[LotR:TTT] Sets record, blah blah blah

[jdavis]

I studied film for 5 years, so I know a little about this. Theaters make most of their money from concessions. The percentage they keep from the actual take fom the film is surprisingly small, almost nil, at least in the first few weeks. The longer a film remains in the theater, the larger the percentage of the take the theater keeps. However, since most films nowadays don't stay long in the theater, one can see that theaters don't make much off them. And you can also see why movie theater food is so expensive, and why they don't want you bringing in your own. Plus, it's also the reason why commercials are now shown in theaters, and why theaters often have arcades or souvenir shops.

So a film like Spiderman which ran forever and a day is actually better for the theater but can cost the studio? And pictures that open up slow and build on word of mouth can also cost a studio? I have a friend who has a degree in film and one with a degree in TV, I guess I should of listened to them ramble on about stuff better.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

So a film like Spiderman which ran forever and a day is actually better for the theater but can cost the studio? And pictures that open up slow and build on word of mouth can also cost a studio? I have a friend who has a degree in film and one with a degree in TV, I guess I should of listened to them ramble on about stuff better.

No, films that run forever don't cost the studio. They get the lion's share of the ticket sales for the first several weeks. They don't count on much beyond that. It ends up being good for both the studio and the the theater. If a film lasts that long, the studio can always strike more prints and send them to other theaters.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

Bah! I hate box office records. Of course the records are broken nearly every year: tickets cost more every year. Big shocker.

I want to see records of tickets sold. That would be meaningful.

boxofficemojo.com keeps records of the biggest fiulms of all time adjusted for the rising costs of ticket prices.

By that standard, the #1 film of all time is still Gone With the Wind.

 

[Welverin]

Bah! I hate box office records. Of course the records are broken nearly every year: tickets cost more every year. Big shocker.

I want to see records of tickets sold. That would be meaningful.

True but the movie industry itself comes up with the numbers and they don't care how many people see a movie only how much money they made, so they won't ever bother.

 

[Hand of Evil]

From what I understand, FELLOWSHIP made almost 890 milion in theaters, not counting DVD and video sales. It cost like 325 million to make all 3 movies. A movie usally has to make twice as what it cost to make to be considered profitable.That means everything else pulled in money wise for new line is profit.

Which is why you may start to see multible movies be made at the same time and released one a year.

 

[Welverin]

Which is why you may start to see multible movies be made at the same time and released one a year.

I rather doubt it. In order for it to work you have to be certain that they will be successful, particularly the first one. If they aren't there will be a lot of money lost and there is just to much money on the line for to become a common practice.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

I rather doubt it. In order for it to work you have to be certain that they will be successful, particularly the first one. If they aren't there will be a lot of money lost and there is just to much money on the line for to become a common practice.

Yeah, but there's almost no such thing as a highly promoted failure nowadays. Look at Tim Burton's dreadful remake of Planet of the Apes. It was horribly bad, was considered a huge failure by almost everyone... but it still made more than $200 million, AFAICR.