It's depressing that AI has been such a bomb

[JonathanLB]

Few movies in recent memory have had such terrible staying power as AI, which is really disappointing given what a great film it is. I don't understand what is wrong with people, because there honestly must be something wrong if they're just too stupid to understand the movie and telling everyone else, "Oh gee this movie sucks, my brain hurt, don't go see it."

What is up with that? Fast and the Furious made way more than AI will ever make, yet it's just an entertaining, fun movie, not an intellectual movie, not a masterpiece, not a Spielberg film, that's for sure.

This summer has had a number of disappointments, unfortunately two of them being Evolution and AI. Final Fantasy is probably the single biggest bomb of the entire summer.

AI will not lose any money for either studio, let alone DreamWorks. $100 million, split two ways, that's $50 million negative cost per studio, and it'll make more than $100 million for the domestic distributor, especially including video sales and TV rights, however those are worked out.

Internationally, DreamWorks will probably come out with a more solid winner. I don't know how AI is doing, actually, but I know it was looking good in Japan and as long as it makes $100 million internationally it'll make all its money back and more. Just too bad that we waited this long for a new Spielberg movie and look at how audiences received it. Ah well, stupid people don't know any better, but I enjoyed the summer's best movie ;)

Now Final Fantasy, there is a bomb. Ouch. First off, do not go making $150 million animated films. That doesn't take guts or balls, that takes STUPIDITY. Even Disney would never do that. Dinosaur cost $100 million or so, maybe a bit more, but then again it is Disney and then again, $100 to $120 million is NOT $150 to $160 million either. I feel really bad for the guys at Square Soft, though, the movie is technically extremely impressive and deserves better than this. I want to see it in full (saw The Score last night, but I'll catch FF in full soon).

DreamWorks has the animation strategy down extremely well and everyone else is just STINKING it up. I don't know what they are thinking with nonsense like Titan AE, which destroyed Fox's animation division (literally, bye-bye Phoenix facility), then Final Fantasy was a nice attempt, but unfortunately people didn't find the previews especially interesting. I did, but that's because I love CG animation and I love Final Fantasy. Guess everyone else was turned off by it (heard many people say they thought it looked terrible, which I think is a stupid statement).

I think the key is making modestly budgeted, smart animated films. DreamWorks paid just more than $40 million for Chicken Run and that was a risky film in that claymation is new to feature films (not short films or commercials, though), but the low budget really helped, along with a film that almost everyone (except for me) liked :)

Shrek cost $48 million. When is the last time you can remember a movie with less than a $50 million budget winning the "highest grossing movie of the summer" (or year?) contest?

Not 2000 (M:I-2). Not 1999 (duh). Not 1998 (Armageddon, SPR). Not 1997 (MIB, Lost World were expensive). Not 1996 (ID4). Umm...? I don't know.

Now THAT was a smart risk. With a family movie that cheap and considering the marketing, it never had a chance at making less than $50 million, so even if it was a relative bomb it still wouldn't have lost money after ancillary revenues.

This summer has more unexpectedly poor performers than usual, though. Scary Movie 2 is getting wasted. Thankfully it didn't cost much, but it didn't make much of an impact either. Too bad because personally I wouldn't mind a Scary Movie 3. The movies were both darn funny, the first was too perverted, though.

Of all things, Dr. Doolittle 2 has inauspiciously made its way to a level that almost guarantees it $100 million. That's incredible that a movie like that could make it to $100 million but AI cannot. Anyone else here see Doolittle 2? That movie was so corny, ugg. Yeah it was "cute" and there were funny parts, but dang that is NOT a teenage movie at all and anyone not under 10 or over 40 would have to agree it was just pretty lame. I like Eddie Murphy, though, so I'm glad for his success.

This is my LAST summer for movies until 2003 because next year, it's Episode II time. All summer. :)

I will see Spider Man before Episode II arrives, then that's probably about it.

