Depending on how long it takes and which markets do what, they need between $300 and $350 million worldwide grosses to break even, if not more. If it does $125 million in the U.S. and another $125 million in the rest of the world, they're still writing off at least $50 million in losses on the thing.
It's a ridiculous business where the vast majority of films lose money on theatrical release and, at best, less than 60% of movies EVER break even, even after DVDs, pay television, etc. Seems like a lousy way to do business. I mean, the best anyone can say about Van Helsing, a $200 million dollar investment is that it might break even. This is the widest release in Universal's history (over 6,000 prints), and the best they can hope for is that they might not lose millions of dollars. When your blockbusters are just breaking even, at best, how healthy is the rest of your business? The blockbuster film is supposed to bouy the riskier part of the line-up. Those movies are supposed to be guaranteed hits that will make up for all the prestige pics or other movies that might not catch on with audiences. If the best they do is break even on the Van Helsings, they probably aren't going to make those riskier pictures because they can't afford to. And this didn't open as big as The Hulk, who's to say it will do better in the long run? Who's to say Van Helsing will even be a title that people will pick up in large numbers on DVD?
By the way, the rule of thumb on film profitability, according to Variety, is: "...pics break even when domestic B.O. matched production costs, with foreign grosses equating to exhibitors' split. Ancillary revenue from homevid and TV distribution was viewed as compensating for marketing costs." With the growth of DVD, that rule of thumb may be a bit dated, to an extent, though marketing costs have ballooned considerably. If you take it that a movie like Van Helsing has to do $160 million domestic to break even on production costs, it needs $40 million in profit in ancillaries to break even overall. The average studio revenue for a DVD released by a major studio is roughly $60 million right now. Subtracting DVD production costs, that average probably drops to $40 million to $50 million. But, of course, that's amount is not uniform per DVD. With the costs as high as they are, I would be surprised if Van Helsing was ever a profitable movie. And according to Warner Bros. President Alan Horn: "Nothing makes money in its theatrical window, because the cost of P&A (prints and advertising) has gone too high," Horn says.
It may be a lousy way to do business, but that's the way movies are made. No movies actually make money at the box office, except for low budget blockbusters like The Passion, Greek Wedding, and Blair Witch. It has been this way since television became the dominant mass market medium. Theatrical features usually don't make money until years down the line when all the ancillary markets have been tapped out. But all of these movie studios are gigantic conglomerates that can eat the short-term losses until finally the movies sell enough DVD/VHS copies or play enough times on TV to finally get out of the red. That's just the way it is. Also Hulk is a poor example because it was had either worst or the second worst 2nd week dropoff in history, so it's hardly a fair barometer. You can't tell anything with just the first week grosses. We need to wait and see in week two if Van Helsing ends up holding steady or not. The movie industry is hardly a model business, but it seems to work. Maybe that will change with the proliferation of high speed internet and file sharing. But I'm sure that the movie biz will reinvent themselves like they have in the past. The shared theater experience is still an enjoyable one, and I don't see that changing in the future.
You know how much Raiders of the Lost Ark, the summer blockbuster of 1981, would've cost in 2003 dollars? $36 million. To do as well as Raiders did in 1981/82, Van Helsing would need to do $914 million domestic. I don't think it's going to make it. You know how much Batman, the summer blockbuster of 1989, would cost in 2003 dollars? $51 million. To do as well as Batman did in 1989, Van Helsing would need to do $785 domestic. You know how much Last Action Hero, an anticipated summer blockbuster of 1993 and widely considered to be a big flop, would cost in 2003 dollars? $108 million. Of course, Van Helsing only needs $75 million to match Last Action Hero, but Last Action Hero was considered a huge flop. If Van Helsing does $110 million (the equivilent of roughly $90 million in 1993), will it still be considered a flop? It's only been very recently that movies were expected to lose money far more often than they make money. Certainly not since the 1950s when television sapped away the movie audience. This steering toward oblivion has come about only really within the last ten years or so. And it may seem to work to you, but it doesn't work. That's the whole point. And there will be a correction in the industry, and it will be bad for a lot of people, including audiences (who are already getting shafted by dreck movies that cost too much and can't possibly produce the results they want and which crowd out other movies). All the while, the audience for movies gets smaller and smaller every year.
