2013's box office dropping massively from 2012

2

Comments

  • Fowl FaxFowl Fax Posts: 3,968
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Some movie budgets are completely bonkers.

    Pirates of the Caribbean At World's End $300 million, to me someone was clearly not doing their job properly for it to end up costing that much. I know the film was a success at the box office but $300 million for that movie seems way over the top!

    And $250 million for John Carter! Someone obviously got rich in the making of that but it clearly wasn't the movie studio.
  • AdsAds Posts: 37,037
    Forum Member
    The New Oz film has had a good opening weekend in America http://movies.yahoo.com/news/box-office-report-oz-opens-80-3-mil-050000115.html
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member

    Unless it truly honks, I think Pacifc Rim will do just fine. It should satisfy the audience who need to see giant robots doing their thing. This time scuffling with giant monsters rather than each other. Variety, see.

    btw - there was a good article in the Sunday Times a few months back about certain big-budget productions spiralling out of control. This year we finally get to see them. Main offenders were The Lone Ranger, World War Z, and Keanu Reeves' 47 Ronin. All were in a state of chaos and going way over budget and schedule, with $250m - 300m being a conservative estimate for each. 2013 may prove a pretty nervous time for some studios

    Pacific Rim has an estimated budget of $200-250m. I'm not sure Guillermo del Toro has that kind of pull, but as I said I'd like for it to be successful and prove me wrong.
  • Dr. LinusDr. Linus Posts: 6,445
    Forum Member
    Fowl Fax wrote: »
    Some movie budgets are completely bonkers.

    Pirates of the Caribbean At World's End $300 million, to me someone was clearly not doing their job properly for it to end up costing that much. I know the film was a success at the box office but $300 million for that movie seems way over the top!

    And $250 million for John Carter! Someone obviously got rich in the making of that but it clearly wasn't the movie studio.

    This is getting to be a really big problem, actually. Even though box office is at its highest ever, budgets are spiralling out of control so a lot of well-grossing films still aren't getting much of a return unless they completely blow the box office away.

    For example, Rise of the Guardians has made something like $350 million worldwide, but has apparently lost so much money that almost a hundred animators have been laid off. How on earth does a kids' movie that's made a third of a billion dollars lose that much money? Then I read that its budget was something inconceivably huge like $300m once marketing's taken into account, and as studios take between 50-75% of the gross, it would have to have made over $400m to even break even!

    It's just stupid. Many big hits like Iron Man, Hunger Games and Life of Pi show that it's easy to make a successful film without just haemorrhaging money.

    Jack the Giant Slayer looks to be the ultimate example. It's starting to look like it might struggle to pass $100m worldwide, and it had a budget (marketing included) of well over $300m. So it's going to lose hundreds of millions on that, because the studio took such a ridiculous gamble by hurling money at it for CGI instead of focussing on making an appealing movie.
  • Fowl FaxFowl Fax Posts: 3,968
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The visual effects studio that worked on Life of Pi went bankrupt.
  • XIVXIV Posts: 21,495
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dr. Linus wrote: »
    For example, Rise of the Guardians has made something like $350 million worldwide, but has apparently lost so much money that almost a hundred animators have been laid off. How on earth does a kids' movie that's made a third of a billion dollars lose that much money? Then I read that its budget was something inconceivably huge like $300m once marketing's taken into account, and as studios take between 50-75% of the gross, it would have to have made over $400m to even break even!

    It's just stupid. Many big hits like Iron Man, Hunger Games and Life of Pi show that it's easy to make a successful film without just haemorrhaging money.

    Disney, Pixar and Dreamworks have the highest animated film budgets, for Pixar, they're lucky they've not had a flop, even Cars 2 was successful not only as a film but as a revenue generator for merchandise and Cars land in Disneyland,

    Dreamworks Animation is independent meaning they have to have films be successful in order for them to survive and act a revenue generators but Guardians flopping hurt them even though Madagascar 3 was a huge hit. Other studios like Fox, Sony an Universal all have had successful films last year made on less than $100m budgets so DWA and to an extent Disney need to look at cutting costs,
  • Dr. LinusDr. Linus Posts: 6,445
    Forum Member
    Fowl Fax wrote: »
    The visual effects studio that worked on Life of Pi went bankrupt.

