Weekend Box Office: 'Veronica Mars' Earns $2M, 'Mr. Peabody And Sherman' Tops

[Ubiquitous]

Here is a classic example of “rank doesn’t matter.” Thanks to somewhat
under-performing new releases and a harsh drop for last weekend’s
champion, the number one film of the weekend is last weekend’s alleged
“flop” Mr. Peabody and Sherman. The DreamWorks Animation DWA +0.26%
release earned $21.2 million, down just 34% from last weekend. Does
that automatically mean that everyone who wrote off Mr. Peabody and
Sherman as a flop last weekend has to apologize and/or correct
themselves? Maybe, but its arbitrary rank has little to do with its box
office success. The openers were weak and families already bought
Frozen on VOD (or pre-ordered the blu-ray for this Tuesday) and have
already seen The LEGO Movie once or twice.

The 20th Century Fox release ended the weekend with $63.2 million after
ten days, still below the norm for a DWA March release but it’s already
outpacing Turbo and Rise of the Guardians domestically. Its weekend
drop was slightly less than The Croods but only slightly more than How
To Train Your Dragon, so thus far the smaller $32m debut weekend is the
only “differential” in terms of DWA spring debuts. If it plays like The
Croods, it will get to $135m domestic, which is actually squarely in
the “not bad” category for DreamWorks originals, with potential riches
yet to come overseas (it’s at $148m worldwide, or basically its $145m
budget). I’m not saying it’s a hit yet, especially with the terrific
The Muppets Most Wanted coming down the pike, but it’s not dead yet
either. This, combined with the relative staying power of 300: Rise of
an Empire (more on that below), also makes this a good lesson in not
declaring failure after opening weekend.

The most interesting new release was of course the 291 screen release
of Warner Bros.’ Veronica Mars movie. As you know, the film was a
feature continuation of the beloved but poorly rated television show.
The film version, coming seven years after the end of its third and
final season, was funded mostly by hardcore fans using Kickstarter. The
film actually debuted in 291 theaters and Video On Demand on the same
day, unheard of for a major studio release. Warner had to rent out many
of those theaters as the big chains generally don’t play movies that
are available on VOD. I don’t have VOD numbers and may not for awhile,
but the film’s theatrical release opened to $2 million, or just over a
third of its $5.7 million budget.

With $1m on Friday, it’s arguably the least-shocking 2.0x multiplier in
modern history. Maybe it has something vaguely resembling legs and
gets to $6m, or maybe it’s the most front-loaded movie of all time and
it’s done after today. It will be interesting to watch because, again,
there is just no precedent for this. Of course, at least some of that
$5.7m raised was “compensated” via digital downloads of the film, so
that’s a sizable chunk of the VOD audience already accounted for.
Again, this is a strange release, completely without precedent in box
office history.

There just aren’t a lot of “film continuation of cancelled cult TV show
funded directly by the fans and then given a limited theatrical release
and same-day national VOD availability” examples to compare this to.
Those who wanted to this got the movie they wanted. Aside from
complaints about investors being unable to access their digital copy
via Warner Bros.’ flawed Flixter program (Warner will refund those who
gave up and bought the film elsewhere), this was an unmitigated success
for the fans and for the investors. Warner Bros. barely spent a dime on
advertising, and yet they will still reap most of the profits. For what
it’s worth, considering how many fans already bought the film
digitally, Warner better make sure the blu-ray is crammed with special
features.


--
Q: Why is ObamaCare like a turd?
A: You have to pass it to see what's in it.

[Rhino]

Huh?? Does ANYONE proof-read their work any more or does it just get
spewed out as-is so that readers can do the proof-reading for them? That
sentence is missing at least one verb but it's not obvious which one.
I'm guessing that was supposed to say "Those who wanted to SEE this got

the movie they wanted".

> Aside from
> complaints about investors being unable to access their digital copy
> via Warner Bros.’ flawed Flixter program (Warner will refund those who
> gave up and bought the film elsewhere), this was an unmitigated success
> for the fans and for the investors. Warner Bros. barely spent a dime on
> advertising, and yet they will still reap most of the profits. For what
> it’s worth, considering how many fans already bought the film
> digitally, Warner better make sure the blu-ray is crammed with special
> features.
>
>


--

Rhino

[Obveeus]

"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

> Here is a classic example of "rank doesn't matter." Thanks to somewhat
> under-performing new releases and a harsh drop for last weekend's
> champion, the number one film of the weekend is last weekend's alleged
> "flop" Mr. Peabody and Sherman.

I must have missed the memo about MR. PEABODY AND SHERMAN being a flop.

> The most interesting new release was of course the 291 screen release
> of Warner Bros.' Veronica Mars movie.

I was more interested/surprised that NEED FOR SPEED managed to lose to two
holdover films.

> As you know, the film was a
> feature continuation of the beloved but poorly rated television show.
> The film version, coming seven years after the end of its third and
> final season, was funded mostly by hardcore fans using Kickstarter. The
> film actually debuted in 291 theaters and Video On Demand on the same
> day, unheard of for a major studio release. Warner had to rent out many
> of those theaters as the big chains generally don't play movies that
> are available on VOD.

Warner having to rent out the movie theaters sort of negates the idea that
they were only into this film for $1M in ad costs and that the other $6M in
production costs came from kickstarter.

> Of course, at least some of that
> $5.7m raised was "compensated" via digital downloads of the film, so
> that's a sizable chunk of the VOD audience already accounted for.

True...if the VOD 'purchases' are largely a bunch of people who get a 'free'
copy as part of their Kickstarter donation, then the VOD 'income' is really
a lot smaller than is being hyped.

> Again, this is a strange release, completely without precedent in box
> office history.

...and that, in and of itself, makes this an interesting format for film
creation/distribution.