Sweeney Tanks in 2nd Week of Release- Page 5

[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.

[Craww]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 8:46pm

Again, I am the squeamish one, and I did not like the gore factor.

What's so wrong with covering your eyes during the stomach churning scenes? I hardly think an edited DVD is necessary.

Children have been watching scary parts through their fingers since the inception of scary movies. Don't see how you're too good for that course of action.

[defygravity2]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 8:56pm

That is exactly what I did. Thankfully, I knew when the murders were coming so I didn't watch most of the throat slashing (though I did peek a little during the first one). It was watching the bodies crash to the floor that I wasn't expecting (I only had to see that one once to know to cover my eyes!). My friend was laughing at me saying that my hand over my face gave it away every time...she didn't understand why I didn't hide my eyes when Judge Turpin was in the chair the first time. After he got away, she knew to watch me for the cue-ing of the gore ahead (no pun intended).

[roquat]

Posted: 12/31/07 at 9:24pm

That was one thing I didn't understand--couldn't he have rigged the chair so that the bodies fell right onto a butcher block (or table, or something) ready to be carved up? Why make Mrs. Lovett stoop over to pick them up? Her knees "ain't wot they was"...

Posted: 1/7/08 at 1:01pm

wow, it sure did tank.

[/SARCASM] Updated On: 1/7/08 at 01:01 PM

[jpbran]

Posted: 1/7/08 at 1:10pm

I don't know... It still has a moderately high per/screen average for a 3-week old film (I saw it again here in Nashville on Friday afternoon and it was packed) and has remained steady. I'd guess it'll slink past $50m at least...

Not amazing, but considering foreign, DVD, CD, TV rights, etc., I'm guessing it will more than break even. Especially since every week that goes by, the studio keeps more of the gross.

I'm totally pulling for this film, but never expected it to be huge. I liked it even more the 2nd time, and will be first in line for whatever overpriced 2-disc edition DVD is released, probably in late Spring...

[worrell4077]

Posted: 1/7/08 at 1:25pm

" liked it even more the 2nd time, and will be first in line for whatever overpriced 2-disc edition DVD is released, probably in late Spring..."

The rumor is that the movie is scheduled for release on dvd in April and hopefully they will have a 2 disc special edition with commentary from Burton, Sondheim, Logan and maybe some of the cast, the trailer/tv spots, Behind the Scenes stuff, maybe a blooper reel, and maybe if there's anything that was filmed but taken out of the final cut of the movie, and I remember hearing that Ballad of Sweeney Todd was recorded, but they had problems filming it, so maybe the audio for that if it's true.

The film is close to $40 million, so I don't think it's tanking or flopping considering the number of screens it's on, and besides like someone said the top ten movies list doesn't matter, the reviews do and the reactions from the audience do. I mean, Epic Movie was the number one movie in America when it came out, and that film just flat out sucked.

Just to comment on the blood and gore. That's a realistic approach to what would happen if someone cut your jugular. It's not like on stage with just a thin red line on your neck oozing blood(even though in the film it happened to Todd and The Beggar Woman). If you cut an artery or the jugular, blood will start spraying. Besides, it's not really the blood that bothered me, it was the bodies landing on their heads that bothered me.

[Pippin]

Posted: 1/7/08 at 2:20pm

I heard the Wal-mart special edition dvd will come with a free razor.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 1/7/08 at 5:35pm

I believe that the rule of thumb is a movie must make back three times it's initial costs to be considered breaking even or making money.

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/7/08 at 5:59pm

Before it opened, there was so much out there as far as interviews. I hope we aren't going to get the same things on the "special Features" disc. It would be nice to have something new.

[hermionejuliet]

Posted: 1/7/08 at 8:22pm

I want new stuff AND the old stuff.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 1/7/08 at 8:32pm

"I believe that the rule of thumb is a movie must make back three times it's initial costs to be considered breaking even or making money."

I've always heard two times, though the truth probably lies somewhere in-between for most films.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 12:47am

Scary, perhaps. I just remember when a couple movies I made props for came out and one of the designers telling me that. Though somewhere in between does sound better. I know they blow a lot in promotion and advertising as well as distribution costs.

[bk]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 1:14am

The rule of thumb is 2.5 times the production budget. This, of course, does not take into account the huge amount of money they spent on prints, advertising, and promotion, probably thirty mil or more.

And despite all those posts that said this film was going wide this week, it does not appear to be so. In fact, I can find nothing about its going wide this month, despite what all the experts here said.

Posted: 1/8/08 at 7:26am

Bruce, I love ya man , but this is starting to remind me of all your "Dreamgirls is a flop, thes enumbers are made up, etc" posts... Surely you agree that, despite Depp, the studio never had the same expectations for this and that on its own terms they're probably pretty pleased with its success so far?

It looks like it'll surpass Moulin Rouge domestically, which at the time was seen as a disappointment but now is often touted by the press as a hit... Especially with the reviews (the metacritic score is still impressive) I'm pretty sure they deem it a bit of a prestige film and on those grounds it's gonna make more than an expensive epic like There Will Be Blood, and probably No Country for Old Men... (the latter of which has been a downright flop overseas)

E
Updated On: 1/8/08 at 07:26 AM

[bk]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 1:45pm

It is wonderful hindsight to say the studio never had the same expectations it had for Dreamgirls - they did, and that's how they were promoting it for many, many months prior to its release. At THIS point, all the studio can really be pleased with are the reviews, the fact that people on boards such as these are enjoying the film, and that's about it. Now, why don't you address the points I actually made in the post above yours. Do I say the Sweeney numbers are made up? Nope. I just answer a simple question with a simple and more importantly correct answer - a film has to make 2.5 times its production budget to break even from box-office receipts. You're not going to argue with that formula, are you? I don't think so. You're not going to argue with the other fact I state, that the film also has to make back its prints, advertising and marketing costs, which are in excess of 30mil, are you? I don't think so. So, what else in my post are you challenging? You're not going to argue with the fact that the many posts on this and other boards that stated the film was going wide this Friday are correct, are you? I don't think so. I can find no information on when, in fact, the film IS going wide - can you? If so, you're a better man than I, Gunga Din.

Once again, dear boy, with a couple of caveats I really enjoyed the film. At the end of the day, that's all that matters.

[jpbran]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 10:03pm

Everyone keeps going back and forth, but ST could have some moderate legs. It just moved up from 9th to 8th place, and has the 2nd highest per-screen average of any other movie in the top 9... It also had the smallest Sun to Mon drop... (sorry-- I like stats)

None of this is HUGE news, but it's definitely got a minor case of tenacity.

http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2008-01-07&p=.htm

[Renthead#1]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 10:26pm

Ha. I wonder how many people went into Sweeney Todd not even knowing it was a musical.

[dinglehopper89]

Posted: 1/8/08 at 10:40pm

^i went in not knowing what it was about-does that count?

But i love love LOVE it now =]