comment #1

Rich S. says ...

Not catastrophic, but not 300 either. WB may just be breathing a sigh of relief that it didn't completely tank. Regardless of how it does theatrically, it will make it's money back on DVD, Dr. Manhattan will be in his heaven, and all will be right with the world.

comment #2

George Prager says ...

Girls liked The Matrix.

comment #3

George Prager says ...

It'll make more money than Cliffhanger.

comment #4

corey3rd says ...

The money wouldn't be that bad if it didn't have a Jonas Brothers decay factor. It's not exactly Medea vs. Blart.

comment #5

D.Z. says ...

Actually, it's $55.7 milion, which is probably as good as it's going to get for a peak. Snyder and WB better be hopin' fans are willing to double-dip on the "director's cut", because even TDK did weakly on BD. And the studio's not going to be this "fortunate" on the LA Akira, I can guarantee that.

comment #6

lesterg says ...

Regardless of the arguments one could make to defend the performance (length, tone, obscure nature of characters/title, male driven...all valid) it doesn't change the fact that it's going to be a disappointment in relation to cost, particularly given what might be a catastrophic second frame. If Snyder had brought the thing in on a 300-level budget, it would be a solid hit.

comment #7

jse33 says ...

DZ,

The Dark Knight did "weakly" on BD? It actually has sold 2 million copies, best all-time. It was the fastest to reach 1 million (faster than The Matrix on DVD). There are 11 million BD capable players in the US. So how can you call that weak? There are over 130 million DVD players in the US, and the DVD has sold 12 million. That looks weak to me.

You haven't said anything stupid lately, but good to know you're back on track.

comment #8

Imogen says ...

Oh please, Watchmen is a licence to print money. This weekends money was just gravy from Joe Public. Watchmen fans are going to see the movie, then buy the animated Watchmen DVD, the animated Pirate DVD, then see the directors cut of the movie in theaters in the summer, then buy the DVD of the original release, then the DVD of the director's cut and then the DVD with the pirate stuff cut back into it. Watchmen will still be making serious cash for Warners this time next year.

comment #9

D.Z. says ...

jse: It did well for a new BD title, but not the format in general. Nor did it do well, when you take into account the actual BO of TDK. And the fact that more people were willing to see TDK in IMAX than on BD is what makes it so weak. And then there's this. http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN2333821520080423

Imogen: Well, yeah, in a better economy, that might be the case.

comment #10

DavidF says ...

What do WE say?
We say the film did just fine and it's really sad how film criticism is increasingly reduced to BO analysis - as if $56 million is a worse film than a $66 million

Yeah, it's a real crime it didn't to "Medea Goes to Jail" numbers, man.

We can also say that by almost all sensible accounts - even Jeff's - Snyder didn't take a complex, "unfilmable" book and turn it into a pile of incomprehnible crap. It's challenging and it's flawed and it's dark but it's hardly a disaster.

I don't own WB stock and I enjoyed the film and beyond that I don't really care about its "cune." Between international and DVD it will end up doing just fine, I'm sure, even if spliting $ with that other studio cuts in a bit.

comment #11

D.Z. says ...

Actually, http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/123584 is more recent.

comment #12

D.Z. says ...

DavidF: How would it do well, internationally, when there are no stars, and the movie consists of comic book jokes which only Americans would "get"?

comment #13

DavidF says ...

p,s, If someone starts producing shirts with Indiana "Festus" Jones and Doc Manhttan engaging in fisticuffs with "I don't have a dog in this race" emblazoned on the back, I'm buying.

comment #14

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

D.Z. - You worthless dolt. You do realize that BD media sales are limited by, uh, the number of people who actually own BD players, right? RIGHT?!

Stop your bullshit arguments and comparisons of apples to oranges, already. So fucking tiresome.

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

Kane: And they just slashed BD players by half of what they were worth a year ago, but people still ain't goin' for 'em. Oh, and...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10185183-93.html

comment #16

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"How would it do well, internationally, when there are no stars, and the movie consists of comic book jokes which only Americans would "get"?"

I guess that's why Spider-man did so poor internationally. Oh, wait...

P.S. The plot of Watchmen reaches outside the U.S. Other countries are mentioned, their military strategies are discussed. Not sure how many other comic book movies this is true of....

P.P.S. Alan Moore is from England. There's some international appeal, for starters, you fuckwit.

comment #17

BurmaShave says ...

D.Z.'s no stars issue is actually a fair point. And is there anyone who doesn't think Tom Cruise as Ozy would not have gone a long way towards improving both the picture and its box office?

comment #18

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

D.Z. - 11 million BD players, 2 million copies of TDK sold...you can do the math -- actually, I'm not so sure about that. Almost 20% of ALL consumer BD players have a companion disc of TDK. That is insanity.

The BD version of Dark Knight sold like fucking hotcakes.

You want to make the point that sales of BD players are disappointing, that's another matter entirely.

Still probably one I'd disagree with, tho.

comment #19

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Coulda, shoulda, Burma...

Anyone here think if this was made 10 years ago, it wouldn't be Cruise?

I actually think they missed a pretty big opportunity. With Tom being down in the dumps recently, I think they would have gotten a pretty hungry, villainous movie-star performance at a (relative) discount price.

Certainly would be a sight better than Matthew (Not-So-)Goode.

comment #20

Admiral82 says ...

There were alot of women at the midnight show I went to. Like an alarming amount...

