Funny math

[Ghoulish Delight]

I was reading this column about whether the box office numbers for The Shaggy Dog were anything to be proud of for Disney. Either I'm missing something, the author made a mistake and meant "more" not "fewer", or he's an idiot...

The other thing that stings is that Disney's movie was in fewer locations than News Corp.'s exercise in gore [The Hills Have Eyes] was. That gave News Corp. an advantage in terms of per-theater revenues.

Umm, if TSD was in fewer theaters than THHE, and still made more money (estimated $16 million vs. estimated $15.5 million), than by my math, TSD did far BETTER on a per-theater basis. No?

[Ponine]

No, no. Thats what he meant.

...The Shaggy Dog is estimated to have taken in approximately $16 million at domestic theaters this past weekend, coming in at No. 2 behind Viacom's (NYSE: VIA)Failure to Launch.

News Corp.'s (NYSE: NWS) youth-targeted horror flick The Hills Have Eyes, also a remake, currently stands at No. 3 for the weekend at $15.5 million..

They expected the The Hills, being a youth targeted horror flick would bring in a larger audience, therefore it opened on more screens. That was intended to give News Corp the advantage of more ticket sales, and therefore more revenue. Except, the advantage didnt help them.
They didnt get the ticket purchases. Their advatage was for naught.

It stings for News Corp that TSD was on fewer screens, yet at first look seems to have brought in more money.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't think so, because the tone of the article is that The Shaggy Dog's performance was BAD for Disney. That data makes it look like it was a pretty decent win for Disney. Just look at the first half of the same paragraph.

It's certainly not an abject miss, but I can't quite call The Shaggy Dog a bona fide hit. It could go on to become a sleeper, but I was nevertheless looking for a bigger bark at the box office.

Clearly he was attempting to use the "per screen" analysis as an example of how poorly The Shaggy Dog performed, but that's not what it shows (unless he made an error and meant "more" instead of "fewer").

IF he did mean it how you read it, well, that's just a really poorly written paragraph and a bad analysis overall. I mean, one generally doesn't follow a statement about how you expected better performance with an example of how much better it performed than its nearest competition.

[Ponine]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I don't think so, because the tone of the article is that The Shaggy Dog's performance was BAD for Disney. That data makes it look like it was a pretty decent win for Disney. Just look at the first half of the same paragraph.

Clearly he was attempting to use the "per screen" analysis as an example of how poorly The Shaggy Dog performed, but that's not what it shows (unless he made an error and meant "more" instead of "fewer").

Right, because what they are saying as a whole is that an opening weekend of $16 mil isnt very good.

he compares it to last year, Vin Diesel opening at $30 mil.. THAT would have been good.
It comes back to the box office slump and that they are still in, and that they really wanted Disney to have a BIG hit.

*office crisis.. brb*

[Ponine]

ok, what you and I consider a win, a third place box office, isnt a win in the industry.
What is the current thinking, that it takes a 20+ million opening weekend to be considered a hit?
WHere's ism when we need him? I know he'd know.

The box office and the global opinion is that 16 mil is modest. Nothing to sneeze at, but not great.
he's right, it could be a sleeper, a word of mouth film.
Wouldnt that be a coo? I agree with him, I would have thought Tim Allen would have brought in more. But out here in Cal it was a dismal weekend, and a lot of people didnt get out, and they didnt buy tickets.

[innerSpaceman]

There is no set number that is required to make a movie a hit. It all depends on the production and marketing budget. It's a ratio of ticket sales to movie costs.

Cheap productions like Brokeback Mountain are mega-hits when they make $70 million. I don't know how much Shaggy Dog cost to make and market ... but based on the worst reviews I've read in many a year, it was most certainly too much money spent.

[tracilicious]

I have less than zero desire to see this film. That is all.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oh, I don't disagree with his overall point, but I think he screwed up. I think what he was trying to prove was that not only did Shaggy Dog only pull in $16 million, but it did worse per-screen than its closest competitor. But either he did his math wrong and Shaggy Dog did better per screen, or he made a mistake and meant "more". Because as written, it proves nothing.

If he meant it as written, what it says to me is that in a bad movie-going market, at least The Shaggy Dog seemed to be pulling people in in the few places it was being shown. That statistic makes the numbers look BETTER for Shaggy Dog because it made it into 2nd place on fewer screens.

[tracilicious]

Frankly I'm surprised that Shaggy Dog is even worth having a thread about.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

Frankly I'm surprised that Shaggy Dog is even worth having a thread about.

It's not about Shaggy Dog. It's about being a nitpicking copy editor!