You know, the thing that is so amazing is that the move toward more hype and non-stop CGI and whatnot while skimping on any sort of characterization is going against the very movies that invented the blockbuster. A movie like Jaws? It doesn't get made today. One killer shark? Hell, we need at least FIVE killer sharks. And what do you mean we don't even see the shark for most of the movie? What the hell is that? No. We'll have our five CGI sharks on screen constantly because we need a big action beat at least every ten minutes. Sooner if we can fit it in. And what's this bit where they're on the boat comparing old scars? That's boring. People won't sit still for that. They'll be heading for the exits. Take that out completely. And what do you mean you're going to make this for $20 million (Jaws' budget was originally $7 million). You can't make a summer blockbuster with less than $100 million. Heck, even that's too low for Universal. Maybe over at Paramount they'd do it for only $100 million. Would anyone have enjoyed Raiders of the Lost Ark more if it had cost more? You'd have to triple the costs to bring it into line with today's movie costs. Would that have made a better movie? Would people like it better today if they had just spent more money on it back then? And Raiders would never get made today. Certainly not the way it was made in 1981. Of we could go back nearly 20 years to the top grossing movie of 1985. Back to the Future cost $19 million to make in 1985. That would work out to somewhere near $30 million in today's dollars. That movie does not get made today the same way, and it certainly costs a lot more. There was plenty of crap movies made all throughout the past, too. It's not as if that's a recent thing. But it is recent to bet so much on a single outing and not even expect a payoff from the get-go on the majority of films. And because the risk is so high on these movies, they're "talked to death" during preproduction. Studio guys have notes and then other studio guys have notes and then producers have notes, oftentimes about things that have nothing to do with the movie. Market research is trotted out and Exhibitor Relations gets into the act. Eventually, too many cooks spoil the stew and the movie loses any direction, any originality and any personality it may have ever had. Believe it or not, Van Helsing is probably a better movie at $80 million than at $160 million. Limitations are good for creativity. If you can't just throw money at the problem, you're forced to think and be creative. At a lower price, maybe fewer studio suits get involved and try to ruin the thing. At half the cost, maybe you avoid the desire to throw in everything and the kitchen sink (do you really need to deplete the entire Universal monster collection in one movie?) And if you do screw it up (or audiences just don't come, for whatever reason), you don't have to make as much money to break even. Instead, they dig themselves a huge hole from the get-go and make it near-impossible to ever get out. And then they get fired for not making enough money (the average tenure of a studio head is very short) and the process starts all over again. There's simply no reason that the average movie should cost $100 million in production and P&A. Cut that in half, and I'll bet the domestic box office does just as well. Might even do better (heck, if you lower costs and start using some of that extra, left-over money for specialized markets that aren't currently being served, you might well increase overall box office substantially).
say what you will... but i actually appreciate the evolution of CG. today i saw "Speed" again on fox, you know the early sunday morning old movie time slot. and back then it was considered a special effects extravaganza. you've got to admit it's getting better...
Could these movies be more efficiently produced if they had smaller budgets and less execs tinkering around? Yeah sure. They might be better movies too. But you just can't compare the ticket sales of yesteryear to today's. Sure Van Helsing isn't even going to come close to the inflation adjusted gross of Raiders. But a big reason for that, is because the entertainment market is so fractured. TV ratings are down enormously from before, same with movies, record sales, and probably radio listeners too. Video games and the internet has emerged and has really demanded people's time. So hollywood is doing what they can to keep up. Slick special effects and wall to wall hype. If that's how they choose to go about it, then far be it for me to complain, it's not my multi-billion dollar industry that hangs in the balance. You're right that characterization has gone by the wayside in the big budget pictures. But you have to blame the drooling masses for that one. Hollywood has brought down the required brain power for watching a blockbuster down to the lowest common denominator. But for every big, loud, stupid, monstrosities, there are a bunch of great films too. Most people just don't seem to make it out to all the gems that come out every year. For better or worse, Hollywood partioned out movies like such: Big budget: easily accessible (read stupid) high concept, populist, eye candy. Medium budget: safe, star driven projects just north of TV sitcoms and dramas in terms of quality. Low budget: "edgy", character driven projects. Good movies end up getting made every year, so I just do my homework and check out the ones that look promising and ignore the ones that don't. So I'll probably only watch about 3 or 4 movies this summer as a result. Van Helsing probably won't be one of them.
