erik lundegaard

Movies - Box Office posts

Wednesday April 22, 2009

The Short, Unhappy Life of Fox Atomic

Most moviegoers don’t know from studios — particularly these days when each studio seems a bland corporate entity without the personality, or even the Eastern-European mogul, that each had back in the day.

I’m no different. Even as a critic I never paid much attention to which studio released which film. But I became aware of Fox Atomic when I was gathering info for what became that Slate article on box office last year — because 20th Century Fox seemed a case study of what was wrong with the movie industry. Its crap films (distributed by parent company Fox, mostly) got massive distribution while its good films (put out by specialty division Fox Searchlight, mostly) were barely shown anywhere. Between these two — the slovenly screw-up to Fox Searchlight’s straight-A student —was Fox Atomic, which seemed to distribute, on the 2,000-theater scale, disappointing genre films like “The Hills Have Eyes 2.”

Here, for example, is Fox’s 2007 schedule sorted by each film’s maximum distribution. Pay particular attention to the Rotten Tomatoes rating on the right:

Rank
Movie
Distributor
Dom. BO
Max. Thtrs.
TR Rating
1.
 Fantastic Four 2
 Fox $131M 3,963
 35%
2.
 The Simpsons Movie
 Fox $183M 3,926
 89%
3.
 Alvin and the Chipmunks
 Fox $217M 3,499
 24%
4.
 Live Free or Die Hard
 Fox $134M 3,411 80%
5.
 The Seeker: The Dark is Rising
 Fox $8M 3,173 13%
6.
 Mr. Magorium
 Fox $32M 3,168 36%
7.
 Firehouse Dog
 Fox $13M 2,881 38%
8.
 Epic Movie
 Fox $39M 2,840 2%
9.
 The Comebacks
 Fox Atomic
 $13M 2,812 10%
10.
 Reno 911!: Miami
 Fox $20M 2,702 34%
11.
 Aliens vs.Predator - Requiem
 Fox $41M 2,617 15%
12.
 Juno Fox SL
 $143M 2,534 93%
13.
 Hitman Fox $39M 2,468 15%
14.
 The Hills Have Eyes 2
 Fox Atomic
 $20M 2,465 12%
15.
 28 Weeks Later
 Fox Atomic $28M 2,305 71%
16.
 Death Sentence
 Fox $9M 1,823 16%
17.
 I Think I Love My Wife
 Fox SL
 $12M 1,794 19%
18.
 Pathfinder: Legend of the Ghost Warrior  Fox $10M 1,756 11%
19.
 Waitress Fox SL
 $19M 707 89%
20.
 The Darjeeling Limited
 Fox SL
 $11M 698 68%
21.
 Sunshine Fox SL
 $3M 461 75%
22.
 The Namesake
 Fox SL
 $13M 335 85%
23.
 The Savages
 Fox SL
 $6M 201 90%
24.
 Joshua Fox SL
 $.4M 152 62%
25.
 Once Fox SL
 $9M 150 97%

Sad, but in a way I understood the dynamic between Fox and Fox Searchlight. The former heaved onto our plates mostly fad-laden slop while the latter parceled out, in teaspoons, cuisine for the adult palate. I didn’t agree that this was always the best thing, financially, to do. Couldn’t, say, “The Darjeeling Limited,” given proper distribution and marketing, have done better than, say, “The Seeker: The Dark is Rising”? But at least I understood how they understood it all. Give the masses goop and pray for money. Give the elites caviar and pray for awards.

But Fox Atomic? What was its point? A specialty studio that released stuff that made even Fox hold their noses? Movies that didn’t do well critically or financially?

Well, Fox Atomic is dead now, its shop closed, its employees returned to the larger Fox fold. Here’s a list of films they distributed in their short, unhappy lifetime, along with domestic box office total and Rotten Tomatoes rating. Each opened in at least 1,500 theaters:

  • Turistas (2006): $7M, 15%          
  • The Hills Have Eyes 2 (2007): $20M, 12%
  • 28 Weeks Later (2007): $28M, 71%
  • The Comebacks (2007): $13M, 10%
  • The Rocker (2008): $6M, 39%
  • Miss March (2009): $4M, 4%
  • 12 Rounds (2009): $11M, 20%

Any death, any funeral, is a lesson. We all go sometime. What do you want to leave behind?

