The Sweeney Todd Box Office Tracking thread- Page 8

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 12:03pm

I'm curious: Did anyone ever think 'Sweeney Todd' was going to be a 'blockbuster'? I always thought it was gonna be a tough sell. Theater buffs aside, who was going to see a R-rated movie MUSICAL about a serial killer, with graphic throat slittings and cannibalism throw in? Even with Johnny Depp? Did anyone really think it would challenge, say, a popcorn action movie, like 'National Treasure,' for the No. 1 spot at the box office?

Even on Broadway, Sondheim isn't a crowd-pleaser with everyone. The original production ran only a year and 3 months. The latest revival didn't even last a year. Sondheim's work is arguably too smart and sophisticated (or highbrow) for the masses. 'Sweeney' ain't a family-friendly film like 'High School Musical.'

I'm thrilled that the movie is as great as it is, and so happy that it'll live on in posterity for the audiences who never saw it on Broadway. It's exciting that this film spreads the glory of Sondheim's score to many more, and that the composer is so pleased with it. The fact that it's garnered a lot of raves and may pick up some awards is gravy. Whether or not it makes another dime, it's already succeeded beyond my wildest dreams.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 12:21pm

Its up to $21,364,000

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 12:35pm

Wayman_Wong,

I posted this on 11/30/07:

"Let's just not get our hopes up too high with the box office, and let's not make unrealistic predictions, so that no one here can call it a flop when it doesn't meet our expectations.

There are 3 important things to consider:

1) It is unlikely this movie will appeal to anyone who hates musicals, no matter how much gore it has. People who hate musicals hate musicals. That's all there is to it. Blood will not change their minds... they can get blood in many other R-rated movies, without the music.

2) In general, it is very hard for an R-rated movie to break $100 million. Of the 23 movies to break $100 million so far in 2007, only 4 were R-rated.

3) Luckily, Sweeney Todd cost significantly less to make than both Dreamgirls and Hairspray... I think the budget was $50 million, which is at least $20-$25 million less than those two.
So, if the movie doesn't break $100 million but lands in the $70s or $80s, which I think likely, I don't think it should be seen as disappointing, considering it is an R-rated musical (and both of those things are often regarded as box-office poison)."




I think it is more likely it will land in the 50s or 60s now, so it would not completely recoup the marketing costs. I think some people really thought it could break 100 million because it's so good and it's Johnny Depp, but I never thought that.

I completely agree--it's already exceeded my expectations with the reviews and such. And the box office is not half bad... which is why a certain someone is annoying me by disputing the box office figures. Give the movie some credit.


Updated On: 12/29/07 at 12:35 PM

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 12:50pm

Well, for what it's worth, I've seen SWEENEY three times, and last night was the only time I was in a sold-out showing. Maybe the new marketing stategy is working.

[hermionejuliet]

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

I completely agree with Wayman... the financial success really doesn't matter much - except to the studio! I don't think that any would argue that it is a well made film with some terrific performances. Any financial success or awards are just icing on the cake. The real prize is that movie was made, and it pleases the fans and Sondheim.

Like I said before, it won't make or break the success of movie musicals in general. It seems like every studio thinks that their musical is going to be "different" from the flops. At least that is what they imply!

[Kristeliz]

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

I'm a die hard Sweeney fan and I've yet to go see it. I feel like folks were busier than ever this holiday season and this weekend is the first time many are getting to relax. My office was almost fully staffed on the friday before new years. I think we'll see a lot of people going to the movies over the next dew days. I was also just catching up on my "Pushing Daisies" episodes and counted so many Sweeney commercials trying to lure in those musical /mystery/tim burton effect lovers.

