Clawing to escape the belly of the beast here in Hollywood. To commiserate, email my name assistantatlas at yahoo.

Monday, October 17, 2005

The Fog Swallows Orlando Bloom: 3.35

While the film biz continues to suffer from lower returns than in years past, opening the #1 movie in the country-- bar none-- is still a tough feat. After all, just this weekend, we've discovered that putting Orlando Bloom in your movie or having Kirsten Dunst as the co-star isn't enough to guarantee the #1 spot.

So that's why I'd like to extend my hearty congrats to The Fog's Associate Producer Shane Riches. Congratulations, Shane Riches, you've just opened your first successful movie as a producer! Obviously, the opening was a direct result of Shane's making a guest appearance on my blog Friday. Click here if you're too lazy to scroll down.

So "The Fog" is now officially a hit. Why do we know this after just one weekend? Let's crunch some numbers, shall we?

Box Office Mojo sez "The Fog" opened at $12.2 million. This puts it on track to make, what, $30 million domestic? And it should have a profitable DVD afterlife thanks to its attractive, popular, cool-kid cast.

IMDB Pro puts the budget of "The Fog" at $18 million. So we're talking at least $10 mil in profits, plus a long stream of residual value from DVDs and television licensing.

Just for comparison's sake, let's run the numbers on runner-up Elizabethtown with the well-featured Orlando Bloom and the ubiquitous Kirsten Dunst.

Box Office Mojo sez "Elizabethtown" opened with $11 million, but had a budget of $45 mil. While this might not equal a colossal flop, let's just say it looks like Cameron Crowe won't be installing a fountain in his infinity pool anytime soon.

So kids, Hollywood dreams do come true.

With my help, Shane beat Orlando Bloom's eyes, Kirsten Dunst's dimples and Cameron Crowe's precocious charm to land at #1.

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, I guess this proves Bloom can't open. I wonder if his career's going to start to tailspin.

9:49 AM

 
Blogger Matt said...

Atlas,
Not to burst Shane's bubble, but great opening weekends are less about the movie than the ad campaign around it.

(http://www.slate.com/id/2118819/)

When a studio spends as much money plugging a film as has gone into "The Fog" - those ads have been everywhere - they EXPECT a big opening. Anything less would be a catastrophe (see: Island, The).

The quality of the film is measured more by how it does in the second week - i. e. how many of the folks who saw it opening weekend recommend it to their friends.

Shane still deserves congrats for making a film Sony was willing to put some muscle behind, but save the champagne for next week.

Anyway, good luck to Shane and the rest of the non-asshole execs out there.

A Fellow Kansan (Overland Park reprazent)

9:50 AM

 
Blogger Justin said...

Opening weekend is b.s.

Bets are on that the 2nd week dropoff is 60% or over.

2:11 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" can clear $70 million, I bet "The Fog" can do at least $50. And how can opening weekend be b.s. when it usually makes/breaks a film?

3:11 PM

 
Blogger LTNA said...

Sure, one could rejoice because, evidently, dreams do occasionally come true. But one could also rejoice because Kirstin Dunst sucks and deserves to fail. Tomay-to/ tomah-to.

4:55 PM

 
Blogger econoclast said...

Just one thing. Box Office of $30mm - $18mm "cost" doesn't translate into studio profit of $12mm. You're forgetting that the exhibitors have to make something. That's usually around 45%. So what the studios would get would be around $16mm - $17mm. That means it's not profitable for the studio on US box office.

Then, is the $18mm just direct negative costs, or does it include prints & advertising?

5:36 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home