AFI surprise

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well the AFI awards were tonight and I think there was a major shock that happened when they announced the best picture instead of Moulin Rouge, Mulhouhound Drive or A Beautiful Mind, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was chosen as the best movie of the year. The audienced seemed stunned and so weren't the LOTR cast and crew, Jackson was sick or something but one of the producers accepted it along with Wood, and Astin and they each seemed a little surprise. Now how does this affect the Oscars, I'm not sure. This is the first year for the AFI awards so it will be difficult to predict how this will impact the Oscar voting, but still the FOTR is guarenteed a best picture nomination (it will probably get 10-14 nods in all) and now it would not surprise me if it won.

[Darth23]

I turned it off long before that because it seemed like the winner of every award was always "Could Not Be With Us Tonight." :p

[CMJ]

I wasn't THAT surprised..but I did think BEAUTIFUL MIND was the frontunner. If the Golden Globes crown FOTR then we have ourselves a frontunner. But it's shaping up to be a REALLY wide open year this year.

On another note...Altman won Direcot of the year for GOSFORD PARK(really overrated film IMHO) but the film wasn't one of the 10 nominee's. FOTR won Best film..but Jackson wasn't a nominated direcor. It IS a crazy year. :P

[Darth23]

It always seems strange to me ofr a movie to win Best Picture when the director wasn't even nominated.

ESPECIALLY with a movie like FOTR. Don't they think the director had anythign to do with the quality of the movie?

[Jedi Master Carr]

I would think so but who knows. Jackson should get an Oscar nomination though I would be surprised if he didn't. And I don't think LOTR is the front runner unless it wins at the Globes, I agree it is wide opened at this point, I just feel that LOTR will defintely get nominated for best picture.

[Dutchy]

That would be sad if FOTR won for Best Picture at the Oscars. But hey, after last year's letdown with Gladiator it wouldn't even surprise me.

[Mortaniuss]

What do you mean by "letdown"? I don't really follow the awards: Did it win or lose?

[Champion of the Force]

I don't really follow the awards: Did it win or lose?
If you mean Gladiator, yeah it did win Best Picture. I was also a bit disappointed by its victory - I enjoyed the film a lot, but I felt it wasn't the best of the year.

I'm still undecided about FOTR winning. I LOVED the film, but I'm still wondering if perhaps another pic might deserve it more.

(of course one other potential letdown of FOTR winning is that it could create unrealistic expectations for the next 2 films)

[Mortaniuss]

Well, I don't think any Awards system will ever peg the best film of the year. I mean, they generally just give the award to whatever is popular at the time. Independant films dont stand a chance, usually.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Davwj
I felt it wasn't the best of the year.

Exactly. Gladiator, i.e.

[Marcus Telcontar]

There's no denying FOTR is a quality film and that it just has to win some Oscars this year. It should take out plenty of technical awards.

But the big two? I could see Jackson winning Best Director, becuase he has achieved something out of the ordinary. Best Film? Errrrr...........

Memento or FOTR. I dont see Malholland Drive getting anywhere.

But... do you get the feeling FOTR could do another Titanic and sweep the lot, except for Best Actress? I say that becuase there are some parts of LOTR that are just sheer genius to watch. I dont believe that can be denied. It will win something, I think that's obivous. Guessing time just what

[Jedi Master Carr]

FOTR could do a Titantic sure, its very possible, there really are no dominated films out there you have the usually artistic crap like Mulohouland Drive and Moulin Rouge (I'm sorry those kind of films are just boring to me and the general public look at each box office which proves it) Now there is A Beautiful Mind which I would be fine with winning best picture, Ron Howard has never won and I wouldn't mind seeing him win, Still FOTR is my favorite film and to me best film I have seen this year and I would be estatic to see it win.

[CMJ]

Hmmm now I don't mean to be a jerk or anything...but MOULIN ROUGE did pretty well Box Office wise. It grossed over 55M domestically and over 100M internationally if I remember correctly. It might not have been a huge hit...but it did make some good coin. I for one did not particularly care for it...but I can't say I hated it either. I also happen to know MANY people who did like it.... I don't think it's as "arty" as you would make it out to be.

