Apocalypto a BOMB?????

[sun]

Currently in the 4th week of release.. Apocalypto has grossed less then 40 million, and may not get to 50 million...Who knows the total cost???(with marketing??)

...What do you think this may or may not do to Mel Gibson's career?

I think it could really hurt, if this turns out to really be a first class BOMB. We will know in a few weeks...Doesn't look good now..sun

[Wounded_Dragon]

I'm not sure you could expect better from this film. It was better suited to being on the History Channel, assuming they'd take it, than the theaters.

I went to see this hoping to kill a few hours taking a break from Christmas shopping. An hour was all I could stomach before leaving, making it only the second movie I've ever walked out on.

[JohnCrichton]

I can't imagine it cost all that much to make with no big name actors or heavy special effects.

I think it'll make it back.

[Beat]

Mel's first movie played to a core Christian crowd. Apocolypto is about as obscure as you can get.

[tucsoncoyote]

Well I did a Look see at www.boxofficemoj.com (http://www.boxofficemoj.com), and in fact according to the details, Apocalypto cost the company (Which is Buena Vista Aka Disney) a nice 40 million Dollar tag, and in fact if the figures are right (which are usually correct for Box Office Mojo, then this Movie is indeed what you say it is, sun.

Now a simple bit of info for those of you who don't know how to determine whether a movie is making or losing money is a rather simple formula.. A movie just to break even has to Gross at least 150% of it's Production cost alone in order just to break even (In some cases it has to be 200%) and not be a profitable movie, and all of this must be done within 30 days (4 weeks) to be considered as such.

Now then if Apocalypto cost Disney 40 Million to Produce and it's grossed less than 100% of it's cost, It's a Failure, (yes a bomb) and doesn't even need to be mentioned.. (Heck take a look at other Disney Flops in 2004 alone, and you tell me).

Disney Flicks That have "Bombed" and this is just 2004 alone.

The Alamo (2004) Total Production Cost $107 Million, Total Gross $22 Million
Around the World In 80 Days (2004), Total Production Cost $110 Million,Total Gross $24 Million
King Arthur (2004), Total Production Costs $120 Million, Total Gross $52 Million, which I feel would be dismal faiures as well.But then even Disney films don't bomb. other Companies do have bombs.Heck Even Look at Paramount Pictures' Thunderbirds. That itself was a bomb costing Paramount $57 Million to Produce, and yet the film made a very paltry $7 Million Dollars.. A Definite Bomb if I ever must say so.

In fact After King Arthur Bombed, Disney now doesn't even put out production cost numbers on all of their Movies anymore... and in fact if you do searches for Mr. 3000 and Ladder 49, You'll see that they don't even show costs and yet these two films back in 2004, made Appropriately $22 Million and $75 Million Appropriately.

But then not every Disney Movie is a flop either, as well as any other companies. For Example Disney's Pirates (of the Caribbean): Dead Man's Chest cost the company $225 Million for production and for it to Break even it would have had to have made $337.5 million to break even in just 30 days.. How much did they make in 30 days? Easily $363 Million, so definitely not a flop.

But here's the FormulaTo Determine if a Movie is a bomb or not:

Total Production Costs (To the Nearest Million--If Given)* 1.5 = Break Even Point Cost (30 days from Date of Relase Release).


Now if a Movie can make the following, it's given a classification and this is within 30 Days of Release.

If a Movie Doesn't even make Production Costs? (<100%) Flop, Bomb, waste of Money.
Makes Production Costs (100%) A Success..
Makes Production Costs Plus an Additional 50% (150%) A hit.
Makes Production Costs Times 2 (200%) A blockbuster hit.

And that's really how you can rate these movies..


But in this case? Apocalypto is.... Well here's what it is...:



http://bh.knu.ac.kr/~sdsong/images/Atomic%20Bomb.gif


It's defintely A Bomb...Nuff said


:coyote:

[The Guitar Slayer]

It's one thing when you do Jesus Christ and have religious people encouraging people to see it. He's quite the pop culture figure -- we all know who he's meant to be and all that jazz. The Mayans done in a similar fashion won't be as successful. "What is Hecuba to me and me to Hecuba?", essentially. It also doesn't help he had his DWI before it came out.

