Matrix Box Ofice down 45% from Reloaded

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-11-16 05:54pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?pa ... utions.htm

Update...looks like the drop has been massive so far. Compare that to Elf, where the drop is less than 13 percent.
It's not even going to turn a profit! It needs $450 million to defer costs and even make it to an accounting profit. That must be a horrific disappointment for Warner Brothers.
450 million? Are you sure? How much did this film cost?

$150 million, plus advertising.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-11-16 05:55pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote: It's not even going to turn a profit! It needs $450 million to defer costs and even make it to an accounting profit. That must be a horrific disappointment for Warner Brothers.
450 million? Are you sure? How much did this film cost?
$150 million, plus advertising.

Isn't advertising part of the marketing budget which was listed at that site at 30 million?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-11-16 05:56pm

Which comes out to around 180 million.

zombie84 · Post by **zombie84** » 2003-11-16 10:07pm

Drooling Iguana wrote:Yes, and although I saw that it was the inspiration for a couple of elements in Star Wars (thr droids, mostly, even though they bore little resemblance to their THF counterparts) the storyline was completely different. I don't recall the plot of any of the Star Wars movies revolving around the droids' get-rich-quick schemes.

You're kidding me right? George Lucas originally approached the studio that owned the rights to Hidden Fortress (Toho i believe) but was unable to secure them so he went and did his own version; later he repaid Kurosawa by financing his film Kagemusha in 1980. The story is a point-for-point remake; some specifics have been ignored/altered/added--the two films are different enough-- but by and large ANH is the sci-fantasy remake (with additional Kurosawa elements thrown in--i.e. the Cantina scene is taken from Yojimbo). Its not like ANH is the exact same film, because Lucas changed enough and added enough unique elements to make it his own, but the basic plot is the same and Lucas even copied the exact same shots for many of the same sequences (i.e. the Vader-Ben duel).

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2003-11-17 12:05am

I think it's safe to say that word of mouth has struck this movie dead.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-11-17 12:08am

I haven't seen it yet. Don't know if I will now.

zombie84 · Post by **zombie84** » 2003-11-17 12:14am

I think a lot of people just dont care anymore. Matrix Reloaded was big enough to satisfy enough people's fix of the Matrix. Thats the problem when you become a pop culture icon--after people get their fix they simply dump you and move on to the next big thing. The only people that go see Revolutions are the fans (and it doesnt help that seeing the first two films are a prerequisite).

I still maintain that the almost non-existant ad campaign killed a lot of Revolutions awareness.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-11-17 12:21am

zombie84 wrote:I think a lot of people just dont care anymore. Matrix Reloaded was big enough to satisfy enough people's fix of the Matrix.

Wow. That is an incredibly optimistic way of looking at it. Here's a more realistic one from my perspective: people saw Reloaded and didn't like it. You don't see movies you don't like multiple times. You also don't recommend it to your friends.

Thats the problem when you become a pop culture icon--after people get their fix they simply dump you and move on to the next big thing. The only people that go see Revolutions are the fans (and it doesnt help that seeing the first two films are a prerequisite).

It's pretty safe to say that a lot of people saw the Matrix. Right now, there's no excuse for the tremendous drop-off for Revolutions other than that people are not enjoying it. What has replaced the Matrix in the eyes of the general public, Elf?

I still maintain that the almost non-existant ad campaign killed a lot of Revolutions awareness.

No, Reloaded did a pretty good job of killing the urge to see Revolutions, I'd say. Ads cost money. The chances of a larger ad campaign bringing in enough money to justify what it would cost are very, very slim.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-11-17 12:22am

zombie84 wrote: I still maintain that the almost non-existant ad campaign killed a lot of Revolutions awareness.

Excuse me but how are people unaware of the NUMBER ONE movie last week?

zombie84 · Post by **zombie84** » 2003-11-17 01:27am

Its just a fad thing--Reloaded hype was huge and now Revolutions is coming so quickly that a lot of people are like "what? Again? I still havent seen the second one!". The Matrix fascination came and went, and yes I'm sure that dissapointment in Reloaded has had a strong effect (especially since Revolutions is Part 2 of 2 and people have to really want to know the ending to see it). Most people dont see movies multiple times--i still believe that most people wont see it because it wasnt hyped up enough; theres a kind of "meh" attitude about Revolutions (which i dont belive is because of bad word of mouth because that attitude was present before the film was out). The fans will probably see it multiple times regardless (as they did with Reloaded), and its more due to the Matrix fanboys that the film was number one last week. The general public has lost interest in Matrix, and though lackluster Reloaded opinions and negative Revolutions opinions has certainly cut out a large chunk of profits and interest, i've noticed that a lot of it has nothing to do with opinions of the films quality and more with the fact that people are over and done with the Matrix. Thats just my experience though.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-11-17 01:52am

zombie84 wrote:Its just a fad thing--Reloaded hype was huge

And the movie just simply did not live up to the hype. People were disappointed as a whole, despite what your opinion of the movie is.

and now Revolutions is coming so quickly that a lot of people are like "what? Again? I still havent seen the second one!".

