Spirited Away's First Post-Oscar Box Office Weekend
Terrence Briggs
Ranked 16th for the week
$1,605,000 for the weekend
a boost of 31929.5% from the previous weekend's gross
on 711 screens (704 more than last week)
$2,257 per-screen average (the important number)
$7,225,000 total gross
$10,161 Culmulative Per-Screen Average (was $35K, prior to the rerelease)
Thoughts?
Chibi-Light
Yeah, what were the previous per-screen numbers? I didn't bother to
commit those to memeory.
CL
Rally for America
-----------------
Tampa, FL - April 5
More info at: www.glennbeck.com/home/rally.shtml
Terrence Briggs
"Chibi-Light" <chibiw...@YUM-SPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3e8781ec...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:09:54 -0500, "Terrence Briggs"
> <mrm...@peopleweb.com> wrote:
>
> >Beat ya to it, Juan! :)
> >
> >Ranked 16th for the week
> >$1,605,000 for the weekend
> >a boost of 31929.5% from the previous weekend's gross
> >on 711 screens (704 more than last week)
> >$2,257 per-screen average (the important number)
> >$7,225,000 total gross
> >$10,161 Culmulative Per-Screen Average (was $35K, prior to the rerelease)
> >
> >Thoughts?
>
> Yeah, what were the previous per-screen numbers? I didn't bother to
> commit those to memeory.
Say it with me: "Who's the man?"
S.A.
Week 1 $17,301 26 theaters
2 -42.45% $9,956 53
3 -36.73% $6,299 97
4 -26.97% $4,600 138
5 -25.26% $3,438 151
6 -18.82% $2,791 149
7 -17.77% $2,295 136
8 -8.10% $2,109 128 (allllllmost therrrrrre)
...
27 $715 7
28 316% $2,257 711
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=spiritedaway.htm&PHPSESSID=88ab0c3b4
748bae749b4ccd8012673dc
> CL
> Rally for America
> -----------------
> Tampa, FL - April 5
> More info at: www.glennbeck.com/home/rally.shtml
Terrence Briggs ahs been Spirited Away
Peace to you...
Dawn Taylor
<mrm...@peopleweb.com> wrote:
My thoughts are that it's a shame that Disney's pre-Oscar agenda --
whatever it was-- appeared to be actively *against* supporting release
of the film.
Being the cynical sort, it seemed a case of wanting to control an
enormously successful foreign product so that it didn't overshadow
their own, home-grown films. By becoming the U.S. distributor they
were able to look like they were sharing Miyazaki with the world --
when it reality they were making damn sure "Spirited Away" got such a
limited release that the public didn't get a chance to give it big box
office numbers, thus assuring that Disney remains the household name
for animated features.
But damn it, it won an Oscar! So they may as well give it some release
*now* while they can make a little more money off it -- during a time
when it's not in direct competition with Disney product like (koff,
gag) "Treasure Planet."
I think my town, Portland OR, is a pretty standard example of how
Disney released "Spirited Away". During it's initial release, it was
in one theater only -- an inconvenient downtown venue that specializes
in art and foreign releases. There was also no advertising for it at
all. Now that they're interested in a few people actually *seeing* it
(and there's no Disney product cuurently in release that it might
take ticket sales away from) SA's in multiplexes and we're seeing TV
ads.
Of course, they still don't want a LOT of people seeing it. It
wouldn't do for "Spirited Away" to be a bigger hit than, say, "Lilo &
Stitch." If that happened, movie-goers might start paying attention to
non-domestic animation, and that's not something Disney wants.
Dawn
Derek Janssen
>
> Of course, they still don't want a LOT of people seeing it. It
> wouldn't do for "Spirited Away" to be a bigger hit than, say, "Lilo &
> Stitch." If that happened, movie-goers might start paying attention to
> non-domestic animation, and that's not something Disney wants.
Think we're pretty near the end of the "They don't like us because
they're JEALOUS!" conspiracy theories at this point and we're now in new territory:
Fact is (accdg. to the just-supplied figures), it's getting the *same*
per-screen averages from moviegoers it got when it'd been in theaters
for seven weeks--less, in fact--just that there're more screens and more
ads to average with.
The fact that we KNOW now that there's actually going to be a DVD for it
in our foreseeable lifetime might have something to do with it--
Those who are going to see it in a theater are seeing it just out of
curiosity or to ceremonially "take that!" the fact that they couldn't
see it the first time, but you already *know* what's going to happen to
repeat business...
Derek Janssen (I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm woo-hoo'ing, too, but...)
dja...@rcn.com
Juan F. Lara
Dawn Taylor <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> ( and there's no Disney product cuurently in release that it might
> take ticket sales away from )
Um, there's "Piglet's Big Movie" in its second week of release, and the
bad "Jungle Book 2" still out there.
- Juan F. Lara
Scott
Yes.
"Piglet's Big Movie" is on almost 2100 screens.
'nuff said.
--
Scott
Scott
> Dawn Taylor wrote:
>
>>Of course, they still don't want a LOT of people seeing it. It
>>wouldn't do for "Spirited Away" to be a bigger hit than, say, "Lilo &
>>Stitch." If that happened, movie-goers might start paying attention to
>>non-domestic animation, and that's not something Disney wants.
>
>
> Think we're pretty near the end of the "They don't like us because
> they're JEALOUS!" conspiracy theories at this point and we're now in new territory:
"Piglet's Big Movie" is on 2100 screens.
Is it going to win the Oscar too?
No.
Game.. Set.. Match.
--
Scott
Derek Janssen
>
> > Think we're pretty near the end of the "They don't like us because
> > they're JEALOUS!" conspiracy theories at this point and we're now in new territory:
>
> "Piglet's Big Movie" is on 2100 screens.
>
> Is it going to win the Oscar too?
>
> No.
Is it going to go any higher than #8 next week either?
No.
Derek Janssen (hey, you oughta hang out on the *other* groups, where
we're calling PBM an embarrassing flop for Disney)
dja...@rcn.com
Scott
Let us extrapolate for a moment.
Spirited Away, in week TWENTY EIGHT is now making $2200 a screen. Had it
been released on the same schedule as the standard Disney drek, it would
have probably made between $40 million and $50 million. (eight weeks,
2800 theaters)
Shame.
--
Scott
Dawn Taylor
wrote:
Sorry. I guess I should have said there's no *major* Disney product in
release for it to take ticket sales away from.
Piglet;s Big Movie and Jungle Book 2 are films that should have gone
straight to video, anyway. That they can make it in theaters at all is
just ... sad, really.
Dawn
Dawn Taylor
wrote:
>Dawn Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Of course, they still don't want a LOT of people seeing it. It
>> wouldn't do for "Spirited Away" to be a bigger hit than, say, "Lilo &
>> Stitch." If that happened, movie-goers might start paying attention to
>> non-domestic animation, and that's not something Disney wants.
>
>Think we're pretty near the end of the "They don't like us because
>they're JEALOUS!" conspiracy theories at this point and we're now in new territory:
Not really. Do you think that Disney *wants* to inspire American
audience interest in foreign animated films? They already have to
deal with Dreamworks is cutting in on their turf, they don;t want us
to see how much great product there is elsewhere. What if theose
foreign fellers started -- gasp! -- distributing their movies here?
What if they opened the new Miyazaki film on the same weekend as
Disney's "Great Big Zany Tigger Movie"?
>Fact is (accdg. to the just-supplied figures), it's getting the *same*
>per-screen averages from moviegoers it got when it'd been in theaters
>for seven weeks--less, in fact--just that there're more screens and more
>ads to average with.
Okay. I'm not sure I get your point -- it's available in more theaters
than before, and yet it's getting the same number of bodies in seats
per theater. Sounds to me like there are people who would have gone to
see it before had they been given the venue to do so.
>The fact that we KNOW now that there's actually going to be a DVD for it
>in our foreseeable lifetime might have something to do with it--
>Those who are going to see it in a theater are seeing it just out of
>curiosity or to ceremonially "take that!" the fact that they couldn't
>see it the first time, but you already *know* what's going to happen to
>repeat business...
Once again, I don't think I get your point. Even though it's about to
come out on DVD, people are buying tickets -- that's rather unusual,
isn't it? And your statement that people are going to see it "just out
of curiosity" (as opposed to what other reason to see a film for the
first time?)
As for audiences seeing it "to ceremonially "take that!" the fact that
they couldn't see it the first time' -- are there really that many
people who go to see movies out of spite?
>
>Derek Janssen (I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm woo-hoo'ing, too, but...)
Your woo-hoos sound curiously bitter, sweets. Are you feeling a tad
cranky tonight? :-)
Dawn
Derek Janssen
>
> >> Of course, they still don't want a LOT of people seeing it. It
> >> wouldn't do for "Spirited Away" to be a bigger hit than, say, "Lilo &
> >> Stitch." If that happened, movie-goers might start paying attention to
> >> non-domestic animation, and that's not something Disney wants.
> >
> >Think we're pretty near the end of the "They don't like us because
> >they're JEALOUS!" conspiracy theories at this point and we're now in new territory:
>
> Not really. Do you think that Disney *wants* to inspire American
> audience interest in foreign animated films?
They do if THEY'RE the ones who can sell them on video later for $29.95
+tax, available at Target and other fine stores...
> What if they opened the new Miyazaki film on the same weekend as
> Disney's "Great Big Zany Tigger Movie"?
I think we're not looking as closely at the key words, "What if THEY
opened it?":
As US distributors, *they* rake in the North American cash, even if it
plays on a bedsheet.
So they know it's in their best interest to arrange as *many* bedsheets
as their distribution budget, correct or mistaken, sees fit to support.
> >Fact is (accdg. to the just-supplied figures), it's getting the *same*
> >per-screen averages from moviegoers it got when it'd been in theaters
> >for seven weeks--less, in fact--just that there're more screens and more
> >ads to average with.
>
> Okay. I'm not sure I get your point -- it's available in more theaters
> than before, and yet it's getting the same number of bodies in seats
> per theater.
(Keep going: More...->...Less...)
> Sounds to me like there are people who would have gone to
> see it before had they been given the venue to do so.
Yep--THOSE are the people seeing it, and although plentiful and
boundlessly enthusiastic, there aren't as many of as those around to
clean up nowadays as there were the first time. The rest of us saw it already.
> >The fact that we KNOW now that there's actually going to be a DVD for it
> >in our foreseeable lifetime might have something to do with it--
> >Those who are going to see it in a theater are seeing it just out of
> >curiosity or to ceremonially "take that!" the fact that they couldn't
> >see it the first time, but you already *know* what's going to happen to
> >repeat business...
>
> Once again, I don't think I get your point. Even though it's about to
> come out on DVD, people are buying tickets -- that's rather unusual,
> isn't it? And your statement that people are going to see it "just out
> of curiosity" (as opposed to what other reason to see a film for the
> first time?)
The reasons those same people don't see it a second time.
> As for audiences seeing it "to ceremonially "take that!" the fact that
> they couldn't see it the first time' -- are there really that many
> people who go to see movies out of spite?
They do if they're celebrating the fact their theater didn't get it the
first time...
(If you still don't get it, ask Terrence to do another "WOO-HOO <hic!>")
> > (I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm woo-hoo'ing, too, but...)
>
> Your woo-hoos sound curiously bitter, sweets. Are you feeling a tad
> cranky tonight? :-)
No, but...geez-friggin'-criminy, they're NOT welching on their Oscar
bets, we're getting real ads during "West Wing", and we're getting three
two-disk dubbed *AND* subtitled DVD's in one wallet-destroying week,
while Piglet'll be lucky to get full-frame and a Stitch 2 trailer--
What does Disney have to DO to bury the fan-paranoid Ghosts of 1999,
invite everyone to free nonstop 24-hour screenings in every city for a
month??
