Box Office Sales

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Movies

      Why Is ‘Deadpool & Wolverine’ Projected to Set Records?

      by

      Opening-weekend estimates have been a Hollywood fixture since the 1980s. But surveys of moviegoers can fail to capture those who infrequently visit the theater.Savvy moviegoers may have noticed that these are very uncertain times at the box office. Not only are ticket sales this summer down about 17 percent compared to last year, according to Comscore, but it seems challenging to anticipate what will hit and what will flop.The domestic opening-weekend totals for would-be tent poles “The Fall Guy” and “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” came in lower than expected, while “A Quiet Place: Day One” and last weekend’s “Twisters” far exceeded their estimates.So how do Hollywood studios and their analysts make these predictions? And what explains why they fail?Box office projections, typically derived from more general audience sentiment data known as “tracking,” have been a fixture of the industry since the 1980s. The idea that studios should know in advance how a film will perform — down to a specific dollar figure — was promoted by the Coca-Cola Company, which bought Columbia Pictures in 1982 and thought it should be run more like a conventional maker of consumer products.“They were used to certain metrics of units sold,” said Kevin Goetz, the founder and chief executive of the analytics firm Screen Engine/ASI and the author of “Audience-ology.” “They pushed the National Research Group to come up with an estimate figure for their movies, and thus began what is essentially a parlor game of predictions.”How Does Tracking Work?To get a dollar estimate for a given movie, tracking companies poll prospective audience members weeks or even months in advance. Their questions are designed to gauge three metrics: awareness, interest and choice, meaning where the film ranks among others the respondent is interested in seeing.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Music

      Chappell Roan Booked a Tour. Then She Blew Up.

      by

      In September 2023, Chappell Roan opened the tour for her debut album, “The Rise and Fall of a Midwest Princess,” in Sacramento at the Goldfield Trading Post, a venue that holds 600 people.Last Friday night in Seattle, she held court before a festival crowd of 10,000 at the Capitol Hill Block Party. And lately, 10,000 is a small crowd for the rising pop star.The narrow street where the event is held couldn’t contain all the fans who arrived in glittery pink cowboy hats — a homage to Roan’s song “Pink Pony Club,” about dancing at a gay bar — so those without tickets camped out at an adjacent gas station and sang along to synth-pop hits like “Good Luck, Babe!” and “Hot to Go!,” both of which have been climbing Billboard’s Hot 100 in the past six weeks.The last few months have been transformative for Roan, 26, who released her first EP in 2017, was dropped by her label in 2020 and then began a fruitful collaboration with the songwriter and producer Daniel Nigro (Olivia Rodrigo, Sky Ferreira). Since she looked directly into the camera at the Coachella festival in April and declared, “I’m your favorite artist’s favorite artist,” she has seemingly been everywhere — on TikTok, YouTube, talk shows, NPR’s Tiny Desk.Chappell Roan onstage at the Capitol Hill Block Party in Seattle last Friday.Fans in the front row celebrating the “Midwest Princess.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Barbie’ Was Supposed to Change Hollywood. Many See ‘No Effect.’

      by

      The film was a global phenomenon and seemed to herald a new era of embracing stories by, about and for women. What happened?When “Barbie” was released in 2023, it quickly became a phenomenon. It was the top box office film of the year, earning $1.4 billion worldwide, and it became Warner Bros.’s highest-grossing film ever, outpacing both “Dark Knight” movies, “Wonder Woman” and every chapter in the “Harry Potter” franchise.It was a DayGlo-pink rebuttal to decades of conventional Hollywood thinking, and its success seemed to herald a new paradigm for the film industry. Movies written and directed by women and focused on female protagonists could attract enormous audiences to multiplexes around the world.Yet in the 12 months since the movie’s release, little has changed in Hollywood. Buffeted by dual labor strikes that went on for months and a general retrenchment by entertainment companies trying to navigate the economics of the streaming era, the industry has retreated to its usual ways of doing business.The box office is down 17 percent from last year at this time, and studios spooked by a fickle audience (yes to “Twisters,” no to “Fall Guy”) are again questioning the reliability of the theatrical marketplace. Films released in 2023 featured the same number of girls or women in a leading role as in 2010, according to a report from the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Inclusion Initiative. Ask around Hollywood and the consensus seems to be that “Barbie” is a singular success, a gargantuan feat helmed by particular talents, the writer-director Greta Gerwig and the star Margot Robbie. Translation: Don’t expect a lot of movies like that in theaters anytime soon.“‘Barbie’ had no effect,” said Stacy L. Smith, the founder of the inclusion initiative, which studies inequality in Hollywood. “It’s perceived cognitively as a one-off. They have individuated the Margot Robbie, Greta Gerwig success and haven’t thought about how their own decision-making could be different and inclusive to create a new path forward.“Like most things with this industry, they’re like, ‘Oh, this is neat and shiny,’ and then they go right back to the way they’ve always been.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Inside Out 2’ Passes $1.25 Billion Mark and Is Pixar’s Biggest Movie Ever