Man, it seems the Olsen twins movie is on track to be the worst opening film to hit at least 3000 screens. It's gonna do worse than Battlefield Earth at it's current pace. I'm tired of CG myself. I mean, you can't have important characters or monsters be CG the entire time. Jurassic Park had puppets and robots. The problem is that when you know it's CG, you think about that (how real does it look etc) and not about what you are supposed to be seeing. The thing I really hate is when CG makes it's way to car movies. Like the jump in Gone in 60 Seconds or all of the scenes in those horrible Fast and the Furious movies. I just finally saw the Bourne Identity and they had a car chase with a mini. It was so badass because it was believable. Same with the Italian Job Remake.
That's the point, though, if the grosses can't possibly compare, then why spend so much more money to make movies. Like I said, Raiders would cost $36 million in today's dollars. The risk for that would be far lower than for a movie that cost $160 million. So, if you can't possibly make the grosses of before, how is making movies cost more going to solve the problem? It doesn't. Mid-budget movies are disappearing. Low-budget movies are disappearing from studios with the slack being picked up by indies (and, to be fair, some indies actually are studio divisions. Fox Searchlight is probably the best "indie" today and they're part of FOX). And as the trend gets to bigger and bigger budgets for these crappy CGI fests that lose money, that means cutbacks elsewhere. That will mean fewer and fewer mid-budget movies. So as long as this goes on, we're going to start seeing fewer smaller, better movies. That's the trend we're on. And it's pointless (and it apparently doesn't work since ticket sales go down every year. It's not as if the competition thing is new, but the trend that Hollywood follows leads to fewer tickets sold).
Yeah, I love doing this as well. One of my favorite sites is www.nitpickers.com I love reading stuff about movies and saying NO WAY, that couldn't have happened. Then I check it out and say OMG, how dumb can these people be to do that! Oh well, It's fun and I just thought I'd let you know about it. Pugs
So far, Van Helsing is off almost as much as the Hulk was. Friday estimate is 66.4% off from last Friday.
Don't know why people are complaining so much. Thought it was quite entertaining and well paced. Not as good a X-men, better than LXG. This is actually the type of film that I'd rather watch in the cinema than rent. Unless it was on the big screen with DTS/THX, I wouldn't bother watching it. Citizen Kane is the kind of film you rent and watch repeatedly
Haven't seen it. Might watch in video, more likely to wait for it to be on the movie channels. These films centered on effects and a quota of big action sequences are, IMO, part of what's wrong with US Studio films today ( the other half being the American Pie-zation of the comedy genre; Gross IS funny! Ha Ha! A fart! Whoooeee!) It is among the reasons I prefer older fims in general, or foreign filsm, particularly British. I would like, at this point, to deny the " Snob" idea that many will take from the above comments: I often LOVE action films...some of the films I can watch over and over are action films, and not all of them have incredibly intircate plots or are starring Dhakespearean actors. I'll give a list of some of the action films I've really enjoyed in the past ten or 20 years, and would probably watch if it came on the tube today: Die Hard, 13th Warrior, Last of the Mohicans, the Mask of Zorro, Patriot Games, Mission Impossible, Gladiator, Sivlerado, LTR trilogy, the Mummy, the Last Samurai, Pirates of the Caribbean, Spider-Man, the X-Men movies, Apollo 13, the Bourne Identity, Speed, Master and Commander, most of the James Bond films, the Rock, etc. Some of these are considered high quality films, some aren't. Some are admittedly lesser than others. But I do think that most show strenghts in areas where many of the blockbuster-type action films I don't enjoy fail: pace, characterization, acting, and writing. Pace is seriously lacking in many of these films, and I think a perfect example was the 4th Star Wars movie; It had cool effects, there were good actors involved, and the story line could easily have been as interesting as any of the first 3, possibly more. But it had no sense of pace; what conversations did take place seemed to be merel pauses in the action, and it gave you little