    As far as I know, that wasn't anything to do with the film itself - they just didn't get the work afterwards. Very sad though.
  • PES 2009PES 2009 Posts: 1,146
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think 2013 is going to turn out to be a very big year for movies.

    Might not get massive individual blockbuster takings like Avengers, Batman, Hobbit and Skyfall but there are going be be lots of releases that are going to make huge money.

    Fast and Furious 6, Kick Ass 2, Iron Man 3, Star Trek 2, Man of Steel, Despicable Me 2, Lone Ranger, The Wolverine, 300 Rise of An Empire, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2, Sin City A Dame to Kill For, Thor The Dark Worlds, The Hunger Games Catching Fire.
  • logansdadlogansdad Posts: 1,068
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Never mind the quality of the films, i feel the quality of the cinema going experience leaves a lot to be desired these days.
  • MotthusMotthus Posts: 7,280
    Forum Member
    It's way too early to say that 2013 won't be as big box office as 2012!

    PES 2009 was good in bringing up Thor The Dark World which is a big Marvel film that is being released in October.This film I would have thought as a summer blockbuster but Marvel have deceided to release it at the end of year so we will have two big Marvel films this year which will help the box office taking!
  • KarisKaris Posts: 6,380
    Forum Member
    logansdad wrote: »
    Never mind the quality of the films, i feel the quality of the cinema going experience leaves a lot to be desired these days.

    Agreed. I hate it. There was a woman on her mobile for about a half hour through Wreck it Ralph and I was too far away to say anything and not a single person around her said or did anything...

    And people think that's OK!
  • Ancient IDTVAncient IDTV Posts: 10,128
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Personally, I've had it with cinemas. There's too much expense and effort involved now. I used to go to see films twice a week every week back in the late '80s and through the '90s, and used to really enjoy it, but now it seems like a chore.

    I went to see Skyfall at my local Odeon, and that was mostly ruined by a group of disabled people who made a lot of noise throughout the film. It isn't worth the bother. It's much less expensive and more convenient to watch these films at home, and they aren't going to spoiled by other people (whether they can help it or not. Skyfall isn't the only film I've seen at the cinema that was ruined by other noisy viewers)..
  • YuffieYuffie Posts: 9,864
    Forum Member
    So how was 2013 for everyone compared with what you though 10-ish months ago?

    Highest grossing movies of 2013 (Top 10):

    $1.2B - Iron Man 3
    $916M - Despicable Me 2
    $788M - Fast & Furious 6
    $743M - Monsters University
    $662M - Man of Steel
    $587M - The Croods
    $577M - Gravity
    $550M - Thor: The Dark World
    $540M - World War Z
    $493M - Oz The Great & Powerful


    I find this list quite surprising. Bearing in mind that Catching Fire and The Desolation of Smaug will probably take 2nd and 3rd place, theres a lot on that list I would never have guessed. More so the animated films.
    Despicable Me 2 been the second highest grossing film of the year so far, thats crazy. I haven't seen it so I can't comment on if it deserves it or not.
    A lot of people gave out about Man of Steel but it did all right despite all the criticism.
    Not much of a surprise with Iron Man 3.
    Everyone has been raving about Gravity, again I haven't seen it but its done well for iyself.

    I can't find worldwide box office takings for 2012 vs 2013 but heres domestic:

    2002 - $10,836.6
    2013 - $9,594.9

    I reckon by the end of December, it'll be very close.

    What do you guys think ?
  • DizzleDizzle Posts: 723
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Despicable Me earning more than Monsters University. What a sad year for animation.
  • CLL DodgeCLL Dodge Posts: 115,635
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Hollywood should have another record-breaking year at the box office, but it’s going to take a Thanksgiving bounty, a healthy Hobbit and a very merry Christmas to pull it off.

    Currently, the overall domestic box office is at $9.31 billion. That’s down roughly 1 percent from last year, which was at $9.39 billion at this point.

    http://www.thewrap.com/will-2013-box-office-break-2012-record-holiday-movies-hobbit-hunger-games-catching-fire
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    Sneer at Despicable Me 2 all you want, it's Universal's most profitable film. EVER.
  • Callum_BrownCallum_Brown Posts: 745
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    People are living in the past if they think Pixar is still in its prime. Monsters University was a colossal disappointment - whereas Despicable Me 2 was the complete opposite. It deserves all the money it's got IMO. If I remember rightly, it didn't end its cinema run until late September at least.
  • ClackersClackers Posts: 628
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I am of the opinion that Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug will topple Iron man 3 as the #1 movie of the year, and actually earn more money than any of the LOTR movies did in the process.