      by

      The animated film about a young teenage girl and her complex emotions has passed the $1.25 billion mark globally and is expected to keep growing.Emotions are running wild at the box office this summer. Pixar’s newest animated feature, “Inside Out 2,” passed the $1.25 billion mark globally on Wednesday, making it the studio’s highest-grossing film of all time, not adjusted for inflation. It has raked in $543 million domestically and $708 million internationally.“Incredibles 2,” which earned $1.24 billion worldwide in 2018, was previously in the top spot for Pixar, which is owned by Disney.“Inside Out 2” is also the most successful film of 2024 so far and the fourth highest-grossing animated movie ever — behind “Frozen” (2013), “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” (2023) and “Frozen II” (2019). Its profits are poised to keep climbing as it is released in more countries, including Japan.“Inside Out 2,” Pixar’s 28th movie, continues the story of Riley as she turns 13 years old and grapples with puberty and her bevy of personified emotions, now including anxiety.Directed by Kelsey Mann, the movie has a voice cast that includes Amy Poehler, Maya Hawke, Tony Hale, Lewis Black, Phyllis Smith, Ayo Edebiri and Yvette Nicole Brown.It opened on June 14 to rave reviews from critics and audiences, who bestowed it with an A grade in CinemaScore exit polls, the same score as “Inside Out,” which made about $860 million globally in 2015. The sequel also surpassed opening weekend box office predictions, collecting about $155 million in the United States and Canada, about 70 percent more than anticipated.Since last year’s “Barbenheimer” phenomenon — when “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” opened simultaneously on July 21 — the box office has been generally sluggish, without a single film achieving phenomenon status like Greta Gerwig’s smash or Christopher Nolan’s Oscar-dominating hit. “Inside Out 2” has filled that gap and is the first movie to clear the billion-dollar hurdle since “Barbie.”It was a crucial win for Pixar, which has had a wobbly run since the coronavirus pandemic started keeping audiences home in March 2020. Its film “Onward” was released in theaters on March 6, 2020, and its next three movies — “Soul,” “Turning Red” and “Luca” — went straight to the Disney+ streaming service.Last year, the original Pixar movie “Elemental” had a weak start but managed to reverse course, eventually collecting about $500 million worldwide. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Movies

      ‘Fly Me to the Moon’ Is a Throwback Amid Summer Blockbusters

      by

      Directed by Greg Berlanti, the film amounts to a Hollywood experiment: Is there still room at the multiplexes for original movies aimed at grown-ups.“Fly Me to the Moon” is the kind of movie that isn’t supposed to succeed in theaters anymore, at least if you listen to franchise-obsessed studio executives.The story is a period piece and completely original: In 1968, a government operative (Woody Harrelson) hires a marketing virtuoso (Scarlett Johansson) to convince the public — and Congress — that a troubled NASA can pull off its scheduled Apollo 11 moon landing. Stylish and devious, she clashes with the rigid launch director (Channing Tatum) and secretly — as a backup, to be used only in an emergency — arranges for a fake landing to be filmed on a soundstage. What’s the harm?Hollywood marketers will tell you that ticket buyers eschew movies that mash together genres. And “Fly Me to the Moon” is part drama, part comedic caper, part romance, part fiction and part true story. Particularly in the summer, studios prefer to serve up mindless popcorn movies aimed at teenagers. “Fly Me to the Moon” is entertainment for thinking adults, the kind that Mike Nichols (“Working Girl”) and James L. Brooks (“Broadcast News”) made in the 1980s.So the question must be asked: How on earth did “Fly Me to the Moon” manage to score a wide release in theaters at the height of blockbuster season? The film rolls into 3,300 theaters in the United States and Canada on Friday.Shouldn’t it be going straight to streaming?In many ways, the film’s unexpected journey to multiplexes reflects the degree to which Hollywood runs on the vagaries of chance. “Fly Me to the Moon” started out as a streaming movie — full stop. Apple TV+ paid an estimated $100 million for the project in March 2022, and the contract called for no theatrical release of any kind.But then Greg Berlanti got involved.It was June 2022, and Mr. Berlanti, the wunderkind television producer, had just turned 50. That milestone prompted a degree of uncomfortable self-reflection, compounded by his mother’s recent death. At the same time, the entertainment business was changing — the streaming-driven “peak TV” era was winding down — and Mr. Berlanti wasn’t entirely sure where to focus his professional attention.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Movies

