Here’s a riddle for you. What do you get when cross Tom Hanks (one of the most celebrated actors and talents of our generation), a 3D animated film (one of the most financially lucrative of all film genres) and a $270 million dollar budget to make and market a film? The answer: The Polar Express. A total box office disaster that is going to cost a number of people their jobs.
By almost any definition, pulling in just over $23 million dollars on your opening weekend should be looked at as a positive thing. That is unless you lost your mind and spent $270 million dollars on the making and marketing of a movie that doesn’t have “Star Wars” or “Lord of the Rings” in the title. I’m sorry, but what the hell was Warner Brothers thinking?!?! $270 million!?!? I don’t care if your movie is the next coming of “It’s a Wonderful Fricking Life”, you don’t spend that much money on ANY movie. Period. Did they seriously expect this film ever had a hope of breaking even? I could have told them the answer to that months before they even started production. NO!
This film now stands to lose… are you ready for this… over $200 million dollars. Think about that. It would become the single greatest money losing film of all time. It will lose more money that it takes to make 95% of the films out there.
I haven’t even seen the film yet, but that doesn’t matter. The Studios sealed the financial fate of this film before a single frame of it was produced. It doesn’t matter if it’s the best film of the season (and the critics seem to agree it’s not), you just can’t make back that kind of money, and now heads are going to roll. And so they should. This level of ineptitude is just staggering. What should have been a reason to celebrate ($23 million opening weekend) is instead ushering in the corporate grim reaper. Just plain Dumb.
You guys are wrong. Usually, studios only end up getting about 50% of the gross amount. That means you would have to divide your gross by 2, which would put Polar Express at a loss of nearly $80 million (if you don’t count DVD sales, etc.). I don’t think the DVD, HBO, pay-per-view, etc. will make up for the cost. The movie did end up being a loser (from a financial standpoint).
The big lesson of this film was the appeal of the
3D. If this film were to be released in 3D in
say 1000 North American theaters next Christmas
when it comes back to the IMAX 3D screens, it can make another $25 million in found money. How can this be done technically? They can make release
prints in a new process called Anachrome. The
process is similar in some respects to the
red/cyan method used in the new “Shark Boy & Lava
Girl -3D” June release. Anachrome prints have
better color and should be viewed with plastic
glasses, rather than the paper ones. Once the film
is converted to Anachrome, they can releae it world-wide in 3D DVD or new Sony HD Blu-ray disks.
George Lucas is going to re-purpose all the STARWARS films to 3D polarized digital in a couple of years. James Cameron is going to produce
a $200 mill feature in 3D called “Battle Angel”.
All of this stuff will be easily put on HD for
the $3 Anachrome glasses. And video games are moving that way too! I wonder if Playboy channel
is thinking about 3D now!
Actually, John you are very much incorrect about theatre receipts. The reason for the high cost of popcorn, candy, etc. is because THAT is where theatres make their money. Its a difficult system to explain in a short of time but you should research it before making such claims. Basically the theatres don’t make anything from the movies until they break even, and then it is a sliding scale.
Per example, if tickets are 10 bucks and a film breaks even its first day, then the distributor/production company gets 9 and the theatre gets 1. They need to cover the costs of prints before they can ever take one penny for themselves. So the theatres reserve the right to show good pictures and thus the big theatres rely on big crowd pleasers. And those bring in teen audiences that are willing to waste 10 bucks on a drink and soda.
And that is also why there are cheap theatres with 2 dollar tickets after with only films that have ran 2 months ago or bombs (which the companies already count for as a loss). Those theatres have already received “paid for” prints and assume almost full profit from the scale.
Nonetheless, a film is considered a success by us folks in the industry (yes, I am part of it) when it has reached one third of the costs over. So the Polar Express based on overall receipts would be considered a disappointment in most cases.
BUT I must say I agree with most of the DVD makes profit arguments: a Holiday Children’s film of this caliber will make a killing next Christmas and has a long life span. So I think the producers were doing their job pretty well considering that the money movies like this would usually lose will be seen (in this case) as highly profitable within a year of this release. Plus, of course, the years to come.
So in closing, there was no loss of 27 million and the producers made the wise choice of having a talented gent at the realm by the name of Robert Zemeckis (the man averages around 120 million a film folks – that’s who I’m “taking a risk” with). That is why they have their jobs (and their is a high failure to project ratio in this line of work). None of them are hacks but rather risk takers willing to be called hacks by critics like yourself.
There is nothing wrong with admitting a mistake, John, I’m sure you’ve predicted bombs in the past. You just missed on this one.
I would like to see all you naysayers make a movie. It must be nice to sit up there in your glass houses.
