Robert De Niro in Ethan Maniquis and Robert Rodriguez's Machete
George Clooney-Anton Corbijn's THE AMERICAN Tops Labor Day Box Office
Perhaps it was the lack of any strong competition, but John Luessenhop's heist thriller Takers held up quite well on its second weekend out. Featuring Hayden Christensen, Paul Walker, Matt Dillon, Chris Brown, and Idris Elba, Takers was the no. 2 movie this Labor Day weekend (up to Sunday), grossing $11.45m (-44.2%) an averaging $5,190 per theater according to studio estimates found at Box Office Mojo. Takers' domestic total to date: $37.9m.
It seems unlikely that Takers will be able to recover its $32m production costs at the US/Canada box office, as approximately $60m would be needed for that. After all, another 45%-50% drop and the thriller should earn no more than $6m next weekend and $3m a week later; during the week, it has been averaging considerably less than $1k per theater. Even so, Takers will undoubtedly end up in the black once foreign and ancillary revenues are added up.
At no. 3, Machete pulled in an estimated $11.3m. Directed by Ethan Maniquis and Robert Rodriguez and featuring Danny Trejo (in the title role), Robert De Niro, Lindsay Lohan, Steven Seagal, Jessica Alba, Michelle Rodriguez, Don Johnson, Jeff Fahey, and Cheech Marin, Machete averaged an anemic $4,232 at 2,670 venues despite a number of positive reviews.
The exploitation send-up — which reportedly cost about $25m and was later acquired by 20th Century Fox after a "bidding war" — may have failed to connect with audiences, as, following an underwhelming Friday debut, it actually went down on Saturday (though only a minor 3.8%).
But there's still time for Machete to turn the tide — at least a little bit. Its box-office take is quite close to that of Takers, and it's certainly not impossible for it to finish the extended Labor Day weekend at no. 2.
Photo: Machete (20th Century Fox).
Well Well Well i see you were wrong. Takers has now grossed over 52 million dollars and still counting. because of chris brown
Hey BAPlatz,
My pleasure, even though my "explanations" were just a very, very simplified account of the labyrinthine stuff that takes place in the movie business.
As for the trading deal, I'm not sure exactly how that's going to work. But perhaps in some ways that already takes place when you have foreign buyers/investors "betting" a movie will do well in certain markets — and as a result, they help to finance its production in exchange for distribution rights or some such. That was the case with Sylvester Stallone's "The Expendables."
As for the Mormons …
!!!!!
Are they somehow involved in “Takers”???? <– Nevermind, it was my attempt at "bridging the gap/finding common-ground."
Zac,
…But it always seems to comes back to money, 'eh? …So much for…"art!"
I've YET to see any mention regarding "Takers" getting any "foreign run." I can only image, given the film's domestic-success, here in the states, it's a "WHEN" and not a "IF," yes?
That said, I feel this film will do well in Europe/Brazil, particularly The U.K. Any news on when that'll happen? Before being denied his U.K. work-visa, due to his conviction, Chris Brown sold-out ALL his London/U.K./Ireland tour/concert dates!(ALL of his recent Brazilian concert-tour dates were also sold-out!) Idris Elba is English, and Paul Walker…."is Paul Walker..!" The "Fast and Furious" franchise IS ALL HIS(PW is also filming in Brazil)! I know you might frown-upon me making-mention of this, but T.I.'s recent…"concerns" will ONLY add to the film's…"authenticity..!" (I just hope I didn't strike some moral-nerve/ethical code-of-conduct! Personally, I think it just ads to the art..!)
I'm sure not 'bout the "strength of the U.K. Urban dollar," but Paul Walker/Chris Brown/Idris Elba's "appeal" is…"universal!"
I can say this with ALL sincerity-and-certainty: there is NO-WAY that "Takers" was promoted/marketed for-more-than "Machete","The Last Exorcism", nor "The American"! Why? Because you couldn't avoid NOT seeing TV-commercials for those films, especially that Drew Barrymore flick. I just can't see TV-ad time, costing more than, billboard/blog banner-ad costs; NO-WAY..!
