking out beyond that group is Juno, which appears to be headed for great box-office.

Sweeney is as close to an art film as any musical could possibly be, and its performance so far is completely acceptable. This is not to say that Dreamworks didn't have their fingers crossed hoping that it would be an unexpected blockbuster. And that won't happen.

But as others have said, awards, new additions to the nation's top ten lists, and Academy Award nominations will keep its engine running in 2nd gear for weeks and weeks to come. It's per screen average is healthy, and it can make tens of millions of dollars more domestically without ever cracking the top 5.

Every year by the time the Oscar nominations are announced, the blockbusters that get no attention have made all their money. It's also the time that studios open a bunch of lousy movies that they knew couldn't compete at the holidays.

If it can wrangle a Best Picture nomination - and you know Dreamworks has done everything in its power to do that - Sweeney Todd and the other nominated films still in first run release will have box-office jumps between 50 and 200% for the weeks running up to the awards.

That's the strategy behind opening "special" movies at the end of the year needing the benefit of awards and nominations to extend their shelf-life amid more commercial movies.

What the industry IS questioning is opening Sweeney in 1200 theaters from the start. Had it opened in 100 theaters, it's per screen average would have been huge, and the buzz would be building for a wide opening that would have coincided with the Oscar nomination announcements.

The movie was shown so late to critics that there weren't even important reviews ready for print ads the day it opened. The studio took the risk that some sort of last minute synergy would come together between crtitics and fans of Burton, Depp and Sondheim. The decision was probably wrong.

But hey, the movie's great. It's going to be around forever, and regardless of its initial box-office, it will be talked about for years to come. In a way it's playing in movie theaters exactly the way it did in its original Broadway incarnation.

[aeb]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 11:31am

Not going to comment on the box office here except to say that it does seem to be doing decently to me.

But I did have some thoughts on the gore. I too am incredibly squeamish and easily distressed by such things (could not pay me to see Saw, I couldn't even handle the idea of it). I love the musical but wasn't prepared for quite how graphically bloody and violent they actually went. There were times when I was HORRIFIED, but it ultimately made so much sense in the context of the story and made the emotional impact so powerful that I couldn't look away. I don't know exactly how to explain it. It was like watching the Titanic sink.

IMO I just don't think there was a way to put a PG-13 gloss on that and be in any way true to the subject material. No matter how much "suggestion" you put in there with drops of blood, a story about serial killing and cannibalism that ends with a character being tossed into an oven was never going to be anything but an R.

Updated On: 12/31/07 at 11:31 AM

[jpbran]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 11:47am

"Pippin: there was no PG-13 when Jaws came out. Spielberg was able to "invent" that rating for "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" "

Actually, the MPAA created the PG-13 rating AFTER Temple of Doom and Gremlins freaked out so many parents who'd brought their 8-year olds.

Temple of Doom was rated PG.

[BrianIdol]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 12:04pm

I'm sorry....but if a movie has 2 or 3 weeks in the top 10, then I don't consider that tanking. Period.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 1:31pm

The top ten means absolutely nothing. Movies that opened to number one can be flops (Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow) and movies that never hit #1 can be huge (My Big Fat Greek Wedding). The actual amount in the context of how much was spent on it is what matters, and by that standard, Sweeney is a success.

[roquat]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 4:36pm

If nothing else, I hope this puts a stop to the "let's disguise the fact that it's a musical" marketing strategy that every movie musical since CHICAGO has employed. Ditto the platform-release strategy that was terribly wrong for SWEENEY--it should have opened wide on or near Halloween and taken its chances. Have some nerve, for heaven's sake! The competition at Halloween was pitiful, and that would have given the movie time to build up a true avalanche of critical praise before awards season.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 6:07pm

MargoChanning, thank you!!!

And yes, the expansion will help Plus with the GG awards/noms, that should drum up business.

[Brick]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 8:15pm

I was hearing this outragious claim before the movie even opened.

And though the conversation has continued well beyond, I think Margo nailed it. This isn't a blockcuster, was never expected to be. Stop over-reacting.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 8:29pm

The title of this thread was merely created to grab attention.

Yankee will not change it, despite the fact that it is factually inaccurate.

I gotta agree with em on this. The only reason for the thread title is to make the poster seem informed, which is clearly not the case in this particular instance.
Updated On: 12/31/07 at 08:29 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 8:35pm

But he stands by everything he says.