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Derek Janssen
> >
> > >> Of course, they still don't want a LOT of people seeing it. It
> > >> wouldn't do for "Spirited Away" to be a bigger hit than, say, "Lilo &
> > >> Stitch." If that happened, movie-goers might start paying attention to
> > >> non-domestic animation, and that's not something Disney wants.
> > >
> > >Think we're pretty near the end of the "They don't like us because
> > >they're JEALOUS!" conspiracy theories at this point and we're now in new territory:
> >
> > Not really. Do you think that Disney *wants* to inspire American
> > audience interest in foreign animated films?
> ...Geez-friggin'-criminy, they're NOT welching on their Oscar
> bets, we're getting real ads during "West Wing", and we're getting three
> two-disk dubbed *AND* subtitled DVD's in one wallet-destroying week,
> while Piglet'll be lucky to get full-frame and a Stitch 2 trailer--
>
> What does Disney have to DO to bury the fan-paranoid Ghosts of 1999,
> invite everyone to free nonstop 24-hour screenings in every city for a
> month??
Or, to crystallize the issue:
*Your* nostalgic complaints are over fears that "Spirited Away" is
currently playing in the same cineplexes where "Piglet's Big Movie" is playing--
While I, OTOH, with an equally historic view, am bravely trying to point
out the rather glaring silver lining, "...WELL, IT SURE AS HELL DIDN'T
THE LAST TIME!!!!!!!" ^_^
Derek Janssen (does that leave with us with only one factor to blame? I
leave that up to you.)
dja...@rcn.com
Dawn Taylor
wrote:
>
>No, but...geez-friggin'-criminy, they're NOT welching on their Oscar
>bets, we're getting real ads during "West Wing", and we're getting three
>two-disk dubbed *AND* subtitled DVD's in one wallet-destroying week,
>while Piglet'll be lucky to get full-frame and a Stitch 2 trailer--
So imagine how well it would have done if they'd shown some interest
in distributing it properly the first time.
Derek, it's not paranoia to ask why they didn't bother to do that. The
answer that one comes up with is that they didn't really want it to do
that well -- honestly, it's not like they don't have the resources to
market the living fuck out of anything they choose. And they've
marketed the living fuck out of utter dreck in the past. But that was
Disney-produced dreck. "Spirited Away" was released, it seemed, almost
grudgingly.
>What does Disney have to DO to bury the fan-paranoid Ghosts of 1999,
>invite everyone to free nonstop 24-hour screenings in every city for a
>month??
Perhaps put their marketing money and distribution muscle *behind*
quality films, rather than acting as if they're embarrassed by them --
that would be a good start.
Dawn
Terrence Briggs
"Dawn Taylor" <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:bqaf8vstmrh2nsjt5...@4ax.com...
Dawn, the long and short of my cynicism is as follows:
If Spirited Away had been released in 2000+ theaters from the get-go, as was
the case with Doug: The First Movie, the film would've most assuredly gotten
Doug: The First Movie-esque numbers. That is to say, it's per-screen
average would've been WORSE than the $2200 we saw for this rerelease.
The Saturation Argument only holds water if the film gets the proper
word-of-mouth. My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Blair Witch Project prove you
don't have to have ANY saturation to become phat flicks.
To review:
1) Saturation + poor per-screen averages = Treasure Planet-sized disaster,
instant invalidation of an entire genre, and yet another round of conspiracy
theories stating that "Treasure Planet-sized Disaster wasn't marketed
right!"
2) Small distribution + word-of-mouth = potential growth
As it stands, Spirited Away was a worthy arthouse performer, with incredible
staying power even before the Oscar, that has yet to receive the audience it
deserves. Fine.
I've been proven wrong before, though. I'm the second-largest Spirited Away
booster around, yet I didn't believe the film would win an Oscar.
Read my rec.arts.animation posts on the matter if you want more details.
Terrence Briggs, who watches films not out of spite, but out of misplaced
charity
Peace to you...WOOHOO!..heh-heh...
Terrence Briggs
> wrote:
<snip>
> >What does Disney have to DO to bury the fan-paranoid Ghosts of 1999,
> >invite everyone to free nonstop 24-hour screenings in every city for a
> >month??
>
> Perhaps put their marketing money and distribution muscle *behind*
> quality films, rather than acting as if they're embarrassed by them --
> that would be a good start.
>
> Dawn
Forgot to add...
Lilo & Stitch was very well recieved. It also did the business Iron Giant
SHOULD have recieved in 1999.
Disney knows quality the same way Cartoon Network's Toonami and Adult Swim
programmers know quality. Sure, you'll get a Cowboy Bebop or a Baby Blues
out of the deal, but you'll have to deal with Dragon Ball Z or Thundercats
to pay for it.
Terrence Briggs, gracefully avoiding Evangelion
Peace to you...WOOHOO!
PeterCat
> *now* while they can make a little more money off it -- during a time
> when it's not in direct competition with Disney product like (koff,
> gag) "Treasure Planet."
What mystifies me is that I doubt it's physically possible to
manufacture hundreds of film prints and ship them to theatres in only a
few days. So either someone behind-the-scenes at the Oscars tipped them
off about the award in advance -- or they already had all those prints
sitting in a warehouse somewhere. Some were left over from the first
release, obviously, but that's only a fraction of the current total.
--
The Furry InfoPage! <http://www.tigerden.com/infopage/furry/>
pete...@Furry.fan.org (PeterCat) Rhal on FurryMUCK (come cuddle!)
--
"He's cute all right, but only if you're into dogs."
Watch InuYasha, Monday-Thursday nights on Cartoon Network!
Gerard dS
"Terrence Briggs" <mrm...@peopleweb.com> wrote in message
news:b67tf8$kl4$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Anyone that was going to see it, who could see it, saw it on its original
release.
Gerard
Nargun
> In article <4bve8vk4q2k023vee...@4ax.com>,
> Dawn Taylor <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> > But damn it, it won an Oscar! So they may as well give it some release
> > *now* while they can make a little more money off it -- during a time
> > when it's not in direct competition with Disney product like (koff,
> > gag) "Treasure Planet."
>
> What mystifies me is that I doubt it's physically possible to
> manufacture hundreds of film prints and ship them to theatres in only a
> few days. So either someone behind-the-scenes at the Oscars tipped them
> off about the award in advance -- or they already had all those prints
> sitting in a warehouse somewhere. Some were left over from the first
> release, obviously, but that's only a fraction of the current total.
There's no technological reason you can't do it given the capacity, and I
can't see why the capacity shouldn't be there, given the number of films
they make.
Louis
--
Louis Patterson l.patt...@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au
"He was handicapped early in life by being born very young, and for a
number of months he was unable to walk and had to be carried around by his
mother." - Lennie Lower, "Plumbob, the Magic Plumber"
Juan F. Lara
What's your point?
- Juan F. Lara
Juan F. Lara
Dawn Taylor <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> Not really. Do you think that Disney *wants* to inspire American audience
> interest in foreign animated films?
Why not if they can make a buck out of it?
> they don;t want us to see how much great product there is elsewhere.
You keep living in that comic book world.
> What if they opened the new Miyazaki film on the same weekend as Disney's
> "Great Big Zany Tigger Movie"?
The audiences would be different.
> Sounds to me like there are people who would have gone to see it before had
> they been given the venue to do so.
...and now they have the venue to do so.
> Once again, I don't think I get your point. Even though it's about to
> come out on DVD, people are buying tickets -- that's rather unusual,
> isn't it?
How so?
All you've said are innuendos and assumptions. Innuendos may be good
enough for the HUAC but they don't carry and real weight for anyone else.
- Juan F. Lara
Juan F. Lara
Dawn Taylor <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> So imagine how well it would have done if they'd shown some interest
> in distributing it properly the first time.
That the US public would embrace this movie beyond the level of its
arthouse distribution was a big gamble. It's not unreasonable to say it.
Now after weeks of awards and praise Disney can be more confident in its
performance.
> Derek, it's not paranoia to ask why they didn't bother to do that.
Assuming conspiracy theories about it is.
> honestly, it's not like they don't have the resources to market the living
> fuck out of anything they choose. And they've marketed the living fuck out
> of utter dreck in the past.
And the marketing has ALWAYS worked.
> Disney-produced dreck. "Spirited Away" was released, it seemed, almost
> grudgingly.
That's an opinion.
- Juan F. Lara
Derek Janssen
>
> In article <4bve8vk4q2k023vee...@4ax.com>,
> Dawn Taylor <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> > But damn it, it won an Oscar! So they may as well give it some release
> > *now* while they can make a little more money off it -- during a time
> > when it's not in direct competition with Disney product like (koff,
> > gag) "Treasure Planet."
>
> What mystifies me is that I doubt it's physically possible to
> manufacture hundreds of film prints and ship them to theatres in only a
> few days. So either someone behind-the-scenes at the Oscars tipped them
> off about the award in advance -- or they already had all those prints
> sitting in a warehouse somewhere. Some were left over from the first
> release, obviously, but that's only a fraction of the current total.
They had always planned to take it wide "when it found its wide
audience" (which, thanks to old traumas from trying to take "Mononoke"
wide in Minnesota, they were a little overcareful about judging), and
had a medium-wide scale of extra prints in production for later in
November just in case...
Which explains why Disney's original wide-release "if it wins" boast
wasn't just something off the top of their head that they knew they
couldn't back their bets for.
Derek Janssen (now don't tell me you were *fooled*!)
dja...@rcn.com
Derek Janssen
>
> > Disney-produced dreck. "Spirited Away" was released, it seemed, almost
> > grudgingly.
>
> That's an opinion.
Well, it's also a fact: They WERE grudging.
And if "Mononoke" was the second look at Miyazaki movies you'd ever
gotten in your life, *you'd* be pretty darn grudging about it too--
Heck, I'm as much a SA defender as anyone here, and even *I* was pretty
darn grudging about going back to a Miyazaki movie after "Kurosawa's
'The Cranky Jungle Book'"...Didn't seem like ANYTHING was ever going to
bring Hayao back to us here on Planet Earth.
SA won me over, it won the Oscar committee over, it won a buncha guys at
Disney over, and it won over people who wandered into the arthouse
theater to show off.
And $1.6M of moviegoers this week will never know the bullet animation
we all dodged...Fans, Chihiro singlehanded SAVED your hinders.
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Juan F. Lara
> Spirited Away, in week TWENTY EIGHT is now making $2200 a screen.
In Week One of wide release.
> Had it been released on the same schedule as the standard Disney drek, it
> would have probably made between $40 million and $50 million. ( eight
> weeks, 2800 theaters )
Wishful thinking.
- Juan F. Lara
Blade
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:21:59 -0500, Derek Janssen <dja...@rcn.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Dawn Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course, they still don't want a LOT of people seeing it. It
>>> wouldn't do for "Spirited Away" to be a bigger hit than, say,
>>> "Lilo & Stitch." If that happened, movie-goers might start paying
>>> attention to non-domestic animation, and that's not something
>>> Disney wants.
>>
>>Think we're pretty near the end of the "They don't like us because
>>they're JEALOUS!" conspiracy theories at this point and we're now in
>>new territory:
>
> Not really. Do you think that Disney *wants* to inspire American
> audience interest in foreign animated films? They already have to
> deal with Dreamworks is cutting in on their turf, they don;t want us
> to see how much great product there is elsewhere. What if theose
> foreign fellers started -- gasp! -- distributing their movies here?