time to appreciate the action after a while, as it became mundane. Look at better action films; look at Mission Impossible, hardly an Academy Award contender, but much more interesting thant the 4th SW because it had pace, it allowed the stopry to develop, and the action sequences as such were more appreciated. Imagine Star Wars made today; there would be attakcs every 5 minutes, there would be almost no time spent on land, and the shark would kill a small village before being destroyed. But Jaws, like most of those listed above, had pace. Characterization, writing, and acting are all together, in a respect, and many suffer from too much money. I often find myself more and more drawn to British television and film where, as a result of having lower budgets than Hollywood,they concentrate on getting top actors, and great writing while having much lower production quality and special effects are rare. But you look at something like Prime Suspect, or the Morse myteries; if they were made in the US, they would likely have far more car chases, a lot of guns going off, and would LOOK much better, ( more intricate shots, higher quality intruments, etc.) But, IMO, they would suffer greatly as a result. By going the way they do, Brit stuff, even the fluffy chick type comedies like 4 Weddings and Love, Actually emphasize character development to such a degree that you both care for and understand the characters involved, and your MIND, if not your eye, is hooked. Even look at the Brit equivalent of action genre stuff as is, as opposed to what would be, and you'll see it. Look at the British Napoleonic War series Sharpe, based on the novels by Bernard Cornwell, and you will notice that the battles look far less impressive than they would in the U.S. But there is all kinds of time spent developing characters, and the acting is quite high ( Stars Sean Bean, for example). To get characters you really are interested in, you need great writing, great acting, and/or the time spent developing those characters. There are actors who can pull it off in limited time, but they're rare, and even they are better served with time. But in these high budget CG films, much of that time seems to be treated as a waste of same, getting in the way, as it does, of another sense shattering action sequence. Don't get me wrong; I LOVE what CG has brought to us, as films like Gladiator, the LOTR series, Troy and others are impossible without them. And it can, when done right, take your breath away as it adds to the majesty of the film. But only when it is there to support the story and characters. Too often, these days, the story and characters seem to be there to support the special effects. Sometimes, like with the Mummy, they come close to that but it's fun all the same. But too often these days I find myself not really caring whether the space shuttle does crash into that impressively flaming meteor, or the whiny kid does lose the hyper-speed desertcraft race. Because I either don't really care about the characters, don't understand why they're doing what they're doing, or am simply underwhelmed by the 16th CG action sequence in the past hour..
Just read a bit more, and it seems that many, in particular Mr.Paige and B-Bob already stated much of what I was trying to say ( with a weird JAWS parallel...hmmm). I have a question, though...I just got up, so maybe I'm just not thinking straight, but what is LXG?
Technically, all films today are "indies". The studios no longer make films, they focus on distribution. On the production side they may help provide funding and loan equipment, but they do not make the films per se. Independent production companies (are created for and folded after production for tax purposes) to make the films.
Ouch, that's pretty bad. Looks like Van Helsing can officially be labled a bomb. Not a mega bomb like Pluto Nash. But a dud none the less.
That's not completely true as the studios still produce many movies on their schedules themselves. And even many so-called outside production companies are fully-funded (and controlled) by the studios. And even when one of these so-called outside production companies makes a larger-scale movie, the studio execs still exercise a great deal of control over the product. As a matter of fact, the mid-nineties trend of more negative pick-ups has slowed. Even Miramax (a company that was entirely negative pick-ups for a long time) rarely buys a completed movie in favor of funding things from the get-go.
