Early tracking seems to have been way off on both "Up" and "Drag Me To Hell". I am really surprised that "Drag me to Hell" isn't doing better. I thought with Raimi and the good reviews it would draw better.
The initial number was so much lower on "Up" I half-jokingly wonder if someone at Disney managed to fake out the press with a lowball estimate. I mean, I saw a lot of predictions of $50-$55 million. After the movie opened a lot of those estimates suddenly jumped to $65+ million.
I am not looking forward to the inevitable, pun-heavy box office reports using some variation of "Up Soars at the box office". Ugh.
So, can Pixar sell *anything*? I am a little shocked. This film seemed way under-hyped compared to WALL-E. And old man and a kid fly away in a house? Sure, why not $65 million OW? The midnight showing I went to on Thursday night was 90% full. Almost entirely composed of college kids. I must have been one of the oldest people there. College kids freaking LOVED the film. I was really surprised.
This Pixar streak is unreal. They will go 15 years without releasing a flop. I mean, it will only be 11 films, but still. Eleven films.
The predictions this month have been crazy. It seems very few movies this month are performing as expected. I am glad I don't do this for a living. I would obviously stink at this.
Re: box office estimates - I think the economy really needs to be taken into more serious consideration. The last time I went to the theater was in January to see Rise of the Lycans. People are going to see films they really want to see, and the others, they'll wait to netflix them, like me. People don't have the expendable income to plop down an avg of $13 each weekend. And therefore, the box office will be affected.
For younger, less prosperous movie goers, it is increasing attendance - it is still the cheapest date involving entertainment around, and thus the night out of choice more than ever.
For older audiences, who are now totally used to seeing movies at home, it is a discretionary choice of spending money that is easily expendable.
Up is likely to end up way over expectations, and 1st weekend better than WALL-E. Clearly WOM is very good, and the 3-D clearly helped as well.
Departures is very mediocre (only $8000/screen in excellent theatres). It looks like it will possibly be the lowest grossing FL winner in modern history. The award has become so debased that it has little impact.
'Up' flies high at weekend box office Pixar toon nabs an estimated $68.2 million By DAVE MCNARYDisney/Pixar's "Up" flew high over rivals to dominate the domestic weekend box office with an estimated $68.2 million at 3,766 playdates. The "Up" launch marked the third biggest Pixar opening weekend after "The Incredibles" with $70.5 million and "Finding Nemo" with $70.3 million. The Mouse House reported 31% of the audience consisted of moppets, aged 2 to 11 -- allaying concerns that a pic starring a grouchy old man would present difficulties attracting kids.
"Up," buoyed by a massive promo push and laudatory notices, posted a stellar $18,110 per location average. It scored a 98% rating on the Rotten Tomatoes review site and an A plus on Cinemascore.
"Up" also received an extra lift at the box office from a record 1,530 3-D venues. Disney domestic distribution topper Chuck Viane said the 3D sites generated an average for "Up" -- Pixar's first 3D pic -- that was 2.2 times that of conventional locations.
"If there was any issue, it was that there were not enough 3D seats but that usually meant that people then went to a regular screen," Viane noted.
The frame's only other wide opener, Universal's horror entry "Drag Me to Hell," scared up $16.6 million at 2,508 as a counterprogrammer to up and Fox's second frame of "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonsian." That was below outside forecasts but in line with studio expectations, according to U distribution chief Nikki Rocco, who asserted that "Drag Me to Hell" should benefit in coming weeks from its positive reviews.
"Drag Me," marking director Sam Raimi's return to his horror roots, drew mostly from the under-25 demo and skewed slightly female.
The frame saw family films dominate as "Battle of the Smithsonian" sequel showed decent holding power, declining 52% for the three days to $25.5 million at 4,101 for a 10-day cume of $105.3 million. Fox senior VP Chris Aronson said the "Smithsonian" hold against competition from "Up" indicates that the marketplace expanded to accomodate both pics.
The sequel's already grossed 42% of the final $251 million domestic total for the original "Night at the Museum."
Warner Bros.' second frame of "Terminator Salvation" found traction elusive as it fell 62% to $16.1 million at 3,602. The fourth version of the franchise has cumed $90.7 million domestically in 11 days.
"T4" may have seen some of its potential audience opt for Paramount's "Star Trek," which remained a solid performer in its fourth frame with $12.8 million at 3,507. "Trek" has cumed $209.5 million, becoming the year's first title to cross the double century mark.
Sony's third weekend of "Angels and Demons" declined 48% to $11.2 million at 3,464. "Angels," which is performing far better outside the United States, has taken in $104.8 million in 17 days.