> What if they opened the new Miyazaki film on the same weekend as
> Disney's "Great Big Zany Tigger Movie"?
Then Spirited Away would not do particularly better.
Is it really THAT hard for people to understand that Miyazaki movies are
never going to be huge commercial successes in the US? That maybe, just
maybe, it is NOT the fault of the Evil Di$ney?
Blade
Blade
news:CfNha.267597$L1.76164@sccrnsc02:
God, you are so fucking stupid. <plonk>
Blade
Blade
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 21:33:49 -0500, Derek Janssen <dja...@rcn.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>No, but...geez-friggin'-criminy, they're NOT welching on their Oscar
>>bets, we're getting real ads during "West Wing", and we're getting
>>three two-disk dubbed *AND* subtitled DVD's in one wallet-destroying
>>week, while Piglet'll be lucky to get full-frame and a Stitch 2
>>trailer--
>
> So imagine how well it would have done if they'd shown some interest
> in distributing it properly the first time.
About as well as The Iron Giant. Or Titan A.E.
> Derek, it's not paranoia to ask why they didn't bother to do that.
> The answer that one comes up with is that they didn't really want it
> to do that well -- honestly, it's not like they don't have the
> resources to market the living fuck out of anything they choose. And
> they've marketed the living fuck out of utter dreck in the past. But
> that was Disney-produced dreck. "Spirited Away" was released, it
> seemed, almost grudgingly.
Because the dreck they market has a lot better chance of doing well.
Treasure Planet, a flop by Disney standards, did ten times better than
any Miyazaki movie ever will, no matter how well said movie was marketed.
What you want is for Disney to throw away money on a guaranteed failure.
Not going to happen. I'm not sure if this belief stems from a pointless
hate-on of Disney or an incredibly naive notion that the average Joe
would flock out to see Spirited Away "if only they knew about it", but
neither cause makes your point less false or silly.
Disney is not "holding back" Spirited Away. In fact, they are pushing it
as much as they can reasonably be expected to do. It is now playing in
most major cities, often in several venues in said city. That's pretty
damn good. And it, along with the other films that Ghibli was holding
up, will now be out on DVD soon. That too is pretty damn good. Too bad
about all the ungrateful "fans" who won't be satisfied until Disney loses
money hand over fist promoting a film that sinks like a rock, and then
would still bitch and whine that it was somehow Disney's fault.
Blade
D B Malmquist
>
> Treasure Planet, a flop by Disney standards, did ten times better than
> any Miyazaki movie ever will,
(Nitpick - I assume you meant "in the US" or maybe "In the US & Canada")
> no matter how well said movie was marketed.
"Treasure Planet" has grossed $38,176,783 so far, and seems not to
be playing anymore. [1]
"Spirited Away" has grossed an estimated $7,225,000 so far. [2]
Thus "Treasure Planet" has done only about 5.28 times as well as
"Spirited Away" in the US. I say 3.8 times as well or bust!
- dbm
[1] http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=treasureplanet.htm&PHPSESSID=11
[2] http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=spiritedaway.htm&PHPSESSID=11
8-Bit Star
Blade wrote:
And the Blade Censorship Police Force strikes again!
Scott
>>Derek, it's not paranoia to ask why they didn't bother to do that.
>>The answer that one comes up with is that they didn't really want it
>>to do that well -- honestly, it's not like they don't have the
>>resources to market the living fuck out of anything they choose. And
>>they've marketed the living fuck out of utter dreck in the past. But
>>that was Disney-produced dreck. "Spirited Away" was released, it
>>seemed, almost grudgingly.
>
>
> Because the dreck they market has a lot better chance of doing well.
>
> Treasure Planet, a flop by Disney standards, did ten times better than
> any Miyazaki movie ever will, no matter how well said movie was marketed.
Bullcrap.
>
> What you want is for Disney to throw away money on a guaranteed failure.
> Not going to happen.
Fine, until Sony makes a tender offer for Disney Corporation.
> I'm not sure if this belief stems from a pointless
> hate-on of Disney or an incredibly naive notion that the average Joe
> would flock out to see Spirited Away "if only they knew about it",
They do for everything else. What makes Spirited Away special? What's
going to discourage average Joe from going to see it based on the
commercials?
Nothing. And that's the point. Disney could make $40M off a test
pattern. They just prefer to promote swill like Piglet and Treasure
Planet, because Spirited Away reminds them that their product is
slipshod, ersatz, slap-a-label-on-it CRAP.
> Disney is not "holding back" Spirited Away.
Not any more. Little difficult to hide it when it's in the New York
Times and on prime time television in front of 35 million people.
> In fact, they are pushing it
> as much as they can reasonably be expected to do.
AFTER the risk is removed.
> It is now playing in
> most major cities, often in several venues in said city. That's pretty
> damn good. And it, along with the other films that Ghibli was holding
> up,
Oh, now it's Ghibli's fault. Look up the word "apologist."
> will now be out on DVD soon. That too is pretty damn good. Too bad
> about all the ungrateful "fans" who won't be satisfied until Disney loses
> money hand over fist promoting a film that sinks like a rock,
Been there, done that. Been going on for almost 10 years now. Look at
Disney's stock price since 1996.
> and then
> would still bitch and whine that it was somehow Disney's fault.
Because it is. Disney is one of the few companies that can actually
almost singlehandedly improve the animation industry. They have the
money, the people and the marketing. But they waste opportunity after
opportunity to do so in favor of these half-assed 500 to 1 cash-ins on
licenses that were stale when their market's grandparents were
graduating from college.
Disney can afford to take risks. But they don't. They MUST have a sure
thing. Disney is so risk averse anymore that they have almost become a
self-referential cliche. They don't encourage creativity any more *at
all*. They just want those fat weekend box office checks. They could
care less what's on the screen at the time, and it shows. That's why
anime is eating their lunch and will continue to eat their lunch. This
is no different than the car market in the 70s.
That's NOT what Disney was founded on. Their movies are now empty
shells. Oh sure, they look great, but they have nothing to say.
It takes TEN YEARS to get Lilo and Stitch made. Good movies are
shoveled into the crapheap by the HUNDREDS so we can do "Cinderella II"
Spirited Away is shoved into the corner (along with its Oscar) while
Piglet's Big Sequel debuts on over 2,000 screens. Why is it so much
easier to market Piglet? Because Disney OWNS PIGLET.
That's why people bitch and whine, and that's why it's Disney's fault.
--
Scott
Scott
> In article <fm6f8vkq5qpdltivf...@4ax.com>,
> Dawn Taylor <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
>>Not really. Do you think that Disney *wants* to inspire American audience
>>interest in foreign animated films?
>
>
> Why not if they can make a buck out of it?
>
Because they can't in the long run.
--
Scott
Scott
Here's a hint: 2800 X 2200
That's 15% of $40M on the first weekend.
It's in theatres for eight weekends, possibly 12.
In mathematics, that's called a fact.
--
Scott
Scott
Nice troll.
--
Scott
Sharon Westfall
news:3E8807FD...@com.swap-com-and-rcn.rcn:
>> Treasure Planet, a flop by Disney standards, did ten times better
>> than any Miyazaki movie ever will,
> be playing anymore.
According to BoxOfficemojo, Treasure Planet cost $140mil to produce, and
an additional $40mil for marketing. It also opened on 3,227 screens
(compare that to SA's first release 151 max, and now 2nd wide-release of
711 screens). Of course it made more... there were 2,500 more theaters
showing it. TP didn't even make back it's marketing costs.
Disney was originally not even going to distribute SA in the US.
Shortly after it won the Golden Bear, and they changed their mind.
Although they said they were going to promote their 3 nominated
animations equally, on the last week of Academy voting, they only took
out ads for Lilo and Stitch. Despite that betrayal, SA took the award
anyway.
I realize Disney has a lot more knowledge and experience at this money
game than us. But they're not all knowing. Still, they've done very
well owning up to their miscalcs and listening to our requests (the 2-
disk DVD releases of SA, Kiki and CitS with the Japanese track and
literal subtitles, and now the SA theatrical re-release even though the
DVD/video release is only a few weeks away). I think it shows that, in
the end, Disney does try to listen to us.
Rob Kelk
>Terrence Briggs wrote:
>> Beat ya to it, Juan! :)
>>
>> Ranked 16th for the week
>> $1,605,000 for the weekend
>> a boost of 31929.5% from the previous weekend's gross
>> on 711 screens (704 more than last week)
>> $2,257 per-screen average (the important number)
>> $7,225,000 total gross
>> $10,161 Culmulative Per-Screen Average (was $35K, prior to the rerelease)
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
>Let us extrapolate for a moment.
>
>Spirited Away, in week TWENTY EIGHT is now making $2200 a screen. Had it
>been released on the same schedule as the standard Disney drek, it would
>have probably made between $40 million and $50 million. (eight weeks,
>2800 theaters)
On the contrary - if it had been released on four times as many screens
(2800 instead of 700), then it probably would have made a quarter as
much per screen. The production costs involved with making and
distributing the other 2100 prints for those other 2100 screens would
have eaten into the bottom line.
>Shame.
That a for-profit corporation does its best to make a profit? That's
not shameful at all; that's good sense.
--
Rob Kelk <http://robkelk.ottawa-anime.org/> robkelk -at- jksrv -dot- com
"I'm *not* a kid! Nyyyeaaah!" - Skuld (in "Oh My Goddess!" OAV #3)
"When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the fear of
childishness and the desire to be very grown-up." - C.S. Lewis, 1947
Dean Siren
Nintendo would never license their products out to Ford and Microsoft, who would
squash them with not-invented-here syndrome, so why do the anime companies? Is
it because they're not popular enough yet? How about Bandai?
Once Atari crashed in 1984, the Japanese game companies always did their own
publishing in USA. Even the small ones. By the late 80s, Japanese companies
even got to develop games based on American franchises like Mickey Mouse and
Ninja Turtles. If the Japanese could conquer that part of US culture in a
decade, why not animation?
> Being the cynical sort, it seemed a case of wanting to control an
> enormously successful foreign product so that it didn't overshadow
> their own, home-grown films. By becoming the U.S. distributor they
> were able to look like they were sharing Miyazaki with the world --
> when it reality they were making damn sure "Spirited Away" got such a
> limited release that the public didn't get a chance to give it big box
> office numbers, thus assuring that Disney remains the household name
> for animated features.
Dean Siren
sure their work, and not their competitors', gets seen. Disney would lose its
reputation as a great place to work if they put much emphasis on foreign shows.
Invid Fan
wrote:
It does lay to rest the idea that Disney was just shipping the same 300
prints around the country if true, though. They could have gone wider
without having to pay for new prints, as they already had them, but
felt (probably rightly) that the current number of theaters was about
right.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Invid Fan
<dra...@spamtelus.net> wrote:
And those like me who couldnt' see it, saw it now. Don't think I'll go
again, though, with the dvd coming up.
Dawn Taylor
wrote:
>In article <fm6f8vkq5qpdltivf...@4ax.com>,
>Dawn Taylor <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>> Not really. Do you think that Disney *wants* to inspire American audience
>> interest in foreign animated films?
>
> Why not if they can make a buck out of it?
Because it's not in their best interest in the long run to promote
foreign product.
>
>> they don;t want us to see how much great product there is elsewhere.
>
> You keep living in that comic book world.
>
>> What if they opened the new Miyazaki film on the same weekend as Disney's
>> "Great Big Zany Tigger Movie"?
