Market's View of Van Helsing

[buzzard]

Now we all know that popularity doesn't necessarily mean quality. However the converse is also not true.

Van Helsing, so far has made $114.5 million in 5 weeks- not a whole lot for a summer action flick. Does anyone know how much the studio spent on it?

I suppose some perspective would be in order.

Shrek 2 has made $313.6 million n 3 weeks.

Harry Potter has made $92.6 million in one week.

I rather don't expect a sequel.

buzzard

 

[Mog Elffoe]

According to Box Office Mojo it cost in the neighborhood of $160m, and marketing was around $50m.

I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel. I liked the concept of the movie.

 

[Kai Lord]

Its made 252.6 million worldwide, with millions more from DVD sales and rentals on the way. There'll be a sequel.

 

[Sirius_Black]

Its made 252.6 million worldwide, with millions more from DVD sales and rentals on the way. There'll be a sequel.

If there can be an Underworld sequel, even if it cost less than VH, there will definitely be a VH sequel.

 

[reapersaurus]

$160 million is only in make-believe dollars.

Studios manufacture costs to inflate a movie's budget so they don't have to pay out as many profit-sharing $.

It made WAY more than it cost to make, and the $ will still be rolling in for awhile.

 

[deeFYnt]

Yeah, but Harry Potter and shrek 2 are two of the biggest grossing movies!

Kris.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I think Hollywood is starting to price themselves out of any profit from the big screen. $160 to make plus another $50 to market! That is average this year, I have heard 10 movies out this summer cost much. Movies don't last more than five weeks on the big sceen anymore, that means a movie will have to average $40 a week just to break even!

While worldwide sells help the studios are depending too much on DVD sells, the big screen just becomes another advertising tool and a risk! Soon you will see more and more movies go to direct sells. Also expect to see ticket price increase to cover cost!

Bit of history: Waterworld (1995) was the first movie to cost over $100 million and another $50 for marketing and look what happened there!

 

[Plane Sailing]

FWIW I found the werewolf in Harry Potter 3 to be much more scary and menacing than the ones in Van Helsing!

 

[barsoomcore]

Whatever the truth about movie budgets and their relationship to the numbers actually released, it's definitely true that Van Helsing has underperformed to expectations. It's not doing as well as The Mummy did over the same time span, or The Mummy Returns, Sommers' last two pictures.

Now those were both runaway smash hits, so I don't think anyone's taking a bath on VH, but it's definitely not the hit it was supposed to be.

There will probably be a sequel, but expectations (and investment) will probably be toned down for number two.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Here is a interesting chart...http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/filmnotes/costs-movies.html
Top 10 Recent Movies by World Gross Income
TITLE - TOTAL GROSS - U.S. GROSS - COST
1. Titanic (1997) 1,834,779,000 - 600,779,000 - 200,000,000
2. Jurassic Park (1993) 920,100,100 - 357,100,000 - 63,000,000
3. Independence Day (1996) 797,924,000 - 306,124,000 - 75,000,000
4. Star Wars (1977/1997) 783,700,000 - 461,000,000 - 11,000,000
5. Lion King (1994) 766,900,000 - 312,900,000 - 66,500,000
6. E.T. (1982) 701,400,000 - 399,800,00 - 10,000,000
7. Forrest Gump (1994) 673,800,000 - 329,000,000 - 55,000,000
8. Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) 611,074,000 - 229,074,000 - 73,000,000
9. Men In Black (1997) 576,747,000 - 250,100,000 - 90,000,000
10. Return of the Jedi (1983/1997) 572,900,000 - 309,100,000 -32,500,000