Hollywood B.O.: Crunching Numbers for HUGO
At first glance, it looks like Martin Scorsese's “Hugo” had a so-so opening weekend. That's what Jeff Wells over at Hollywood Elsewhere thought:
Paramount's decision to open Hugo on 1277 screens last Wednesday indicated (to me at least) that they were hedging their bets and hoping that critical raves and a word-of-mouth groundswell might materialize. As of last night Hugo had pulled in $8,545,000 after three days (having opened on 11.23) in 1277 theatres. That works out to a $6691 per-screen average...not bad, could be better. But it was fifth-placed after Breaking Dawn, The Muppets, Happy Feet 2 and Arthur Xmas (none of which I give a damn about).
The estimated numbers for the weekend are now in and it doesn't look much better:
| No. | Movie | Studio | Weekend Gross | Thtrs | Average | Wks |
| 1 | The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn | Sum. | $42,000,000 | 4,066 | $10,330 | 2 |
| 2 | The Muppets | BV | $29,500,000 | 3,440 | $8,576 | 1 |
| 3 | Happy Feet Two | WB | $13,400,000 | 3,606 | $3,716 | 2 |
| 4 | Arthur Christmas | Sony | $12,700,000 | 3,376 | $3,762 | 1 |
| 5 | Hugo | Par. | $11,350,000 | 1,277 | $8,888 | 1 |
True, every other film in the top five played in more than 3,000 theaters, versus “Hugo”'s measley 1,277; but “Hugo”'s per-theater-average is still second best to “Twilight.”
But Box Office Mojo now offers more options to break down the numbers: not just theaters, but screens; and not just screens but showings. In this regard “Hugo” goes from a three-to-one disadvantage with “The Muppets” and a four-to-one disadvantage with “Twilight” to a six-to-one and 10-to-one disadvantage:
| No. | Movie | Studio | Weekend Gross | Screens | Showings | Avg/Show | Wk |
| 1 | The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn | Sum. | $42,000,000 | 7,200 | 104,500 | $402 | 2 |
| 2 | Happy Feet Two | WB | $13,400,000 | 6,500 | 71,000 | $189 | 2 |
| 3 | The Muppets | BV | $29,500,000 | 4,600 | 62,900 | $469 | 1 |
| 4 | Arthur Christmas | Sony | $12,700,000 | 5,600 | 60,400 | $210 | 1 |
| 5 | Jack and Jill | Sony | $10,300,000 | 3,100 | 43,100 | $239 | 3 |
| 6 | Puss in Boots | P/DW | $7,450,000 | 4,100 | 40,100 | $186 | 5 |
| 7 | Immortals | Rela. | $8,800,000 | 3,600 | 36,800 | $239 | 3 |
| 8 | J. Edgar | WB | $4,950,000 | 2,000 | 22,700 | $218 | 3 |
| 9 | Hugo | Par. | $11,350,000 | 1,300 | 11,400 | $996 | 1 |
And if you sort these nine movies by average-per-show, you get a prettier picture:
| No. | Movie | Studio | Weekend Gross | Screens | Showings | Avg/Show | Wk |
| 1 | Hugo | Par. | $11,350,000 | 1,300 | 11,400 | $996 | 1 |
| 2 | The Muppets | BV | $29,500,000 | 4,600 | 62,900 | $469 | 1 |
| 3 | The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn | Sum. | $42,000,000 | 7,200 | 104,500 | $402 | 2 |
| 4 | Jack and Jill | Sony | $10,300,000 | 3,100 | 43,100 | $239 | 3 |
| 5 | Immortals | Rela. | $8,800,000 | 3,600 | 36,800 | $239 | 3 |
| 6 | J. Edgar | WB | $4,950,000 | 2,000 | 22,700 | $218 | 3 |
| 7 | Arthur Christmas | Sony | $12,700,000 | 5,600 | 60,400 | $210 | 1 |
| 8 | Happy Feet Two | WB | $13,400,000 | 6,500 | 71,000 | $189 | 2 |
| 9 | Puss in Boots | P/DW | $7,450,000 | 4,100 | 40,100 | $186 | 5 |
Folks are obviously seeing it—at a two-to-one advantage over “The Muppets” and “Twilight.” The other movies don't even come into play. “Arthur Christmas,” another opener, is abyssmal in comparison.
Some of “Hugo”'s advantage is obviously 3-D money rather than kids in the seats. But one wonders, as always, how well it might have done if Paramount had just had the confidence to play it in more theaters, and on more screens, for more showings.
Still, I'm hoping for positive word-of-mouth. I love the movie, most people I know love the movie—our friend Laura kept thinking the word “enchanting” as she watched—and it's a movie that SHOULD BE SEEN IN THE THEATER. In 3-D. So go already. Please.
Meanwhile, last week, I said “Twilight” would drop like a rock. Did it? A bit: 69.6%, or about the same as Ang Lee's “Hulk,” “Jonah Hex” and “Eragon,” but not as bad as “New Moon” (70%). For movies opening in more than 3,000 theaters, it's the 12th-worst drop ever.
Find the enchanting numbers here. And go see “Hugo.”
COMMENTS
You may bypass the ID fields and security question below if you log in before commenting.
Click here to manage subscription
We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks
Ghost Rider 2: Spirit of Vengeance (2012)
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)
Secret Origin: The Story of DC Comics (2010)
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)
The Legend of the Lone Ranger (1981)
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (1981/2006)
Baseball
Books
General
Hiking
Jordys Reviews
Lancelot Links
Movie Reviews - 2013
Movie Reviews - 2012
Movie Reviews - 2011
Movie Reviews - 2010
Movie Reviews - 2009
Movie Reviews - 2000s
Movie Reviews - 1990s
Movie Reviews - 1980s
Movie Reviews - 1970s
Movie Reviews - 1960s
Movie Reviews - 1950s
Movie Reviews - 1940s
Movie Reviews - 1930s
Movie Reviews - 1920s
Movies
Movies - Box Office
Movies - Documentaries
Movies - Foreign
Movies - The Oscars
Movies - Scene of the Day
Movies - Studios
Movies - Theaters
Movies - Trailers
Music
Personal Pieces
Politics
Quote of the Day
Seattle
Seattle Mariners
Superheroes
Travels
TV
What Liberal Hollywood?
Word Study
Yankees Suck
IMDb.com
Box Office Mojo
Rotten Tomatoes
Jeffrey Wells
The Film Experience
Roger Ebert
Large Ass Movie Blogs
Joe Posnanski
Cardboard Gods
Alex Pareene
Hendrik Hertzberg
Copy Curmudgeon
Deb Ellis
Andrew Engelson
Jerry Grillo
Tim Harrison
Eric Hanson
Ben Stocking
Jim Walsh








AR wrote:
Nice work. With the actuals, Hugo made $997 per show. The Descendants made $1001, only $4 dollars more per show yet its opening is considered stellar compared to Hugo's so-so. If you add the per-show-average of Hugo and The Descendants, it comes pretty close to the eight other films in the top ten combined.
Comment posted on Tue. Nov 29, 2011 at 03:08 AM