>
> The audiences would be different.
The past few years have shown that *any* animated film, marketed
toward the family market, will win it's opening weekend if it's the
only family film opening. That includes stuff that's complete crap.
The crap has a natural fall-off in following weekends. But non-crap
might very well have a chance at gaining an even bigger audience, with
marketing support. But the opening would draw the same families who go
see "Doug:The Movie" or "Rugrats Scamper Around Soviet Georgia" on
that first weekend.
>
>> Sounds to me like there are people who would have gone to see it before had
>> they been given the venue to do so.
>
> ...and now they have the venue to do so.
Yep. Exactly.
>> Once again, I don't think I get your point. Even though it's about to
>> come out on DVD, people are buying tickets -- that's rather unusual,
>> isn't it?
>
> How so?
Because when people know that a movie is about to be released on
DVD/video they usually don;t pay extra to go see it in a theater.
> All you've said are innuendos and assumptions. Innuendos may be good
>enough for the HUAC but they don't carry and real weight for anyone else.
What I've shared is my opinion. I don't work for Disney, so I don't
know *exactly* what their marketing plan was. What I've stated is my
view of it as a consumer -- I saw a wonderful film deliberately
under-distributed and under-advertised, then re-released to more
theaters when it won an Oscar and gained a lot of publicity. After
many years of watching how The Mouse does business, I formed a (very
strong) opinion on why they held it back in the market.
Dawn
Derek Janssen
>
> > > Ranked 16th for the week
> > > $1,605,000 for the weekend
> >
> > release.
>
> And those like me who couldnt' see it, saw it now. Don't think I'll go
> again, though, with the dvd coming up.
Also, Disney's already had experience with dual releases on their *own* product:
"Fantasia 2000" played sold-out showings in every IMAX theater from
January to April '00--Due in no small part to fans in the suburbs who
had to make fifty-mile pilgrimages to find one holy IMAX shrine that was
showing it...
Later, when they took the 70mm version to major wide cineplex release,
the trade papers reported it doing average, but not too impressive
business for a summer Disney animated.
Did this mean (as even some of Disney's own executives interpreted it at
the time) that "Fantasia 2000" w-was....<lip tremble>...a FLOP?? 0_0
Or, did it just mean that those who'd traveled the fifty miles at the
sold-out IMAX showings all winter were the ones who'd seen it already,
and those in the cineplexes were just the small-town folk who hadn't
gotten to see it yet, how many of them there happened to be?
(And that, friends, was when they *hadn't* announced the disk yet.)
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Lawrence Lin
> What mystifies me is that I doubt it's physically possible to
> manufacture hundreds of film prints and ship them to theatres in only a
No, it's possible:
"Nowadays high-speed bi-directional printers are used, which results in lower
print quality, but gets the job done with these insane deadlines. 3000 prints
can be ready in about a week's time."[1]
[1]:
http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0210C&L=nausicaa&P=R4960
--
[2048/1024 bit DH/DSS <ll...@u.washington.edu>]
Key ID: 0xF1B44F9D
http://students.washington.edu/llin/
Derek Janssen
>
> >> What if they opened the new Miyazaki film on the same weekend as Disney's
> >> "Great Big Zany Tigger Movie"?
> >
> > The audiences would be different.
>
> The past few years have shown that *any* animated film, marketed
> toward the family market, will win it's opening weekend if it's the
> only family film opening. That includes stuff that's complete crap.
>
> The crap has a natural fall-off in following weekends. But non-crap
> might very well have a chance at gaining an even bigger audience, with
> marketing support. But the opening would draw the same families who go
> see "Doug:The Movie" or "Rugrats Scamper Around Soviet Georgia" on
> that first weekend.
>
> >> come out on DVD, people are buying tickets -- that's rather unusual,
> >> isn't it?
> >
> > How so?
>
> Because when people know that a movie is about to be released on
> DVD/video they usually don;t pay extra to go see it in a theater.
Okay, now I'm not getting your point either--
You're saying the audience knows it's on disk, you *know* they know it's
on disk, you know that their knowing it's on disk would hurt the
re-release chances, and you're saying they're going anyway, even though
one would think they'd rather be fooled into "Cheap Nickelodeon Title
Joke" because they're too dumb and mainstream to see it even if it
wasn't on disk...
So, um...where does the Disney Conspiracy fit in, again? I lost track.
: /
Derek Janssen (oh, wait, that's right, I forgot--They're not releasing
it ENOUGH.)
dja...@rcn.com
Juan F. Lara
>Juan F. Lara wrote:
>> What's your point?
>Nice troll.
No, seriously, you didn't make any real poin in that particular post.
- Juan F. Lara
Juan F. Lara
> That's 15% of $40M on the first weekend.
> It's in theatres for eight weekends, possibly 12.
> In mathematics, that's called a fact.
No, that's statistics. Hope that SA would make that PTA for the larger
number of 2800 theaters. And that it would sustain their audience enough so
that the first weekend would only account for 15% of the total BO.
Boxoffices don't obey Newton's Laws of Motion. You can't predict them with
this certainty.
- Juan F. Lara
Eric the Read
> When will anime companies finally use their own distributors in USA? Toyota and
> Nintendo would never license their products out to Ford and Microsoft, who would
> squash them with not-invented-here syndrome, so why do the anime companies?
In point of fact, they have, in many cases. Ford and Mazda have a
close relationship-- ISTR Proteges and Escorts are (or were) built on
the same production line. Ditto the Geo Metro and some other car
whose name eludes me for the moment.
> Once Atari crashed in 1984, the Japanese game companies always did their own
> publishing in USA. Even the small ones. By the late 80s, Japanese companies
> even got to develop games based on American franchises like Mickey Mouse and
> Ninja Turtles. If the Japanese could conquer that part of US culture in a
> decade, why not animation?
So far, US anime distributors haven't really 'crashed' yet, like Atari
did. Their relative importance has changed a lot, but fundamentally,
the model of having a US company do the translation and distribution
in this country seems to be a viable one, and has the added benefit of
letting the Japanese companies not having to do much, if any, work.
OTOH, distributing stuff themselves is quite an involved undertaking,
and means spending lots of time and money creating a business, not to
mention a brand name, for a marginally larger slice of the pie. I
couldn't even begin to BOE the numbers, but I'd guess most of them
just don't see that it's worth it-- and the Japanese economy is so bad
right now, most of them probably don't have the free capital to do so
even if they did want to.
Followups set to RAAM.
-=Eric
--
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
-- Blair Houghton.
Juan F. Lara
>Blade wrote:
> They just prefer to promote swill like Piglet and Treasure Planet, because
> Spirited Away reminds them that their product is slipshod, ersatz,
> slap-a-label-on-it CRAP.
No, because those other projects looked like they were more risk free.
You said so yourself later on. That's a different reason from the reason
above.
> Not any more. Little difficult to hide it when it's in the New York
> Times and on prime time television in front of 35 million people.
Disney did the work in promoting the oscar nomination of SA to the
academy. That appearance on prime-time television was not something they tried
to prevent.
> AFTER the risk is removed.
What's wrong if you can lower the risk.
> Because it is. Disney is one of the few companies that can actually almost
> singlehandedly improve the animation industry.
It's dubious to expect any company to be a "savior".
Now I'll agree with this:
> Disney can afford to take risks. But they don't. They MUST have a sure
> thing. Disney is so risk averse anymore that they have almost become a
> self-referential cliche.
I think that's Disney's mistake here. They were more cautious then they
should've been. They didn't think SA had more than arthouse appeal. So they
gave it arthouse distribution. I do think with just a bit more trust the
boxoffice could've been stronger and $40 Million would not be unreasonable.
BUT a 2800 screen wide release that you purport WOULD be unreasonable. Dawn's
idea that SA could've made $145 Million is overly optimistic. We neeed
something in between.
And this motivation of risk aversion is different from these other
conspiracy theories you were foisting on us earlier, like trying to bury the
foreign markets or any ridiculous "jealousy". They have no time for jealousy.
> They could care less what's on the screen at the time, and it shows.
If they could care less then they they're not going to bother being
jealous.
> This is no different than the car market in the 70s.
Japanese cars suck. :-)
> Spirited Away is shoved into the corner (along with its Oscar)
Leaving it on seven screens would be shoving it into the corner.
- Juan F. Lara
Juan F. Lara
Dawn Taylor <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> Because it's not in their best interest in the long run to promote foreign
> product.
Sure it is if they profit from the foreign product. Pixar has nothing to
do with Disney. But Disney's been happy profiting from Pixar's "foreign"
product.
> But the opening would draw the same families who go see "Doug:The Movie"
> or "Rugrats Scamper Around Soviet Georgia" on
"Doug's First Movie" only got as high as #5 in the box office. "Rugrats"
is one of those rare phenonema.
>> ...and now they have the venue to do so.
> Yep. Exactly.
So then Disney gave them the venue when they knew the venue was worth it.
What's wrong with that?
> What I've shared is my opinion. I don't work for Disney, so I don't
> know *exactly* what their marketing plan was.
You then can't make anything more than guesses over what their motivations
were.
> I saw a wonderful film deliberately under-distributed and under-advertised
"under" is a judgement call. For the presumed arthouse demand I don't
think it was "under".
> then re-released to more theaters when it won an Oscar and gained a lot of
> publicity.
So they then released the movie wider when they got wider demand for it.
- Juan F. Lara
Juan F. Lara
Blade <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Treasure Planet, a flop by Disney standards, did ten times better than
> any Miyazaki movie ever will, no matter how well said movie was marketed.
Well, let's not be rash. As Miyazaki gets to be more well known in the
US that will change. It'll be a gradual strengthening process. It's just
that some people think it's automatically going to happen, which is insane.
- Juan F. Lara
Juan F. Lara
Sharon Westfall <wes...@lava.net> wrote:
> Although they said they were going to promote their 3 nominated animations
> equally, on the last week of Academy voting, they only took out ads for Lilo
> and Stitch. Despite that betrayal, SA took the award anyway.
They had already taken out 10 ads for SA according to oscarwatch.com.
More than any of the other nominees.
- Juan F. Lara
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
That's 151 prints. about halfway off.
> without having to pay for new prints, as they already had them, but
> felt (probably rightly) that the current number of theaters was about
> right.
>
I dunno... if they already had 711 prints
but only released 151 at a time... it's kinda wasteful.
Laters. =)
Stan
--
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \ ___|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ Stanlee Dometita sta...@cif.rochester.edu
| ( _| | U of Rochester cif.rochester.edu/~stanlee
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | |
/ \/ \| _ | |\ |
/___/\/\___|__| |__|___| \ ___|
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
IIRC, statistics also show that movies typically make
1/5 to 1/6 of their total in the first weeked,
assuming the film lasts long enough for a typical 6-8 weeks run.
Per theater average (PTA) is also never steady but rather
typically peaks the first week then degrades down,
so any assumption that PTA would remain the same
over a 6-8 week run is foolish.
So if something made 15% of $40M, then multiply that by 5
to get the projected total: 15% x 40M x 5.
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> > Being the cynical sort, it seemed a case of wanting to control an
> > enormously successful foreign product so that it didn't overshadow
> > their own, home-grown films. By becoming the U.S. distributor they
> > were able to look like they were sharing Miyazaki with the world --
> > when it reality they were making damn sure "Spirited Away" got such a
> > limited release that the public didn't get a chance to give it big box
> > office numbers, thus assuring that Disney remains the household name
> > for animated features.
