I'm no expert here. My prediction skills are somewhat limited. But with the recent trend with WB and last year, Universal, it makes me think ...

There are certain films that disappoint that comes as a shock to many people! There are those that people argue about back and forth because the signs just aren't there (Kong). But there are some that look to be heading towards disaster and eventually, they do.

My question is, do we think the Studios know whats up?

I mean lets take Superman for example. Most predictions from box office sites were respectable yet underwhelming. But the entire media industry not related to box office thought it would be the 2nd coming of Christ. Take Poseidon. 100s of millions spent on a film that experts were predicting would be a bomb.

How well do you think the Studio knows that they have got a box office disappointment on their hands even before they open? And if they are well aware, why not do things differently? I will ofcourse, keep pointing at WB which seems to know how to handle only the matrix and potter marketing properly. nothing else. are they looking at their own marketing and going WTF?

With Poseidon, I think the studio knew. It would have had a Scorpion King performance at best.

As for Supes, the studio probably felt more pressured as the days passed and bills racked up, until the entire Hilton inheritance was spent on the movie.

Tracking, notice how WB had their expectations for the first 5days of Supes at what 110m? Thats basically what tracking aimed at.

They usually know before they open, but they do not know at the time of the production stages usually. I am sure when Poseidon was concepted tro them, they thought it'd be a bigger hit. I am also sure they thought it'd cost less than $160 million. Studios often miscalculate things in the process, but by the time their films open, usually they know what to expect.

I think that for as long as you have films like SPider-Man or Pirates 1, the risk will be worth taking.


I'm positive that Disney was not all that enthusiastic about Pirates in 2003, until it acutally opened. I'm sure they looked to the foreign market and DVDs to make a profit.


And now, this single franchise not only has brought them hundreds of millions from the first film alone, but the franchise will make up for a string of bombs such as The Alamo.

Along the same lines, I'm beginning to wonder if people like the ones we have here at this site couldn't be used by the studios. There are myriad of posters here who can predict a gross and/or what films will do well and what the problem is with other films. I think we should contact the studios and let them know that we are for hire.











And no i'm not kidding.

I'm available for consultation

Didn't you predict $350+ million for Batman Begins? I don't think WB would be pleased with you.

Damn youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu! Go suck on a banana sundae ice-cream popsicle and die a horrifically pleasant death!

I think they should look to people like us though. Seriously!! We have just as good a grasp of film and their potential as anyone. Why they don't look to sites like this to seek help, I'm not sure.

Em, I'm pretty sure this site is monitored by the studios, like most of the net.


That's why Zingaling's comments are so damaging to my reputation

xiayun's the only predictor studios should be consulting. Heh. He's the most unbiased predictor on this forum, period.

I think they should go for BKB or Excel instead, thats my opinion.

Well. I understand the design stage and stuff.

But look at it this way. A lot of people here are able to make 'good', not great predictions even after seeing 'one' teaser for the film and the little information they ahve.Poseidon sounds like a great idea but lets take this into consideration. Almost everyone that I've heard of, right after seeing the poster and the first teaser had a big 'I dont know about this one" look on thier faces. My question is .. doesn't the studio see that too? and if they do, how come we never see some major reaction to it? I've only seen any reaction (good or bad) at certain times. After pirates' first teaser came out, it looked like people reacted to things. New Line reacts to things really well. WB reacted to superman too albiet late and in a terrible fashion.

I just don't get it sometimes. Other than people who had absolutely no interest in HitchHIker's Guide, many thought it would do something decent like 70 or so million so it was slightly underwhelming for everyone when it opened so much less. I don't think the studio expected a number so small for it. but then there are projects that have clear signs for a long time.

"BKB, we need you! How full is your theater's parking lot?!?"

Well right now i'd say it's about 30% full, probably 28% for Pirates and 2% for the other films, 0% for Superman Returns which pales in comparison to the first film and im just gonna go on and on about Superman Returns and how much it sucked and should have never been made even though this is a discussion about studio tracking, i'll most likely change subjects to Superman Returns for another month or so then move on to the next movie in my radar Snakes on a Plane, which I will see and hate then talk about how shitty it is for a couple months, then move on to alot of Spider-Man love and talk shit about whatever other movie pisses me off.

While Xia may be great at doing projections based on the Friday numbers, he is not the only member here adept at predicting grosses and numbers and drops and so on. We all have some kind of capacity for doing so.

Yup and the media could use the trolling powers of BKB!

I'm not sure what you are asking.

If it is simply "do they not know a troubled project is going to bomb", I'm pretty sure they do, especially if we are talking about films that are past the teaser stage.

Or are you asking "Why do they continue to push and dump money on a project that the whole universe agrees will tank like the dickens?" To which I'd say there are a number of reasons. One of which is that it may actually cost less to go through with it once its reached a certain point than not to. At least they can get something back out of it once its released. If they shelve it there's no way to recoup anything.

Another would be - that they go through with it, and put the best face on an ugly pooch has more to do with retaining their ability to get the talent and investors they want for other work. Maybe the dud is the pet project of someone who can finance other things for them. Maybe the bombs ahoy stars bennifer, and once it dies a horrid death they can go on with romantic comedies that will make money because they supported a pet project of the stars. Maybe its a the dream project of a touchy producer who can pull in stars for the real can't miss script. No one want to feel that the studio is going to pull the rug out from under them if things look bad. Stars, producers, directors all want to feel that they will get the studios best effort. If the studio bailed on something that looked bombish, how well can they reassure others they won't do the same. And on the flip side, they an also point out how they managed to make 60 million off a dog like Posideon, so imagine what we can do for your film that will actually be good.

The way I see it at least.

I guess i was asking a bit of both and a bit of "Why doesn't it ever look like they react to early warning signs

yes but then those film don't acrry that big warning tag ...

Which one are we talking about? The one with Broderick? I don't think that one is a good example for this discussion. It disapointed, no question, but it really wasn't the 10 megatonne smoking crater that films like Posideon, Stealth and Gates of Heaven were. Godzilla made back its production budget on its domestic run (yeah I know about the splits, but this ratio has always been a good one to use to judge profit/no profit). That film was number 10 for the year and had the highest opening weekend gross in 1998. Yes, a disappointment, but the question was not about movies that one can at least argue might do well and later do not, the question was about films everyone agree will tank.


EDIT: On reconsideration, I should probably not use Posideon as an example of a smoking crater. While clearly a domestic bomb, it has made $100M overseas already and will probably climb out of the red somewhere in its DVD life. Which if nothing else should be another point to consider. Ancillary revenue streams like overseas, DVD, marketing rights, etc, can in at least some cases redeem a project that should otherwise never see the light of domestic release day.

One of the biggest factors is the great box office unknowns.

We only see the very public face of the box office, what's reported, but we have very little details about what goes on in the background. What TV deals are like, what their portfolios are like, how DVD and home video sales and deals, etc. We don't even know *for sure* how the studios work. $160 million for a film might sound huge, but it's not one chunk at a time and it all doesn't come back in one chunk either, and it's not always money down the drain, sometimes they develop technology or other things under those budgets as well.

So yeah, I think there's a lot of reasons why something like Poseidon was made that we don't regularly talk about. One has to also remember that when putting together something like Poseidon, that it was likely decided upon 2 years ago in a different climate.

Agreed. In big business sometimes you spend a LOT of money to get very, very tiny gains.

Good topic btw.