The Sweeney Todd Box Office Tracking thread- Page 7

[artscallion]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 8:26pm

It's Thursday, the slowest movie day of the week. Almost every movie dropped by about 15%.

The top four films are leagues ahead of everything behind them. everything between fifth and tenth place is so close that a shift between any of those positions is negligible and meaningless.

S&DMan, you've been telling us loudly and often since day four that you knew this was going to tank. While you might end up being correct in some of your opinions, you state the future like it's fact. And while you keep claiming that you hope it does well, It kinda feels like you're skipping around dropping little piles of I-told-you-so on us. Particularly when you insist that it will get no major awards and you haven't even seen it yet!

If I'm reading you incorrectly, I apologize.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 8:37pm

s&dman2 brings up one good point I hadn't thought about.

But first, I should say that I don't think Sweeney is "down for the count." Disappointing business? Yes. Flop? We'll know soon enough, but not yet.

However, as s&dman2 says, it's not likely this film will get a boost by winning any major Oscar categories. I don't think it will be in wide release anymore by the night of the ceremony. Movies, even HIT movies, rarely play 2 solid months in a full wide release.

Gone are the days when Academy Awards boost the initial box office. The only way that happens is if the studio decides to put it BACK into theatres after a big win. Or if the film is doing huge business, and manages to stay in the theatres beyond Oscar night. Like "Chicago" did.

But if it won any major awards, I'm sure it will boost the home video sales and rentals. But you have to remember, that's a different medium, with its own budget expenses, marketing campaigns and royalty pay-outs... so, it's not like you can just add those dollars in as "profit gravy."

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 8:41pm

trust me you are reading me wrong im just stating my opinion and what (i thought) seemed common sense.

I did not want this film to fail at all, i LOVE sweeney and was so excited when i heard about the cast and director, in fact im practically wetting myself waiting to see it lol.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 8:43pm

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 8:45pm

hahahahahahahaha XXXXXXXxx

[artscallion]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 8:51pm

I do apologize then.

I'm not so optimistic that I'm sure it will suddenly take off. But I'm not ready to write it off so soon.

When you look at the box office figures as a total for the past seven days since it's been open (not just today's figures), Sweeney remains in fifth place, and in fourth place on a per theater average with $15,000.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 8:54pm

Best12,

When are the Oscars? Mid-February? Phantom was in about 900 theatres in mid-February 2005. Dreamgirls was in 1000 theatres in mid-February 2007 but then it fell to 600 the next week.
I think it really comes down to the Golden Globes, to see where (ie, theatre count) the film will be at Oscar time.
Updated On: 12/28/07 at 08:54 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 8:57pm

Well, you can cross your fingers and hope.

It doesn't look like it will have "legs" that long, at this point.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 9:06pm

Phantom and Dreamgirls also had a lot better start than sweeney has had

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 9:08pm

Phantom hung on until Oscar time. I do not know how, but it did. It won no Golden Globes and had few Oscar nominations (none in major categories). But as I said, it made most of its money in January and February. I really think Sweeney may perform similarly.
Oh and the reviews for Phantom? 33% fresh on rottentomatoes.com

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 9:09pm

"Phantom and Dreamgirls also had a lot better start than sweeney has had"

Phantom didn't. I just posted that Phantom hadn't made what Sweeney had grossed as of yesterday until after the New Year.

[bk]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 10:17pm

No one is saying it's "flopped." Smart people are saying, no, it's not going to be a) a blockbuster or b) anywhere near a blockbuster, which is what everyone here seemed to be hoping for. Also, it's ever so amusing to see the official gross for this film go from a five day cume (according to the studio and the trades) of thirteen to the reported here 18 mil seven day cume. I live on a little planet called Earth and there is no way this film did five million on Wednesday and Thursday - sorry, doesn't compute. Its three to five day cumulative went up four 4 plus change and that included the busy Christmas Day traffic. Wednesday and Thursday certainly did not BEAT that. But, they'll post whatever figures they like. Even at 18, the writing is on the wall, because it's not going UP and its not going to improve much when theaters are added - also, if it keeps on doing what it's doing, you will find that its wider release will not quite be THAT wider.