[aeb]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 12:58pm

bk, I don't work for a studio. I'm a fan. I love Johnny Depp and adore the movie and think it's brilliant. That's the extent of it, really. I just want Sweeney to do well. Updated On: 12/29/07 at 12:58 PM

[jackie]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 3:13pm

I don't work for the studio either, and I agree the box-office is ultimately irrelevant. This film is stunning. However there are some misconceptions on this board that might be worth correcting:
1. The film's budget was $64 million at the end of production. A friend who works in physical production at Warner Bros. estimates the final cost (after significant visual effects overages) at just under $68 million.
2. The budget only came in that low because both Depp and Burton agreed to a higher than usual formula for first-dollar-gross. In other words, a slice of all the box-office revenue that comes back to the studio (which is only about 45% of the published gross) has to shared with Depp and Burton.
3. People here keep repeating the fallacy that because ST is "only" in 1250 theatres it is actually keeping pace with wider releases like "Charlie Wilson." The fact is, those first 1200 theatres are the best theatres in the best movie-going areas in the country, and they throw off 80% of the box office total. In other words, if ST had added another 1250 runs, the additional theatres would have only bumped the gross by 20%. That's why when the eventual expansion happens, the actual gross either stays flat or goes down a little -- all the extra theatres simply balance out the expected 25% plus drop. (If you live in a big city, open the paper when ST expands on Jan 11. There will be lots of additional theatres, in places like La Canada in LA, which won't add much to the gross, just redistribute it. True, smaller towns will be added, but by definition they gross much less.) So this idea that after the Golden Globes ST will blossom with a substantial gross and higher box-office rank is wrong. Based on this weekend (when ST will experience the greatest drop among the new movies, a sign of not-so-good word of mouth) ST will do anywhere from 4.6 to the upper 5s next weekend, and a little bit LESS when it expands on the 11th. I'd be surprised if it's still in the Top Ten by then. The fact is, it's a rare movie that doesn't follow a typical pattern these days. And ST is not that movie. So the range has become pretty clear. At the lower end, a final box office gross in mid 40s. At the upper end, mid 50s. In other words, somewhere in the Phantom/ Evita/ Moulin Rouge range. (I'm only talking about domestic box-office here.) The difference is that some of that money goes to Depp and Burton, pushing off the studio's recoupment even further. But Warner Bros. (foreign distributor and major player behind this project) has made so much off Depp/Burton that the movie pays for itself by keeping them happy and making more Warner Bros. movies. And we get a wonderful Sweeney Todd.
I know some people here will say the numbers above are bull****, which is fine. But for any of you who care to know the truth, I thought I'd share.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 3:31pm

Makes perfect sense.
A few posts ago I predicted a similar final gross to what you said, although I don't think 60 million is off the table at this point.
But I do disagree with this: "ST will experience the greatest drop among the new movies, a sign of not-so-good word of mouth."
We'll have to see the numbers from this weekend to know for sure.

[jackie]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 4:31pm

Phantom, check out the chart on the front page of Movie City News. ST's Friday drop is the highest. (Granted, last Friday was inflated by Sweeney-heads.)

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 4:41pm

Yeah, I see it there.
I think, like you said, the opening day was inflated due to Sweeney/Burton fans and the midnight screenings and so on. There was also a huge drop from the opening Friday to the second day of release.
I will wait until Sunday to judge it. Either way, I have a lot of trouble attributing it to bad word of mouth. I just think it's a difficult movie to sell. But if you look at user (not critic) reviews all over the place, they are pretty positive.

[bk]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 4:53pm

Now Jackie's post is down-to-earth and on the money.

[jackie]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 4:57pm

Agreed, those who love it love it, thankfully. But basing word-of-mouth on talkbacks is similar to what bk does -- it's just too anecdotal. The numbers reveal more, certainly about the great unwashed. Look at Charlie Wilson's Friday to Friday jump, or PS I Love You's, or Juno's growth -- those are movies with good audience word-of-mouth.