[Jedieb]

Jon, where did you get those budget numbers for Shrek? They seem kind of low, especially considering it's ad campaign, voice talent, and length of production. The ad campaign wasn't massive, but I would say it was fairly standard. The film was SO GOOD that I find it hard to believe it was made for only $50M.

[Force Master Hunter]

Well, Disney didnt really make money on Dinosaur, but it was because the costs of the computers and setting up was placed into it's budget. Now they have the setup, further CG moives wnot cost anywhere near as much (Dinosaur was $180 millio to make?)

Shrek on the other hand I could well believe only cost 50 million. You need less people to make a CG movie, it just takes a lot of time and patience. Once you have the programs to do the animation, it does cut the time, although the rendering is complex as hell. Plus, the going vice actiong cost is a LOT lower - 2 odd million in this case. Shrek2 I understand the rate will be 5 million for Diaz, Murphy and Myers. Still a lot less than if they were live action. And I bet the computers and programs were already there (Paid for by Price of Egypt?). Thence, once your hardware and software is there, it's costs a lot less to make a CG movie. Pixar made a good deal more from Toy Story 2 than One, due to the infrastructure being in place already. Just some tuning of programs and techniques needed.

What your seeing is the benifits of CG - once it's paid for, it's cheap. You pay literally only staff costs. If you say have 10 animators, you might need a Sys admin and not much more. Even at $200,000 per person, 11 people add to not a lot cost wise compared to the 50 odd you need for even one day live action shooting.

Now I dont think real stars will be taken over by CG actors. But I'm willing to bet the actors will be doing more and more Blue screen and the backgrounds will be CG.

[Darth23]

Well I'M depressed that Final Fantasy is such a bomb.

[JonathanLB]

I know Darth :( It is too bad. I was really hoping that movie would succeed.

I am surprised how little Shrek cost too, much actually it is a Pacific Data Images movie and PDI was also responsible for Antz, the first DreamWorks animated film. DreamWorks bought a 40% share in PDI in 1995, but in early 2000 they purchased the remaining 60% because the owner wanted to pursue "other interests." DreamWorks is one of only three major studios that entirely owns a special effects house.

$48 million does not include prints and advertising, by the way, which would make it far more. No movie's budget includes that, though. Any time you see a movie "budgeted at $100 million," that is without prints and ads, which could easily amount to $35 to $50 million depending on the movie. I believe the industry average is $25 million among ALL wide releases, even cheap comedies included (which sometimes are more to advertise than to make). I would guess they spent $30 to $35 million advertising Shrek, but I'm not sure. It's no Godzilla ($50 million), but it's no Phantom Menace either (haha, only $20 mil).

I can't wait to see the next effort from PDI, which I believe is Tusker, though I'm not sure. I know Antz was made in a much shorter time than usual, only 2.5 years, whereas most animated films require 3.5 to 4.5 years.

Shrek was such a great movie. I need to go see it one more time, but I keep saying that and I never have a chance.

[foxdvd]

yeah, it is hard to tell what a budget for a movie is though...imdb.com says it was 60 million..while today's post by boxofficeguru said


Three films dropped out of the top ten over the weekend. The year's biggest blockbuster, DreamWorks' Shrek, fell 40% to an estimated $3.6M lifting its stellar cume to $247.3M. Produced for $48M, the computer-animated film should be able to reach $255-260M domestically.


so I doubt that the 60 million number is with prints and adv....because that would be close to 90 million...

[JonathanLB]

Ok, let's get one thing straight here because IMDB has been seriously messing me up lately over this same issue. I have no idea where they are getting their budget figures but TONS one of them are WRONG. They are often way too high, but not so high as to include prints and advertising clearly.

They actually got a few movies right like Road Trip, Gladiator, and Chicken Run (I just checked), but I swear it's like if they don't know the budget, they GUESS. They just flat out wrote way too high of numbers on many of the movies I checked.