As deadline.com stated, "Takers" was marketed/promoted "on the T.I.'s back! He, Idris Elba and Chris Brown went non-stop from MTV/VH1/BET/Urban Radio and set the blogs AFIRE with "Takers' chatter." There was no "Late Night Talk TV promotion." (BLOG POWER, BABY!! ;-9 )
And to continue on the topic of "film financing," what's your "take" on this:http://www.deadline.com/2010/06/will-this-be-the-1st-futures-exchange-film/
I had NO IDEA there were contracts being sold/traded for "Takers," believe me, I'd have "sold short to buy long," in-this-way, nullifying my costs, and placing-myself nicely for the upswing. Zac, I KNEW THIS FILM WOULD DO WELL! If you read the Blogs, there was just too-much "chatter-and-anticipation!"
So, to conclude(sorry for the long-windedness), I'd like to AGAIN thank you for taking the time to carefully-explain "the mechanics and inner-workings" of the film industry. I know my questions might have seemed…stupid/dumb, but I'm just a "curious-novice."
BAPlatz
I've noticed that Box Office Mojo has changed the reported costs of several movies. Those, I should add, are just that, "reported," even if the source is a studio, which can inflate/deflate costs at will.
BOM does that, I believe, whenever more reliable figures are reported.
Universal, for instance, downplayed the huge costs of "Robin Hood," until an insider provided TheWrap (I think it was) with the film's actual costs. I'm sure Box Office Mojo had to adjust their figures then. Everybody else who was paying attention did.
Most movies don't recover their production costs (let alone the extra marketing/distribution costs) at the domestic box office. That's why the overseas box office and ancillary (domestic/foreign) sales are crucial for a movies' eventual success.
As I and others on this site have said, if it weren't for the overseas market numerous Hollywood blockbusters would *never* have been made. Or they'd have been made much more cheaply.
As for the Mormons …
!!!!!
Are they somehow involved in "Takers"????
Zac,
Thanx for the reply and your detailed explanation. Yes, I do realize I quoted boxofficeguru. Bloomberg.com had referenced BOG regarding the film's first-week's performance:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-30/lions-gate-s-last-exorcism-is-top-weekend-movie-with-21-3-million-sales.html <–Being one who references Bloomberg frequently, on an everyday-basis, I took it as credible.
But boxofficemojo did, on the evening of Aug 27th, state that 'Takers' was made for $20-Million. That figure was inflated to $30-Million, on the 30th, and by that Tuesday, it was $32-Million. This I witnessed, with my very-own eyes. As of the writing of this comment(Tuesday, Sep 7th, 2010), all the-since-Aug-27th-released film's budgets are now stated; so reports BOM. Let us now see if those figures are "incrementally increased..!"
Zac, if we're to use your stated "measure" for "Takers," then none but one of the films, in current-wide release, would have yet to turn-a-profit. According to BOM, "Despicable Me" was made for $69M and has since returned over $241M..(WOW!).
If deadline.com is correct, then Hayden Christensen hated "Takers" and Matt Dillon wanted NOTHING to do with it; he DEMANDED his image/name removed from its marketing/promotion. That left T.I./Idris Elba/Chris Brown to market it to an urban audience. Zac, we should give credit where is due! I only saw 1-meager appearance by Hayden in L.A. for the "Takers" premier, and he was huddled-in-corner, discretely tucked-away, just-only-so for a glimpse. Same to be said 'bout Paul Walker during the film's Atlanta premier.
Zac, ever wonder HOW/WHY the Mormons and "certain quarters of the population" could consort on a "recent issue of no-small importance…?"
BAPlatz
(Berlin Alexander Platz)
BAPlatz,
First of all, you were quoting boxofficeguru, not Box Office Mojo. Nothing wrong there, just making sure you know I used a different source for "Takers'" production costs. Other sources (you can check online) also have the $32m figure.