Hopefully it’s not “Miss March.”

Posted at 11:27 AM on Apr 22, 2009 in category Movies - Box Office
No tags
No Comments yet   |   Permalink  
Monday April 06, 2009

Betting Against Pixar

Do I have the energy on this Monday, when dozens are dead from an earthquake in Italy, to get worked up over the state of the movie world? Not even the movie world, really, but the business side of the movie world? Yeah, those guys.

First New York Times writer Brooks Barnes pats Universal Studios on the back for both “Fast & Furious,” which made $72 million over the weekend, and for reviving the “Hellboy” franchise last summer, which, Barnes writes, the studio turned “into a hit after Sony Pictures Entertainment passed on making a sequel.” Apparently Barnes forgot the role Guillermo del Toro played. At the same time, his use of the term “hit” may be a slight exaggeration. Yes, the film made $34 million its opening weekend. Then it dropped off 70 percent and struggled to make $75 million. Nothing to sneeze at, but, in Hollywood terms, is that a “hit”? For a superhero film?

Richard Greenfield wouldn’t think so. In the Business section of the paper, Barnes (back again) writes how Greenfield’s firm, Pali Research, recently downgraded Disney shares because of — get this — a poor outlook for the next Pixar movie.

Whoa. So is the Pixar movie, “Up,” screening poorly? No. It’s screening extremely well.

Pali has a problem with the lead, an old man voiced by Ed Asner: “‘We doubt younger boys will be that excited by the main character,’ Greenfield wrote, adding a complaint about the lack of a female lead.”

Others pile on. “'The worries keep coming despite Pixar’s track record, because each film it delivers seems to be less commercial than the last,' said Doug Creutz of Cowen and Company."

Barnes then looks at said commerciality of Pixar’s films and agrees. Compared with the $405 million “Finding Nemo” made in 2003, he writes:

Pixar’s last two films, “Wall-E” and “Ratatouille,” have been the studio’s two worst performers, delivering sales of $224 million and $216 million respectively, according to Box Office Mojo, a tracking service.

Well, yes and no. Actually, no and no.

According to box office mojo, a tracking service, “Nemo” made $339 million domestically. The $405 million figure? Apparently that’s in all of North America. So Barnes isn’t even comparing similar box office totals.

Still, if you look at unadjusted domestic box office, yes, it appears Pixar, while still doing great business, isn't doing as well as it used to:

1.  Finding Nemo  $309M  2003 
2.  The Incredibles  $261M  2004 
3.  Monsters, Inc.  $255M  2001 
4.  Toy Story 2 $245M  1999 
5.  Cars  $244M  2006 
6.  WALL-E  $223M  2008
7.  Ratatouille  $206M  2007 
8.  Toy Story  $191M  1995 
9.  A Bug's Life $162M  1998 


The last two Pixar films are stuck there at sixth and seventh, and the only reason they’re not at the bottom is because we’re not adjusting for inflation.

But that’s domestically. Other countries see films, too, right? So what does the worldwide gross of Pixar films look like? Here:

1.  Finding Nemo  $864M  2003 
2.  The Incredibles  $631M  2004 
3.  Ratatouille  $621M  2007 
4.  WALL-E  $534M  2008 
5.  Monsters, Inc.  $525M  2001 
6.  Toy Story 2 $485M  1999 
7.  Cars  $461M  2006 
8.  A Bug's Life  $363M  1998 
9.  Toy Story  $362M  1995 

Now Pixar’s two most recent entries rank third and fourth. Hardly "each less commercial than the last."

Forget for a moment that a financial services firm thinks it’s in a situation to basically pass notes to the most successful movie studio of the past 10 years. Even within the narrow parameters in which these guys are talking — the business side of things — they don’t know what they’re talking about. How awful is that?

On the plus side, these guys did make me excited to see "Up." Opening weekend.

Posted at 02:31 PM on Apr 06, 2009 in category Movies - Box Office, Pixar
No tags
2 Comments   |   Permalink  
Thursday April 02, 2009

Slumdog Watch - II

I posted the first "Slumdog" watch on March 21, when, during the preceeding week, almost a month after the Oscars and more than four months after it premiered, the film fell off by less than 25 percent. "Amazing," I thought. "Maybe it actually has a chance to make another $20 million and reach the top 10 for 2008 —becoming the first best-pic nominee to do so since "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" in 2003."