[artscallion]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 10:25pm

"No one is saying it's "flopped."

Actually, Songanddanceman2 did say that exact thing.: "the simple fact is that its flopped"

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/28/07 at 10:57pm

yep i am saying that in the sense that its under performed and looks unlikely to make its budget back (again just my opinion)

I suspect we will know in a few weeks if the film re coups but i just dont see that it will make its budget and advertising costs back.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 12:33am

"I live on a little planet called Earth and there is no way this film did five million on Wednesday and Thursday - sorry, doesn't compute."
Can you provide any sort of reason as to why this does not compute? It was after the holiday, and a lot of adults had free time. The reason the 3 to 5 day cum went up only 4 million is because all of the movies dropped significantly on Christmas Eve, as they always do. Sweeney made 3 million on Christmas and only 1 million on Christmas Eve. The day after Christmas it made 2.7 million. How is this so hard to believe? Christmas and the day after are huge movie days. Christmas Eve is not. Do you really think movies make the same gross every day? Would you feel more comforted if it grossed 2.5 million each day, or increased each day by $500,000 increments? To me that would be suspicious.

"But, they'll post whatever figures they like."
Alas, the box office conspiracy theory again. So tiring. We really ought to shut this thread down then, since we are being given false info and any conclusions we can make are pointless.
Tell me BK, are you on message boards for I Am Legend, Alvin and the Chipmunks, and PS I Love You explaining to everyone how the box office reports for those movies are also wrong? Or is this conspiracy only isolated to Sweeney Todd? Just curious.

[bk]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 12:52am

It's isolated to this thread because this thread is where I happened to see this 18 mil posted - and it doesn't compute. Why don't you address that simple fact. It's horse manure and if you can't see that then you just continue to live in your very own phantom phantasyland. I wish you well there. I have no idea where the poster got this 18 mil from, but if it's from a website then they are very much in error and simple addition will tell you that.

As to finding out in a few weeks if this film will recoup - afraid not. I remind that even if it WERE to make fifty million that does NOT mean it has recouped, nor is it anywhere near recouping at that gross. Even if it gets closer to eighty it will not have recouped. So, until the foreign and the ancillary sales are figured in the story will not be told, and, in fact, I suspect the story will not be told other than people guessing and surmising.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 12:57am

Every box office site has the total at 18 million as of Friday AM.
Every single movie in the top 10 made more money on 12/26 and 12/27 combined than on 12/24 and 12/25 combined.
AGAIN, how does it not compute? You call this a fact. You give no reasons. How can you say something does not compute but not have a reason other than "studios lie"? And if this is true, then you must apply it to ALL the movies, and revise all the titles down a few million.
Updated On: 12/29/07 at 12:57 AM

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 1:01am

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=sweeneytodd.htm
http://showbizdata.com/dailybox.cfm
http://news.fantasymoguls.com/originalcontent/2007/12/thursday-estima.html
All these sites report 18 million total.
But they're all liars, right?

And don't try to say that the numbers were "changed" or "revised" at some point on boxofficemojo, because many of us, like Scarywarhol and others I am sure, have been monitoring the numbers every day. We would have noticed something like that. Only the totals for 7 days have been released thus far, and these figures are pretty easy to remember.

And I never said 50 million would mean it would recoup. I said that was a respectable gross. I invite you to search my posts and find where I said 50 million = complete recoup.
Updated On: 12/29/07 at 01:01 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 2:01am

I've never been one to think much of the film grossing conspiracies. Yeah, probably studios inflate numbers, but if they do it for one film, they probably do it for all their films, so it probably all washes out in the end.

I do agree that in this day and age where so many people watch the daily numbers it would be pretty hard to get away with going back and changing existing figures.

The day after Christmas is traditionally one of the most popular days at the movies of the entire year. I actually decided not to see JUNO on Thursday when I saw the line at the local cineplex box office was about 40 people deep.

And moves that are not yet on DVD that get Best Picture nominations, routinely get pushed back into movie theatres or receive a large bump in the numbers of screens they play on.

In that regard, it doesn't really matter how many theatres or what legs SWEENEY has until February - if it gets a Best Picture nomination, Warner Brothers will increase its screen count.

