October 8, 2002

I have nothing to write about…

I’ve been promising a look at the box office potential for IMAX versions of “regular” movies.  So, I’ll start with that and see if anything else exciting happens…

Apollo 13: The IMAX Experience just finished its third weekend.  So far, it has followed a pretty traditional specialty film formula…. a hard time finding screens, slightly soft numbers and soft weekly drops. 

IMAX suffers from chicken/egg syndrome.  In order to take advantage of popular titles, they need more screens.  In order to get more screens built, they need to have more success.  Even the 250-odd IMAX screens currently operating have challenges… most are attached to museums that want to continue to show educational shows.    This is also an advantage for those films, as school groups and museum visitors show up day after day to see whatever show is available. 

Apollo 13 has been playing on 18 screens throughout its run.  As a result, it grossed $100,000 less in this, its third weekend than Space Station grossed in it’s twenty-fifth.  But Space Station was on 59 screens. 

What is the potential?  Every IMAX screen could, theoretically, generate about $12,500 a day, figuring 250 seats @ $10 per for 5 shows.  So the best that a show like A13:TIE could do is a $675,000 weekend.  Figure that the four weekdays are unlikely to do better than half the weekend.  So you’re looking at a maximum $1 million week on 18 IMAX screens.   The process of restructuring the films for IMAX is about a $5 million proposition each time out. 

So let’s think of a new film… X-Men 2 or something like that.  What will motivate Fox, besides IMAX being willing to foot the entire bill, to get involved with an IMAX experience?  Well, with triple the screen count selling 70 percent of their capacity (which is huge), you are looking at a $2.1 million first week.  Figure a 30 percent drop each weekend and you hit breakeven after about three weekends.  Of course, this is with absolutely no consideration of paying rentals to the studio… this is just breakeven for the process.  Assuming that X-Men 2, like most films these days, is played out after six weeks.  That means less than $2 million in profits to share between the studio and IMAX Corp. 

Mind you, with 68 screens , Beauty and the Beast did manage a couple of $2.5 million weekends.  But the only way to see that re-release in it’s first incarnation was on IMAX and “large format” screens.  But I think my numbers are generous for  day-and-date release.

So how much would an IMAX format film have to make in order to generate as much profit as not bothering might?  Well, let’s figure that as much as 50 percent of IMAX goers are paying to see the film in addition to paying for regular tickets, or paying when they wouldn’t bother to see the film otherwise. 

Got all that?

Let’s say that IMAX is willing to take the risk and split revenues with the studio, 25 percent to IMAX, 15 percent to the theater owner and 60 percent to the studio.  IMAX breaks even at $20 million.  That’s 2,000,000 tickets for Movie X @ $10 a pop.  $12 million to the studio. 

A regular run on a big film would have, say, an average $7 ticket sale and an 75 percent return to the studio.

Assuming that 50 percent of IMAX viewers are added sales, that’s an additional $6.75 million in rentals to the studio, all in… on a $20 million run. 

If there was a $15 million run, for IMAX to break even, they would need to take 35 percent of the take, assume 15 percent for the theater owner and 50 percent for the studio.  Again, assuming that half the IMAX sales were otherwise unobtainable added revenue, the studio would still make about $3.5 million in added rentals. 

What about the $10 million run?  IMAX would need 50 percent of revenue to break even, 15 percent to the theaters and 35 percent to the studios.  Still, figure in $900,000 in extra revenue. 

Much lower than that and it starts to cost the studios money.  With a $7.5 million gross, the studio rentals for half the number of tickets sold by IMAX generate about a million more than the entire IMAX take… assuming that IMAX conversion costs are covered. 

So what do you do, say, right now?  Red Dragon opened big, but would it generate $10 million on 54 IMAX screens in just six weeks?  What about The Tuxedo?  The Four Feathers? 

And is the potential of mainstream films converted to IMAX enough to get exhibitors to spend the money on more giant screens that have only very specific uses? 

