This Weekend's Box Office

[raidermatt]

Ok, this was a rather crude cut and paste job, but here's the box office estimates for the weekend. The first number is this week's ranking, followed by last week's ranking. The it's the movie title, the studio, this weekends estimate, the total for the run, the number of weeks in release, and finally the number of screens.

Gangs is probably doing a bit better than it may have appeared it would initially, but given the cost of the film, it can't be what was hoped for.

Chicago, on only a little over 300 screens, takes in over $5 million. Wow!

The Two Towers continues to look as if it will surpass the numbers put up by The Fellowship of the Ring. Very impressive.

The Chamber of Secrets, however, looks like it will fall well short of The Scorcer's Stone.



1 1 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers NL $25,650,000, $261,664,000, 3, 3622

2 2 Catch Me If You Can D'WORKS $21,300,000, $97,600,000, 2, 3170

3 3 Two Weeks Notice WB $11,615,000, $69,299,000, 3, 2755

4 4 Maid In Manhattan SONY $9,000,000, $76,707,000, 4, 3056

5 22 About Schmidt NL $8,750,000, $12,245,000, 4, 816

6 5 Gangs of New York M'MAX $7,400,000, $47,154,882, 3, 2305

7 6 Drumline FOX $5,600,000, $47,836,000, 4, 1653

8 7 The Wild Thornberrys Movie PARA $5,500,000, $31,516,000, 3, 2881

9 13 Chicago M'MAX $5,016,000. $9,292,595, 2, 304

10 8 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets WB $4,545,000, $251,990,000, 8, 2015

11 9 The Hot Chick BV $3,600,000, $29,800,000, 4, 2160

12 10 Die Another Day MGM $3,000,000, $153,823,000, 7, 1808

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Galahad]

What did "The Sorcerer's Stone" make last year?

 

[Bob O]

Im not surpised by the numbers, but had hoped that Gangs would do better. Chicago doesnt surprise me as its a more"up" film/date film and will de better than a film like Gangs which is move violent and does have a built in fan base like Chicago has from its broadway days.

 

[raidermatt]

Galahad-

Scorcerer's Stone grossed $317,557,891 domestically.

Fellowship grossed $313,364,114 domestically.

Internationally, however, HP1 totaled $967.2 million, LotR1 totaled $860.8.

 

[Bob O]

No disney needs to make big budget movies!!!!
Its just needs to do it more intelligently!!!
Or to follow someone's thinking i guess New Line was dumb to make the LOTR movies as was sony to make Spiderman!!! And of course they never should have made the movie Titanic!!!

 

[Luv2Roam]

* Rentrak Corp. (nasdaq: RENT - news - people), the home video distributor and data purveyor, has secured agreements with a 20th Century Fox, Walt Disney Co. (nyse: RENT - news - people) and three specialty studios as it launches a new box office tracking division to handle theatrical clients.
(Reuters)

 

[Bob O]

Disney 's is in peril because they havent followed my thoughts!!!!!!(lol)
Now dscoop you are right about PH and while they havent had great success that is no reason to make only family movies!!!
You need to make different movies for different segments and its not in disney's best interest at all to give the blockbuster type of movies to other studios who can use them to make money and then also to use as attractions for their parks, or have we forgotten about syngergy???
Wouldnt it be nice to see disney have some great movies as vehicles for attractions like Universal has done in a great manner and even paramount is now doing??

 

[CasualObserver]

Bob,

I know you love the blockbuster films and want Disney to do a thrill-ride only park, but the numbers just don't favor you.

I once read that the average family film makes around $90M while the average 'R-rated' film makes around $20-25M.

Let's put it another way...

If you ran a studio and could make 12 films in a year of $25-40M in cost with a target market of families, or you could make 3 films a year with a budget of $100-$160M targeted at the PG-13 and R-rated audience. Where would you bet?

You could say that you would do three blockbusters a year and make sure you picked the right three and did them the right way and then pocket 3-500M each. If you could do that then you would be the svengali of Hollywood. Basically, the odds are against you. Because the average film you are describing makes 20-25M or even 60M then you have lost $90M that year, unless you can do something no one in Hollywood can do...predict what the public wants to see 2-4 years in advance.