I don't recall Back to the Future Parts II and III having this problem, and they were released very close to each other as well. The difference here is that Back to the Future Parts II and III were really good (Part II is still my favorite of the series).

Most people dont see movies multiple times--i still believe that most people wont see it because it wasnt hyped up enough; theres a kind of "meh" attitude about Revolutions (which i dont belive is because of bad word of mouth because that attitude was present before the film was out).

How could word of mouth be out if nobody has actually seen the movie yet? You need a week's worth of lag time or so for word of mouth to get out from the people who saw the movie in the first week. Word of mouth is, "Yeah, I saw that the other day, here's what I thought of it." Not what reviewers put out about it.

The fans will probably see it multiple times regardless (as they did with Reloaded), and its more due to the Matrix fanboys that the film was number one last week.

I seem to recall that earlier on this thread you felt that it would be the fanboys that would keep the movie afloat for another month. A 66% drop in the second week isn't quite what I would call "afloat".

The general public has lost interest in Matrix, and though lackluster Reloaded opinions and negative Revolutions opinions has certainly cut out a large chunk of profits and interest, i've noticed that a lot of it has nothing to do with opinions of the films quality and more with the fact that people are over and done with the Matrix. Thats just my experience though.

You're looking at it the wrong way. People aren't just bored with the Matrix. It's not like the demand for a good Batman movie dropped after Batman Returns. No, what killed the Matrix is what killed Schumaker's Batman: The last two movies were nowhere near as good as the originals. The only difference is that Schumacher shat all over Burton's Batman while the Wachowski Brothers managed to do it to themselves. They killed interest for their own movies through bad writing, poor pacing, heavy-handed symbolism, playing to the lowest common denominator, and merchandizing schemes that would make George Lucas whip out a notepad and write furiously. The Animatrix was acceptable, for the most part, but Enter the Matrix was unforgivable. The Matrix Online is even worse.

Add to that the fact that the series does not have an adequate sense of closure, of course people aren't going to be interested in seeing it anymore. You're looking at the effect and not seeing the cause.

David · Post by **David** » 2003-11-17 01:55am

so far $114,174,000 in the US according to Yahoo. B+ average from 30,000 members and C+ from 14 critics.

zombie84 · Post by **zombie84** » 2003-11-17 03:10am

Hotfoot wrote:
zombie84 wrote:Its just a fad thing--Reloaded hype was huge
And the movie just simply did not live up to the hype. People were disappointed as a whole, despite what your opinion of the movie is.

I wasnt disagreeing with you here.

and now Revolutions is coming so quickly that a lot of people are like "what? Again? I still havent seen the second one!".
I don't recall Back to the Future Parts II and III having this problem, and they were released very close to each other as well. The difference here is that Back to the Future Parts II and III were really good (Part II is still my favorite of the series).

BTTF was released a year apart, like LOTR. Its a bit different when Reloaded had only been available on video for about 7 days. Not that sub-par reception of Reloaded didnt hurt Revolutions, i just think that it was overkill for many when you consider Reloaded only dissapeared from theatres a month or two before Revolutions hit. Kill Bill faces the same situation but because it was under-hyped and critically praised (and doesnt demand a $100 million+ box office to be successful) it will most likely do much better.

Most people dont see movies multiple times--i still believe that most people wont see it because it wasnt hyped up enough; theres a kind of "meh" attitude about Revolutions (which i dont belive is because of bad word of mouth because that attitude was present before the film was out).
How could word of mouth be out if nobody has actually seen the movie yet? You need a week's worth of lag time or so for word of mouth to get out from the people who saw the movie in the first week. Word of mouth is, "Yeah, I saw that the other day, here's what I thought of it." Not what reviewers put out about it.

