Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Speed Racer: Big or Bust?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Speed Racer: Big or Bust? (Page 7)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Author

Topic: Speed Racer: Big or Bust?

Bill Gabel
Film God

Posts: 3873
From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 05-19-2008 06:53 AM

Well here's the studio estimate for the weekend for "Speed Racer".
It came in at fourth place at $7,645,000 on 3606 screens (no change in screens) for an average of $2120. So that makes for about a -58.8% drop since last weeks opening. For a total of $29,812,000. [Eek!]

"Iron Man" came in second place for a $31,200,000 on 4154 screens. (added 43 more screens this week) It had an average of $7510. The drop was -39.1% from last weeks total. For a total of $222,485,000 [thumbsup]

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 05-19-2008 11:05 AM

My prediction of a 60% drop was pretty close. Surprised it didn't lose any screens.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 05-19-2008 11:17 AM

It'll lose screens this week. Probably didn't lose any last week because all screens were locked up on 2 week guarantees.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-19-2008 03:41 PM

I'm tempted to start a similar post called "The Incredible Hulk: Big or Bust?"

...because it looks like a disaster to me.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan M. Crist
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 531
From: Hershey, PA, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 05-19-2008 06:00 PM

I have said for the past several months now that since a good majority of this summer's fare was nothing more than regurgitated old TV shows (Speed Racer, Incredible Hulk, Get Smart, Sex & The City, X-Files)that we were in serious trouble. In today's economy no one can afford to spend money to view what they can get get for free.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 05-19-2008 07:15 PM

quote: Jonathan M. Crist
In today's economy no one can afford to spend money to view what they can get get for free.

The lack of business for certain films has nothing to do with the economy. Going to the movies is a VERY cheap form of entertainment (compared to clubbing, drinking, sporting events, weekend vacations, etc). Statistics show that the movie business is normally strong in economic downturns because of this very reason.

If any of these titles don't perform well it won't be due to the fact that people don't want to spend money on something they can see for free. It will be due to the fact that they don't want to see it (pay or free). I didn't go see speed racer because it looked retarded not because I could find the cartoon on TV. You can't see any new "Sex and the City" or "X-files" on TV anymore.

| IP: Logged

Rene Ferron
Film Handler

Posts: 52
From: New Brunswick, Canada
Registered: Feb 2008

posted 05-19-2008 07:18 PM

quote: Greg Anderson
I'm tempted to start a similar post called "The Incredible Hulk: Big or Bust?"

...because it looks like a disaster to me.

Are you nuts ?? This is the best Hulk CGI that I've seen so far, the other hulk was too cartoon to my taste. This one will do really good at the box office and will be close to Iron Man.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-19-2008 08:31 PM

I saw the trailer for Wall-E back-to-back with a trailer for The Incredible Hulk. Several shots from Wall-E looked like "real" photographs while the Hulk himself looked, quite simply, fake. In addition, there's no star power to draw audiences to The Incredible Hulk and Edward Norton is reportedly refusing to participate in promotion and the audience still remembers the disaster which was the previous Hulk movie... this thing is doomed.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-19-2008 09:27 PM

I'm with you on this one, Greg. The Hulk will do better than Speed Racer (hell, "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" will do better than Speed Racer!) But it will struggle to reach $150M.*

* I think $150 million should be the new benchmark whether a film is a blockbuster or not. $100 million is too low these days.

| IP: Logged

Matt Fields
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 545
From: Ohio, United States
Registered: Jun 2005

posted 05-19-2008 09:38 PM

Personally, I think it should be 200 million.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 05-20-2008 07:25 AM

quote: Mike Blakesley
* I think $150 million should be the new benchmark whether a film is a blockbuster or not. $100 million is too low these days.

I definitely agree on this. Movies like 21 and Jumper made $80 Million. $20 Million more does not make them blockbusters.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan M. Crist
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 531
From: Hershey, PA, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 05-20-2008 06:57 PM

quote: Lyle Romer
The lack of business for certain films has nothing to do with the economy. Going to the movies is a VERY cheap form of entertainment (compared to clubbing, drinking, sporting events, weekend vacations, etc). Statistics show that the movie business is normally strong in economic downturns because of this very reason.

The antiquated notion of movie going as recession proof is about to be turned on its head with the advent of $5.00 to $6.00 gas. (Yes with oil headed for $150 a barrel, pump prices will soon be there.) No longer is it simply a comparison of a ticket prices to the cost of other events; the cost of transportation must be factored in as well. People are going to think long and hard about travelling to a theatre to see some run-of-the-mill piece of blah. Especially when they can see a version of the same thing at home for free.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-20-2008 09:20 PM

A question to anybody whose business is down: Do you take credit cards? If not, there might be part of your answer. I have noticed a big increase in plastic usage here. We are down a couple of points for the year, but after Iron Man and Indy have been here, we expect to be somewhat ahead of last year.

[EDIT: Just to fix a grammatical typo.]

[ 05-20-2008, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Mike Blakesley ]

| IP: Logged

Kurt Zupin
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 989
From: Maricopa, Arizona
Registered: Oct 2004

posted 05-20-2008 09:53 PM

I have listened to people on here talk about how people don't have the money to see multiple movies, and how they only have the money to see one blockbuster. Thats just not true, at least not in the market I'm in. I see the same people multiple times a week, and a lot of them are college kids. Even if and when gas reaches those prices you will still see people come to the movies.
Even when people don't have money to take a trip to Hawaii or go on a vacation, they can go to the movies and take a mini vacation for a couple hours. That is never going to change.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 05-21-2008 04:54 PM

quote: Jonathan M. Crist
The antiquated notion of movie going as recession proof is about to be turned on its head with the advent of $5.00 to $6.00 gas. (Yes with oil headed for $150 a barrel, pump prices will soon be there.) No longer is it simply a comparison of a ticket prices to the cost of other events; the cost of transportation must be factored in as well. People are going to think long and hard about travelling to a theatre to see some run-of-the-mill piece of blah. Especially when they can see a version of the same thing at home for free.

Most people go to a theater that is maybe 10 miles from where they live (and for most areas it's probably more like 5 miles). So you are talking a 10 - 20 mile round trip to see a movie. A gas guzzling SUV (I picket the Expedition) gets 12 MPG city. So even with this worst case it would take 1.67 gallons to go to a movie (if you lived 20 miles away). Since most people live closer than that and most people drive vehicles that get better fuel economy than an expedition lets say that on average it takes 1 gallon of gas to go to a movie.

Since people were not deterred from going to a movie at $2.00 gas, if gas was $6 it would mean a $4 increase. Are you trying to say that people won't go to a movie where they are paying $7 - $10 per ticket and then $4 for a coke because it's costing them an extra $4 to get there??? Maybe they'll buy a small instead of a large popcorn but I don't think many people won't go because of it.

If this is a problem for movie theaters it's going to be a disaster for fast food places. Since fast food is cheap the gas cost to get there (and waste waiting in the drive through because it's too much trouble to park and walk in) is going to cost more than the meal.

Movies are like a mini vacation and a chance to get out of the house and do something. Compared to most activities that allow you to get out of the house and do something, going to a movie is very cheap.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.