    Desolation of Smaug is essentially what An Unexpected Journey should have been, but AUJ was a little too slow-paced, and had slightly poor word of mouth, not to mention the HFR issues.

    DOS will have no such problems. It's a much shorter running time with much less SFX shots, and a much more darker tone, AND introducing the titular dragon, who will be the greatest movie character of the decade.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    Clackers wrote: »
    I am of the opinion that Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug will topple Iron man 3 as the #1 movie of the year, and actually earn more money than any of the LOTR movies did in the process.

    Desolation of Smaug is essentially what An Unexpected Journey should have been, but AUJ was a little too slow-paced, and had slightly poor word of mouth, not to mention the HFR issues.

    DOS will have no such problems. It's a much shorter running time with much less SFX shots, and a much more darker tone, AND introducing the titular dragon, who will be the greatest movie character of the decade.
    Most of DoS's gross will be in 2014, assuming it takes a similar date to AUJ.

    I appreciate your optimism, but the information I have says 2 hours 41 minutes, which is still ridiculous. The SFX, light tone and lack of dragon weren't in the list of flaws I heard the first film had. (Not seen it yet, but I'm getting it for Christmas) and how will they have fixed the HFR issues? The whole film was shot back to back like that...

    Not to mentioned the fact it may already be too late. Lots of people were disappointed with the first film, and may not go back to see the second. Never mind the third...
  • RebelScumRebelScum Posts: 16,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Fowl Fax wrote: »
    Some movie budgets are completely bonkers.

    Pirates of the Caribbean At World's End $300 million, to me someone was clearly not doing their job properly for it to end up costing that much. I know the film was a success at the box office but $300 million for that movie seems way over the top!

    And $250 million for John Carter! Someone obviously got rich in the making of that but it clearly wasn't the movie studio.

    These movies were part of a tax avoidance scheme.
  • YuffieYuffie Posts: 9,864
    Forum Member
    Most of DoS's gross will be in 2014, assuming it takes a similar date to AUJ.

    I appreciate your optimism, but the information I have says 2 hours 41 minutes, which is still ridiculous. The SFX, light tone and lack of dragon weren't in the list of flaws I heard the first film had. (Not seen it yet, but I'm getting it for Christmas) and how will they have fixed the HFR issues? The whole film was shot back to back like that...

    Not to mentioned the fact it may already be too late. Lots of people were disappointed with the first film, and may not go back to see the second. Never mind the third...

    I agree with you but I dont think everyone will be put off by that. I would compare peoples reaction tofAUJ to Man of Steel but it still pulled in over the billion. While I dont think it will overtake Iron Man, I think DoS will hit the billion too.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    Yuffie wrote: »
    I agree with you but I dont think everyone will be put off by that. I would compare peoples reaction tofAUJ to Man of Steel but it still pulled in over the billion. While I dont think it will overtake Iron Man, I think DoS will hit the billion too.

    I think it will do well, but I don't think it'll do Iron Man 3 or Avatar numbers. I wonder if the length might cause people to wait for a DVD release?

    I think The Hobbit has already recovered all of it's budget so I doubt Warner will be annoyed.
  • NeonopticNeonoptic Posts: 583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Sneer at Despicable Me 2 all you want, it's Universal's most profitable film. EVER.

    Second most.... Jurassic Park has grossed $1.029bn
  • performingmonkperformingmonk Posts: 20,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    People are living in the past if they think Pixar is still in its prime. Monsters University was a colossal disappointment - whereas Despicable Me 2 was the complete opposite. It deserves all the money it's got IMO. If I remember rightly, it didn't end its cinema run until late September at least.

    I didn't find it disappointing at all. How good was anyone expecting it to be?? A prequel set in their university days? It could have been way way worse. I enjoyed it a lot more than Brave and Cars 2.
  • Cracker_CakeCracker_Cake Posts: 1,478
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dizzle wrote: »
    Despicable Me earning more than Monsters University. What a sad year for animation.

    Nothing sad about it at all, many enjoyed Despicable Me 2 more.
Sign In or Register to comment.