The Sweeney Todd Box Office Tracking thread- Page 4

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/24/07 at 10:22am

BK--
You came here this time last year and disputed whether Dreamgirls had reached 100 million. You said the studios lie or inflate numbers. You said let's examine it later on and see if they still claim it made 100 million. Well, let's. It did.
Actually, here is your quote, posted on 2/27/07:
"The fact that Dreamgirls purportedly did 100 mil is nice - it just doesn't mean it's a success financially - and I think at the end of this year, you will find that the film did not, in fact, do 100 mil domestically."
You were wrong. Unless you still want to cling to that thought... it's a conspiracy, it's a lie, blah blah, sure.
Plenty of movies do not make back their entire costs in the theater. A lot does come down to DVD. This is not 1975, when the theatre was the only way to see a movie. There's also the foreign markets, which bring in money. Also, look at all the "award-worthy" movies this season. Most of them cannot be considered main-stream hits.
You see, there is a huge difference between the family-friendly Golden Compass tanking (budget 180 million, estimated final US gross maybe 60 million)and Sweeney Todd, an artsy R-rated slasher musical, only making back its budget. Which it will. I always said it would make its budget back, and I never predicted a gross of 100 million. (See my post on 11/30/07.)
Ok, so let's play devil's advocate and say Dreamworks will rue the day it decided to make this film. Still unlikely. There are incentives for the film company just in getting nominations and awards. There go far beyond the movie in question, but help the studio build prestige and secure other ambitious movies in the future.
And children walking out? Wow that is a problem... and it has nothing to do with it being a musical. Instead, it seems the studio must have somehow forgotten to put the R rating on all the ads. Truthfully, it serves those kids and parents right. It's not a kid's movie. And how many of these reports did anyone actually witness? Is this just crap people are saying? I love people who come on here, people who don't show their real faces, and ask us to believe them as they tell us all this fascinating info they saw or heard. In my screening, which was full of all different people, a few people did walk out--TO PEE. I actually sat there and watched each one come back in, because I too am interested in stuff like that (not peeing, but walkouts).
What I heard (and that is my real face in my profile) is a lot of my coworkers and friends saying they planned to see the movie at some point by the New Year. Again, let us understand how adults see films. They don't normally run out on the busiest weekend of the year. The three main movies that beat Sweeney were family-friendly or existing hits. Is anyone suprised? (Charlie Wilson is iffy because it did not beat Sweeney on a per-theatre basis.)
I am always shocked by the amount of people who do not have the ability to analyze data or think logically to combine different pieces of information to come up with a reasonable opinion.
And I don't know why some people who profess like this movie are already hoping to nail it into the coffin. Pretty sad. BK, have you even seen the movie? Just wondering.

[DrTheatre]

Posted: 12/24/07 at 11:08am

So, I have a question: Why, if the movie said it was opening "Wide" is it only on 1/3 of the screens than the other movies that beat them in earnings? I think I read something about money issues for some theaters, but all the press releases now read like it was planned that way!

I am sure this question has been asked before, but don't have time to look at every response to find if someone had already answered or asked this question!

Updated On: 12/24/07 at 11:08 AM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/24/07 at 11:12am

its wide in the sense its not a limited release (200 screens would be limited)

I know a chain of theatres said they would not screen it as the studio was asking to much for the print

As for awards nods i wouldn't count on them, yes its had a few but its also been snubbed by some to, and it wont get many oscar nods and the ones it does will be things in the tech categories

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/24/07 at 11:40am

How do you know it won't get many Oscar nods? I suspect, don't know, Burton may get one.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 12/24/07 at 11:54am

Deppp better get one. There was no better performance this year, IMO. I don't expect him to win, though.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/24/07 at 1:35pm

well i will stake my life it misses out on the major categories

[bk]

Posted: 12/24/07 at 1:35pm

Phantom, at the time I made my comments about Dreamgirls, that was the way the film was going. And I'm here to tell you, if you ask the profit participants of that film to give you an honest answer about how much money they've made, the answer will be $O. The only real money that film has made its profit participants is from the music, not the film itself.

Everything else in your post is you just spouting off and has nothing to do with what I posted. The bulk of my post was about the marketing of the film, and I am completely correct about that, much as it might pain you. Your post made it seem like you were saying the film would make back its negative cost from box-office, and you are most certainly wrong about THAT, it has become more than apparent. And I doubt it will make back its costs from ancillary markets either. As to whether Dreamworks will rue the day - no, they won't rue the day - it's a prestige film for them. Your use of "rue the day" is interesting to me, too, for other reasons.