>
> When will anime companies finally use their own distributors in USA? Toyota and
> Nintendo would never license their products out to Ford and Microsoft, who would
> squash them with not-invented-here syndrome, so why do the anime companies? Is
> it because they're not popular enough yet? How about Bandai?
>
> Once Atari crashed in 1984, the Japanese game companies always did their own
> publishing in USA. Even the small ones. By the late 80s, Japanese companies
> even got to develop games based on American franchises like Mickey Mouse and
> Ninja Turtles. If the Japanese could conquer that part of US culture in a
> decade, why not animation?
>
Not that easy.
First off, let's look at anime companies who did or do
have their own distributors in the USA.
I believe Gainax at one time tried it - unsuccessful, now gone.
Super Techno Arts, part of Studio APPP, has been trying
to release Jojo's Bizarre Adventure for months and months now
and still nothing yet amidst many delays and reschedules.
Gamers, of Broccoli and Digi Charat fame, tried to release
in partnership with Digital Manga - broke up and scaled back.
See? It's not as easy as just opening another office.
It's more like building a new company from the ground up.
It's a whole different business and market.
Foreign companies would have to acquire the know-how of how
business is done in the US, which is different than in Japan,
just as Microsoft is learning now with XBox in Japan.
The deals, the production, the distribution, marketing, etc.
They'd have to set up all those things from scratch,
unless they partner with domestic companies
that already have those resources.
Now, let's examine the difference from the console game business.
When the Japanese gamemakers went over to the US,
there really wasn't a console game industry.
So they did set up everything themselves, the frontrunners.
In fact, even now, American console gamemakers have to use
the distribution channels the Japanese set up
because those channels are the main channels.
Now, compare that to the entertainment video business.
There's already an entrenched industry, largest in the world.
There's Hollywood and media conglomerates like AOL-TW, Disney, Fox.
Foreign companies can't just step in and do business as usual.
On the business end, they'd have to compete with the big boys
for the distribution channels, shelf space, store placement, etc.
Then they'd have to shape their marketing based on how
products are successfully marketed and perceived by Americans.
A whole different ballgame.
So, unless they'd want to invest considerable amount of resources
developing an equivalent of a new business, it's more prudent
just to license to domestic companies who know the territory best,
while leaving them to do what they do best as well.
Dawn Taylor
wrote:
I don't know how much more simply I can say it. I mean, I could be
completely wrong -- but it's my understanding that families tend more
towards home entertainment (price, don't have to take kids out of the
house, can be re-watched ad nauseum, etc.). So if the exact same film
is going to be available in a home-vid format, a large percentage
would be more likely to rent/purchase rather than go out to a theater.
The same holds true for a fair number of non-family viewers -- they
know it's about to be released on DVD, so why spend $8, figure out
what time it'll be playing, drive to the theater, deal with other
people, etc.?
>
>So, um...where does the Disney Conspiracy fit in, again? I lost track.
>: /
Me, too. I was just answering one of your rambling
questions/assertions.
>Derek Janssen (oh, wait, that's right, I forgot--They're not releasing
>it ENOUGH.)
Sigh. That's not what I said, and you know it. Stop treating me like
I'm a dumbass like Rich.
Dawn
Dawn Taylor
wrote:
>In article <q7rg8vkm8nrpp61d1...@4ax.com>,
>Dawn Taylor <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>> Because it's not in their best interest in the long run to promote foreign
>> product.
>
> Sure it is if they profit from the foreign product. Pixar has nothing to
>do with Disney. But Disney's been happy profiting from Pixar's "foreign"
>product.
Pixar isn't foreign -- Pixar is an American comapny, and Disney
invests in their business.
Think of it this way -- say that the United States only has two or
three car coumpanies. The biggest of these by a landslide is Big Mouse
Motorcars. Big Mouse Motors is so big that the company name is almost
synonomous with automobiles -- people use the term "Mouse car" the
same way they would say "Kleenex" or "Jell-O." It's gone from being a
brand-name to being the description for the thing itself.
Now imagine that Sweden turns out really, really good cars. They're
different from American-made cars, offering things American cars don't
have -- special dispensers for Gummi Bears, free GPS mapping devices,
underseat refrigerators and they get really good gas mileage. Oh, and
they look really, really cool, too.
Big Mouse has the chance to import and sell some Swedish cars. They
get a good price on them, because they don't have the manufacturing
costs, they're just acting as distributor for a fee. But if the
Swedish cars are a big hit with the public, people might start wanting
*more* foreign cars -- and demanding that American cars offer Gummi
dispensers and underseat refrigerators, too, or else they won't buy
them. They may develop such a taste for Swedish cars that American
cars see a hit in their market share.
So what Big Mouse does is, they only advertise a *little* bit. They
offer the Swedish cars in only a few select markets so the vast
majority of people don't get a chance to test drive them. They sell
them as a novelty, a specialty item. So Big Mouse looks cool and
cosmopolitan because they imported a Swedish car, they make a healthy
profit off the ones they do sell, but they don't do anything to change
the public's perception that a "Mouse car" is the premiere product in
the automotive world, the standard-bearer.
>
>> But the opening would draw the same families who go see "Doug:The Movie"
>> or "Rugrats Scamper Around Soviet Georgia" on
>
> "Doug's First Movie" only got as high as #5 in the box office.
On it's opening weekend? Were there other family movies/animated
features that it was competing against?
>"Rugrats"
>is one of those rare phenonema.
Look at opening weekend figures for the last few years. Animated films
marketed toward the family do very, VERY well their first weekend --
if they're the only animated family film opening that weekend. Kids
see ads, kids demand to see movies opening weekends so they can talk
about the movioes at school.
>>> ...and now they have the venue to do so.
>> Yep. Exactly.
>
> So then Disney gave them the venue when they knew the venue was worth it.
>What's wrong with that?
You snipped the context. People are going to see the movie NOW that
they have the venue to do so.
Disney didn't know the "venue was worth it?" Are you actually saying
that Disney a) didn't know they had a quality product and b) had no
idea it could be successful? Then why did they buy the rights to
distribute it? Were they completely unaware of the money "Spririted
Away" made in it home country -- they just ran across a film can in
the street, picked it up and said, "Hey, what the hell, let's buy
this, whatever it is"?
>> What I've shared is my opinion. I don't work for Disney, so I don't
>> know *exactly* what their marketing plan was.
>
> You then can't make anything more than guesses over what their motivations
>were.
And unless you're the head of Disney marketing, by that logic, you
can't tell me I'm wrong.
Guess it's a stalemate.
>> I saw a wonderful film deliberately under-distributed and under-advertised
>
> "under" is a judgement call. For the presumed arthouse demand I don't
>think it was "under".
As I said -- I was stating my opinion. I'll say it again, because the
whole subjective perception thing seems to be escaping you: I saw a
wonderful film deliberately under-distributed and under-advertised ...
>> then re-released to more theaters when it won an Oscar and gained a lot of
>> publicity.
>
> So they then released the movie wider when they got wider demand for it.
Studio marketing departments create demand. Disney didn't bother. And
by saying what you just did, you make my argument for me -- they
underdistributed and under-advertised it, but since it won an Oscar
anyway, they released it wider. Like they should have the first time
around.
Dawn
lvi...@yahoo.com
According to Scott <nos...@nospam.com>:
:Spirited Away, in week TWENTY EIGHT is now making $2200 a screen. Had it
:have probably made between $40 million and $50 million. (eight weeks,
:2800 theaters)
You forgot the other assumption - Had it been released on the same schedule,
AND IT HAD REMAINED THAT STRONG IN ALL THOSE THEATERS, then it would have
probably made ...
Typically, movies don't last more than 5 weeks. Though Spirited Away
lasted in the art theaters here in Columbus for I think it was 3 months.
The only other two movies that come to mind as staying longer than 5 weeks
from the past year were Big Fat Greek Wedding and Lord of the Rings Two Towers.
--
Join us at the Tenth Annual Tcl/Tk Conference <URL: http://mini.net/tcl/6274 >
Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting
should be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
<URL: mailto:lvi...@yahoo.com > <URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/ >
Derek Janssen
>
> >> Because it's not in their best interest in the long run to promote foreign
> >> product.
> >
> > Sure it is if they profit from the foreign product. Pixar has nothing to
> >do with Disney. But Disney's been happy profiting from Pixar's "foreign"
> >product.
>
> offer the Swedish cars in only a few select markets so the vast
> majority of people don't get a chance to test drive them. They sell
> them as a novelty, a specialty item. So Big Mouse looks cool and
> cosmopolitan because they imported a Swedish car,
(And diehard and first-time car enthusiasts rave to their friends--who
probably still thought, huh!, BMW's were cool--about the cool new
Swedish Mousska[TM] they were able to score, after discovering it from a
weekend test drive from an import dealer...
Causing their other first-timer friends to wonder, hmm, what if
Mousska[TM]'s really *are* the new status symbol of motor nuts who do
their homework?
Even despite the prohibitively high price that would make wide sales and
independent distribution ill-advised, and the well-publicized bath
mainstream BigMouse dealers already took trying to sell drivers on the
disastrous Lobo[TM] import, back in '99?)
> they make a healthy
> profit off the ones they do sell, but they don't do anything to change
> the public's perception that a "Mouse car" is the premiere product in
> the automotive world, the standard-bearer.
Unless, of course, Big Mouse puts their copyrighted Mousska[TM]
import-brand label, with a stylish Swedish-flag logo, right on the back
bumper, OVER their own name--
And plasters in the ads, "Big MouseCo. presents Mousska[TM], the finest
technology imported from the genius of Swedish engineering", immediately
after it gets a Best of Show from Car & Driver and twelve other
magazines in the same week...
> >> But the opening would draw the same families who go see "Doug:The Movie"
> >> or "Rugrats Scamper Around Soviet Georgia" on
> >
> > "Doug's First Movie" only got as high as #5 in the box office.
>
> On it's opening weekend? Were there other family movies/animated
> features that it was competing against?
Nope. Big fat #5 O-W all by itself, and that spells "Ow."
(Or perhaps you'd rather content yourself with "Hey Arnold"'s #6 showing?)
> > So then Disney gave them the venue when they knew the venue was worth it.
> >What's wrong with that?
>
> You snipped the context. People are going to see the movie NOW that
> they have the venue to do so.
...HORRORS!! ; )
> Disney didn't know the "venue was worth it?" Are you actually saying
> that Disney a) didn't know they had a quality product and b) had no
> idea it could be successful? Then why did they buy the rights to
> distribute it? Were they completely unaware of the money "Spririted
> Away" made in it home country -- they just ran across a film can in
> the street, picked it up and said, "Hey, what the hell, let's buy
> this, whatever it is"?
>
> >> I saw a wonderful film deliberately under-distributed and under-advertised
> >
> Studio marketing departments create demand.
(Unless they happen to be marketing "The Core".) ; )
> Disney didn't bother.
Or, they were still terrified from the *last* time they tried to sell a
depressing arthouse anime, and wondered whether this one was as endless
and downbeat...
> but since it won an Oscar
> anyway, they released it wider. Like they should have the first time
> around.
(Boy, when it comes to Sins of Omission, NOBODY expects the Spanish
Inquisition, do they?...)
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Juan F. Lara
Dawn Taylor <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> Pixar isn't foreign
Pixar is not Disney. That's why I put the quotes on "foreign" so that
"foreign" would be an analogy.
> Disney invests in their business.
Disney has a 10% investment in "Spirited Away" as well.
> they don't do anything to change the public's perception that a "Mouse car"
> is the premiere product in the automotive world, the standard-bearer.