Sometimes I went to IMDB to get budget info along with a plot summary for my DreamWorks book (which is about 112 pages done in Word out of 175 or so) and I noticed their budget figures were not at all in sync with Variety's and the ones of Box Office Guru. IMDB not only rounds off when they don't know, they also write a random number that is far too high for the film.

Don't rely on what they say for budget info because the site is just not reliable. I'm not sure why they have it so badly screwed up when the site as a whole is so good, but whatever.

[RHJediKnight]

I'm also depressed by Final Fantasy's low box office take, that was such a good movie and I don't want Square to go bankrupt. Then again, it'll make up for it in the worldwide sales, so I guess that's OK. And the only reason why FF's budget was so dang high was because Square had to do a lot of R&D and develop and create a bunch of new software and stuff just to make the movie. If they make a second movie with the technology they used for The Spirits Within, the budget would be way lower (by at least $60-$70 million, I'd say). It's just a shame... :(

[DaBoSsNaStY]

with regards to FF, at least it will pave the way to cheaper flims to be made in the way it was made. when the people want to do another movie, they will not have to build another building for 45 milion bucks.

But another great movie headed out in the boxoffice with 11.50 million bucks on it's opening weekend, and then collected about 399 million when ET was done. I am not saying that FF, will do the same thing. Who knows, it could have a good run:)
________________

[CMJ]

Jon you have no idea how depressed I am at A.I.'s performance. I kind of expected this to happen...but it still depresses the hell out of me.

[Jedieb]

It happens every year. Good films get passed over by audiences while mediocre ones go over the $100M mark. AI's performance is unsual because it had such a substantial ad campaign and such a prominent director, but no one is B.O. gold 100% of the time.

[JonathanLB]

Yeah, well you are very right about that Jedieb. I just would have thought, "Ah, Spielberg, hasn't had a movie in a few years, great ad campaign, looks like people were enthusiastic about the movie, should make $150 to $200 million." I mean, nobody would have guessed it wouldn't break $100 million.

I'm with CMJ, this is just darn depressing. It's my favorite movie of the year I think. Memento is just so close, it may be tied, but AI is at least my favorite summer movie. At least.

My friend is like, "I think JP3 is going to be the best movie of the summer maybe." I'm like, "Uhh....I just don't think it has the potential to be more than 3.5 stars. If it's REALLY good, it'll be 3.5 stars, but it cannot be a four star movie." Then he gets mad at me for shooting down his opinion, hehe. I was just saying for me personally, some movies simply do not have the potential to make it to 4 stars, though any movie has the potential at 3.5 basically. For instance, Scary Movie 2 was NEVER going to be a four star film. I gave it 3 stars, close to 3.5, which was just about as good as it could have been. Same with Fast and the Furious. It wasn't the type of movie that even could have realistically been four stars.

AI will probably end up as the best movie of the summer unless Tim Burton can really blow me away with Planet of the Apes (keep in mind I've still not seen the original! I know, what a crime). Burton is a great director, but AI is hard to top...

Hey CMJ is AI doing any better internationally? I'm hoping maybe it does better in other countries than it has here, relatively speaking. Like Japan.

[Jedieb]

Jon, I'd see the original before you see Tim Burton's version. If for no other reason than the original will look rather cheap by comparison. There are relatively no special effects in the original (you never see their spacecraft). It's just the basic monkey masks everyone has seen and your basic 70's stuntwork. Still the story moves along quite well. It looks as if there are gong to be MAJOR differences between the two. They'll be some interesting comparisons to be made.

[foxdvd]

I agree..Jon you need to see the first before the new version, because they are going to be two diff movies...and the first might seem cheap when you look back on it after Tim's version...still the first is a classic...


You also need to watch Das Boot! You have had that on dvd for over 6 months..and still have not watched it!!!!

