T U E S D AY, N O V E M B E R 0 7 , 2 0 0 6Movie Shocker: Wide Releases Are A Waste OfMoneyJust off the top of my head yesterday, I suggested that if "Borat" couldgross $26 million on just 837 screens, then releasing every single darndrama and comedy on 3000 to 4000 screens was a tremendous wasteof money.</p><p> I had no proof of this; it just made common sense.</p><p> Now I'vegot the proof.</p><p> Variety reports on the debate over whether "Borat" leftmoney on the table by opening on so few screens.</p><p> Then they admit this:Even though major studio films are typically released at 3,000theaters these days, distribution execs say the wider releasepatterns are driven more by ego than by economics, because tobook that many screens requires playing pics at a lot of littletheaters that can't do a lot of business.For instance, when "Mission: Impossible III" opened to $47.7million at 4,054 theaters in May, 90% of its opening grosses (or$43 million) came from its top 1,469 engagements.</p><p> That meansthe bottom 2,585 theaters generated a paltry $4.8 million, anaverage of $1,847 per location -- barely more than what it costsa studio to manufacture and ship a film print.That pattern was repeated two weekends ago when "Saw III"opened to $33.6 million at 3,167 theaters: The top 1,535engagements generated $30.2 million, while the other 1,632theaters were responsible for just $3.3 million."The lesson is that you don't have to have all these screens to dobig business," said a studio distrib topper.</p><p> Or, as another studiodistrib prexy said, "It just goes to show that anything over 1,500(theaters) is crazy."This is unbelievable.</p><p> HALF the screens set aside for "Saw III" grossedonly $3.3 million? That is unbelievable.</p><p> And it seems to be true acrossthe board.</p><p> Every print a studio strikes can cost $1200.</p><p> So striking 1500prints costs $1.8 million.</p><p> Plus there's the cost to theaters to man allthose extra screenings.</p><p> Plus advertising.</p><p> And of course, if a movie flops,you'll be losing money by booking all those extra screens.</p><p> I can't believeI've been covering film for all these years and this is the first time I'veread how wasteful and stupid these mega-wide releases really are.POSTED BY MICHAEL IN NEW YORK AT 12:01 PM Next Blog»sal1mineo@hotmail.comSEARCH BLOG FLAG BLOGFOLLOW BLOGP O P S U R F I N G .</p><p> C O MS U R F I N G T H E WAV E S O F P O P U L A R C U LT U R EB Y M I C H A E L G I LT Z & F R I E N D SPOPSURFING.COM: Movie Shocker: Wide Releases Are A W...http://popsurfing.blogspot.com/2006/11/movie-shocker-wide-rel... 1 of 37/28/09 3:18 PMFAV O R I T E L I N K SAmericablogFive O'Clock Lightning baseball blogDeep Pop -- Lori Lakin's BlogThe Back Page -- Jason Page on ESPNRadioCine-Blog -- George Robinson's BlogDocuments On Art & Cinema - DarylChin's BlogBrucie G's Wondrous Blog OfAdventure and Mystery -- BruceGreenspan's BlogB L O G A R C H I V E▼ 2009 (17)▼ July (3)1939 -- The Greatest Year ForMoviesSwimming Bans Those Hi-TechSuits!Best Movies Of The Year -- TheMaster List► June (3)► May (1)► March (2)► February (1)► January (7)► 2008 (86)► 2007 (781)► 2006 (2412)► 2005 (5)C O N T R I B U TO R SBiboyMichael in New YorkAaron POPSURFING.COM: Movie Shocker: Wide Releases Are A W...http://popsurfing.blogspot.com/2006/11/movie-shocker-wide-rel... 2 of 37/28/09 3:18 PMPOPSURFING.COM: Movie Shocker: Wide Releases Are A W...http://popsurfing.blogspot.com/2006/11/movie-shocker-wide-rel... 3 of 37/28/09 3:18 PM