No, I have not seen the film yet - did I say I had? I'm seeing it at a screening on Friday and very much looking forward to it. One need not have seen the film to comment on posts here about marketing and box-office. I don't believe you'll find me saying anything about the film itself. In other words, I haven't decided I love it in advance of seeing it, and, conversely, I haven't decided I hate it in advance of seeing it.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 12/24/07 at 1:44pm

I'm amazed at how badly Walk Hard bombed.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/24/07 at 2:24pm

BK--
My comments were not ALL directed at you, but people in general who are calling this a bomb. The point is plenty of "popular" movies don't make all their money back in the theaters.
Dreamgirls is old news. The point is that it's pretty respectable for a musical to make $100 million dollars nowadays, in this DVD, On Demand, etc market. And you couldn't even give Dreamgirls that much credit at the time.
Is "that was the way the film was going" a more comfortable way for you to say you were wrong? And you weren't just saying that, you were saying we were all being lied to about the grosses. It's like you were saying "even if I'm wrong, the studios lie anyway, so ha, I'm still right." Gee then maybe Sony should have lied about Walk Hard. Would have saved them some embarrassment.
And the thing about seeing the movie is completely valid. You come on here and say people were walking out. Why should we believe you when you haven't even been there yourself? Opinions count more when you can back them up with facts or experiences. I just came back from my second time, and again, no one walked out. And you not having seen it also proves my points about how adults watch movies... they take their time (assuming you are an adult).

[bk]

Posted: 12/24/07 at 2:43pm

Sonny, I'm a lot more adult than you. I said people are walking out because I have read posts on this board and other boards about the walkouts. Why would those people, who are fans of the film, say so were it not true? The only thing that seeing the film will change is that I will have an opinion on the film, which I'll either share or not. Since I was not trying to share an opinion on the film itself, your last post is pointless. I was talking about the marketing. And no matter how you want to position it, the opening weekend gross is three million less than Dreamworks was hoping for - doesn't mean anything, but the facts are the facts, much as you don't want to hear them. And who gives a crap anyway - does the box-office affect you personally? I have said before and will say again, studios have been known to inflate grosses - sometimes they're caught, sometimes not. If you've never seen them be caught at it, I can only think that you're VERY young, because there have been many stories in the trades about these practices. It certainly happened with Phantom Of The Opera, the film.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/24/07 at 2:53pm

So you are basing this mass exodus of children from the theatre on something you read on a message board. Bravo, sir. Very astute.
And all of the new "adult" movies underperformed this weekend. You are not listening to me. I don't care about the box office, or the weekend. I care about people prematurely labeling it a disappointment. It is too early.
And you were never able to prove your Phantom movie conspiracy theory with a news article, one of the fake box office reports, another person who witnessed the fake numbers you seem to have seen... I remember viewing the numbers. The same ones today as they were when it opened.
Anyway, I'm a fan of the truth and of intelligent discourse, so I will stop replying to you now.


Updated On: 12/24/07 at 02:53 PM

[roquat]

Posted: 12/24/07 at 4:43pm

At my screening, a woman brought in what looked like an 8-month old baby. I thought, "Are you crazy?" Not surprisingly, it began crying during the opening shots. She kept carrying it in and out, but she did not leave--after it was over, when I left, she was standing in the hallway outside trying to calm the poor thing. I'd hate to be that baby's future therapist...

Updated On: 12/24/07 at 04:43 PM

[bk]

Posted: 12/24/07 at 6:27pm

"So you are basing this mass exodus of children from the theatre on something you read on a message board. Bravo, sir. Very astute. "

The words "mass exodus" are yours, not mine, Mr. Astute. I have read reports of people walking out, and I've been told first hand that people have walked out. I have no reason to disbelieve these people. Since you're posting on a message board, I guess I should take everything you say and toss it in the trash with the rest of it, eh?

As to POTO, I'm not the only one who saw it, and we were posting those figures as they changed at talkinbroadway, which is why NO ONE refuted it there - sadly, those posts are not archived or you would truly know how ridiculous you are being.

I haven't labeled Sweeney Todd ANYTHING. Again, who are you responding to? Certainly not what I posted. I merely pointed out that it did three mil less than Dreamworks hoped it would and that the marketing for this film was sort of inept. You are the one telling people to chill, and I think it's time for you to take your own advice. Have some egg nog. Eat a cookie. And have yourself a merry little Christmas.