"Smithsonian" and "Angels" became the eighth and ninth pics to crack the $100 million mark at the domestic box office this weekend.
On the specialty front, Regent Releasing's launch of "Departures" scored $72,701 at nine screens, three months after winning the foreign language Oscar.
I am really hoping that all the success of Star Trek means we will get a decent sequel out of it.
Someone took me to see Up in 3D today since I was curious about it. I really don't think it is worth the extra cost. There is some nice added depth to the scenes, but I don't think it is worth the distortion of the color palette.
The theatre I saw it in has their 3D showings sold out until at least 7pm tonight. Of course, school is out here, so it isn't a school night.
Pixar is just incredible. There's no other studio that can sell a movie on their STUDIO NAME alone. I've noticed their past few films they haven't even bothered to get big name talent as voices. They haven't had big stars since Cars with Owen Wilson, Bonnie Hunt, and Paul Newman. Cause they've realized....they just don't need it. Bravo.
Grammy FYC: Kanye West, 808s & Heartbreak; Black Eyed Peas, The E.N.D.; John Legend, Evolver; Paolo Nutini, Sunny Side Up; David Guetta, One Love; Kelly Clarkson, "Already Gone"; Jordin Sparks, "Battlefield"; Kings Of Leon, "Use Somebody"; Maxwell, "Pretty Wings"
To think, George Lucas sold this company, Pixar, essentially because he couldn't figure out what to do with them. He had them developing software. LOL.
Pixar's opening weekends have become the equivalent of sequels to a blockbuster. Except, people are just turning out for original movies on Pixar's name alone, apparently completely regardless of subject matter. I can't even imagine what is going to happen next year when they really ARE opening a sequel to a blockbuster.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: LadyHathor25,
The actuals for the weekend showed Term 4 ended up 3rd, a little over $16 million, while Drag Me was 4th, at 15.8. This happens sometimes - the figures released on Sunday AM are only guesses.
I have a somewhat wonky question. I don't know if anyone here can answer, and I am mostly asking out of sheer curiosity.
These Pixar films are now costing around, what, $180 million or so to make? So, throwing in the large cost of marketing, these films need to gross a whole lot before they start making money, right?
What I am wondering is this: Isn't part of the high cost of production on these films the fact that Pixar often has to develop new technology to make them? Software programs, and such? Does anyone know if Pixar sells or licenses all these technology advancements? (This is kind of what they were doing for George Lucas, right?) Could this at all offset some of the huge cost in production?
I guess I am just wondering how much Pixar (er, Disney, I guess) actually makes on these films since they cost so much. I would guess that Pixar films sell well on DVD, though?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: LadyHathor25,
They are huge DVD sellers, yes; there are marketing offshoots and the asset to the overall Disney name; their library value otherwise is huge.
But what they gain from their patents and licensing, I'm not sure.
Because of their presold value, the US/Canada film rental retention for Disney is higher than average (at least 55%), so that helps as well. I am less well versed in foreign rental, but I'd assume it's higher than average as well.
Hmm, thanks. That is a bit helpful. It just kind of blows my mind that Pixar spends upwards of $160 million on an 83 minute animated film. Disney must have easily spent $100 million on marketing for this. I read a quote where they said they spent even more on marketing than usual because of the Cannes selection. I mean, yikes. These are expensive films.
Their marketing is considerably less than $100 million. Not even close. As a pre-sold film because of Disney and Pixar, their tie ins with ABC (which they own) and the Disney Channel, with advertising on outlets that can target to children which are less expensive than prime time, they get a lot of bang for their buck.
They indeed, as all studios do who have a Cannes opening, spend some millions on that. But they got far much more back in free exposure around the world, particularly in Europe.
From what I can tell, Up and Hangover will both be strong, fighting for first; Land of the Lost could be in a fight with Night at the Museum 2 for third, which would be subpar for Will Ferrall.
I see people predicting $35-$40+ million for Up. I doubt The Hangover could open that high. So, how much is Universal going to lose on Land of the Lost?
Seanflynn, you are so right about all the tie-ins with ABC and Disney Channel that Pixar films have. And I didn't even think about advertising during childrens programming being less expensive than primetime. Thanks!
This message has been edited. Last edited by: LadyHathor25,
The Up figures are the reasonable estimates. But if it is at the lowend, and Hangover really pops and has good WOM, it could come close, although certainly the likeliest guess is that Up will be #1 again
Early reports indicate that Hangover is very big, likely will outgross Up for today, both films could be in the $35-40 million range for the weekend, a possible tight battle for #1.
The Friday night estimates can be off this early (although most grosses for the day have been reported) - but clearly Hangover is as big as I expected it to be.
