(LOTR) American filmgoers and LOTR

[Lothaire]

By the way, I ran across a figure that stated that FOTR needed to make $225 million just to break even.
Considering FOTR cost $93 million to make, I wonder where that extra $132 million came from??

I suppose that if FOTR needed $225 million to break even, then TTT will need $225 million, and ROTK will need $225 million.
Or, $675 million, just to break even.

Now, FOTR has already grossed $587 million, so if my scenario (worst case? I don't know how it works in films, folks!) is true, then FOTR has already almost paid for the entire trilogy.

But I must wonder where $132 million came from.
That's a lot of money, to come out of the blue like that, even considering the cost of films nowadays.

Well, FOTR grossed 587 Million. Which means that was how much was taken in. Part of that goes to the theaters. I'm not sure how much, but I figure they get a decent cut. Then you have to pay for marketing, and all sorts of other things.

I'm not sure just how accurate those numbers are, but I'm sure that there is a disparity between the amount the movies need to break even and their cost.

 

[Lothaire]

And I just thought I would add that I did not go to see FOTR more than once.

Why you ask?

Simple, I never see any movie more than once in the theaters. In the past I would rarely go to the movies in the first place, now that I have more free time on my hands I have been going more frequently.

I prefer to wait for movies to come out on DVD so I can watch them at my leisure, pausing, rewinding, and fast fowarding, stoping and zooming in on frames. Plus there are the directors commentaries and out goodies that I like to browse through. If I want a really in depth experiance, I will read the book the movie is based on (So many great movies are based on books.)

 

[drothgery]

Re: Super Bowl?

Yeah, but "highest-rated" doesn't mean people are _watching_ it. It means TVs are tuned to that channel. A fairly high amount of those TVs are in locales where 'Super Bowl Parties' are occurring, and--while it may be different outside my geographic area--and while I realize that American 'football' has its rabid fans--my experience with these parties (I typically attend--or, rather, shuttle between--2-3 per year.) is that the game is on, but serves primarily as background noise for the party. Ratings numbers can often be misleading.

Maybe, but the 2000 Super Bowl (the most recent I could find numbers on quickly) pulled a 43 rating and a 61 share, meaning about 43% of households were watching it, and 61% of TVs that were on were watching the game. Certainly I've watched some or all of every Super Bowl since I was in high school, though I must admit that only watched the whole game when the Pack played or the game was extradoniarily good.

Now, major sporting events aren't directly comprable to movies, as the only ways to see them are to go to the game in person (out of the price range of most people, who don't live where the game is being played, and couldn't afford tickets even if they did) or to watch on TV, which is advertising-supported.

Movies you either see in a theater for ~$10/person (figuring $3 on snacks) or you rent a video/DVD for ~$2/person (figuring a $4 rental, two people watching the move), so they're much cheaper than going to a major sporting event, and much more expensive than watching one on TV.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Movie theaters make their money on concessions - popcorn, pop, candy.

They do make some money off the films, but their share of the take increases the longer a film is in the theater. The problem is, attendance drops dramatically on most films after the first week or so, meaning the profit margin is slim. So, in order to fill the theaters, and therefore increase the business at the concession stands, films that are not even a month old are shoved aside for ones that are premiering.

 

[Altalazar]

Some people prefer to wait til video.

Some people just are too busy. I can't even keep track of all the cool movies I wanted to see but missed the chance to do so.

The good thing about LOTR is it will likely stick around a while. Of course, I also bought advance tickets and saw it quite early. But then that's just me.

What is really interesting is to look at movie statistics now as compared to the 1940s. If you want to know what year the largest number of people went to the movies, not only as a percentage of the population, but in raw numbers as well, here it is: 1947. Of course, the reason for that is television.

 

[Ravellion]

There was a time when people flocked in droves to see blockbuster films, and large numbers went to see even the so-called average film.

Not anymore.

The Netherlands had very low cinema attendance in the '90s, but suddenly started getting in people in droves around '98. It probably is a fashion phenomenon.

Rav

 

[Ravellion]

Having seen movies overseas, it is amazing to see that some places actually have a great theatre atmosphere. At home I don't have to tell the people around me to be quiet, and popcorn is much cheaper.

I know certain theatres in Amsterdam (such as the calypso) who have an almost "stage-theatre-evening-out" feel, with the decor having red carpets, gold coloured adornments etc. Horns blowing when the curtains slide open to reveal the screen.

Really makes you feel like you went somewhere.

I mostly go to an american style theatre though. Cupholders are good.

Rav

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Hmmm ...

First I hear there will be no Director's Cut DVD, for FOTR, but an extra 40 minutes of footage will be included in outtakes.

Then I hear there will be a Director's Cut DVD that is 4 1/2 hours long.

Then I hear there will be a Director's Cut DVD that is just over 4 hours long.

Now, PJ says there will be a Director's Cut DVD, that is 3 hours and 30 minutes long.
In addition to the DVD without any extra footage to be released 2 months earlier.

This DVD is all over the place.

 

[Markus]

By the way, I ran across a figure that stated that FOTR needed to make $225 million just to break even.
Considering FOTR cost $93 million to make, I wonder where that extra $132 million came from??

I suppose that if FOTR needed $225 million to break even, then TTT will need $225 million, and ROTK will need $225 million.
Or, $675 million, just to break even.

My understanding was that the the series needed $225 million to break even, not each movie.

I also hear filming for the second is almost complete and the third should be done by the time the second hits the theaters.

Markus

 

[Umbran]

Heh.

1 out of 10 Americans who could have gone, did.

I say, 10 out of 10 Americans who could have gone, should have gone!

Actually, there's two points -

First, the dang thing is still in the theatres, and is expected to be out until after the Oscars in March! And you're talking about it in the past tense!

Second, to be honest, you'd have a crowd problem if everyone went to see it. When Harry Potter first came out, CNN mentioned that there are some 7,000 movie theatres in the US, with a total of some 40,000 screens. Let's say a full quarter of the screens in the country are showing the movie. For 200 million people to see it, you'd need each screen to service 20,000 people! Your local multiplex might need to get... a hundred thousand people through? Think about the traffic, man! Think about the lines!