Pre-release word of mouth. Ex: "wanna see Revolutions?" "No man, i heard thats supposed to suck". But like i said, there was an attitude of indifference--"isnt that new Matrix movie out?" "oh come on they just had one a couple months ago". Reloaded was over-hyped and Revolutions was under-hyped. So you have dissapointment and over-expectations the first round and then negativity and indifference the second round. I dont know if it would have made a difference though--probably better to make a huge score off Reloaded while there is still overall positivity regarding the Matrix franchise.

The fans will probably see it multiple times regardless (as they did with Reloaded), and its more due to the Matrix fanboys that the film was number one last week.
I seem to recall that earlier on this thread you felt that it would be the fanboys that would keep the movie afloat for another month. A 66% drop in the second week isn't quite what I would call "afloat".

Its probably both--with lack of interest regarding it (or at least relative lack of interest) from the public, the fans come out in droves opening week and then repeat viewings keep it afloat for the next few weeks. Though at the rate its falling, that probably wont be too long.

I'm not saying that people werent dissapointed with the sequels or anything.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-11-17 06:47pm

So far:

By the numbers:

Matrix

Total US Gross: $171,479,930
Budget: $65,000,000
Worldwide: $456,500,000

Matrix Reloaded

Total US Gross: $281,553,689
Budget: $127,000,000
Advertising: $50,000,000
Worldwide: $727,400,000

Matrix Revolutions

Total US Gross: $102,595,000
Budget: $110,000,000
Advertising: $50,000,000

Source for Numbers

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-11-17 07:19pm

If it cost $160 million, why does it need $450 million 'just to make a profit'?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-11-17 07:34pm

HemlockGrey wrote:If it cost $160 million, why does it need $450 million 'just to make a profit'?

Economics 101: the distributors and theatre owners do not turn over 100% of the gate receipts to the studio. They kind of need to turn a profit, maintain their theatres, pay their employees, etc.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-17 07:39pm

Darth Wong wrote: Economics 101: the distributors and theatre owners do not turn over 100% of the gate receipts to the studio. They kind of need to turn a profit, maintain their theatres, pay their employees, etc.

I believe the rule of thumb is that a film must make 2.5 times its budget to turn a profit.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-11-17 08:23pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: Economics 101: the distributors and theatre owners do not turn over 100% of the gate receipts to the studio. They kind of need to turn a profit, maintain their theatres, pay their employees, etc.
I believe the rule of thumb is that a film must make 2.5 times its budget to turn a profit.

That's for really big films. Smaller movies have it even worse, since theaters get to keep a larger percentage of each ticket sale after the first few weeks. I've heard just a little under 3 times is a more reasonable profit-making perspective.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-11-18 05:24am

That's for really big films. Smaller movies have it even worse, since theaters get to keep a larger percentage of each ticket sale after the first few weeks. I've heard just a little under 3 times is a more reasonable profit-making perspective.

So it is very difficult to make money in hollywood. Right ?

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2003-11-18 03:35pm

Darth Wong wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:If it cost $160 million, why does it need $450 million 'just to make a profit'?
Economics 101: the distributors and theatre owners do not turn over 100% of the gate receipts to the studio. They kind of need to turn a profit, maintain their theatres, pay their employees, etc.

However the percentage not turned over is actually tiny. Often as not theaters can actually LOSE money on some tickets (notably things like Senior and Student/Military discounts). A good friend of mine works at a theater (which coincidentally has set the US attendance record 5 different times in the last year) and from his reports ticket sales can be described as an insignificant source of income. The 102 million gross domestic has to pay a good deal for royalties (the actors and producers make even mroe money), the distributors, and a whole bunch of other overhead that isn't actually included in the movie's budget. An individaul theater's take, nonetheless, is on the very margins of that gross almost all their significant income is generated by concession sales.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2003-11-18 04:24pm

HemlockGrey wrote:If it cost $160 million, why does it need $450 million 'just to make a profit'?

The theaters typically turn over 50%-80% in the first week, decreasing thereafter, leading to an average in the 50% range.

Most major film deals pay exorbitant percentages of gross to the lead actors, the director, copyright holders (if applicable) and/or the producers. Keanu Reeves is reportedly receiving 15% of worldwide grosses for the two Matrix sequels (and is widely reported to have given some $70-million of that to the crew of the film).

In the final analysis, a studio usually has to gross about triple the total costs to break even on the theatrical release.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2003-11-19 12:20am

Though, obviously, there is plenty of extra money to be made from merchandising, DVD sales, etc.