When it comes to "Takers'" box-office cume, boxofficeguru may be right. "Takers" may reach $60m. But considering its recent weekday/weekend performance, I'm not so sure it will. We shall see.
In my box-office posts, I often remind readers that studios on average get only 50%-55% of a movie's domestic box-office gross (and about 40%-45% overseas). Exhibitors keep the other 45%-50%. That's why I came up with the $60m figure for "Takers" to recover its production costs at the domestic box office.
But of course, that all depends on various factors, e.g., if the movie is an "in-house" production or if it was acquired by the studio for a flat fee. Or the type of contract all interested parties have agreed on. For instance, sometimes major stars get a cut of the gross take; that will reduce the studio's share of the pie.
And then there are marketing/distribution costs. I don't know what the figures are for "Takers," but those will have to be covered before the studio/producers earn a profit.
Zac, I'm no "industry-insider", nor do I work in or around the entertainment industry. So, if my questions seem a little…"off", know-then they're from a "curious outsider/laymen."
…That said, I'm really confused; what you're saying, runs headlong into what boxofficemojo is saying:
"Holding up relatively well in its second weekend, the crime thriller Takers dropped to second with an estimated $11.5M falling 44% from its top spot debut. Sony's PG-13 offering has taken in a better-than-expected $37.9M in its first ten days of release and could be looking at a final take of around $60M."<–Here's the link:
http://www.boxofficeguru.com/weekend.htm
So, if boxofficemojo and "various other sources" say the budget is $32-Million, and, as you've stated, it'll take $60-Million to "break even", then I take it the $28-million is for advertising/marketing…?! Please explain!
Oh, BOM had reported $20-million as it's budget/production cost on August 27th..!!
I'll be closely watching to see if another "since-Aug 27th release" will be reporting an "incrementally increasing budget/production cost(s)."
Of all the movies now in theaters, 'Takers' had the least TV-ad time. I can't see billboards/posters blog ad-space costing as much as TV-exposure! And IF 'Takers' cost $28-Million to promote, then it took FAR-more to promote/market the films now in wide release.
JT is right. Takers is doing better than industry insiders planned. Hayden may star in Jumper 2 and with a good script it could be a hit. The American starred Clooney, who is supposed to be a bigger star, but didn't do well on a holiday weekend. Clooney has no box office hits outside of Oceans. The studios can save themselves some money and cast unknowns. Clooney, Anniston, and Roberts have proven to be current box office duds as of late. They should no longer command such hefty salaries if they fail to deliver.
Thanks for writing.
You're right. "Takers" did average about $1.4m last week. However, by Thursday it was down more than 33% when compared to Monday. That's a not inconsiderable drop. Also, it earned $1.18m on Thursday, averaging only $539 per theater. That isn't very impressive on Day 7.
And that's what I meant to say. That "Takers" was earning less than $1k per day *per theater*. (I've corrected the piece.)
In all likelihood, "Takers" will fall below the daily $1m mark this coming week, probably as early as Tuesday.
Also, according to Box Office Mojo and various other sources, the film's budget was $32m.
Actually, Takers has been averaging about $1.4 million a day on weekdays and after the last two weekends, it's a good bet that it will exceed $60 million at the US. The production budget was about $24 with another $12-15 for marketing, p&a, so being in the black is not only highly likely, it may already have happened. Which proves, after "Jumper" and his award-winning performances in '01 and '02, that writing off Hayden Christensen is an exceedingly stupid thing to do. When was Ewan McGregor's last major hit that spent three weekends in the top 5, which is pretty much a foregone conclusion for "Takers"? No, Hayden isn't the only reason the movie has done well, but Screen Gems knew what it was doing when they put him front and center and beefed up his role. The numbers tell the story better than anything, and it looks like Hayden is the one with the burgeoning career five years after the last "Star Wars" movie, not Ewan. (Though Natalie, even lacking a significant hit outside "V for Vendetta," is gaining some early awards buzz for "Black Swan." Probably too early.)