The Sweeney Todd Box Office Tracking thread- Page 5

[aeb]

Posted: 12/26/07 at 11:36pm

bk: yep :)

love this movie. I just love it, and I want it to do well, and in the movie musical world it's doing extremely well.

Guess I should get off the soapbox, huh? It's just such a fabulous film. Went to see it on Christmas Day (again) and the theater was packed (again). Several people actually applauded at the moment where Sweeney promises to give Beadle Bamford "the closest shave you will ever know" with a look of hatred so utter and complete that no one would have been surprised if Timothy Spall had dropped dead on the spot with a smoking hole in his forehead.

It's true this film has an eclectic audience, but I think a very enthusiastic and appreciative one, and it's off to a great start. That's all I'm saying. :)

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/26/07 at 11:39pm

Well for what its worth, the Academy ballots weren't mailed out until today, meaning most won't be arriving until tomorrow or Friday, so almost all voters will still have the SWEENEY screener in hand before they fill out ballots.

[zooxanthellae]

Posted: 12/26/07 at 11:42pm

That's good... but if it isn't nominated for anything they won't really have an excuse... it'll be even more a slap in the face.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/26/07 at 11:58pm

SWEENEY will definitely get some tech nods.

If it doesn't get a Best Picture nomination it will be because not enough AMPAS voters selected it as their top movie of the year (on the initial nomination ballot, members can pick only 1 film). The way its set up, you can't really deliberately "snub" a movie for the top nomination.

Everyone loves to talk about the importance of screeners, and how if screeners aren't mailed early enough, they get lost in the shuffle, etc. But the truth is, the voters work pretty much the same way you would if you were to receive 50 different dvds in the mail. They go through and pull out the most interesting, buzzed about films to watch first, which is why I don't necessarily think screeners do that much to help performances or movies that aren't already heavily buzzed.

Voters also rely heavily on what their other industry friends say is good, important, worthy, etc., since nobody has time to watch all the movies.

The other side of that, is that a healthy amount of AMPAS voters let their ballots be filled out by assistants, neighbors, friends, the mailman (I kid you not) etc. But thats another story.

Updated On: 12/27/07 at 11:58 PM

[hermionejuliet]

Posted: 12/27/07 at 2:26am

"It's true this film has an eclectic audience, but I think a very enthusiastic and appreciative one, and it's off to a great start."

Isn't that the truth?! I went to a late showing expecting a rather empty theater like the one I sat in on opening day. To my surprise, it was quite full, but I had to giggle a little as we looked for seat. The majority of the audience was teens/young twenty somethings dressed in black. Some were even wearing their Sweeney t-shirts.

However, the audience was very receptive to the movie. There were only about 6 people who walked out at the very beginning.

It was interesting that during the Mamma Mia preview that someone yelled out "queer." I felt like saying do you KNOW that you are about to watch a Sondheim musical?

(And for the record, I'm not implying that any musical is "queer". I just found the comment idiotic considering the person was about to watch a musical.)

Updated On: 12/27/07 at 02:26 AM

[Brick]

Posted: 12/27/07 at 11:27am

Yeah, as Bennett said, it doesn't seem likely to get a Best Picture nod, because I personally can't imagine people selecting this as their their one choice for Best Picture (which is how the nominations work).

Depp seems to be the best shot for a nomination, aside from technical awards.

And again, Bennett you're right about the screeners. In fact, they are more likely to watch Sweeney than other films, because of the huge buzz its been getting from every side. So, I doubt it can be a victim of not being seen.

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 12/27/07 at 12:02pm

Actually, I've been led to believe that Oscar voters can pick up to 5 movies for Best Picture, and they rank them in order of their favorites. If the fans of 'Sweeney' are passionate enough to put it in their No. 1 or No. 2 slot, 'Sweeney' could make the cut. (It's not as if the Oscar voters only pick one movie for Best Picture.) That's why if you're a movie that's generally respected, but not fervently admired, you can miss out.

'No Country for Old Men' is still the movie to beat, and 'Atonement,' once a front-runner, seems to have slipped somewhat. But I think 'Sweeney's' chances are good.

[hermionejuliet]

Posted: 12/27/07 at 12:52pm

I agree that Depp has a good chance. I really think that Helena deserves a nomination too!

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 12/27/07 at 2:53pm

I suspect that Depp's chances are better than Carter's, but you never know. I'd love to see her nominated, too, along with a surprise nomination for Sacha Baron Cohen for Supporting Actor.

I'll be surprised if 'Sweeney' doesn't score big in the tech categories: cinematography, art direction, costumes, sound, editing and makeup. Sadly, I think John Logan will be squeezed out of the Adapted Screenplay category, which is very crowded.

[luvcaroline]

Posted: 12/27/07 at 3:13pm

I saw this at a matinee in Dallas on Christmas Eve and there were about 60 in the audience. No one that I saw walked out of the theater.

Yesterday (12/26) I saw it in a smallish town in East TX and there must have been more than one hundred for a matinee showing. It actually was hard to find a decent seat (we got there before the trailers started). The audience was a mix of 20-30's to older couples. No one walked out of this performance.

