'Shindig'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
AVATAR Week: The 15 Most Expensive Movies Ever Made
The figures are adjusted to current dollars. #3 surprised me:
3. Cleopatra (1963) - $310 million adjusted
Elizabeth Taylor's massive 192-minute epic is considered one of the biggest flops in movie history. But "Cleopatra" was fortunate to be released in the years before VCRs and multi-plexes. It ran in theaters long enough to make its money back and then some, grossing $402 million adjusted in the United States alone.
But "Cleopatra" was fortunate to be released in the years before VCRs and multi-plexes.
This statement makes no sense at all. Profits from VHS release were often at least as much as those at the box-office. Pre-multiplex implies that cinemagoers would have just chosen to see other movies, but they could have done that in the Sixties too.
It was the highest-grossing film in the US in 1963, but because of the high production costs still nearly managed to bankrupt its studio, Fox. You need to be really, really lucky to break even on expensive films. Titanic is the exception that proves the rule.
I thought it made sense. Cleopatra continued to make money in theaters longer than it would now, because there wasn't the quick turnaround from theaters to home media.
Huge blockbusters may stay in theaters for several months, but if something bombs in the first weekend, it's not going to still be around several months later. Movies are out on DVD within months of their release. If Google speaks truth, Transformers 2 was out on DVD the day after it finished its theatrical run.
However, don't some big $$ movies make $$ overseas? There would be a lot more failures if only the US market were considered.
I think whatever happens to Avatar in the US, it is going to make BANK overseas.
Cleopatra continued to make money in theaters longer than it would now, because there wasn't the quick turnaround from theaters to home media.
But home video sales have a higher margin than domestic box office, so if Cleopatra had made money in that market, it would have been even more profitable. It doesn't make sense to say "fortunately, this movie only had one way to make money as opposed to the several options available today!"
However, don't some big $$ movies make $$ overseas?
Hollywood has relied on the overseas markets for profitability since the 1920s, but especially since WWII.
But home video sales have a higher margin than domestic box office, so if Cleopatra had made money in that market, it would have been even more profitable. It doesn't make sense to say "fortunately, this movie only had one way to make money as opposed to the several options available today!"
I think he's saying that if it flopped now, it wouldn't sell in the home market. So it was better that it was released when people didn't have so many other entertainment choices, although that might be a hard argument in the early 60s (I'm not so sure of audience stats then).
DH's review of Avatar is up: [link]
Well, I guess I'll go see that....
Yeah; if home sales could be substituated for a theater release without being dependent upon it, Avatar would be straight to DVD.
if home sales could be substituated for a theater release without being dependent upon it, Avatar would be straight to DVD.
Except for that whole pesky 3D will-only-look-really-good-in-the-cinema thing.