They went along with letting Pixar become the public's idea of the
standard bearer, because they could take home a lot of the cash in the process.
They could do the same for Ghibli, foreign or not.
>> "Doug's First Movie" only got as high as #5 in the box office.
> On it's opening weekend? Were there other family movies/animated
> features that it was competing against?
Yes, on its opening weekend, though I don't remember what opened at the
same time.
> Disney didn't know the "venue was worth it?" Are you actually saying
> that Disney a) didn't know they had a quality product and b) had no
> idea it could be successful?
b) in that it wasn't certain that it could be blockbuster successful.
> Then why did they buy the rights to distribute it?
Because it was fairly certain that it could be arthouse successful.
> Were they completely unaware of the money "Spririted Away" made in it home
> country
Which won't necessarily translate to US money.
> As I said -- I was stating my opinion. I'll say it again
But when people keep repeating these opinions people start thinking
they're facts instead. That's how stories get spread.
- Juan F. Lara
Derek Janssen
>
> >(oh, wait, that's right, I forgot--They're not releasing
> >it ENOUGH.)
>
> Sigh. That's not what I said, and you know it. Stop treating me like
> I'm a dumbass like Rich.
Ohh, after twenty or so reason-ignoring posts a day, we would NEVER
accuse you of crossing over fully into official Dumbass Territory, Dawn...
It just, what *is* it about the word "Disney" that still causes unwary
anime-fan travelers to wander so willingly near its treacherous borders, blindfolded?
To paraphrase the immortal words of Richard Pryor, who're we gonna
believe, you, or those lyin' Oscar campaigns? ; )
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
K. Jeffery Petersen
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:09:54 -0500, "Terrence Briggs"
> <mrm...@peopleweb.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Beat ya to it, Juan! :)
>>
>>$1,605,000 for the weekend
>>on 711 screens (704 more than last week)
>>$10,161 Culmulative Per-Screen Average (was $35K, prior to the rerelease)
>>
>>Thoughts?
>
>
> whatever it was-- appeared to be actively *against* supporting release
> of the film.
No. It was cautious. Mononoke made them cautious. They released it, let
the art-house interest ramp as it did, and it earned 5 million. They
said that if it won an Oscar, they'd push it wider. They did.
> Being the cynical sort, it seemed a case of wanting to control an
> enormously successful foreign product so that it didn't overshadow
> their own, home-grown films. By becoming the U.S. distributor they
> were able to look like they were sharing Miyazaki with the world --
> when it reality they were making damn sure "Spirited Away" got such a
> limited release that the public didn't get a chance to give it big box
> office numbers, thus assuring that Disney remains the household name
> for animated features.
Aaaand... there was never any risk of Miyazaki overshadowing Disney in
the US. If Disney had released it widely without preamble, it would have
bombed horribly, probably making sure that the DVDs would never be
released. Given the chance, the public probably wouldn't give it "big
box office numbers". In fact, even with this re-release, they still won't.
> But damn it, it won an Oscar! So they may as well give it some release
> *now* while they can make a little more money off it -- during a time
> when it's not in direct competition with Disney product like (koff,
> gag) "Treasure Planet."
*laughs* I really doubt that was ever a concern. TP had enough
competition with itself that its numbers wouldn't have been hurt by SA
being wide or not.
> I think my town, Portland OR, is a pretty standard example of how
> Disney released "Spirited Away". During it's initial release, it was
> in one theater only -- an inconvenient downtown venue that specializes
> in art and foreign releases.
Convenient, considering it -is- an "art and foreign release".
> There was also no advertising for it at
> all. Now that they're interested in a few people actually *seeing* it
> (and there's no Disney product cuurently in release that it might
> take ticket sales away from) SA's in multiplexes and we're seeing TV
> ads.
Yeah. See above. Result of it winning an Oscar. Just like they said.
> Of course, they still don't want a LOT of people seeing it. It
> wouldn't do for "Spirited Away" to be a bigger hit than, say, "Lilo &
> Stitch." If that happened, movie-goers might start paying attention to
> non-domestic animation, and that's not something Disney wants.
And, no matter what dream world you live in, Spirited Away wouldn't ever
be a bigger hit than Lilo & Stitch.
Go look at the box office numbers for animated releases for the past
four or five years. You'll notice a trend: non-comedies don't sell. This
is regardless of quality (because Iron Giant was one of the two best
animated films in that time period, and it did horribly at the box
office). It just means that the American public doesn't really want to
see animated dramas.
Despite its wonderful quality and the smattering of humorous moments,
Spirited Away is an animated drama. Disney played it safe with the
release. Disney did the right thing. What's selling it -now- is the
curiosity factor. "Oh, what is this film that won an academy award?"
This should have two positive effects: 1) the DVDs should sell better
and 2) Disney can use the word from Spirited Away to sell other Miyazaki
films.
> Dawn
Damien Roc
chance wolf
"Juan F. Lara" <lj...@ces.clemson.edu> wrote in message
news:b681hg$3s0$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu...
> Um, there's "Piglet's Big Movie" in its second week of release, and
the
> bad "Jungle Book 2" still out there.
Grand. Now that we have the 'what', all we need is the 'why'...
chance (though that's more like "In God's name...WHY??")
K. Jeffery Petersen
> Treasure Planet, a flop by Disney standards, did ten times better than
> any Miyazaki movie ever will, no matter how well said movie was marketed.
*coughs* Technically, it'll probably be about 3.5 times as well, when
all is said and done. ^_^; (Spirited Away ~10 million, TP ~35 million)
> Blade
Damien Roc
Brandon Gray
$1,765,491.
Full box office breakdown (updated daily):
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=spiritedaway.htm
Regards,
Brandon
original and most accurate Box Office Forecast and the most comprehensive
box office database on the Internet.
"Terrence Briggs" <mrm...@peopleweb.com> wrote in message
news:b67tf8$kl4$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
K. Jeffery Petersen
>>"Rugrats"
>>is one of those rare phenonema.
>
>
> Look at opening weekend figures for the last few years. Animated films
> marketed toward the family do very, VERY well their first weekend --
> if they're the only animated family film opening that weekend. Kids
> see ads, kids demand to see movies opening weekends so they can talk
> about the movioes at school.
Correction: comedic movies will tend to do well. (And not always all of
those.) Disney markets -all- their animated films to families, yet that
didn't save either Atlantis or Treasure Planet.
> Disney didn't know the "venue was worth it?" Are you actually saying
> that Disney a) didn't know they had a quality product and b) had no
> idea it could be successful? Then why did they buy the rights to
> distribute it? Were they completely unaware of the money "Spririted
> Away" made in it home country -- they just ran across a film can in
> the street, picked it up and said, "Hey, what the hell, let's buy
> this, whatever it is"?
Why? Because of the video distribution side of things. Disney wanted an
in on the -very- lucrative market of releasing Ghibli films in Japan and
Asia. The fact that there was the possibility of releasing those films
over here was just icing on the cake. IIRC, there was a contractual
obligation to release Mononoke in theaters... they did and got burned.
It made them very antsy about Spirited Away. Now they're not all that
antsy, seeing as it did okay in its limited release, and got the oscar.
If it does okay in the wide release (which seems likely) and well in the
DVD release, Disney should be quite happy.
>> So they then released the movie wider when they got wider demand for it.
>
>
> Studio marketing departments create demand. Disney didn't bother. And
> by saying what you just did, you make my argument for me -- they
> underdistributed and under-advertised it, but since it won an Oscar
> anyway, they released it wider. Like they should have the first time
> around.
If this were true, then there would never be any failures for strongly
marketed movies. Or, really, strongly marketed ANYTHING.
We can't know if SPirited Away would have done well if released widely
the first time around. It may have, yes, but most things point to the
fact that it wouldn't have done that well. You are using the argument
that because it's doing these sorts of numbers NOW, it would have
then... but there are factors at play now (like the Oscar) that weren't
back then.
Maybe Disney was being overly cautious... but, given the track record of
both dramatic films, and Mononoke, I don't think we can fault them for that.
> Dawn
Damien Roc
The Amnestic Mr. Hole
>Terrence Briggs wrote:
>>Beat ya to it, Juan! :)
>>Ranked 16th for the week
>>$1,605,000 for the weekend
>>a boost of 31929.5% from the previous
>>weekend's gross on 711 screens (704
>>more than last week) $2,257 per-screen
>>average (the important number)
>>$7,225,000 total gross
>>$10,161 Culmulative Per-Screen Average
>>(was $35K, prior to the rerelease)
>>Thoughts?
>Let us extrapolate for a moment.
>Spirited Away, in week TWENTY EIGHT
>is now making $2200 a screen. Had it
>been released on the same schedule as
>the standard Disney drek, it would have
>probably made between $40 million and
>$50 million. (eight weeks, 2800 theaters)
>Shame.
Doubtful. I went to see the film for the 2nd time yesterday, once during
its initial release, and now during its rerelease and booth times there
were mass walkouts of kids and there parents, from the ages of around 6
to 14. I think about 18 people walked out during the showing yesterday.
A large portion of American audience simply don't like this film or he
old fashioned animation style.
..
Mr. Hole
Eric the Read
> And, no matter what dream world you live in, Spirited Away wouldn't
> ever be a bigger hit than Lilo & Stitch.
And personally, though I love _Spirited Away_, have preordered it (and
the other two Miyazaki DVDs Disney's release on tax day) and seen it
three times now in the theatres and spent well over $50 to do so (I
took some people with me), and am thrilled to death that finally
Miyazaki has won some of the recognition he so richly deserves in the
US, I think _Lilo and Stitch_ is a better movie. I was rooting for
SA, but if L&S had won, I'd have been happy, too.
> Despite its wonderful quality and the smattering of humorous moments,
> Spirited Away is an animated drama. Disney played it safe with the
> release. Disney did the right thing.
I agree, but I'd just like to point out that those are not necessarily
synonymous. :) Though in this case it certainly was.
> What's selling it -now- is the
> curiosity factor. "Oh, what is this film that won an academy award?"
> This should have two positive effects: 1) the DVDs should sell better
> and 2) Disney can use the word from Spirited Away to sell other
> Miyazaki films.
Yep. And maybe 3) ensure a wider initial release for _Howl's Moving
Castle_ when it comes out. Which reminds me; I should re-read that.
I don't remember it being particularly special, but I may just have
been too old when I first read it.
Lord Jubjub
"S.t.A.n.L.e.E" <sta...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2003, Juan F. Lara wrote:
>
> > In article <TmUha.36399$Zo.10407@sccrnsc03>, Scott <nos...@nospam.com>
> > wrote:
> > >Juan F. Lara wrote:
> > > Here's a hint: 2800 X 2200
> > > That's 15% of $40M on the first weekend.
> > > It's in theatres for eight weekends, possibly 12.
> > > In mathematics, that's called a fact.
> >
> > No, that's statistics. Hope that SA would make that PTA for the
> > larger
> > number of 2800 theaters. And that it would sustain their audience enough
> > so
> > that the first weekend would only account for 15% of the total BO.
> > Boxoffices don't obey Newton's Laws of Motion. You can't predict them with
> > this certainty.
> >
>
> IIRC, statistics also show that movies typically make
> 1/5 to 1/6 of their total in the first weeked,
> assuming the film lasts long enough for a typical 6-8 weeks run.
> Per theater average (PTA) is also never steady but rather
> typically peaks the first week then degrades down,
> so any assumption that PTA would remain the same
> over a 6-8 week run is foolish.