Can't say about Mulholland Drive...haven't seen it yet....

[Jedi Master Carr]

I wouldn't consider 55 million a huge hit domestically (it cost the studio over 50 to make I think so it probably just broke even after having to share with the theaters), I know in Hollywood if the movie doesn't make 100 million it is not considered a success because of the cost of films these days. Also I know a lot of people who hated, I have one friend that walked out in the first 30 minutes because she thought it was so bad, and I am going by her comments along with a few others that saw it to judge my opinion. To me it looks like an Art house films, and those kind of movies I just don't like, they don't interrest me, maybe my language was little strong but that is how I feel abou movies like that. As far as Mulhouland Drive I don't know anybody that saw it (but it hasn't made any money 5 million the last time I checked) but from reading the plot synopsis and the previews it looks very boring to me and doesn't make any sense. Most of the critics have been saying good things about it except one, for the LA Times who called crap and said the only reason why the other critics like it was because they couldn't understand it (I think that is what he said at least).

[CMJ]

I think the 100M comment is a generalization. :) I read many reports that said MR was a modest hit.

[Jedi Master Carr]

True but it would all depend on how much it cost to make it which I don't have any figures on. If a film cost 20 million than 50+ million is a modest hit but if it cost 50-100 than 50+ million would be considered a disapointment or perhaps breaking even at best (after considering overseas money) I'd be surprised if Fox made any money on it considering that first the theaters get 45% of the gross (or around that number) then there is the cost so if it made 155 lets say, they the studio would get back 85 million but then there is the cost factor so my guess is that it either lost money or just broke even (a few dollars either side + or -) Now I think Fox had to argue it was a modest hit, it is there movie so they should. Now I could be wrong about the cost, but I could swore that I read it cost 50-60 million to make, if somebody has figures to reubuke me I will accept and then declare it a modest hit.

Second I would rather not get into an argument about the quality of the film, if you like thats great but it just not for me, I admit I am biased against in on two accounts. First I generally don't like musicals (except maybe Sound of Music or Yankee Doodle Dandy) the rest of them I have never cared for because it just seems unnatural to me for characters to start singing while they are walking down the street. Second being a historian I can get rather picky over certain things especially changes that really stand out. Now I am not that bad if some movie has a gun from the 1790's instead on the 1690's I doubt I would notice or care but when the anachronisms stand out like they do in films like Moulin Rouge (using late 20th century lyrics and songs in a 19th century setting) and A Knights Tale (knights wearing nikes and the audieces sing we will rock you) that is where I have a problem, I just get mad at seeing stuff like that because it seems completely out of place to me, but that is just my opinion. I am sure there are a lot of people that wouldn't even notice (which says a lot for the historical knowledge of America today an issue I rather not get into) or there maybe some who like the changes or don't care one way or the other which is fine. If you enjoy it great but to me is something I wouldn't even bother watching.

[Darth23]

There are a lot of $70 million movies that are considered resonable successes. it really depends on how much it cost.

Jimmy Neutron apparently only cost 24 million, and it has already made 50. High Hopes only cost 12 million, so it was profitable as well.



It think for a risky movie like Moulin Rouge to make 55 million in North America is pretty good - apparently its done a lot better overseas, so it's definitely not a flop. It definitely didn't takt the US by storm, but I've heard a lot or people say either you'll Love it or Hate it, so I think it's done well if that's the kind of reaction it provokes.

[Jedi Master Carr]

That was exactly my point but how much did Moulin Rouge cost is my question, if cost like I said I would not consider it a hit because it wouldn't have made any money for fox, there is no merchandizing (I don't except maybe the Soundtract) so there is no real way for it to make any more money from it. If anybody has any figures about the cost go ahead and post them.

[Darth23]

It made 168 million worldwide - so it was definitely profitable.