The odds are that you would fail and fail miserably by trying to live off making blockbusters. The odds are better that you will succeed by making mid-budget, family-oriented pictures that appeal to a wide audience.

You see, the problem is that a film has such a long lead time, and there exists a special chemistry of story, characters, acting, and storytelling that makes a film appealing. It's much easier to get it wrong than to get it right. The problem with your view is that you seem to believe that it's all very clear and that any idiot could see that something's going to be a hit just by reading a script. It don't work that way.

Therefore, those who say that Disney should do what it does best - mid-budget, family entertainment - are correct. The odds are in their favor.

My person belief is that studios stray from their core talent in order to impress their peers. I believe that's why you get things like Atlantis and Treasure Planet - while artistically beautiful and superbly executed they amount to an animated version of an action movie and leave their core audience behind. So why would a studio make such a move? Just read some of the interviews where directors talk about not wanting any songs (for example) or that they want to make something "edgy". I have news for those directors - kids, their core audience, don't want edgy. They want fun. They want fantasy. They want characters with whom they can relate. The core audience can't relate to Milo or to Jim Hawkins because they aren't angst-ridden or trying to prove themselves to anyone.

Why did DCA fail miserably? Again, they left their core audience. They wanted something "edgy" and without any of the Disney characters. What did they get? A bunch of empty spaces where families should have been.

Basically, when you decide to go into family entertainment you should make a decision that will affect you forever. You must decide that it's alright to not be seen as the coolest guy among your peers in the business. You must decide that if your work is loved by your core audience and that is all, then you have created greatness regardless of whether there is a golden statue for you at the end of the year. Disney only won Oscars for technical achievement. His artistic work was never recognized among his entertainment peers during award times. Yet, somehow, he stayed true to his audience. In "Walt Disney-an American Original", Walt is quoted as wanting to do more "edgy" stuff but that he knew that if he did, his original audience would be lost for him. Today, directors are saying that if they want to be "edgy" then it's the audience's fault for not following along. What rubbish!

Disney, stay true to your core and you will succeed - chase the praise of your peers and you will fail.

 

[Another Voice]

The problem isn’t big budget movies. The problem isn’t small movies. The problem isn’t family movies. The problem isn’t teenage movie.

The problem is that Disney is making really rotten movies these days. Some are huge budget flops (‘Bad Company’) and some are low budget flops (‘The Hot Chick’). Some are family movies (‘Treasure Planet’) and some are adult movies (‘Midnight Mile’).

It’s kind of interesting to note that Disney’s most successful movies this year were the ones that had the least to do with the company’s management: ‘Signs’, ‘Lilo and Stitch’ and ‘The Rookie’. It’s not that Disney didn’t try (the battles over ‘Signs’ are epic and while the changes forced onto the movie hurt it, the other parts were strong enough to pull it off), it’s just that each of these movies were able to made far away from Burbank.

The best movies are made when someone comes up with an idea and says “I really need to make this film!!!!!”. This happened with each of the three movies listed about. The worst movies are made when some suit comes up with the marketing plan first and they just squeeze a movie around it. The reason ‘The Country Bears’ stank was that no one cared about making that film. It was an assignment from the accounting department. Had it been planned as a $13 million small flick, a $40 million mid-range movie or a $120 million summer blockbuster the basic fault with the entire production would still have existed.

Until Disney Studios is run by filmmakers again instead of suits trying to unbury their stock options, it really doesn’t matter what budget of movie Disney make.

 

[Bob O]

I agree with AV. Its the decisions that disney is making, not the fact that movies are big budget!!! It was eisner and his cronies who passed on LOTR and wanted to dumb down the project, so instead we get Bad Company!!! Same as what happened to the Alamo and also the past articles where eisner was micromanaging so much he was chaning scripts/jokes that he didnt like!!! They are too afraid to work with quality people and give them the money/freedom to create qaulity movies!!
You need a mix of movies in different price ranges and not just cheap movies that some families may see a couple of times but are forgotten shortly thereafter!!