[CMJ]

It's doing OUTSTANDING buisness in Japan. It's on track to gross over 90M there!! Thats an amazing amount...it would be one of the highest grossers in Japanese BO history. It's playing to sold out houses there(it was only down 17% from last weekend..which was barely off the record opening weekend it had there). Makes me wonder why the Japanese "got" it and we didn't.

[foxdvd]

because AI is very close in style to anime they have been into for a long time. The idea of an AI being a life form is not something they find hard to grasp..

[Darth23]

Well it's made 70 million so it's not exactly a BOMB.

30 million, that would be a bomb.

[foxdvd]

Very true...it has a chance to do over 300 million WW..and that is not something to laugh at..and it is the kind of movie that will do well on DVD..

[CMJ]

A little international flavor...with Japan being highlighted...

''Pearl Harbor,'' ``A.I.'' joust at Japan box office
Tuesday July 17 5:09 AM ET


By Don Groves

SYDNEY (Variety) - Disney and Warner Bros. both claimed victory at the weekend box office in Japan for their respective big-budget entries ``Pearl Harbor'' and A.I. Artificial Intelligence.''

Going by the industry norm, ``Pearl Harbor'' commanded top spot, earning an outstanding $7.2 million on 430 screens, including the prior Saturday's sneaks. That ranks as a Disney record in Japan (edging out ``Armageddon'' by 1%), and the market's sixth-highest premiere in history.

Steven Spielberg's ``A.I.'' raked in $5.4 million in its third weekend on 518 screens, hoisting its local total to a socko $37 million.

WB claims ``A.I.'s'' third lap was fractionally ahead of ``Pearl Harbor's'' weekend, excluding sneaks; however it's standard practice to include sneaks in first weekend tallies. Also, ``Pearl Harbor's'' length restricts it to three sessions a day -- and ``A.I.'' is playing on more screens.

All told, the WWII epic amassed $14.5 million from 40 markets last weekend, and the foreign total rocketed to $150.1 million, including Germany's phenomenal $24 million through its sixth lap, Spain's $3.2 million in 10 days and Sweden's $1.9 million in ditto.

Kudos for the frame's highest earner goes to ``Shrek,'' which minted an estimated $16.5 million from 24 markets. DreamWorks' ogre devoured a strong but not exceptional $1.3 million in Spain, where hot weather subdued business; a terrific $450,000 in the Netherlands (beating ``Toy Story 2'' by 23%) and $313,000 in Poland (10% higher than ``Dinosaur'').

The toon has also pulled in a whammo $4.6 million in nine days in South Korea; $6.5 million in 11 days in Germany; and $6.8 million in 12 days in France.

Day-and-date with domestic, ``Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within'' launched fairly well in Hong Kong with $423,000, No. 3 behind the sophomore sessions of Cantonese comedy ``Shaolin Soccer'' and ``Shrek.'' The computer-animated sci-fier took pole position in Singapore ($304,000), Malaysia ($232,000) and the Philippines ($193,000).

The omens for ``Jurassic Park III'' are pretty awesome judging by the response to the world's first paid previews: $280,000 in three days in Singapore (eclipsing the sneaks of ``Pearl Harbor'' and ``Mission: Impossible 2'') and $200,000 in Malaysia (trumping sneaks of ``The Mummy Returns'' ``Pearl Harbor'' and ``M:1-2.''). The Dinopic debuts in 12 markets this weekend, day-and-date with the U.S.

``Lara Croft: Tomb Raider'' stole an estimated $11.4 million from 23 markets, and its foreign total hit $67 million, driven by Taiwan's smash $1.2 million in two days, Thailand's $498,000 in three days, the U.K.'s $10.9 million in 10 days, and Germany's $9.3 million in 18 days.

``Evolution'' brought in $4.7 million from premieres in 16 markets and holdovers in 11 territories. The foreign total is $18.5 million, highlighted by the U.K.'s $9.1 million and Spain's $2.6 million.