Clearly "buzz" is building for this movie, as often seems the case with musicals. I expect the numbers to actually be better this week, based on what I have seen.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/27/07 at 3:45pm

Wayman -- if that is the case regarding voting, that is a new development as of this year. The "only one pic" for Best Picture nomination was an excuse many used last year for how DREAMGIRLS could be nominated for so many Oscars but not Best Picture.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/27/07 at 4:29pm

Actually, the Oscar ballots have five blank lines on them. They are numbered. It looks like this:

BEST PICTURE:

1. _________
2. _________
3. _________
4. _________
5. _________


When you nominate you are allowed to put down five films, but the rules make it clear that your first choice ALONE will be tallied for a nomination. The other choices, ranked according to your preference, will be used only to break ties, if there are any, in the nominations.

This assures that there will never be more than 5 nominees for this category.

Everyone with "voting privileges" in the Academy receives the nomination ballot for Best Picture. Then, they receive a separate ballot in a separate envelope for their own "branch." So actors get an acting ballot, directors get a directing ballot, etc.

The actors' ballot looks like this:

BEST ACTOR:

1. _________
2. _________
3. _________
4. _________
5. _________

BEST ACTRESS:

1. _________
2. _________
3. _________
4. _________
5. _________

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

1. _________
2. _________
3. _________
4. _________
5. _________

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

1. _________
2. _________
3. _________
4. _________
5. _________

That's it. No suggestions of "who to put where," as far as categories. Just blank lines. And the same rules apply as the ones for Best Picture. Your first choice counts. The rest are used only to break ties in each category.

If an actor receives enough votes in BOTH categories (i.e. Best Actor AND Best Supporting Actor) for the same performance, he will get the nomination for the one that had the most #1 votes, and the other nomination will be disqualified.

When it comes time to vote for the actual awards, the entire voting membership of the Academy gets a full ballot. They can vote for all awards listed. One vote only in each category. If they pick two in a category, whether intentional or not, the entire ballot is disqualified.

Some categories require that you see ALL films eligible, for example the short film categories. You have to attend Academy screenings where they show all the nominated films, and then you vote on the spot. I believe you can also request a form/affidavit that will allow you to vote in those categories.

Updated On: 12/27/07 at 04:29 PM

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 12/27/07 at 4:33pm

Michael Bennett, that type of voting at the Oscars isn't new. As GoldDerby.com has explained in the past, the voting favors movies that Academy members are passionate about.

The reason why 'Dreamgirls' probably didn't make the Best Picture cut is that Academy voters were more passionate about other movies. It's kinda complicated, but see the link below.

Remember, too, that 'Dreamgirls' reaped its Oscar nominations in various categories, voted by those individual guilds (i.e., actors, editors, art directors, etc.), but EVERYONE votes on Best Pic, which is a wider pool of voters. That's why a movie can get a lot of nominations, but still miss the Big Prize.
GoldDerby: How Oscar voting works

[Brick]

Posted: 12/27/07 at 10:12pm

The system hasn't changed, but the reason why everyone's top matters so much is because of how it's scored.

The #1 pick is scored the higest, and each number less and less. So, from what I understand, a film is most likely to be in the top five with the highest scores if they have a rabid fan base putting the film as #1. As for "Dreamgirls", it may have been #3 on everyone's list, but that won't get a film nominated. It has to be #1, or maybe #2, on a bunch of lists...

So, "Sweeney" just needs an Academy fan base and it will be in.

Hopefully. We'll see.
Updated On: 12/28/07 at 10:12 PM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 9:46am

Sweeney now stands at $16,383,074, yet again on weds its box office dropped by over 17 percent.

Its almost been a week and sweeney has not even scraped past 20 million.As everyone knows its the opening weekend and 1st weeks where films make there money at the box office and sweeney looks like by friday it will be on around 19 million

I think its total worldwide box office will come in at $50 million

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 10:13am

Do you understand that the movie has not fully expanded yet?

By the end of Friday it will have made 20 million. That's almost half of the budget back in the first week of limited release. That's not bad.

Updated On: 12/28/07 at 10:13 AM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 10:21am

its half of its PRODUCTION budget back, that does not include the marketing budget etc

Even when the film goes wide it will have been out for to long for people to really care

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 10:24am

I didn't realize they were adding more theatres at this point. When does that happen?

...And you can add another $35 to $45 million in there for putting Johnny Depp's big head everywhere.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 10:32am

Last I heard, it was to expand in January. I have not read otherwise at this point.

Whether it makes back all its money is one thing (and a lot of movies do not achieve this from box office alone nowadays), but it is not performing poorly. It's holding rather well. And it is still near the top on a per-theatre basis. (SongandDanceMan--when you cited the 17% drop on Wednesday, did you note the 171% increase on Tuesday?)
And the awards shows have not even happened yet.
Updated On: 12/28/07 at 10:32 AM

[artscallion]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 10:42am

Plus it won't be released in the UK until late January. I'm betting it will be a huge smash there, where Sweeney Todd is a household name and people have actually heard of the legend.