Of course, there ahve been movies that DIDN'T make a profit that are reffered to as 'big hits'.

[Jedi Master Carr]

True I can think of a few, but still did make a profit with a budget of 50-60 and add the cost of marketing and then have to split the profits with the theaters did Fox make anything? I am just curious I have no clue how the whole process works, I just found about the 55-45 thing from a magazine about a month ago before that I had no clue how it was worked out.

[Champion of the Force]

It cost $52.5 million to make according to IMDb.

Bear in mind it is officially categorised as an Australian film, and so for us down under it's done pretty well for a film to come from here (though 'Crocodile Dundee' still remains our greatest export). :)

[CMJ]

I'm still not convinced the 50/50 split thing is really all that true. I had a few friends back in film school that worked at the theatres and they said they saw almost NONE of the boxoffice sales(like 10-15%). Thats why they charge SO much for concessions.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I'm not sure how it is done myself as I said. I thought the studios got most of it myself but a roommate (an economic major) said that wasn't so he didn't give an exact figure or if he did I forgot but I think it was around 50-50, it also might depend on the movie and what deal the studio works out with the theaters. I really have no clue.

[Darth23]

Big blockbusters like TPM and Jurassic Park, among others, had arrangements to get like 70-80% of the gross for the first 8 weeks. I think with most normal movies its liek a 50-50 split. That's what I've read, anyway.

Why would theaters raise ticket proces if they aren't keeping any of the money themselves? They could sell a TON of popcorn and junk by charging 2 bucks for FOTR. Not only would they have more customers, the customers would have more change to spend on over priced concession goodies.

[CMJ]

Don't know darth...I just remember when my ex girlfriend and I saw LEGALLY BLONDE a friend of mine let us in because he said the theatre would only get like 10 cents of the ticket sale(this was 3 weeks after it came out). He was one of the management. I'm not sure...it's very odd....:P

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't know either it would make more sense with the split thing or most of these theaters would all be out of busy by now I would think.

[CMJ]

Not sure about that...most pople buy concessions. I'm in the minority..since I NEVER buy them, but it never ceases to amaze me how many people load up on all theat crap. :)

[Darth23]

When I buy them I do it specifically because I know the theater gets most of their money there.

Too bad we don't have any theater managers here. I've heard the 50-50 spilt thing many times through the years, and even recently in articles about how the studios get much more of the gross from the bigger movies - especially in the first 8 weeks.

[Jedieb]

Awhile back I read an article that discussed the ticket split between studios and theaters. I even posted a link to it. If I remember correctly the first typically are a 70/30 split for the studios. After that it reverts to 30/70 with the theaters getting the 70%. That's why this last year was particularly tough on many theaters. You had all of these record openings, but the huge drops many of these films suffered meant the studios walked away with a lot more money than theater owners. A theater would much rather have Forrest Gump than HP. Gump took forever and a day to hit $300 because it had such great legs whild HP got their much faster and made less money for the theater.

I'll see if I can find that link and post it.

[Jedieb]

Here's the link and an except:

http://www.forbes.com/2001/11/19/1119topnews.html


As crazy as it sounds, this front-loading has some economic rationale. In the first week of a movie's release, the studios take 70% of box-office receipts. The studio's percentage is generally reduced to about 30% in succeeding weeks. So a box-office dollar today is worth far more than a box office dollar three weeks from now to the film's financiers.

That 3 weeks I mentioned may not be set in stone. Who knows how long it takes before the percentages switch or if the switch is gradual or one big turn around after a certain amount of time.

[Jedi Master Carr]

It probably varies from movie to movie. I think it was an arrangement like that by New Line for LOTR that Regal balked at. I think New Line wanted to extend this 70% longer than 3 weeks that is my guess at least because I can't remember the details entirely. Actually that would be stupid because the LOTR movies will have the kind of legs like Forest Gump instead of Harry Potter, so you would think the theater chains would just love to carry, luckily for Regal they changed there minds about it.