``Dr. Dolittle 2'' overshadowed ``Evolution'' in Brazil, prescribing $675,000 -- Fox's eighth-highest bow there -- and fell only 12% in Oz, laffing up $3.3 million in 11 days. ``The Mummy Returns'' became the first blockbuster to cross $200 million this year, earning $203.6 million -- about $3 million more than the North American total.

Reuters/Variety REUTERS

[JonathanLB]

Yeah that sounds awesome, I really hope AI does well in other countries too. Anyway, for the purposes of my book, I don't have to care about how it does domestically ;)

DreamWorks handled/is handling international distribution, so that's what counts! :) Plus, in the US it will not lose anyone any money. An $80 million return, roughly, is still good enough, combined with video sales, rentals, and TV rights, to make a modest profit in the US too.

It's just too bad, that's all. The Japanese have pretty good taste in movies and TPM remained #1 there FOREVER, dang, it kept on going and going and going. I forget how many weeks though it's in my book. It was at least double as many as the US, though if I remember more like triple.

[JonathanLB]

In Japan, AI apparently had the best third weekend gross in history and its fourth weekend, just reported today, was the 2nd best behind only Jurassic Park (number one). It is still first in the territory, though.

Looks like AI could make a heck of a lot in Japan by the time all is said and done. It has had excellent staying power there.

[CMJ]

AI's Japanese gross might be larger than the US. They said last week in was on a 90M trajectory there. WOW! Even if it only equals that in all other markets you have a 180M international number. Impressive to say the least.

[JonathanLB]

Yeah no kidding, what an odd phenomenon. It will be a success for the studios overall, I think, regardless of its disappointing holding power in the US. I'm not sure what was up with that. I still love AI. I'd like to see it again, but I know I won't get around to it because there are so many other films and things to do...

[sirdizzy]

i think any movie that doesn't meet its production costs is a bomb

and i think if thats true final fantasy has some compettion in the bomb department in Pearl Harbor

now pearl harbor has done 192 million so far (it made just over 1 million last weekend in the box office) but the movie cost 250 million to make and advertise and witha %50 cut the theatres get that means it has to make 500 million to break even

it may be able to eek out 200 mil domesticly but i doubt it can make up the other 300 worldwide

so it will end up losing money which makes it a bomb in my opinion

why can't people make better movies with ebtter stories and acting rather than trying to make cgi and fx carry the film

thats whats sad AI has a great story and acting yet people don't go to it i personally loved the movie and went to it twice and would suggest it to anyone and everyone

people just want to be entertained and not think evidently and this was deffinitly exibited by cats and dogs and legally blonde being #1 movie

[Darth23]

Well part of the point of FF was to make a computer graphics movie, and to push the envelope. The story could have been done with straight animation, but it would have probably been more expensive to do it as live action. At least Square has a newly built studio now. There are indications that they moght make another FF movie anyway, even though this one is a financial failure.

Atlantis is a financial dissapointment for Disney as well. I guess the days of slapping the Disney name on a movie and automatically ringing up 100 million plus are over. :D

Making 200 million is pretty hard so I don't understand why movie studios would make a movie that they NEED to earn 500 million.

I think that Warren Beaty Gary Shandling pic was probably a major flop as well. It costs like 80 million plus and no one went to see it.

[Jedieb]

I think the production rule doesn't hold for PH because it was so expensive. PH has many other revenue streams to draw from. The producers knew they could make money without grossing $250M at the B.O. International grosses, Satelite TV, video/DVD sales and rentals, cable, and broadcast TV will all help to make PH profitable. Now if PH had failed to make even $100M then it would have definitely been a bomb. Simply because all of the above revenue sources I mentioned would have been much lower. A $200M movie is going to command better prices after its B.O. run than a film that just grossed $90M.

[CMJ]

I agree Jedieb...it'd be almost impossible for PH not to make money. Hell it might've already(I'm not sure if they have a TV contract yet) they have so many sources to draw revenue from on a big movie like that....