[JohnCrichton]

Why does it have to make it back in 30 days?

[The Myst]

I disagree. This movie did incredibly for the subject matter. It's a historical thing about Mayans filmed completely in the Mayan language. This shouldn't have made over ten million.

[Mynd Hed]

Mel's first movie played to a core Christian crowd. Apocolypto is about as obscure as you can get.

Mad Max played to a hardcore Christian crowd?

Or are you thinking of his first producer credit, 'cause I wasn't aware that Braveheart was particularly Christian either.

Or his directorial debut, The Man Without a Face?

[/nitpicking bastard mode]

[Temple Fugate]

Why does it have to make it back in 30 days?I think it's just a rule of thumb, considering that 98% of movies make almost all of their money in the first four/five weeks. Any box office revenue beyond that point is chump change.

[tucsoncoyote]

I think it's just a rule of thumb, considering that 98% of movies make almost all of their money in the first four/five weeks. Any box office revenue beyond that point is chump change.

Give that man a cigar...

Actually Temple You are correct, most movies nowadays have to usually make their income in about 30 days because of the viewership of the fans plus the incessant amount of films that come out in any given movie week. In a set time of just 4 weeks on Average now there are close to 30 movies in any given month, be it small low budget flicks or mega million talk abouts.

In short it's a rule of thumb, but usually (and i mean you can look at boxofficemojo.com) In the first week alone after a movie comes out, there is a sharp drop in income something on the order of upwards of 50% so what movies make in the first week usually make only half as much as the second (Some film reviewers call it "the Half Life" of a Film. After the 4 to 5 week interval, usually by that time most films are only making 1/10th to 1/20th of the initial week.

So yes It's a rule of thumb that if a movie can't make it's production cost back in that much time, then believe me it's either (a) a movie that is completely horrible that no one wants to see it or (B) it's overhyped and after one view usually most people tend to move on to other movies..(Heck since 2002, movie goers on average take in at least 1 if not 2 movies in a given week, and this is even with the inflated Ticket prices.

(But you have to remember this. that 150% rule is because every company that produces a film not only has to pay the actors/Actresses/cast, they have to pay Producers, Directors, Even key grips and everyone else..(all those names you see on a movie just aren't there for the prestige or the looks, they're there because they're getting paid to do their jobs. (Add to that the cost for the Movie theaters and the popcorn vendors and even the soda vendors, and you can see that 150% of the production cost is about as sensible as it gets for a break even point (Sometimes it is 200% because some actors/actresses want to be paid by a set figure (and you wonder why Paramount dropped Tom Cruise? It's because they didn't want to pay that money out to someone who is and I quote "Overhyped."


But in the end Tempus has it right, if you don't make enough money by the 4th week of a run then you're not ever going to get that money back because by then you're only pulling in at most 1/10th the initial take at the box office..

and who do we have to thank for all this set of rules? Why you the movie goer of course. After all you guys go out one week to see Movie A then the next to See Movie B and or C and the following week Movie D comes out.. So by the time you get to D, A is making just a fraction of what it did initially.

But Like I said, Not all Movies are flops. Some movies are so good that some customers go back and see a movie a second or even a third time. that's how a movie makes money and become a hit or a blockbuster. It's so good that you want to see it again.But a lot of Movies today are here one week and gone the next After all While some folks Loved Happy Feet back in November by now? It's old news, and do you really want to see an Old Movie? And the same goes for Apocalypto.. if you liked it and seen it again good, if not then that too is the viewer's choice.

But the real X-factor here when it comes to it is 1) Can a movie be good to see it again, and 2) do the viewers want to see it again. if both are true, then yes it'll make money, but if no on either one, then it will eventually trickle off to nothing.

So that's the bottom line.. that's how movies make or lose money.. Cause it is all dependent if you want to see a movie.. or not..

:coyote:

[Robin2099]

You can'y forget DVD sales though. More often then not, now a days they can take a movie that was a flop in the theatre and make it a success like The Punisher or Slither.