      Kevin Costner’s Next ‘Horizon’ Film Release Is Canceled

      by

      The film was supposed to hit theaters on Aug. 16, but that plan was scrapped after the first chapter of the Western saga disappointed at the box office.Kevin Costner’s audacious experiment seems to have failed.Mr. Costner tried something rare this summer, releasing the first chapter of his western saga “Horizon” — which he directed, starred in, co-wrote and partly financed — in theaters across the country on June 28. The plan was for the second chapter in the sprawling story to be released six weeks later.But thanks to paltry box office returns, that plan has been scuttled. On Wednesday, New Line Cinema, a subsidiary of Warner Bros., said it was canceling the theatrical release of “Horizon: An American Saga — Chapter 2,” which was scheduled to debut in theaters on Aug. 16.The first chapter, which cost $100 million, made $11 million in its opening weekend and has generated just $22.6 million over all. Mr. Costner planned for the saga, about the settling of the West after the Civil War, to consist of four chapters, and tickets to the first two chapters were made available at the same time. Those who bought tickets to the second “Horizon” film would be able to receive a refund.“Horizon: An American Saga — Chapter 1” will now be available via premium video on demand on Tuesday, “in order to give audiences a greater opportunity to discover the first installment of ‘Horizon’ over the coming weeks,” a New Line spokesman said in a statement. It will also be available on Max, the streaming service from Warner Bros. Discovery, though no date has been set for that. It is not clear when or how the second chapter will be released.Mr. Costner, who invested $38 million of his own money in the project and left his lead role in the hit television show “Yellowstone” because of scheduling conflicts over “Horizon,” declined to comment. He began filming the third chapter in May.“Kevin made this film for people who love movies and who wanted to go on a journey,” Territory Pictures, Mr. Costner’s production company, said in a statement. “The support that we have received from film fans, and the theater owners, as they experience the first chapter of this saga only serves to reinforce our belief in them and the films that we have made, and we thank them for coming on board for the ride. We welcome the opportunity for that window to be expanded, as we know it will only serve to enhance the experience of seeing ‘Horizon 2.’” More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Movies

      David Ellison Poised to Become a New Mogul in a Diminished Hollywood

      by

      David Ellison is poised to soon run Paramount Pictures, among other entertainment assets. But what does that mean in a fractured cultural landscape?In 1994, when Sumner M. Redstone bought Paramount Pictures for about $10 billion, the equivalent of about $22 billion today, he did more than just take over a company. He ascended a cultural throne.Studios like Paramount — founded in the 1910s, operating soundstage complexes and controlling vast film libraries — were valuable businesses on the verge of hitting a mother lode: the DVD. Perhaps more important, however, they gave their owners a precious identity as certified members of the cultural elite.Movies still towered above everything. Top ticket sellers in 1994 included touchstones like “The Lion King,” “Schindler’s List,” “Interview With the Vampire,” “Mrs. Doubtfire,” “Philadelphia,” “Speed” and “Pulp Fiction.” In 1995, when “Forrest Gump” — a Paramount release — won the Oscar for best picture, more than 48 million Americans tuned in to watch.Those days are over.On Sunday, the Redstone family reluctantly relinquished Paramount, passing the studio to David Ellison, the tech scion behind a 14-year-old entertainment company called Skydance. If the complex deal closes, Mr. Ellison and his backers, which include RedBird Capital Partners, will spend roughly $8 billion on a collection of assets that include Paramount, CBS, two streaming services and a portfolio of cable networks, such as MTV, Nickelodeon, BET and Comedy Central.Considering the movie studio alone was worth $22 billion in 1994, it was not exactly a celebratory moment in Hollywood. Rather, it was another example of harsh reality intruding on a world that still likes to fantasize about recapturing its golden age. (Universal recently renovated its lot, adding a sign over one of its entrance gates that reads, “Welcome all who change the world.”)Sure, Mr. Ellison, 41, now ranks as a bona fide Hollywood mogul. But what does that even mean in 2024? His ascendance bears no resemblance to the robber barons like Mr. Redstone who came before him, partly because there is precious little left to rob.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Music

      San Francisco’s Arts Institutions Are Slowly Building Back

      by

      Although attendance remains down from prepandemic levels, the city’s arts groups are having some success getting audiences to return.On a recent clear day, visitors were wandering through the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art to gawk at works by Yayoi Kusama and Alexander Calder, and, a few blocks away, making their way through the galleries at the Contemporary Jewish Museum and the Museum of the African Diaspora.That evening, music lovers poured in to Davies Symphony Hall to hear Esa-Pekka Salonen conduct the San Francisco Symphony and into the War Memorial Opera House across the street, where the San Francisco Opera was giving the American premiere of Kaija Saariaho’s “Innocence.”Although attendance at the city’s arts institutions remains down from prepandemic levels — with tourism, hotel occupancy and office attendance yet to fully recover — its cultural ecosystem has been showing signs of inching its way back.Arts organizations around the nation have been struggling to regain audiences since the pandemic, with Broadway attendance about 17 percent lower than before and precipitous declines at many regional theaters, museums, orchestras and opera companies.San Francisco has its own particular challenges: People are returning to work, but the city’s office buildings remain emptier than those in Los Angeles or New York. Fewer people are taking Bay Area Rapid Transit downtown; the number of riders exiting at downtown stations is still down by more than half since 2019.The city and its cultural organizations have been struggling to overcome what Thomas P. Campbell, director of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, referred to as the “doom narrative,” the widespread media coverage of the city’s challenges, both real and exaggerated.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More