And at that very point it died. The following week the film fell by over 40 percent and, with the release of the DVD on Tuesday, it's now off by over 50 percent. 

It's currently $2 million behind 15th place and it'll struggle to make that.

Shame. So make it official. Five years in a row now.

Posted at 12:38 PM on Apr 02, 2009 in category Movies - Box Office
No tags
No Comments yet   |   Permalink  
Saturday March 21, 2009

Slumdog Watch - I

Earlier this week I postulated whether "Slumdog Millionaire" could enter the top 10 box-office hits of 2008. Here's a quick update:

Current position: 16th
B.O. total: $135.3 million
Last week's total: $6.9 million
Distance from 15th place ("Chronicles of Narnia"): $6.3 million
Distance from 10th place ("Horton Hears a Who"): $19.2 million

The good news is it's doing better than my model. Based on last weekend, I postulated a 26 percent dropoff but it did better on weekdays, comparatively, and, for the week, fell by only 24 percent.

The bad news is it lost another 500 theaters on Friday, and estimates have it dropping off 41 percent from the previous Friday.

Outlook? Not good.

Posted at 09:50 AM on Mar 21, 2009 in category Movies - Box Office, Movies - The Oscars
No tags
1 Comment   |   Permalink  
Monday March 16, 2009

Slumdog Legs

The big story at the box office this weekend was “Watchmen”’s 67-percent fall-off from the previous weekend — meaning it's not going to do as well as either “Paul Blart” or “Taken” (who woulda thought?) — but what leapt out at me, as I perused the names and numbers, was this: “Slumdog Millionaire” is still in the top 10. It fell off only 26 percent from the previous weekend and raked in another $5 million to take sixth place. Its domestic total is now $132 million, or 18th best among 2008 releases. In terms of weekly box office? It hasn’t left the top 10 all year.

Amazing. Since it was released in early November, there have only been five weeks when its weekly box office dropped. This is mostly the result of the way Fox Searchlight rolled it out: nonexistently (10 theaters), slowly (600+ around Christmas), wide after the Oscar noms (1,411), and nearly superwide after the best-picture victory (2,943). But even with this roll-out, the audience had to be there and it was.

This is a type of film we haven’t seen in a while. A word-of-mouth film. A film with legs.

Put it this way: Its opening weekend, according to box office mojo, was the 2,297th-best since 1980. It’s 10th weekend? Second-best. Only Titanic had a better 10th weekend. Only Titanic!

But the question, for me, remains: Does “Slumdog” have the legs to break into the top 10 for all 2008 releases?

As you know, if you read this blog (I’m rather obsessed with it), there have only been seven years in Oscar history in which not one of the best picture nominees cracked the annual top 10 box office: 1947, 1984... and the last five years in a row. But that’s assuming “Slumdog” won’t crack the top 10 for 2008 releases. But might it?  

Let’s calculate. This weekend it fell off 26 percent from the previous. That ain’t bad, particularly since Fox Searchlight is slowly removing it from theaters. So let’s assume a 26-percent weekly dropoff for the rest of its run. What do we wind up with?

By June 11th, “Slumdog”’s weekly box office will be down to around 100K, while its total domestic box office will be up to around $153 million. This will place it 11th for the year, ahead of “Sex and the City” but $1.5 million behind “Horton Hears a Who” for 10th place.

So, give or take some percentage points, it could happen. If it did, it would be the first best picture nominee to crack the yearly top 10 since 2003. And even if it doesn’t? It simply confirms that word-of-mouth pictures, not to mention dramas set in foreign lands (and starring actual foreigners!), not to mention quality pictures, can still sell in America. If anyone in Hollywood is paying attention.
Posted at 07:29 AM on Mar 16, 2009 in category Movies - Box Office, Movies - The Oscars
No tags
No Comments yet   |   Permalink  
All previous entries
 RSS    Facebook

Twitter: @ErikLundegaard

ARCHIVES

All previous entries

LINKS
dative-querulous