[jam_man]

Posted: 12/24/07 at 6:58pm

There were at least two comercials released that I saw on TV several times, with them singing "A Little Priest." Johnny's clips of "Epiphiny" were in all of the previews. And maybe the average moviegoer isn't that smart, but I would think that before seeing a movie, people would at least do enough research to know if it's a musical. Was it advertised well? I don't think so. Was it advertised as a horror film that used music to tell the story, as it was made? Yes.

I'd say it again, but I don't need to.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/24/07 at 7:22pm

The thing is, most people aren't watching trailers anymore. They "zap" past them on their TiVos... or they show up late before the feature starts in the cineplex because they know there will be 10 minutes (at least!) of crap first.

So. They're seeing Johnny Depp's big fat sinister head on a poster or a bus stop ad. Or on a billboard. With blood splatters on the logo.

That's all they know. It's a creepy movie with a star they like in it.

And NO WHERE other than the small fine print does it say "Music by Stephen Sondheim," which means nothing to them anyway.

The poster doesn't say "musical" to anyone. It doesn't say, "From the Tony-Award Winning Musical Masterpiece!"

It says "big fat Johnny Depp head."

So they go, because they think Johnny Depp is cool.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/24/07 at 7:59pm

For the record, I saw the movie this afternoon again in a pretty blue collar suburb of L.A. There were about 50 people in the audience and nobody walked out, and nobody sayed 'WTF' to the singing, and this would have been the crowd to do it, so I'm only slightly skeptical that some of the reports about mass walk outs and blanket confusion have been a little exagerated, or perhaps word has gotten out that this is a musical...

One couple did bring a young boy. I asked the parents on the way out if the movie scared him and they said - "he slept through the whole thing...Thank God."

[Brick]

Posted: 12/25/07 at 1:09am

I think the walkouts and such are being over-reported, as well. This film's main hurdle is that the material has always been a difficult sell. Personally, I think "Sweeney" is a show many fall for after seeing it and it is a perfect crossover musical. But it isn't what a musical-loving audience is looking for and those that don't love musicals don't want to see a musical. (And I believe the former is less of a worry nowadays than the later, as the success of "Hairspray" proved, and "Mamma Mia" will - I predict - prove next summer)

And I think the publicity and reviews were surprisingly clear about this beeing a musical. The reviews especially were so positive because they were thrilled that a Sondheim MUSICAL had finally been sucessfully adapted to film.

While a couple - but not all - commercials have not mentioned the film's genre, anyone who reads anything about this film, knows it's a musical,

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 12/25/07 at 4:55am

I too doubt a massive walkout, bunch of propaganda, especially by kids. Like I mentioned, in my Town, you had to show an ID to even get a ticket. They wanted to see how old your kid was too. Yet, Parents can bring their children into R rated Movies. No kids when I went but maybe at a later performance? Some Towns may not be so diligent but not too many owners want to deal with a refund.

That though would be their Parents fault. Some kids can handle this stuff but Parents bringing their kids into this? Are probably very few and far between. They are out there though. It's the real little ones, the ones who will be afraid as Adults but not really understand why. So sad.

I just think it is terrible. The Producers didn't think it would do well and then shoved it in with a group of new releases at the end of the year. It just is not a Christmas Movie. Some anti-Holiday buffs might take it in, Musical Lovers or die hard Horror fans but the singing might get to them some. I think most Horror fans though will let that part of it go. At least for the initial screening. I just doubt you will see too many families crowding in because of bad food and gore. Almost sounds like a Holiday Movie to me but not quite close enough.

I too see it destined as a cult film but most Musicals are. I am happy it was made and I had the chance to see it. I too believe it will do better at the beginning of the year but not like Depp's latest Pictures. What matters to me is that it was finally re-made and I think it is good.

[bk]

Posted: 12/25/07 at 10:27am

The term "mass walkout" was used by only one person in this thread - Phantom. I didn't use it, and I certainly haven't heard that term used elsewhere. Phantom was implying and/or inferring that that's what I meant - all that I've read is that some folks have walked out of various showings - that's what the people who posted about it said - why would you doubt them, as they are fans of the film. None of them said "mass walkout" but you can bet your bottom dollar there have been some walkouts, as reported - even if we discount all those posts, I've heard it from several friends of mine.