NAH:  Still nothing to write about…there is a truckload of films coming your way this Friday.  Brown Sugar, Knockaround Guys, The Rules of Attraction, The Transporter, Tuck Everlasting and White Oleander are the wide releases.  Bowling for Columbine, Comedian, Pokemon 4-Ever, Punch Drunk Love and Swept Away are opening in limited runs.   I’ve seen all but three of these films, but it’s not really fair to kick seven of the other nine.  Time for a pop quiz!

I’ll let you try to match up the films with the following comments:

a)     Another one?!?!
b)     An ultimate piece of P.O.V. filmmaking
c)      He’s no Larry David
d)     Even Jesus would tell her she can’t act
e)     If teens lived forever, the suicide rate would shoot up
f)        Kids are angry and horny… hadn’t noticed!
g)     A trifle… a brilliant trifle, but a trifle
h)      Big, bald & not in the film very much.
i)        It’s thin as prison soup, but it’s still better than XXX.
j)        A man who thinks he knows a woman’s mind is a fool
k)      Sometimes “bad” means bad.

READER OF THE DAY:  CRISPY CRITTER: “I'm going to have to revisit Something Wild again soon, but I always thought Ray Liotta was a not-very-good-looking, not-very-good, surprisingly prolific actor. I came to appreciate him more recently during a stint he had on Just Shoot Me in which he played himself and was dating Maya. He was obsessed with Christmas and had duplicated the Radio City Christmas show - complete with elves - in his New York apartment. Like Denise Richards (a good-looking, not-very-good actress), with her turns in Undercover Brother and her Friends stint, he has a sense of humor about himself - and that I can appreciate.

As for Jason Patric, my assessment of him hasn't changed - That's a good-looking man whom I wouldn't mind seeing again on the big screen. (Not that I'm totally obsessed with looks, but when someone's image is presented ten feet high and twenty feet wide, it's hard not to notice.)”

R&D writes:  “I wrote off Ray Liotta after his guest stint on "Just Shoot Me" as a Christmas loving Ray Liotta.  It was truly embarrassing and I wish I could go back and un-see it.  I still like the guy, and I'll give NARC a chance, but he better be every bit as good as you say he if I'm going to accept him as a top-notch actor again.”

RESA writes:  “My wife and I had seen Your Friends and Neighbors in the theater, and caught it again Sat night on cable - Jason Patric deserved some kind of recognition for his performance!!!!!  He was incredible.  I always thought he deserved bigger and better, but I imagine after the Speed 2 debacle, Hollywood wrote him off a bit.  As for Liotta, I also agree Something Wild was an incredible performance, and he has shown glimpses of that role over the years, but again, Liotta deserves better.

I'm now more than psyched to see Narc - sounds a bit like Training Day.”

THE COPPER writes:  “Can't say that I have ever written Jason Patric off, but I did utter a very audible "get-the-fuck-outta-here!!" when he decided to play Keanu's understudy in Speed 2: Cruise Control (was there ever a film title that was also a truer review...?).  When you look at his credits, it all but leaps out from the page. Sure there was The Lost Boys, but we've all been young and hungry.

I've always chalked S2: Career Derailment up to him guaranteeing that he'd never have to work for money again, his mother needed an operation or Fox has some unflattering video of him with circus animals (Patric is too edgy for barnyard types). “

NOT DAISY’S COUSIN writes:  “You know, I was going to write you and tell you that I never wrote off either of these actors, but shit, Liotta has been in a lot of terrible movies. And Jason Patric was a party to "The Journey of August King". Regardless, Liotta's performance in Copland and Patric's turn in After Dark, My Sweet (a really underrated pulp noir movie) are good enough to keep me coming back (most of the time). I've seen bits of Blood, Guts, Bullets and Octane on IFC (where it plays at least twice a day) and he seemed to have made the most out of NO money. Hopefully Narc is a return to a French Connection type movie...something that we've been missing.”

E ME:  Pop that quiz!!!  And click through on the White Oleander banner… good stuff for you!