Before anyone gets oo smug about saying “Oh John… you don’t understand this… or you don’t understand that”… (especially when you do is anonymously)… keep these figures in mind.
Total Oficial Production Cost = $167.34 million
Domestic Mrketing and Distibution = $72.3 million
Foregin Marketing and Distribution = $22.1 million
Total = $261.74 million dollars
Total Worldwide Box office = $284.2 million
So now you say “Ok… well it still broke even and actually made $23 million for the studio right?” Wrong.
The other expense that many of us (including me) often forget about is the theater receipts… which generally ends up being about 19% of totaly box office revenue (The ammount of money the actual movie theaters that are showing the films keep)
Theatre receipts = $50 million
In actuallity, the studios return on Polar Express so far has been at a loss of just over $27 million dollars.
Let me repeat that THEY HAVE LOST $27 Million Dollars!!!
Now, you may say “Well what about DVD sales”?
The DVD sales will make up for the loss… but remember, this was NOT a critically acclaimed film and will do nowhere near the sales of say Shrek or The Incredibles.
But my foundational argument still stands:
ANY film that grosses over $280 million world wide should be a HUGE money maker in massive amounts. The studio and producers of this film gaffed badly.. and heads DID role.
The fact they reclessly spent so much on the production and marketing of the mediocre film is unforgivable. And it’s films like this, that continuaously make the film industry to increase ticket prices for average folks like you and me to go to their films to make up for their stupid mistakes.
End of rant.
BTW, about the reason you were so wrong in your premature judgement. Other then the fact that you didn’t take the Imax factor into account, you also showed a very bad understanding of the movie industry by giving so much bearing to the opening weekend. Strongly family orientated movies, even more so if the movie doesn’t have a significant interest among the more adult audience (although I think PE did especially because of the gimmicky factor) or for that matter any movies with a big gimmicky factor tend to do well over a large number of weeks. The opening week is far less important then for more adult orientated big budget blockbusters such as Troy. You must remember we are talking about kids here. Compared to adults, kids don’t get to choose and in general they have more scheduling issues. The school holidays are important but also the parent’s willingess to take them. Many parents will not go out of the way to take their kids to opening weekends.
John, not only were your claims very premature but you also showed a serious lack of understanding about the nature of the DVD market. The DVD market is a VERY VERY important one for any family orientated movie. In fact, the DVD market usually makes significantly more then the cinema market for any family orientated movie, especially one with only limited interest from the more adult market (cf Shrek etc which tends to have a large interest from the adult market). I would agree, I think they spent way too much on this movie, especially the marketing part but it’s clear thet despite this, they’re still going to break even.
I do have to agree that the 3D idea is an interesting one. For CGI animated movies, there is no reason they can’t be moved to 3D and IMHO, this will be a significant part of the future market. Having said that, I don’t think it’s as important as some people think. 3D is interesting, but in the end, people go to a movie to enjoy it. 3D is like special effects. In some cases, it may help the enjoyment and quality of the movie, but other then that, it’s really just an optional extra. One thing Polar Express had for it was that it was the first high budget decent movie that was in 3D. However, the new and cool aspect quickly wears off and future movies won’t find the 3D aspect adds that much to their movie. The overally quality will be much more important.
YO THE MOVIE WAS WAY COOL THE REASON IT CAUST MILLIONS IS BECAUSE OF THE STUFF THEY HAD TO USE DUH JUST FORGET ABOUT THE MONEY JUST WATCH THE MOVIE AND SHUT UP
It is now January 8th,and Polar Express has made
just under $160,000,000 in North America.Overseas
it has made another $75,000,000. The domestic gross required as many as 3650 theaters, but
$35 million of the gross was IMAX 3D in only
75 theaters, world-wide. The IMAX 3D theaters veraged about $500,000 each, one in Reading MA
did over a MILLION in the 8 weeks! What does this say about the pontential of 3D!!! What a no brainer!!! Polar Express should come back on Thanksgiving this year in 1000 3D theaters exclusively. The new CINE150-3D system using taller frames on 35mm will preserve the “EVENT”
packaging that IMAX offered in just 60 theaters.
This should be good for another $50 to 60 million
before next New Years! They can also release the
film in 3D on DVD using the new plastic glasses
which give much better color and clarity. Robert
Rodriguez is coming out with another 3D film,
Shark Boy and Lava Girl, in June, and J.Cameron
is about to make a $200 million dollar 3D epic
called “Battle Angel”. PIXAR has no new releases this year, so 3D conversions would make sense for some of the Pixar legacy pictures! I think 3D is
going to blind side, the smart guys like a tidal
wave…The small players should take the plunge
and laugh all the way to the bank!!!
year
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=polarexpress.htm
The polar express has already equaled its production costs and marketing cost world wide (12/29/04). It still has some life to it. Then comes DVD sales, HBO, and most definitly public TV. The 3D IMAX version has been sold out during the weekends around the country since 2 weeks after it opened. There is already talk that The Polar Express 3D IMAX version will be re-released next year and possibly serveral years to follow.
Sorry John, but if you don’t already know it, your post was a bit premature.
I can see how this movie may be flat in a regular movie theater. I saw it on 3D IMAX and I’m convinced they spent more time viewing the 3D version. This movie was clearly made for 3D. I highly recommend the 3D IMAX version and wouldn’t be suprised if people didn’t like the regular version. I’ve never seen a movie filmed completey in 3D, where EVERY object in the movie was 3D. For me, this was an experince that I would equate to seeing Star Wars or Jurrasic Park in the theater. While watching it, you can just picture other directors ploting how they are going to release their own 3D movies.
Warner gets a lump of coal for Christmas.
I have viewed Polar Express and it is a salmonella infected Turkey. I didn’t spend a cent on consuming this Turkey because I borrowed a bootleg DVD copy.
The animation looks like fuzzy virtual reality (should have used a mix of real actors and virtual sets and animation), the plot line sucks (doubting Thomas gets his comeuppance for challenging Santa’s existance), the location is unbelievable (Santa’s workshop is on a mountain – there is no mountain at the North Pole), the adults are mean (they are nasty to children and each other), the children helpless (victims of circumstance and of the adults), the elves are munchkin clone slaves, Santa is a mean, self-centered, inflated ego, shit (Santa = Satan), Tom Hanks’ characteristic voice bleeds through all the characters (should have used different actors’ voices for the characters), it has an extremely limited cultural focus and is full of stereotypes.
The lesson from this film is the 14 to 1 difference in the ticket sales per screen between
the 2D version and the IMAX 3D version. Animation films are inately made with 3D computation. It is a pure NO BRAINER that they should be released in
3D stereoscopic mode, at least in half the play dates! Kids love 3D, and the majority of adults who saw the film in 3D liked it a lot…overall.
All in spite of the creepy animation characters,
and thin plot line…It is spectacular! You don’t
need IMAX to deliver good 3D. There are new 6 perf
35mm projectors that show wide screen 3D amazingly
well. Every complex in America could have one
such set-up by next year! If Warners wants to save the $300 millon they should put the DVD out in 3D, especially on the new Sony Blu-Ray HD disk.
Pixar will probably be smart enough to start going this route soon. I work with 3D and see
a lot that most people in film don’t see. Take my
word for this, 5 to1 10% of all features will be
running in 3D theaters & on HD DVD within 3 to 4 years! Seeing is believing, especially animation and action films.
The Polar Express was a failure from the start as soon as someone approved the style of animation that was used for the film.
Another post uses the term ‘hyperealistic animated human beings’.
Well,that would’nt be an all to bad a thing if the animated characters did’nt look so DARN SCARY!!
Heck,this movies main audience is supposed to be under twelve children and I got to tell ya,I can see the kids hiding their eyes when that character in the promo ad disappears leaving only his hand in the air.
That’s not wonderment,that’s frightening.
Add to that the method that was used to animate the film where the faces move as though they are all people on valium and they always seem to be moving towards the screen and you have even more reasons why most children won’t like this movie.
The Polar Express looks like a big movie tycoon said,”Making children’s animation movies is’nt that hard,why Pixar is cleaning up!”
And the industrial computer animation studio coughed up this loser.
Bottom line-the characters look unnatural,unhealthy and threatening.
And that’s even before we get to the plot or screewriting of this thing.
Is there a plot?
Some ghostly conductor entices a young boy on a ghostly train for a ride to the North Pole?
Oh Yea,the kids are going to love this dog.
NOT.
HALF that dough was spent on marketing the simultaneous release of the regular POLAR EXPRESS and the IMAX version. And look what happened: IMAX versions sold out across the country, though only a handful of screens and instead of going to the regular version on thousands of other screens, people are just waiting their turn for IMAX.
I once read that even the worse movies break even eventually. But then most of them havent spent 270-million!
I went and saw the Polar Express last week. Here in Grand Rapids, Michigan, it’s been hyped more than anywhere else, because the author/illustrator grew up here. Going up against The Incredibles, of course it’ll come in at #2.
The fact is that family movies have been few and far between this year. At least the widely known ones. We’ve had 2 big CG releases from Dreamworks. The latter of the two was a hit because it was a movie that families could FINALLY bring their kids to.
The Incredibles rocks and is worth seeing, and after the majority of families goes to see it, we’ve got about 5 weeks until Christmas, and during these next few weeks, The Polar Express could very well see more business.
It’s definitely a fast moving and entertaining film that captures the spirit of Christmas, and teaches a few lessons. It’s a wonderful film for children, and I hope that it gets all great word of mouth from people everywhere.
John is correct — there is this “myth” about the DVD and foreign market as being the key to “saving” a movie. The fact is, the figures don’t bear this out with the majority of high budgeted flops. You think the losses incurred by movies like Gigli, Glitter or Jersey Girl will be saved via DVD and foreign? Think again.
If the movie stinks at the box office, the likelihood of recouping its losese in these two aftermarkets is reduced as well. The exception would be if the movie itself had been produced at a very low cost — like, say, under $6 million or so. There’s this misconception among the public/armstair movie studio roleplayers that the typical DVD buyer or non-American movie watcher likes shit movies from America. Uh, no.
The DVD market? Exactly how much money do you think the DVD will make? The DVD market isn’t some mystical river of endless cash for everyone. The majority of films don’t make as much in the DVD market as it does on the big screen.
And don’t forget, the making, marketing and distributing of these DVD adds to the overall cost of the film too. This movie will not make up for the huge loses it’s going to suffer because of DVD. It will make up some of it… but nowhere near enough.
DVD is a supplement to the overall revenue of the film… not it’s saviour.
So no, the DVD market will not save this film. It will soften the blow a little… but I fear that’s about it. Too bad, because it’s a pretty good film.
haven’t you ever heard of making money in a little market we like to call “the DVD market”
Hey Mark.
I don’t think we should confuse a $23 million opening weekend as a “bomb”. Certainly a LOT of people went to see Polar Express. It just cost way to much to make.
As far as Final Fantasy goes… I think the fact that it was a total suck ass movie had more to do with it’s failures at the box office than the hyper realistic CGI.
Cheers.
It appears that the CG movies that feature hyper-realistic human beings are the ones that don’t do well at the box office (Final Fantasy being the first example). Polar Express appears to be following the same fate.
Maybe all the theories are correct about people feeling uncomfortable with looking at hyperrealistic images of human beings.
I dunno. Usually they count budget without marketing costs.
From IMAX Express earned another 3 millions in 59 theatres in five days, to boot. Big deal, huh!
Why are they releasing X-mas movies earlier and earlier every year?!!! Nobody wants to see christmans movies in October and Early November.
I know Surviving Christmas sucked, but at least if they had released it around X-mas, you might have gotten a few people who just wanted to see a X-mas movie. In October, NOBODY is going to see a Christmas movie!!!
Also, there is such a thing as reverse marketing aka overexposure! If you pay for 100 million in advertising, people are going to get sick of seeing the ads every five minutes for months before the movie comes out!!!
Just because it may not make it’s money make at the theater it is going be a killer on DVD. It’s going to make money either way, It’s just going to be 200 million less than expected.
I think Production budget was 150million but I figure marketing was someone around 100 million so 270million estimate isn’t that far off.
Going head to head with The Incredibles was a very bad move for this movie. I bet it’ll start doing better but the incredibles is still ruling the younger audience.
Sorry man. It has $160 mln. budget
Anyway, this express is going to slow to get to this mark
This is really disappointing to hear. I’m a big fan of the book and it’s always one that we bring out around Christmas time to read to the kids, but I guess that I should have seen this coming. I can’t think of one children’s book, (approximately 30 pages in length), that has been extremely successful on the big screen.
But if the POLAR EXPRESS film did not use real sets or extras, why did it cost so much? I thought CGI was supposed to SAVE money??
:-S
Can someone please explain. (Unless there is a “Cayman Islands Bank Account” to explain the cost — just kidding.)
-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com
Disney could override similar situations… Warner will… that√Ǭ¥s show business.
Its stories like this that make people scoff when they hear that piracy is costing the film industry millions and will affect future releases! The amount of money lost to pirates must be a drop in the ocean to what the studios make if they can afford to spend and lose this much money! How can a cartoon (okay maybe its more than that) cost that much!!!! How much was Screk? 50-million dollars?! So Tom Hanks must have earnt millions and millions in wages. No wonder he isnt doing the new Toy Story’s, they couldnt afford him anyway!!!!
True. But you can’t EXPECT to make that much money. I don’t think even Pixar thought The Increds would do THIS well.
The funny thing is that the Incredibles probably will make that kind of money but that’s partly because it’s a cartoon that knows it’s a cartoon instead of a cartoon in which the people just look plain creepy.