[phantom8019]

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

Yeah but it could certainly be worse. Look at Walk Hard or Alien Vs Predator. I mean, Juno has EXCELLENT word of mouth. That's the little movie that could. It has performed perfectly.
Now watch it steal the Golden Globe from Sweeney.
And yes, I was surprised about PS I Love You. But I also think it has as much to do with being accessible to the public. Stephen Sondheim vs romantic comedy... the fact that it's even close is thrilling.
In any event, Jackie, you've brought peace and harmony to our thread...

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 6:44pm

Jackie's post is absolutely spot-on. Everyone, take note. OT, but not:I'm still baffled by the decision to exclude WGA member from the ST screeners. Same thing happened last year with DREAMGIRLS, and also with BROKEBACK. I got screeners of every other major release this season, and the omissin of SWEENEY is strange, because Logan is a very respected writer. (Jackie, any theories or info?) We WGA members have only been getting double digit screeners for the last couple of years, unlike SAG and academy folk, but if we get THERE WILL BE BLOOD and NO COUNTRY, why not SWEENEY?

[jackie]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 6:54pm

Dreamworks tends to spend like drunken sailors and then penny-pinch in certain areas. (Look at this month's Written By, ads for everything -- even Breach! -- and no ST.) I suspect they also think this category's too crowded. But I agree, as a matter of respect you'd think they'd at least appear to be making an effort...

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 7:19pm

jackie---Great post! And I agree with everything you said. One of the things you bring up (which is excellent) is the "larger picture."

Keeping Depp and Burton happy, and making more movies with these studios. They will often take a financial hit or two in anticipation of the ongoing relationship with a tried-and-true "commodity."

[madlibrarian]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 10:14pm

What a ruckus! But the fact is, folks, that even if it gets no nominations or awards or never grosses another dollar domestic... this Sweeney is a HIT. It will excel in the ancillary markets, and it has yet to open in Europe or Japan, and I betcha it does BETTER box office there than here.

[luvcaroline]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 10:17pm

jackie, I agree that this was a very well thought-out post, except for this one statement:

"Based on this weekend (when ST will experience the greatest drop among the new movies, a sign of not-so-good word of mouth) ST will do anywhere from 4.6 to the upper 5s next weekend, and a little bit LESS when it expands on the 11th."

My personal experience is that this movie IS experiencing GREAT word-of-mouth. I have now seen the movie 3 times (my obsession with it is the subject of another thread!) I saw it 1st in Dallas at Northpark Cinema (a very affluent area), where it was showing on only one screen. There were no more than 60 in the theater on Christmas Eve at 5:00. The next time I saw it was in a town of 40,000 in East TX. There had to be over 100 people in the theater (this was 12-27 at 4:00). My friend and I had trouble finding a decent seat! Today I saw the 4:00 showing in Tyler, TX (a Bible belt town if there ever was one, with a population of 80,000!) and there were only 4 or 5 seats available at the most! The line for the next showing was all the way out the door. I guess I'm saying that the word-of-mouth for this is huge, in an area of the world where you would not expect it. I think this film is doing just fine.

Side note: In Tyler I finally got to see this in digital, and boy was it amazing! It was like a brand new film to me. Definitely will check it out again there before the end of the run.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 10:24pm

Well, Jackie's point was that you really can't measure word of mouth from what you hear or see... as she said, "it's just too anecdotal."
She was right in that it is dropping more than the other movies. But my opinion is that this may also have to do with the subject matter of the film and so on.
Then again, her prediction of around 5 million for next weekend seems dead on. I doubt it will be pulling in 2 million each day next weekend.
Updated On: 12/29/07 at 10:24 PM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 12/30/07 at 12:40am

Sorry the o.p. hasn't been updated at all, I was away for Christmas.

Glad it's been holding well throughout the week.

[bk]

Posted: 12/30/07 at 4:50am

I saw the film at the DGA this evening (followed by There Will Be Blood - a LOT of movie watching for one evening). I have no trouble understanding why it's doing the business it's doing, and why it's not going to ever do the kind of business people wish for it. And it doesn't matter. The studio will take a loss and that's their business and they won't care.