I'm also hearing lots of "audience of 50" comments, which I find more peculiar than the walkouts. Seeing it Friday, and, as I've said repeatedly, looking forward to it.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/25/07 at 2:39pm

Messages on this thread and in a blog referenced in this thread mentioned walk-outs and bad word of mouth adversely affecting Sweeney Todd. These claims are difficult to prove on a large scale, yet many are content to think the marketing A) was terrible and B) misled people. I do not think you can effectively claim people were misled by the marketing unless this happened universally in many theaters. Since many people have not been seeing this happen, I am skeptical that the marketing misled more than the average amount of idiots in any particular audience for any movie. People walk out of movies for all sorts of reasons. My sister walked out of Lord of the Rings. Why? She just didn't like it. Did she feel misled? No. She just didn't like it. Marketing cannot read our minds and tell us exactly what to expect.
Also, people who claim to see walk outs... are they sure? It's very easy to confuse someone who is going to pee or get a snack with a walkout. The first thing one thinks when they see someone get up is they don't like the movie. But are you paying comlete attention... do they have their coat? Do they come back? Are you certain, or did you not notice because you resumed watching the movie? I very rarely believe what people say they saw, because I have been in situations where people claim they saw something and I was there too and it simply did not happen.
I think people read way too much into marketing. Yes, there are effective ads and there are crappy ads, but too often most ads just fade away and make no impact, regardless of quality. This is especially common at this time of year, when all sorts of things are demanding our attention. But let's play devil's advocate and say the movie was not marketed as a musical. Well, there was music on the website, as well as video clips of singing. Same is true for the Myspace page. The commercials DID have singing. I would guess at least 50% had singing, but if someone wanted to check Youtube we could come up with an accurate ratio. And then the trailer... the first, prestigious official trailer did have singing. Now, if it were me, and I'd never heard of Sweeney Todd, I am pretty sure I would have caught on that there was singing there, gotten excited, and then investigated it more. I think that marketing is increasingly fragmented (scattered in print, online, tv, radio), and if you see one small part, it does not equal the whole.
And even if people were still uninformed, what about all the reviews? Hundreds of reviews indicating it is a musical... on TV, in papers, etc. People can see ads and info about a movie but still not "get it." This is because you can't give people working brains.
I even think Chicago was pretty aggressively marketed. This was the Weinsteins after all. I think we can only say the marketing was bad for 2 musicals: Rent and The Producers. Rent was sold on its name, which was not enough to interest people beyond the fan base, and The Producers was abandoned by Universal when they realized early on it would not be a hit.
I think it is too early to blame the marketing. Complex situations rarely have one simple explanation. Look at the subject matter of the movie, the busy time of year, the fierce competition, and the fact that most of the adult movies underperformed.

[NYCblurb]

Posted: 12/26/07 at 2:00am

Amazing film. From the first note, it hit all the right notes. A masterpiece that I think will likely gather some oscar nods in the coming months.

Blood good!

Gonna see it again soon.

[aeb]

Posted: 12/26/07 at 6:29pm

Just to add a bit of perspective. The movie is still in the top five for the holiday weekend (against several films showing in many more theaters) and has made nearly $9.5 million to date. That's close to what the studio was hoping for in that time frame and more than many musicals earn in weeks (and sometimes months). It has gotten almost universally good-to-brilliant reviews and is likely in line for several Oscar nominations. Johnny Depp is in serious contention for a win.

The vast majority of the buzz from people who HAVE gone to the movie, even those who didn't know it was a musical at first, has been positive (just as one admittedly very small indicator, of more than 1,200 reviews on fandango, close to 900 have labeled it a "must go" and that's more than any of the other top-10 grossing movies out there right now).

It's brilliant, it's a beautifully designed and imagined film, it's faithful to Sondheim, and it's doing well so far considering the kind of movie it is.

I don't think it's time to sack the marketing department just yet.

[bk]

Posted: 12/26/07 at 7:23pm

aeb - and you joined just today to let everyone know all that, eh? :)

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/26/07 at 9:43pm

at this time its box office stands at $13,635,390

It took a massive drop on Saturday, a drop on Sunday, a drop on monday but gained momentum on Tuesday (xmas day)

At this rate it will struggle to make its budget back

Opening weekends are make or break for films nowadays and Sweeneys has fallen short

[Brick]

Posted: 12/26/07 at 11:10pm

It certainly isnt going to be a box office smash, and since they didn't send screeners to the Academy until the last minute, I wouldn't expect too many oscar nods.

BUT let's wait and see before we call it a disaster. It didn't open in wide release: it was playing on half the number of screens of the next film on the list, "Charlie Wilson's War". It doesn't go wide for 2 weeks.