No, most movies today make from 1/4 to 1/3 of their total in the opening
weekend and that if they've got decent legs. Only movies with very good
legs make over 80% of their box office after the first weekend.
Jay G
"Scott" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:g8Uha.36206$Zo.10313@sccrnsc03...
> Juan F. Lara wrote:
> > In article <fm6f8vkq5qpdltivf...@4ax.com>,
> > Dawn Taylor <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Not really. Do you think that Disney *wants* to inspire American
audience
> >>interest in foreign animated films?
> >
> > Why not if they can make a buck out of it?
>
> Because they can't in the long run.
They can if they are able to present themselves to Japanese studios as
an effective distributor of anime in the US, or worldwide.
-Jay
Dean Siren
screens, then more prints wouldn't help because they aren't selling out every
seat now.
Derek Janssen
Also--as was already brought up by the fans and experts during the dark
days of Disney "Never again!" Mononoke exile (okay, old-schoolers,
alllll together now: o/~ "Maybe Criterion can re-lease the disks!" o/~
;p )--nobody else could AFFORD to license them:
Remember, we're talking about the movie, *period*, that outgrossed
"Jurassic Park" over there, followed by the movie, live or animated,
that outgrossed "Titanic"...Oh, and maybe that cute lil' witch movie
that outgrossed "Batman", just to sweeten the deal--
Who *else* on planet Earth had the Grand Canyon pockets to pay for what
Toho, Tokuma and Ghibli were asking...Pioneer??
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Jay G
"Invid Fan" <in...@localnet.com> wrote in ...
> In article <3E87F362...@rcn.com>, Derek Janssen <dja...@rcn.com>
> wrote:
> > They had always planned to take it wide "when it found its wide
> > audience" (which, thanks to old traumas from trying to take "Mononoke"
> > wide in Minnesota, they were a little overcareful about judging), and
> > had a medium-wide scale of extra prints in production for later in
> > November just in case...
> > Which explains why Disney's original wide-release "if it wins" boast
> > wasn't just something off the top of their head that they knew they
> > couldn't back their bets for.
> >
> It does lay to rest the idea that Disney was just shipping the same 300
> prints around the country if true, though. They could have gone wider
> felt (probably rightly) that the current number of theaters was about
> right.
It was only in 151 theatres at any one time. Also, theatres in November
that were requesting prints of Spirited Away were being turned down.
So presumably they didn't have any extra prints just lying around.
-Jay
Tomar
> Derek Janssen wrote:
>> Dawn Taylor wrote:
>>
>>>Of course, they still don't want a LOT of people seeing it. It wouldn't
>>>do for "Spirited Away" to be a bigger hit than, say, "Lilo & Stitch."
>>>If that happened, movie-goers might start paying attention to
>>>non-domestic animation, and that's not something Disney wants.
>>
>>
>> Think we're pretty near the end of the "They don't like us because
>> they're JEALOUS!" conspiracy theories at this point and we're now in
>> new territory:
>
> "Piglet's Big Movie" is on 2100 screens.
>
> Is it going to win the Oscar too?
>
> No.
>
> Game.. Set.. Match.
Yeah if you want to loose money. The US Producers of Spirited
Away are rolling in cash while Piglet's Big Movie will be lucky
if it breaks even.
The thing you fail to realize that "2100 screens" may look a lot
but that doesn't mean it puts people in seats. If no one is
watching the movie then it will go to nothing in less than a month.
On the other hand how long has Spirited Away been going?
People don't realize that they handled it correctly: they made
money in the past and are now making much more.
So who is the idiot?
Tomar
--
Tomar:aka tomar-electrontrap_org |"Women who know swordplay
--- A slightly mysterious net entity --- | should be treated very
http://www.electrontrap.org/ | kindly..."
Jay G
> If Spirited Away had been released in 2000+ theaters from the get-go, as
was
> the case with Doug: The First Movie, the film would've most assuredly
gotten
> Doug: The First Movie-esque numbers. That is to say, it's per-screen
> average would've been WORSE than the $2200 we saw for this rerelease.
That is a distinct possibility
> The Saturation Argument only holds water if the film gets the proper
> word-of-mouth. My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Blair Witch Project prove you
> don't have to have ANY saturation to become phat flicks.
Those two films are flukes. Blair Witch had an impressive amount of
buzz before the film came out, due to what was probably the first
successful internet film campaign. MBFGW on the otherhand, didn't
even do as well per screen as Spirited Away in their first respective
first weeks. Of course, MBFGW opened wider and had almost unheard
of legs.
Spirited Away had good word of mouth and great critical response,
but Disney responded to it very hesitantly.
> As it stands, Spirited Away was a worthy arthouse performer, with
incredible
> staying power even before the Oscar, that has yet to receive the audience
it
> deserves. Fine.
I feel that Disney didn't distribute or promote the film as well as it
could have the first time around, and thus the film didn't do as well
as it could have. However, I understand that is just my opinion and
appearently Disney didn't have the same view as I did. I don't beleive
Disney in anyway deliberately tried to keep Spirited Away from
succeeding, and I find it very encouraging that they have released
it wider despite the fact that the DVD is not far off.
> I've been proven wrong before, though. I'm the second-largest Spirited
Away
> booster around, yet I didn't believe the film would win an Oscar.
Who's the largest?
-Jay
Invid Fan
wrote:
> Jay G wrote:
And that's part of the reason we didn't get Ghibli's films before then
(apart from Troma's attempt with Totoro). US anime companies just
couldn't pay what Ghibli wanted.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Jay G
"Derek Janssen" <dja...@rcn.com> wrote
>
> Also--as was already brought up by the fans and experts during the dark
> days of Disney "Never again!" Mononoke exile (okay, old-schoolers,
> alllll together now: o/~ "Maybe Criterion can re-lease the disks!" o/~
> ;p )--nobody else could AFFORD to license them:
I heard the reason Ghibli went with Disney was because Disney was
the only distributor that was willing to distribute the films unedited,
since Miyazaki had a bad experience with Nausicaa. Disney can
provide an alternate soundrtack, but they can't cut a single frame
of film.
Of course, that could mean Disney was the only distributor with
the *big bucks* that would agree to no editing.
-Jay
K. Jeffery Petersen
>>1/5 to 1/6 of their total in the first weeked,
>>assuming the film lasts long enough for a typical 6-8 weeks run.
>>Per theater average (PTA) is also never steady but rather
>>typically peaks the first week then degrades down,
>>so any assumption that PTA would remain the same
>>over a 6-8 week run is foolish.
>
>
> No, most movies today make from 1/4 to 1/3 of their total in the opening
> weekend and that if they've got decent legs. Only movies with very good
> legs make over 80% of their box office after the first weekend.
However, animated films tend to make about 5 times opening weekend gross
over the total.
Damien Roc
Invid Fan
Dean Siren <dea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> When will anime companies finally use their own distributors in USA? Toyota
> and
> Nintendo would never license their products out to Ford and Microsoft, who
> would
> squash them with not-invented-here syndrome, so why do the anime companies?
> Is
> it because they're not popular enough yet? How about Bandai?
>
Well, let's see. Pioneer distributes their own titles. Bandai created
an internet-only distribution company, Anime Villiage, which was a
disaster from day one. Bandai's new releases are under their own name.
Viz is owned by some Japanese anime company I don't know the name of
off hand. Etc.
Oh, did you mean theatrical distribution? It's easier, cheaper, and
safer to let someone who knows the local market to handle that.
Dawn Taylor
wrote:
>Dawn Taylor wrote:
>>
>> >(oh, wait, that's right, I forgot--They're not releasing
>> >it ENOUGH.)
>>
>> Sigh. That's not what I said, and you know it. Stop treating me like
>> I'm a dumbass like Rich.
>
>Ohh, after twenty or so reason-ignoring posts a day, we would NEVER
>accuse you of crossing over fully into official Dumbass Territory, Dawn...
>It just, what *is* it about the word "Disney" that still causes unwary
>anime-fan travelers to wander so willingly near its treacherous borders, blindfolded?
You really have made a lot of assumptions about me in this thread,
Derek. And now you're getting insulting. You know -- I thought better
of you than that.
Don't make me turn this car around, mister.
>To paraphrase the immortal words of Richard Pryor, who're we gonna
>believe, you, or those lyin' Oscar campaigns? ; )
All I've done here is present my opinion and ask some questions. If
you don't agree with me, that's fine. That's what the discussion
concept is all about here. But jeez ... you don't have to turn into a
jerk about it.
Dawn
(or, um, do you?)
Derek Janssen
Not to mention the other way around:
Given the chance, any idealistic and equally anti-"Warriors/Wind" US
anime company would've gladly submitted to the no-edit clause with less
grumbles than Disney did at first (they've since learned to live with it
:) ), but at those prices, anyone without their own corporate
conglomerate could only dream.
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Blade
news:b69uei$cma$2...@hubcap.clemson.edu:
> In article <Xns934F277202...@66.185.95.104>,
> Blade <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Treasure Planet, a flop by Disney standards, did ten times better
>> than any Miyazaki movie ever will, no matter how well said movie
>> was marketed.
>
> Well, let's not be rash. As Miyazaki gets to be more well
> known in the
> US that will change. It'll be a gradual strengthening process.
> It's just that some people think it's automatically going to happen,
> which is insane.
No, I don't think it will change. I will be extremely surprised if
anytime in my lifetime a Miyazaki movie is a real success at the NA box-
office. But you are correct in that it's flat-out insane to expect it to
happen now.
Blade
Dean Siren
Cartrige games were much more expensive to manufacture than VHS/DVDs, and they
had to be reprogrammed for each market. Anime has to be dubbed or subbed, but
that's not as hard, is it?
Second, ever since 1985 the console business has had licensing fees for 3rd
parties and censorship from the hardware maker that VHS and DVD don't.
Third, Japanese game companies developed a lot of games specifically/mainly for
the US market, like Punch Out, Metroid, Contra, Double Dragon (I think), Metal
Gear, Ninja Turtles, Simpsons, etc. That's a lot of money they could make back
only in one market. If game companies could afford to do that, how come anime
companies haven't done so?
Fourth, video game hardware changes every five years while home movie technology
changes only about every 10 to 15. That should allow anime companies to settle
in and focus less on process and more on product.
Video games do have one big advantage: They get to sell for $50 while movies
have to sell for $20-30. Also, video games have much lower development costs,
although they are steadily rising.
Still, it seems to me that the home video market has a lot of strengths that
anime companies should be able to take advantage of.
> Not that easy.
> First off, let's look at anime companies who did or do
> have their own distributors in the USA.
> I believe Gainax at one time tried it - unsuccessful, now gone.
> Super Techno Arts, part of Studio APPP, has been trying
> to release Jojo's Bizarre Adventure for months and months now
> and still nothing yet amidst many delays and reschedules.
> Gamers, of Broccoli and Digi Charat fame, tried to release
> in partnership with Digital Manga - broke up and scaled back.
>
> See? It's not as easy as just opening another office.
> It's more like building a new company from the ground up.
> It's a whole different business and market.
> Foreign companies would have to acquire the know-how of how
> business is done in the US, which is different than in Japan,
> just as Microsoft is learning now with XBox in Japan.
> The deals, the production, the distribution, marketing, etc.
> They'd have to set up all those things from scratch,
> unless they partner with domestic companies
> that already have those resources.
>
> Now, let's examine the difference from the console game business.
> When the Japanese gamemakers went over to the US,
> there really wasn't a console game industry.
> So they did set up everything themselves, the frontrunners.