[Temple Fugate]

You can'y forget DVD sales though. More often then not, now a days they can take a movie that was a flop in the theatre and make it a success like The Punisher or Slither.This is very true. We'd never have Austin Powers sequels if it weren't for home video.

However, studios are much more interested in immediate possibilities for profit. Movies don't go to video until they're completely pulled out of theaters, and the wait is usually 5 or more months. (In the case of holiday-themed movies, don't expect them until the holiday rolls around again.) You're right, home video can help movie studios make profit over a longer period of time, but when it comes down to making lots of money right now, or making lots of money over several months--if not years--beginning 6 months after the movie first debuts in theaters, studios would much rather boast about its profits while the movie is "hot."

How often do you hear people reporting on a movie in theaters that's making tons and tons of dough? How often do you hear people reporting that a movie which flopped in theaters is making tons and tons of dough on home video? I'll bet your answer to 1 is higher than your answer to 2. Studios like to report major, immediate profit on its most recent items. It gets them attention and a sense of prestige, making them more attractive for filmmakers to want to work for, and making investors more confident in the company.

[tucsoncoyote]

This is very true. We'd never have Austin Powers sequels if it weren't for home video.

However, studios are much more interested in immediate possibilities for profit. Movies don't go to video until they're completely pulled out of theaters, and the wait is usually 5 or more months. (In the case of holiday-themed movies, don't expect them until the holiday rolls around again.) You're right, home video can help movie studios make profit over a longer period of time, but when it comes down to making lots of money right now, or making lots of money over several months--if not years--beginning 6 months after the movie first debuts in theaters, studios would much rather boast about its profits while the movie is "hot."

How often do you hear people reporting on a movie in theaters that's making tons and tons of dough? How often do you hear people reporting that a movie which flopped in theaters is making tons and tons of dough on home video? I'll bet your answer to 1 is higher than your answer to 2. Studios like to report major, immediate profit on its most recent items. It gets them attention and a sense of prestige, making them more attractive for filmmakers to want to work for, and making investors more confident in the company.

Go to the head of the class, Temple...

After all Movie Production studios do like to have that prestige, and not having one is bad for any company (and their Executive officer or officers.. I mean take a look 3 years ago when Eisner was in Power with his folks.. They had bomb after bomb dumping millions of Dollars into projects that netted them loss after loss, and yet Eisner kept saying, "Look we'll hit one soon enough!" but in the end, he got the boot. But then like Temple said, Making Profit in the Now is usually what a company wants and they don't even consider the DVD Sales. and yet some things can happen because of DVD Sales. Including TV Series Renewals (Read as Family Guy and Kim Possible) Plus all those countless Movie Sequels (Austin Powers is a good Example, Pirates of the Caribbean and Ice age are two others.)

After all Without the money for the "Now" the movie companies can't then Produce the product onto DVD effectively and Market it.. After all it's funny, cause in spring 2005, when Disney/Pixar released The Incredibles Special Edition 2 Disc DVD Set they had already made a good bunch of money off the original movie, but all that money went into making the DVD a bit more enjoyable (including Blooper reels). But remember it's not only Movies, but TV that benefits .. after all Season 5 of Family Guy would not be possible if not for the original DVD Sales.. and of course Kim Possible wouldn't have gotten that season 4 spot without the millions of copies of So the Drama..

but for Movies, it's mostly about In the now, and even if a movie flops, like Robin said, it can change the fact that companies still recoup their losses, albeit at a slower rate.. after all No Movie Company I have heard of has really lost it's shirt on any bomb or flop.. After all people still want to see the film. and a lot of folks figure, why pay 11 bucks for a movie broadcast when they can pay 20 for the DVD and enjoy it in the comfort of their own home? Either way the company wins and of course you the viewer still part with your cash.. all for the enjoyment of a movie.

But as for Apocalypto, financially in the now, it's a major bomb for Disney, but in the long run? It's hard to say but it could be one of Disney's best sellers.. after all Like I said, Why Pay 11 for the Movie ticket when you can pay 20 and keep it for as long as the DVD Holds up?

:coyote: