Don't worry - your movie can't suck this bad

It looks like a movie I wouldn't mind seeing. The production values are high. I like the premise. In terms of the trailer I think it is ruined by the hip-hop music, especially since all other pieces of music in the trailer added to its effectiveness but the hip-hope music takes away from that.

This might end up as being a cult classic a few years down the track and might make back it's money based on downloads and dvd/blu-ray sales.
 
tokenwhiteboy said:
$72 at the Box Office... yeah... only played in 1 theater but subtract the cost of the print and ... yeah ...
Click to expand...

There is no cost of the print. Cinemas don't use 'prints' for exhibition anymore.

And it only played in one cinema, so assuming a movie price of $12, 6 people saw it in the US, despite the fact that it only opened in one cinema. And - there was no advertising. So, they opened in one cinema in the US, with no advertising and still 6 people went to see it.

In addition, it is a British movie, so the fact that it even opened in any US cinemas is a boon, regardless of how well (or terrible) it did.

I haven't been able to find any figures on the budget, but the Yahoo article linked suggests that it was an incredibly low budget movie
"You take the film for what it is. We had no money," Clarke told IndieWire before adding, "Even if it doesn't do great in the U.S. ... we'll plot and plan for the next one."
Click to expand...

They had a very low budget, and were still able to make a movie that took $646,175 worldwide, and were able to secure distribution into the US, even if it was only for one cinema.
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=storage24.htm

Which is more than many, many, many other filmmakers (including some of those who hang out here) can say for their films.

The movie made over half a million dollars at the box office, despite receiving 22% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 4/10 on IMDb.

Then there's home video sales, they've already released the DVD and Blu-Ray into certain territories in Europe, assumedly with more to come, so there's that revenue as well.

The movie might not be great, and it might not be a success.. But it's still more success than millions of wannabe filmmakers around the world will ever see.

And really, the trailer doesn't look that bad...
 
Last edited:
ALRIGHT, JAX!

Hi-5, man!

Lookit you doing some homework!
Was beginnin' to think I was the only one to dig a little. ;)
 
Here's a box office stinker: Playback
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $264
United Arab Emirates: $57,323

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=playback.htm
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=playback.htm
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Playback#tab=summary
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1682940/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Budget: $7,500,000 (estimated)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIjdm-MFyNU



Here's another one: A Perfect Man
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $445
Hong Kong: $7,030
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=aperfectman.htm
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=aperfectman.htm
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2275471/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Budget: $5,000,000 (estimated)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZcJO5ht2A0



And yet another!: Citizen Gangster
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $625

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=citizengangster.htm
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=citizengangster.htm
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1709654/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Budget: $5,000,000 (estimated)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si4QnL-vuB4



Whole lotta fiscal loosers: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...SThyS1pFRHgxMWUtZVlDR1N3eUE&usp=sharing#gid=1
 
Last edited:
There are a number of reasons for having very limited releases of films, which somewhat undermine the point that the OP is trying to make.

Firstly, a theatrical release of any sorts (especially in smaller markets like the UK) means that the film automatically gets picked up the national press show- reviews in papers, magazines, online...etc. This is especially beneficial as A) very few publications do comprehensive DVD reviews, and B) these are usually platform releases so will be out on DVD at the same time/shortly after they are in the cinema.

Secondly, it gives the distributor a chance to look at the per-theater gross of a movie. So Storage 24 didn't perform too impressively and wasn't expanded (offering the distributors a chance to focus on their home video strategy) but many other limited release films will move to more screens if they have a decent per-screen average. It's a way for distributors to hedge their bets on smaller films.
 
rayw said:
ALRIGHT, JAX!

Hi-5, man!

Lookit you doing some homework!
Was beginnin' to think I was the only one to dig a little. ;)
Click to expand...

A month off work can do strange things to a person... :crazy::eek:

Luckily I'm back on set on Sunday ;)

I find it odd to look at a British film's domestic takings as Domestic US. Surely, as a British film, it's domestic takings should be the British takings and US takings should, in fact, be Foreign?

As a different example, there's an Australian film called Tomorrow, When The War Began.

Box Office Mojo has its 'domestic' takings as $4,936 - failure of a film with a $25mil budget, for sure.

But then really, the 'domestic' takings should be Australian domestic - where it took $13,151,324

It took just over $3mil overseas - so whilst it was an international failure, domestically it was relatively successful, especially for an independent Australian film (we don't like our own films over here...).

When it was released on Home video, it broke sales records for Australian independent films, selling 105,000 copies in a week.

Whilst not making back your production budget is, ultimately, a failure - a $25mil film that takes $4,000 is a catastrophic failure, unlike a $25mil film that takes $13mil.
 
Last edited:
I buyed this shit and it was so waste of time. I can't beleave that I payd 8e for that and they still sell it in Finland :D
 
Last edited:
it flopped because it features a typical shit cast that no one anywhere cares about, the main guy features in alot of shit films, thinks hes the next idris elba or something, who ever made the film should shoot themselves coz the trailer was boring which doesnt bode well for the film.

this is nothing more than a crappy indie film with cast who have a name but for the wrong reasons, im fed up of english people making shit films like this, they always have the opportunity to make something good then they go and cast idiots seriously, it looked like it was filmed by college students.

the story like what the hell was it?

cheap pile of rubbish which should be buried deep beneath the ground, even the worse movie ever (epic movie) looked better than this garbage.
 
I find it intriguing that Universal picked it up, assumedly for the US 'release' and then did nothing with it - Surely they must have paid some amount to secure the rights..
 
jax_rox said:
I find it intriguing that Universal picked it up, assumedly for the US 'release' and then did nothing with it - Surely they must have paid some amount to secure the rights..
Click to expand...

im tweeting the director right now to find out more info, im then going to slate him for making a shit film and giving the english film industry a bad name.
 
I love how the magical three always come after me. Shows that you care.

:)

What some people consider "no-budget" some would consider a windfall.

My guess is they spent about 1 million USD.

And no... with the box office cut they only would have gotten 36 to 50$ from the US theater.

It is likely it will go all Sharknado in the ancillary market. The tailer has a fair number of views and an article on Yahoo's homepage should help.
 
Last edited:
If they have ad revenue on that video, they might make more money on the trailer than the actual movie
 
jax_rox said:
I find it intriguing that Universal picked it up, assumedly for the US 'release' and then did nothing with it - Surely they must have paid some amount to secure the rights..
Click to expand...
Yep.
Some amount.
But certainly not anywhere near production cost - usually.

Ray said:
The most appropriate business model for distributors to function under is that of a discount store that purchases quality remainders from larger retailers for their own marked up "discount" retail sales, (think TJMaxx or Marshall's: Buy seasonal leftovers from Target et al @ 10% retail, markup 3X to 30% retail.)

Largely, this page indicates film producers easily loose 80 - 90% of a film's cost upon theatrical release only.
Distributor still makes money, though.
Click to expand...

That example surely has a retail apparel counterparts elsewhere in the world.
Likely you have full retail "this upcoming season" apparel chain retailers.
Whatever odds and ends they don't sell to the public they sell off in aggregate wholesale to "off price" retailers.

Likewise, I imagine Universal probably tossed them a couple thousand (or less) for rights for basically all DVD & BR in Europe and is hoping to make up the difference over the next five years from poor and unfortunate fools who fail to conduct a little basic pre-purchase DVD & BR research.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1986953/companycredits?ref_=tt_dt_co

Caveat emptor!


'Storage 24' certainly is being bundled in with some good company in Germany: http://www.imdb.com/company/co0297627/?ref_=ttco_co_22
And in the UK: http://www.imdb.com/company/co0110681/?ref_=ttco_co_18
And in Netherlands: http://www.imdb.com/company/co0115440/?ref_=ttco_co_20
But with like company in Australia: http://www.imdb.com/company/co0375381/?ref_=ttco_co_23




mussonman said:
If they have ad revenue on that video, they might make more money on the trailer than the actual movie
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Last edited:
tokenwhiteboy said:
What some people consider "no-budget" some would consider a windfall.

My guess is they spent about 1 million USD.
Click to expand...

But that's only that - a guess. You could easily shoot the same thing for less if you had people work for low-pay, and swindled a lot of deals.

A DP I AC for was offering his truck of lighting and grip equipment, as well as the rental of his RED and lenses for incredibly cheap when he was first starting out, and the stuff he shot was no worse than what's in the trailer (he spent 5 years before that as an electric).

You can guess all day at what their budget might be. Either way, even with a $1mil budget, it's likely that after home video sales, they'll at least come close to making back their money.

And no... with the box office cut they only would have gotten 36 to 50$ from the US theater.
Click to expand...

So what? They're not making money off that box office taking, but still 6 whole people went to see it - 6 people who only knew the name of the film, and only knew it when they walked into the cinema and saw the sessions!
 
jax_rox said:
But that's only that - a guess. You could easily shoot the same thing for less if you had people work for low-pay, and swindled a lot of deals.

You can guess all day at what their budget might be.
Click to expand...
That's for sure.

It's amazing what some people can achieve with a few million vs what someone else will blow a few dozen million on.



Jax,
Have you ever gone back to see how well some of the recent films you've worked on performed financially vs. production budget?
Or their critical results?

Any useful take aways from that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top