> In fact, even now, American console gamemakers have to use
> the distribution channels the Japanese set up
> because those channels are the main channels.
>
> Now, compare that to the entertainment video business.
> There's already an entrenched industry, largest in the world.
> There's Hollywood and media conglomerates like AOL-TW, Disney, Fox.
> Foreign companies can't just step in and do business as usual.
> On the business end, they'd have to compete with the big boys
> for the distribution channels, shelf space, store placement, etc.
> Then they'd have to shape their marketing based on how
> products are successfully marketed and perceived by Americans.
> A whole different ballgame.
>
> So, unless they'd want to invest considerable amount of resources
> developing an equivalent of a new business, it's more prudent
> just to license to domestic companies who know the territory best,
> while leaving them to do what they do best as well.
>
> Laters. =)
Sydney Assbasket
think it played in many multiplexes in my area in its initial release, but now
it is in quite a few.
I have six locks on my door all in a row. When I go out, I lock every
other one. I figure no matter how long somebody stands there picking
the locks, they are always locking three.
- Elayne Boosler
Remove "bination" to reply.
Derek Janssen
>
> You really have made a lot of assumptions about me in this thread,
> Derek. And now you're getting insulting. You know -- I thought better
> of you than that.
>
> Don't make me turn this car around, mister.
Sorry--Heat of the moment.
But, seeing as there's more background facts in this thread now than
when it started (mostly from other people ;p ), let us simply agree to
put IRA-like fan grudges aside and settle this thread where it lies,
counting our present blessings in an amicably united spirit of "Why Ask
Why?"... : )
...Besides, we'll already have *enough* threads on the group to deal
with, what with all the annual cornball "Michael Bay to remake
Casablanca!", "Warner announces casting on Wonder Twins movie!" and
"Pres. Bush to ban all French films!" posts tomorrow. >_<
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Blade
news:3E88C45...@goddos.net:
That wasn't the initial marketed release, no? I will grant Spirited Away
got a boost from the Oscar, but that isn't exactly marketing.
Blade
Dawn Taylor
wrote:
>Dawn Taylor wrote:
>>
>> You really have made a lot of assumptions about me in this thread,
>> Derek. And now you're getting insulting. You know -- I thought better
>> of you than that.
>>
>> Don't make me turn this car around, mister.
>
>Sorry--Heat of the moment.
>
>But, seeing as there's more background facts in this thread now than
>when it started (mostly from other people ;p ),
You're such a little bitch! :-)
> let us simply agree to
>put IRA-like fan grudges aside and settle this thread where it lies,
>counting our present blessings in an amicably united spirit of "Why Ask
>Why?"... : )
Okay. I'll save all this energy for arguments about important things
-- like how "Capricorn One" was true and we never went to the moon,
and why Joel Schmacher sucks total ass.
>
>...Besides, we'll already have *enough* threads on the group to deal
>with, what with all the annual cornball "Michael Bay to remake
>Casablanca!", "Warner announces casting on Wonder Twins movie!" and
>"Pres. Bush to ban all French films!" posts tomorrow. >_<
Not to mention putting the occasional smackdown on Rich.
Dawn
Jay G
"Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> "K. Jeffery Petersen" <sk...@goddos.net> wrote :
>
> > Blade wrote:
> >> Treasure Planet, a flop by Disney standards, did ten times better
> >> than any Miyazaki movie ever will, no matter how well said movie
> >> was marketed.
> >
> > *coughs* Technically, it'll probably be about 3.5 times as well,
> > when all is said and done. ^_^; (Spirited Away ~10 million, TP ~35
> > million)
>
> That wasn't the initial marketed release, no? I will grant Spirited Away
> got a boost from the Oscar, but that isn't exactly marketing.
Disney has run tons of ads promoting the Oscar win. The Oscar is just
another angle for Disney to exploit. Spirited Away wouldn't have done
anywhere near as well this weekend if Disney had left it in 7 theatres
with no ads, Oscar win or no.
-Jay
K. Jeffery Petersen
The limited release garnered ~5.5 million. Say 7 times, in that case.
> Blade
Damien Roc
Evil
>
> Ranked 16th for the week
> $1,605,000 for the weekend
> a boost of 31929.5% from the previous weekend's gross
> on 711 screens (704 more than last week)
> $2,257 per-screen average (the important number)
> $7,225,000 total gross
> $10,161 Culmulative Per-Screen Average (was $35K, prior to the rerelease)
>
> Thoughts?
What are people's projections for overall sales and rental figures for
the SPIRITED AWAY dvd v. TREASURE PLANET dvd?
Terrence Briggs
news:3E87F672...@rcn.com...
> "Juan F. Lara" wrote:
> >
> > > Disney-produced dreck. "Spirited Away" was released, it seemed, almost
> > > grudgingly.
> >
> > That's an opinion.
>
> Well, it's also a fact: They WERE grudging.
> And if "Mononoke" was the second look at Miyazaki movies you'd ever
> gotten in your life, *you'd* be pretty darn grudging about it too--
>
> Heck, I'm as much a SA defender as anyone here, and even *I* was pretty
> darn grudging about going back to a Miyazaki movie after "Kurosawa's
> 'The Cranky Jungle Book'"...Didn't seem like ANYTHING was ever going to
> bring Hayao back to us here on Planet Earth.
>
> SA won me over, it won the Oscar committee over, it won a buncha guys at
> Disney over, and it won over people who wandered into the arthouse
> theater to show off.
> And $1.6M of moviegoers this week will never know the bullet animation
> we all dodged...Fans, Chihiro singlehanded SAVED your hinders.
>
> Derek Janssen
> dja...@rcn.com
Oversimply, Derek's conversion back to Miyazaki fandom is more meaningful
than mine, since I *loved* Mononoke's Gaggle of Giggles Jungle Book almost
as much as I *loved* Carl Macek's Castle of Cagliostro, and knew
Miyazaki-sensei had a Spirited Away in him. Who needs Roger Ebert, Elvis
Mitchell, and every film snob worth a newspaper blurb on your side when you
can have dozens of fellow film prudes who mistaken think Miyazaki is (or
should be) a fantasy comedian.
What? Aren't the Speilburg snipers entertaining enough when they spit on
the man for making "serious" films? Then again, Speilburg never had a
Takahata around to direct Schindler's List.
Terrence Briggs, who still believes no good film is depressing
Peace to you...WOOHOO!
Lawrence Lin
> And that's part of the reason we didn't get Ghibli's films before then
> (apart from Troma's attempt with Totoro). US anime companies just
> couldn't pay what Ghibli wanted.
On the R1 "Spirited Away" DVD Suzuki (producer of just about every Miyazaki
film) discusses (in a "behind the scenes" featurette) why they decided to go
with Disney instead of the other companies that had asked for rights for well
over a decade.
--
[2048/1024 bit DH/DSS <ll...@u.washington.edu>]
Key ID: 0xF1B44F9D
http://students.washington.edu/llin/
Terrence Briggs
"Evil" <eviln...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e7ca15d5.03040...@posting.google.com...
> "Terrence Briggs" <mrm...@peopleweb.com> wrote in message
news:<b67tf8$kl4$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
<snip>
> What are people's projections for overall sales and rental figures for
> the SPIRITED AWAY dvd v. TREASURE PLANET dvd?
Continuing for parade of low expectations...
Treasure Planet will kill Spirited Away in overall rental and sales. IN
"per-unit" rentals and sales, things may be more even (i.e. a small
collection of Spirited Away DVDs will get circulated more than the TP DVD,
which may have time to breathe between rentals before they're sold as
previously viewed).
Rent it, love it, BUY IT! I'm wearing their mutha out! :)
Terrence Brigs, renting 10, loving 10, buying 20
Peace to you...WOOHOO!
Derek Janssen
>
> > What are people's projections for overall sales and rental figures for
> > the SPIRITED AWAY dvd v. TREASURE PLANET dvd?
>
> Continuing for parade of low expectations...
>
> Treasure Planet will kill Spirited Away in overall rental and sales. IN
> "per-unit" rentals and sales, things may be more even (i.e. a small
> collection of Spirited Away DVDs will get circulated more than the TP DVD,
> which may have time to breathe between rentals before they're sold as
> previously viewed).
Well, TP hasn't had fans lining for TWO YEARS to buy six copies each,
since from long before it even arrived in the US...
But, it does have a sizable rental percentage of those who missed it,
those who wanted to see it after somebody told them it actually wasn't
too bad by the time it'd already left town, the geek-show flop-gawkers
who want to snigger "okay, how bad was it, huhuhuh?" (HuhuHUH--Well,
funny they should ask...Let's not tell them, shall we? ^_^ ), and, of
course, the Disney Moms who buy anything the minute it hits the Disney Stores.
Which should at least, if not TOTALLY "Hercules"-rescue it on video,
should at least give it a little "Atlantis:2-disk SE"
misunderstood-martyrdom past the first opening weeks.
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> "Dean Siren" <dea...@earthlink.net> writes:
> > When will anime companies finally use their own distributors in USA? Toyota and
> > Nintendo would never license their products out to Ford and Microsoft, who would
> > squash them with not-invented-here syndrome, so why do the anime companies?
>
> In point of fact, they have, in many cases. Ford and Mazda have a
> close relationship-- ISTR Proteges and Escorts are (or were) built on
>
Close relationship? Ford controls Mazda; they bought enough shares.
Renault controls Nissan; even installed a Brazilian-European
to head the Japanese office. GM controls Kia (Korean), etc.
Western companies bought into Japanese businesses
during Japan's great lost decade, just as Japanese companies
did into American businesses during the late 80's recession.
Laters. =)
Stan
--
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \ ___|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ Stanlee Dometita sta...@cif.rochester.edu
| ( _| | U of Rochester cif.rochester.edu/~stanlee
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | |
/ \/ \| _ | |\ |
/___/\/\___|__| |__|___| \ ___|
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
Yes, to the tune of at least $10M by last speculation (~1997).
Eric the Read
> Close relationship? Ford controls Mazda; they bought enough shares.
I hadn't kept up; last I saw, they own a sizable percentage, but I
didn't want to overstate myself. :)
-=Eric
--
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
-- Blair Houghton.
Jay G
"Lawrence Lin" <ll...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.44.030401...@dante19.u.washington.edu...
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Invid Fan wrote:
>
> > And that's part of the reason we didn't get Ghibli's films before then
> > (apart from Troma's attempt with Totoro). US anime companies just
> > couldn't pay what Ghibli wanted.
>
> On the R1 "Spirited Away" DVD Suzuki (producer of just about every
Miyazaki
> film) discusses (in a "behind the scenes" featurette) why they decided to
go
> with Disney instead of the other companies that had asked for rights for
well
> over a decade.
Care to offer a summary?
-Jay
sanjian
> On 31 Mar 2003, Eric the Read wrote:
>
>> "Dean Siren" <dea...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>> When will anime companies finally use their own distributors in
>>> USA? Toyota and Nintendo would never license their products out to
>>> Ford and Microsoft, who would squash them with not-invented-here
>>> syndrome, so why do the anime companies?
>>
>> In point of fact, they have, in many cases. Ford and Mazda have a
>> close relationship-- ISTR Proteges and Escorts are (or were) built on
>>
>
> Close relationship? Ford controls Mazda; they bought enough shares.
Actually, IIRC, Ford only owns 40% of Mazda. Still, it was enough to drag
down the quality of Mazda products.
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
They still control it.
Meanwhile, if it wasn't for Renault and Ghosn,
Nissan would've been gone; now they're profitable again.
Until recently, only Toyota earns any profit in Japan.