|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Dreamworks all bummed out about Shrek's $71 million gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 05-27-2010 02:00 PM
If this had been a "new" movie then a $71 million gross, by most accounts, would be considered spectacular. But because it's to a high-profile sequel it is considered a disappointment. Hollywood certainly has its own creative way of counting money.
Part of the problem: If the studios and sites like BoxofficeMojo would stop obsessing about opening-week box-office performance and studying past films' performance and making predictions, then no one would be disappointed when a film "under-performs." But then, these are the same studios that claim their big hits are in the red whenever lawsuits are filed regarding participants not getting their fair share of the cut.
Does anyone remember back in '02 when "E.T." was re-released and under-performed according to Universal's standards/expectations? (Apparently, they expected it to deliver "Star Wars" re-release type numbers.) I'll see if I can locate the articles in question, but if I remember the details correctly the studio claimed they lost revenue because the film made x less than predicted. Hello?! The film grossed $350 million domestic on a $10 million investment twenty years earlier. The film was already in the black!!!
Another problem, I think, is this mentality of the studios insisting on turning every hit movie into a franchise. Most franchises perform inconsistently and audiences tire of them quickly. The really successful franchises -- James Bond, Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc. -- are exceptions rather than the norm. Most hits are flukes, and it's too bad the studios don't accept them as such. Doesn't anyone heed William Goldman's mantra of nobody in Hollywood knowing anything?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-27-2010 04:07 PM
This latest drama involving the "final" sequel to Shrek raises some of the same old issues about what has been wrong with Hollywood for the last 20 or so years.
The entertainment media is part of the problem, but only because it willingly plays along with whatever the big studios need to hype. The movie studios are the key people responsible for hyping opening weekend dollar grosses. If the entertainment media had any desire to pursue accuracy it would put the stress on actual numbers of tickets sold. That statistic is far more meaningful than mere dollar grosses. Unfortunately, the entertainment media has to survive on advertising dollars. Movie studios spend a lot of money on advertising. Why risk biting the hand that feeds you?
The real problem, long lamented, is the stock market investor mentality in major studios. New, creative ideas are risky and unproven -investors hate that.
I think that mentality has worsened due to the fact every major movie studio is controlled by a giant international media corporation. Those media companies have reduced the distribution of movies, music and television content down to a mere few parties. It's not enough for you to have a vertically integrated giant media company re-selling old ideas in movies, music and TV. The risk is still there for some upstart with low overhead to blindside your music label with a great new sound. If all your competitors are nearly as big and like-minded in ideology then you can keep on selling the same old slop again and again.
Sadly, the general public seems willing much of the time to buy the same old slop. It's a pretty rare event when an independent movie release does great at the box office. It seems far more common for a forgettable or even downright crappy sequel to make a huge amount of money.
Indie success still bothers the majors, which I think is one of the reasons why they overload first run screens with prints of new releases and spend tens of millions or even hundreds of millions on marketing. They turn any indie release into an overlooked footnote. The MPAA, funded by the major studios, is also handy tool to muzzle controversial indie releases that may garner too much media attention.
quote:
I'll see if I can locate the articles in question, but if I remember the details correctly the studio claimed they lost revenue because the film made x less than predicted. Hello?! The film grossed $350 million domestic on a $10 million investment twenty years earlier. The film was already in the black!!!
What did Universal spend in marketing the E.T. 20th anniversary re-release? Maybe that's the excuse Universal used to claim they lost money on the effort. I assume the $10 million figure is the cost of inserting the CGI enhanced stuff into the movie. The advertising, print distribution, etc. would have easily run costs in the millions of dollars as well.
Still, the studio claiming it lost money on the 20th anniversary re-release of E.T. seems pretty odd. They also had the booming DVD market to tap. I bought one of those 2-disc editions of the movie and certainly wasn't the only one to do so. The DVD packaging sucked BTW.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic