Except marketing did not cost anything near 15 million and the movie cost 12,5 million to make, not 15. Please get your facts straight before starting a topic saying it's a flop based on its box office.
Noone expected it to make 15 mil first weekend so the numbers are in tune with what was expected. and it WILL break even, who are you trying to fool?
Not to mention it's making a lot of money on the soundtrack as well.
5,000 screen average is good for a movie like this. This isn't a tentpole nor an expected money maker. It's a movie that cost little to produce and will end up bringing in it's double.
Oh no? That is amusing.
Maybe you should get your facts straight, genius.
1. I did not start this topic. get that straight.
2. The domestic prints alone cost $3 million.
3. The marketing most certainly cost between 10 million and 15 million.
4. the movie cost *15* million to make, not 12.5, one source claims 12.5, all the others know, like most movies in Hollywood, it is more. when you combine its domestic P&A with its international P&A, the total P&A costs for the film, if it opens internationally in small to medium release, will be between $15 and 20 million total. prints alone for a 1400 screen domestic release, and 1000 international release screens will be approximately $5 million alone. factor in domestic ad campaigns and whatever they do overseas, and you have 10-15 million.
as i said...P&A for this film, will be 15-20 million for this film, provided that they give it a similar rollout internationally (which they may not do...but if they do not, then it will make virtually nothing overseas)
5. I don't care what anyone expected it to make on its opening weekend...tracking was indicating it was coming in at 9 million...now, it looks to be coming 20% below that. so while nobody was expecting 15, they were expecting 9...and are getting around 7.5
6. Why do i need to try and "fool" anyone..especially a fool like you? I have been involved in the intricacies of film finance for the better part of 15 years...if this film does not make 20 million domestically, it will not, in fact, break even.
You do realize that the studios, do *NOT* get to just keep all monies, right? You do realize that the studio only sees half the box office gross return to its coffers, right? You do realize the studio has to pay taxes, right?
7. it is not making a "a lot of money" on the soundtrack, you bimbo.
A. First of all, the artists on the soundtrack receive these things called *ROYALTIES*. Which bites in to the profits, which, on minor soundtracks, are small.
B. the soundtrack was released back on OCTOBER 26th...and it has not performed impressively at all, so stop whining.
the two singles from the film "Country Strong" and "Give in to Me" did not go higher than 35th and 60th on the country charts.
the album's peak position was 73rd on US Billboard 200, 16th on the Country Billboard, and 5th on the soundtrack billboard.
They will be lucky if this soundtrack comes anywhere close to selling 250,000 units...the profits of which, after royalties, would be nominal...roughly $1 million dollars...and of course, those do not all go to the film, since the soundtrack was released by RCA Nashville, not by Screen Gems.
8. 5,000 screen average is not "good" it is merely decent. Whether it is a tentpole or a moneymaker or not, has no relevance...all that matters is that the film either A. Gets good reviews, and/or B. Makes money.
This film has already failed critically and there is not a single guarantee it makes money.
8. A movie that cost "little to produce" and will end up "Bringing in its double"? LOL...i see, so, what you are saying, is, that it is going to make double what it cost?
That is interesting...how are you factoring that?
its *TOTAL* negative cost? which is around 30 million?
its production cost, which is 15 million?
its production cost plus its prints (18 million)?
so, according to you, it will "bring in its double"?
Fine, what is "it's double" to produce? it is 30 million...without all those other pesky costs like prints and advertising, which, of course, do not exist in your world.
so you claim it will be bringing in 30 million...fine, that's your take? Bringing in 30 million at the box office, or will that be the studios take?
because if it only grosses 30 million, the studio only receives about 16-17 million.
expand on that please. I'd really like to hear where you think that $30 million is going to come from, since it is going to be lucky to cross 20 million domestically, and will be released in very small numbers overseas.
so, if the film makes 30, at the box office somehow, worldwide, that still only brings in 16-17 to the studio (pretax of course) which still does not put the film into the black, since its production and print cost alone domestically is 17-18 million.
if it hopes to pull in money overseas, it will have to pay the cost for more prints...if it opens on 1000 overseas screens, that is another $2 million. If it hopes to make more overseas, it will have to advertise, and it will likely not spend nearly as much as it did here...it will still have to spend another $2 million (if they even think it is worth it, considering the dim overseas prospects)
so, before adding in the overseas markets, which you have already claimed will be part of its 30 million "double", the film will still be in the red $10-$12 million, because of its P&A domestically. So, if it wants that overseas money that you have already factored in, they'll have to spend that $4 million i spoke of to publicize it overseas, where neither Country music nor Gwyneth Paltrow combined are even remotely interesting to the populations.
if they even bother to spend that much internationally, they will $14-$16 million in the red when the film hits the ancillary markets in a few months...and, considering how small a film, and how poorly it has been reviewed, it will not be making much in the ancillary markets.
so, if the film does not do much business overseas, there is no chance in hell it does 30 million at the box office overall...since it is going to be lucky to hit 20 here in the USA...
or are you saying this film is going to make 30 million in the USA alone? Now *THAT* would be funny.
The Social Network, which was one of the most highly rated films of the year, only grosses 3.1 times its opening weekend, with amazing reviews.
9. Learn a little something before you start squawking.
this film is poorly reviewed, and will be very lucky to break even when all is said and done.
there is a reason they dumped it at this time of the year.
10. You say its screen average is "good for a film like this".
What type of film is that? a lower budget film with an oscar winner or nominee in it?
hahahaha...laughable.
let's look at other films that *REALLY* have good screen averages at this production cost level this year alone:
----
The King's Speech (15 million production cost) tremendous reviews,high screen averages.)
wk-thtrs--scr/avg
1---4-----$88,863
2---6-----$54,086
3---19----$31,148
4---43----$25,515
5---700---$6,406
6---700---$11,108
domestic box office to date:
----
Black Swan (13 million production cost) tremendous reviews, high screen averages
wk-thtrs--scr/avg
1---18----$80,012
2---90----$36,726
3---959---$8,742
4---1466--$4,267
5---1553--$5,719
domestic box office to date: $47.8 million (through Jan 2)
---
THOSE are examples of good screen averages for a film that size, *ESPECIALLY* in their expansion. They are critically acclaimed as well, unlike this smelly bomb
both of those films saw their screen averages go up in the weekends after their major expansions...that won't be happening with Country Strong.
and country strong only managed averages of $15,226 and $20,753 respectively in its first two weekends...nowhere near the averages of Black Swan and The Kings Speech
11. When a film is universally panned, and it does not break even, it is a *FLOP*. Even if a film turns a profit, even a small one, if it stinks, it is still a flop.
but keep right on praying for this stinker to magically become a hit.
reply
share