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.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1359a/1359ae2b407e7ea4966aa771a4f07586f5103fa4" alt=""
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:
So, I guess this proves Bloom can't open. I wonder if his career's going to start to tailspin.
9:49 AM
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
Opening weekend is b.s.
Bets are on that the 2nd week dropoff is 60% or over.
2:11 PM
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
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
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