The first numbers are in!
Posted by norbert_numberguy 12 years, 1 month ago to Movies
First estimate of Friday take, at BoxOfficeMojo: $692,000. That compares to $674,000 for the first day of Part 1, or a 3% increase over last time around.
It's impossible to tell from just one day and just one number, but if 3% is the general trend, then the total theatrical take for Part II will be $4.76 million (3% over $4.63 million), leaving the $16 million production about $11 million in the whole, with two thirds of the budget unrecovered. I would be surprised if the numbers were that bad, but they just may be, and we have to be ready for that.
The only notable high point of the Part 1 release is that it had a relatively high take per screen ($2254 on the first day), and that was used as an argument for adding more screens to the release. This time around it's much lower, $684 per screen, maybe just enough to get it into the top ten by the skin of its teeth for the first week, but a very weak position to start from.
So it's time to start thinking about what it means if this one does as badly as the last one did, or only 3% better than the first one did. Part 1 earned about a million in DVD/BluRay sales (about $3 million in sales, with an industry rule-of-thumb 30% of MSRP going to the studio) and probably not much more in home rentals. Assuming comparable numbers means Part II also ends up deep in the red.
The first movie was funded out of pocket by John Aglialoro. This time around, Aglialoro and Harmon were unable to raise all the money they wanted for Part II (he wanted to raise $25 million in a private debt sale but could only find $16 million) and if these numbers hold, raising money the same way for Part III gets just much, much harder. That is, Aglialoro was willing to gamble, but when you've had two episodes of a trilogy go down in flames, investing in the third is no longer a gamble but a pretty certain loss.
Of course its possible that the film will start doing better. But the reviews have been cataclysmic (currently 0% at Rotten Tomatoes, something I don't think I've ever seen before) and the opportunities for growth just don't seem to be there.
It's impossible to tell from just one day and just one number, but if 3% is the general trend, then the total theatrical take for Part II will be $4.76 million (3% over $4.63 million), leaving the $16 million production about $11 million in the whole, with two thirds of the budget unrecovered. I would be surprised if the numbers were that bad, but they just may be, and we have to be ready for that.
The only notable high point of the Part 1 release is that it had a relatively high take per screen ($2254 on the first day), and that was used as an argument for adding more screens to the release. This time around it's much lower, $684 per screen, maybe just enough to get it into the top ten by the skin of its teeth for the first week, but a very weak position to start from.
So it's time to start thinking about what it means if this one does as badly as the last one did, or only 3% better than the first one did. Part 1 earned about a million in DVD/BluRay sales (about $3 million in sales, with an industry rule-of-thumb 30% of MSRP going to the studio) and probably not much more in home rentals. Assuming comparable numbers means Part II also ends up deep in the red.
The first movie was funded out of pocket by John Aglialoro. This time around, Aglialoro and Harmon were unable to raise all the money they wanted for Part II (he wanted to raise $25 million in a private debt sale but could only find $16 million) and if these numbers hold, raising money the same way for Part III gets just much, much harder. That is, Aglialoro was willing to gamble, but when you've had two episodes of a trilogy go down in flames, investing in the third is no longer a gamble but a pretty certain loss.
Of course its possible that the film will start doing better. But the reviews have been cataclysmic (currently 0% at Rotten Tomatoes, something I don't think I've ever seen before) and the opportunities for growth just don't seem to be there.
Numbers are numbers. Denial is denial. And your displacement is displacement.
The Producer matters, not the zero (the Ellsworth Tooheys who populate Rotten Tomatoes) .
But, by definition, that is a heresy this board must reject.
You are bringing your preconceptions to the reviews.
More of that intellectual integrity Objectivists pat themselves on the back about.
On it's opening day (April 15, 2011), Part 1 made $674K. On its opening day (October 12, 2012), Part 2 made an estimated $692K. The latter is 103% of the former.
There may be an argument to be made that the estimate is wrong and the actuals will come in higher (or lower). But there really isn't a case to be made that the comparison is inapt.
Well, sorry to disappoint your fantasy, but no, I am not named Kerry Sanders.
Just one more thing, apparently, you're wrong about.
As an exposition of a particular political/economic viewpoint, there is also no shortage of those who think she hurts her case rather than helping it. It was after all that novel's rather glaring weaknesses as a form of exposition that made Rand herself decide never to return to fiction again.
Sales wise, the book has done well.
Entertainment wise, the book is captivating to read.
Craft wise, the book is meticulously crafted.
The political and philosophical implications of a book are secondary.
It is a standard defense of Rand that her critics don't know what they're talking about. But it is also quite possible that they actually do, and that it was Rand who was in over her depth. Getting consistently bad reviews may be a sign of a conspiracy of Tooheys, but it may also be a sign that you're just not a very good novelist after all, no matter what your metastasized ego tells you.
If you'd prefer to life in the land of Objectivism Is Magic, and believe that flying unicorns are going to make Part II anything other than the bomb the numbers are indicating, then who I am I to say you're misguided?
JGISD
Edgar
JGISSD
norbert_numbnuts
painfully obviously the same dumb cluck with the same speech pattern/behavior