Briefly, how lovely to see a film of today that doesn't hide the fact that it's a musical or somehow try to disguise it (the marketing is something wholly other, however). It feels like a musical, and the pace is excellent as is the look of the film, save for the not so hot CGI at the top of the film. I enjoyed most of it, and thought some of it was truly stellar and magical. I thought Depp was fine, and I enjoyed his take on the role AND his singing. Carter was more difficult for me and for very specific reasons - it's not that I can't accept her very different take on the role, it's that she, like most of todays actors, does the whispering thing and it drives me crazy - it's lazy and sucks the energy out of the film. And, most importantly, where she fails is in the singing, and again for very specific reasons - Mrs. Lovett's songs have musical energy and to have them sung in that teeny-tiny breathless voice doesn't work at all - it's why the only laughs in Pies is from the cockroaches and not the lyrics. Same with the very truncated Priest - I don't blame them for cutting it down - neither Depp nor Carter seem to understand the humor and there was not one laugh in a number that should be all laughs - and the film could have really used it.

I thought Rickman was great, but the genius casting of the film is Toby - what a terrific way to go and the kid REALLY understands how to perform in a musical film - you hear every word and he still is subtle and wonderful. The Anthony was disturbing, what with the pageboy and being prettier than Johanna and more feminine as well. I didn't mind his singing, just his look. Spall was terrific. Interestingly, and I'm probably the only one who'll say it, after reading all the hyperbolic comments on By The Sea, I don't know what I was expecting but I certainly didn't get it. It's a nice number, and I liked the visual concept of it, but it wasn't the showstopper everyone said it was, at least not for me.

The audience at the DGA was a little more than half full. They are a very vocal crowd, but the only laugh in all the film was, as I said, the cockroach in Pies. No applause, not even at the end. The violence was so stylized it didn't bother me at all. Maybe they should have subtitled Sweeney Todd: There Will Be Blood.

That film, BTW, is the critics' darling of the year - compared to Citizen Kane. The acting is certainly excellent, but it wasn't to my liking at all - and it's LONG and unlike Sweeney, which flies by, you feel every single minute of its close to 150 minutes.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 12/30/07 at 3:37pm

I'm still trying to understand the argument that this film is not doing at least pretty well. It definitely is not going to be a loss for the studio.

[bk]

Posted: 12/30/07 at 4:34pm

Are you a seer? It definitely will not be a loss for the studio? I think even the studio knows at this point it will be a loss - so bloody what? What do you care? Enjoy the film - see if ten more times. Buy the DVD. If there are theater freaks and Sondheads in the audience, the film gets "great" reaction, applause, hooting and hollering. If there aren't, it seems, it is greeted by almost complete silence (as it was last night when I saw it). So what? You can post and you can post and you can post, but the film is going to not make its costs back from box-office, and I think it's doubtful it will make them back from ancillary sales, much as everyone, including the studio, would like that. The film got made, it succeeds in a lot of ways, and is not appealing to the audience that could turn it into a box-office hit, much as people on this board would like us to believe it is.

[bk]

Posted: 12/30/07 at 4:34pm

Are you a seer? It definitely will not be a loss for the studio? I think even the studio knows at this point it will be a loss - so bloody what? What do you care? Enjoy the film - see it ten more times. Buy the DVD. If there are theater freaks and Sondheads in the audience, the film gets "great" reaction, applause, hooting and hollering. If there aren't, it seems, it is greeted by almost complete silence (as it was last night when I saw it). So what? You can post and you can post and you can post, but the film is going to not make its costs back from box-office, and I think it's doubtful it will make them back from ancillary sales, much as everyone, including the studio, would like that. The film got made, it succeeds in a lot of ways, and is not appealing to the audience that could turn it into a box-office hit, much as people on this board would like us to believe it is.