I think it will end up being a success.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 10:45am

I think the truth is, that SWEENEY is underperforming for what some people (myself included) expected Johnny Depp's name would do for a box office draw. I think a lot of us had early visions of this somehow being a musical PIRATES with a 150 million take domestically.

That said, looking at the numbers for the film on their own terms, I'd say SWEENEY is doing average numbers. There are any number of 50 million dollar movies that open throughout the year that have similar b.o. for the first week. And I disagree that a movie's box office fate is determined its first week of release - many successful films take a few weeks to find their audience. Will SWEENEY work that way? Who knows - though its subject matter does seem more appealing in the bleak January than pre-Christmas.

I'm not sure if the plan is still to widen the release by 1,000 screens in January (and I kind of agree that doing so isn't going to necessarily up the box office by significant amounts, because the film's major audience is obviously in large cities where the movie is already playing)but it could keep the film in the top ten.

I'm not as pessimistic as songanddanceman, though, and think the worldwide gross will surely be higher than 50 million. If the film can eek out a few major globe wins and Oscar nominations, it shouldn't have a problem reaching that domestically.

In terms of how the Oscar voting works - I think we're all on the same page; I thought Wayman was saying that the Oscar nominations are done on a weighted scale, but as his article clarifies - that really only comes to play for deciding ties. As we've all said in our own ways, what AMPAS voters pick as their "number one" choice on their nomination ballot is largely all that comes into play for deciding the 5 final selections.




Updated On: 12/28/07 at 10:45 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 10:49am

I'm glad you're optimistic, phantom, and I wish it well. Even though I had some problems with it, it's a GOOD film musical, and I really want its performance to encourage the studios to make more musical films. I'm rooting for it to succeed, financially.

But people don't go to movies like they used to. Hit films used to run for many months in the theatres, not weeks. They also didn't used to release films in anywhere NEAR as many theatres simultaneously as they do today.

The strategy now is to open a movie in a HUGE amount of theatres. Make your killing fast, and fade away quickly. With everyone so "connected" these days via cell phones, the Internet, TV, etc., word-of-mouth is almost instantaneous. The "slow trickle" just doesn't happen much, if at all anymore. Plus, we have a nation of impatient Americans. They don't wait months to see a film in the theatres. They have ADD, and once they've left the darkened theatre the majority of patrons are already asking, "What's next?" That's why I don't hold much hope for boffo box office on Sweeney. Once I saw the initial numbers, I predicted (earlier in this thread, I think) that its domestic intake will be somewhere between $40 million and $50 million total.

Sadly... I still believe this to be likely.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 10:56am

Yes, Michael Bennett, very rational and well-put. If anything, it's just too early to tell at this point. I never thought the movie would break $100 million, but at the end of the day, I don't think the box office performance will be too shabby for what it is and the circumstances involved. I learned from The Producers that just because a big name is in something (Will Ferrell) it does not guarantee box office success.
But this is not like Rent or The Producers... those two sunk like stones. If anything, it more resembles Phantom, which slowly grossed up to 50 million (with no awards and very bad reviews, mind you).
Oh, and Best12, I agree to an extent. But there still are sleeper hits (Hairspray was a perfect example). And I think these "Oscar" movies like Sweeney are released with the hope they go against the trend and play months, not weeks. Yes, movies are different now, but that is where DVD and all that stuff comes into play. There's still money to be made... it's just different.

Updated On: 12/28/07 at 10:56 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 11:12am

Well normally, I would agree with what Best12 says that in this day and age, the "slow trickle" effect isn't what it used to be - but the exception often is films that open Christmas, which historically have continued to play well into January, when they open wide, and as award season goes into full swing and not as many new films open.

A lot of SWEENEY's future will be decided by Warner Brother's faith in the product. THE PRODUCERS did such dismal box office business, largely because the studio behind it decided to cut their losses and give it only a marginal theatrical release.

Even earlier this year, ACROSS THE UNIVERSE began to find an audience after mixed reviews, but Sony decided not to give it the kind of marketing push that could have kept it around for a while and pulled it out of rotation just as it was generating some heat.

I think the truth is most films do make back money - through dvd sales, cable distribution, etc. and often times it really is the studio that decides the upfront fates of some of their movies. They are often the impatient ones, and more often than not would just assume see their movies go to quick home viewing release, since thats where the real money is.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 11:13am

Oh and one more thought. If this movie did tank, I still don't think it would really affect the rebirth of the movie musical. I think industry experts would attribute it more to its subject, less to it being a musical.
If anything, it would probably not bode well for future adult-themed musicals... but with the success of Hairspray and Enchanted, I think studios would be pretty secure in making more family-friendly movie musicals.
Oh and yes Michael Bennett, studios can totally screw up box office... I cannot imagine how terrible it must feel to be a director sometimes. I noticed that with Across the Universe too. I guess the studios are sometimes more confident throwing money into marketing a sure-fire hit than promoting something that is not as well known. If you think about it, it makes no sense really.

Updated On: 12/28/07 at 11:13 AM