[bk]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 2:05am

I'm saying I've had enough people tell me about the size of the audiences they've seen attending the film to know that it doesn't compute. Where do you suppose these sites get their info? They a) get it from other sites or from b) the studios. You believe what you like and I'll believe what my eyes and ears tell me. I don't really give a flying Wallenda WHAT it grosses, but I will not have armchair experts telling me all about movie grosses. And I wasn't referencing your post about fifty million meaning it had recouped - it was some other armchair expert's post. I now return you to phantom phantasyland, where grosses are exactly what you wish them to be and where studios ESTIMATES are reality.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 2:18am

Unless you have people from every market sampling telling you what the size of the film audiences have been when they've seen a movie, basing gross on 'word of mouth estimates' of the number of people at each screening is meaningless.

Five people on BWW saying they had fifty people at their Christmas Eve matinee screening means nothing. Now, if you were able to get an accurate poll from those fifty people and be able to include details like: was the movie playing on multiple screens, was it in an area like Los Angeles where the movie might be in four different theatres in a five mile radius, did the theatre had four screenings a day or three, etc. - then you might be able to come up with some workable statistic.

But word of mouth guess-timates aren't evidence enough to tell anything.

Updated On: 12/29/07 at 02:18 AM

[aeb]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 2:24am

Well, I suppose that we will have to go with your eyewitness reports from the four to six daily showings of Sweeney Todd at all 1,249 movie theaters nationwide, then, bk.

Admirable that you can collate the data fast enough to show that every one of the Internet box office sites is wrong.

Updated On: 12/29/07 at 02:24 AM

[bk]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 5:15am

Oh, the usual Internet twaddle begins. Y'all keep checking those box-office sites every hour of every day, for whatever weird pleasure that seems to give you. And I'll just keep taking notice of a major theater like the Arclight downsizing Sweeney to one screen from two. Why do you suppose they did that? Hmmm. Let's think. But, I leave all the armchair experts to predict what they will and to babble on as if they know something. I tell you - for the old days when the Internet didn't exist and people didn't give a damn about grosses - they just went to see things, enjoyed them or not, and the grosses were the province of people in the business who had a reason for caring. Now it's this game with all these online sites instead of just the trades reporting. Given the number of errors online sites make every single day (the IMDB being a prime example), why people just assume all this information is correct is anyone's guess. It's like people reading something on Wikipedia and assuming because they read it it somehow is factual. It is to wonder.

And aeb, old stick, your arriving two days ago and posting only in this thread and the other Sweeney thread tells me all I need to know about your deal - I think it's painfully obvious with an emphasis on the painfully.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 8:52am

bk

Come on be real, its the holiday season and normally films do incredibly well the week after xmas day which would fit in with what the studios have released.

Film studios tend not to inflate figures anymore as they are always found out and made to look incredibly stupid.
The last time this happened was in the late 90s when Scream 2 was released.Miramax/Dimension said they had opened with $34 million (i think) and that would have made them the highest opening slasher film of all time, alas the figures were out by 2 million (Dimension said they had over counted) and Scream 2 ended up as the 2nd most successful.

Even in that case the studio had something to gain from "over counting the gross" as they could have changed advertising etc to carry the add 'the most successful slasher film opening ever'(Rumor had it the posters were been made when the mishap was spotted).Changing the figures for Sweeney to make it look like it made more on a couple of week days than it did doesn't benefit them in anyway

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 9:41am

I'm sorry that some people are interested in movies and look at box office grosses. If it makes you feel better, know that I am interested in all aspects of film making, not just that. We are going back and forth with you not because we are box office freaks but because you are making these claims that cannot be backed up at all. It seems like everyone on the Internet wants to be heard, but very few care if they are heard saying something intelligent.
And as for this:
"Given the number of errors online sites make every single day (the IMDB being a prime example), why people just assume all this information is correct is anyone's guess. It's like people reading something on Wikipedia and assuming because they read it it somehow is factual. It is to wonder."
Yes, that is the risk of any Internet info. But do you understand that Variety, CNN, and so on also report grosses every week? These are official and reputable news sources. Their reported grosses have been the same thus far as the grosses reported on the sites I listed above.

Updated On: 12/29/07 at 09:41 AM