Even my friend made that comment to me. It wasn't like wall to wall bitches or nothin. But the vagina was definately well represented.

comment #21

Admiral82 says ...

I'm a woman btw.

comment #22

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

$57m is aight. Wasn't the budget only $100m?

comment #23

Gordon27 says ...

"Actually, it's $55.7 milion, which is probably as good as it's going to get for a peak."

In lieu of responding to anything DZ says, I am merely going to reply to every post he makes by pointing out that, following the announcement of its opening weekend grosses, DZ declared that his prediction that 'Watchmen's final gross would be under $50 mil was now correct.

Then, when he noticed his error, he raised his prediction to $75 million "at the outside", and re-affirmed that the statistic was proving he was correct.

He's now making a big deal about the distinction between $57 mil and $55.7 mil, but in the previous thread, he saw no serious distinction between $50mil and $75mil (exact quote "Because it's still in the same ball park").

If intellectual consistency were next to godliness, DZ would be Satan himself.

comment #24

nemo says ...

"But the vagina was definitely well represented."

Now there's a line to remember! Maybe they can work it into the advertising campaign.

comment #25

shermy says ...

Watchmen was the hottest film out there two days ago.

Now, not so much.

If I thought I'd actually have to discuss it with anyone in the coming week, that's probably the consensus I would keep in mind.

comment #26

Webster says ...

Saw "Watchmen" in a two-thirds empty theater Sunday afternoon (the same theater, and the same time of day, I saw the first "Spider-Man" at full capacity back in the day). As someone who read the comic 20 years ago, I was disappointed at how ordinary the story was. While I'd give the movie a B/B-minus, I was surprised how cheap it looked. All the real-life characters looked half-assed, and Dr. Manhattan looked cartoonish.

Will this translate into broad audience appeal? Nope. But on a pure aesthetic/artistic level, I'd out it with the two "Hulk" movies.

comment #27

D.Z. says ...

Kane: Spider-man did well, because everyone knows who Spider-Man is, and because you don't have to be a comic book geek to "get" it. Also, the Brits may know who Moore is, but that's not necessarily the case in the rest of Europe.

As for BD, those units should be higher, considering the cost-dropping they went through last year to make them as cheap as DVD players were after 3-4 years on the market. And TDK did well for the format, but it didn't do as well as DVDs, even though it looks better, and even though there were enough people willing to pay more than once for a better-looking version of the film in IMAX.

Moving on to casting choices, I imagine they would've picked Pitt ten years ago for Ozy. Would've been helpful to the BO either way.

Bosh: From http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11426&cmin=10&columnpage=2

"For Warner Bros., things aren't as pretty. Watchmen cost the studio $130 million to make, a figure that doesn't include prints for 3,611 venues, or the large amount of advertising spent generating awareness to fans and non-fans alike. The biggest problem for Warner Bros. may be the suit launched by Fox in 2008. The two parties settled the case over who owns the Watchmen franchise, with Fox receiving between $5-10 million for previous development of the project and legal fees. But bigger than that, Fox gets between 5% and 8% of the worldwide gross, as well as any sequels or spinoffs. So if we say that Watchmen grosses $500 million worldwide, Fox gets between $25 and $40 million without having to do any work, as their upfront costs were paid. And really, that's just the beginning. Action figures and similar products will also see money moving to Fox, leaving Warner Bros. struggling to see profit on this one."

Gordon: I said I was correct that it would be lucky to make $50 million for that weekend. And I guess it's better-than-average, but still no cigar. My original prediction was for the entire domestic theatrical run, not the weekend. And there *is* no distinction, when they're clearly hoping for something closer to TDK or 300 numbers, not just better than V for Vendetta numbers.

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

Oh, and stolen from Anipages. http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z240/huwm/watchmen.jpg

comment #29

MovieBob says ...

70 Million would've been EXTRAORDINARY, awesome and important - was also always unlikely. Would not be surprised if rival studios had a hand in the across-the-board inflation of expectations. It's rated-R, it's a March, it's a genre film, it's awareness-factor prior to the trailer before TDK was less than that of effing Ghost Rider.

Getting close to 60 is a huge victory in a symbolic sense, financially it's already all set: It can concievably break-even theatrically once the international numbers are in, they'll have THREE DVDs to sell between winter and fall plus the ancillary Black Freighter thingee. Whichever version becomes the "always on shelves" disc will sell well FOREVER since it's garaunteed to be a mandatory film-geek rite-of-passage flick like Fight Club and Fear & Loathing before it - the sort of thing any "with it" movie guy will be embarassed NOT to own a copy of. And, of course, Warners is already getting a massive cut of the big uptick in sales of the book, since they own DC wholesale. As a long-term investment, "legs" doesn't even begin to describe it.

comment #30

moveable hype says ...

It does seem odd to release a more than likely $200 million investment the first weekend of March. I may be dating myself, is it spring break time? If so, maybe it's not so odd after all.

But you know they were expect to do a hell of a lot more than $10-12 million over 'Medea's' opening weekend. P and A has to be huge on this one.

comment #31

D.Z. says ...

Bob: The thing about Fight Club and Fear and Loathing is they showed up on home video during the beginning of the DVD boom. So there was a better chance of their being discovered, since there was less competition. It also helped that Pitt's name was on the FC cover, while Depp achieved new-found recognition with Sleepy Hollow and POTC.

Anyway, while the international numbers are pretty good, [ http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118000955.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 ], WB will still have to answer to FOX. So I'm actually wondering when they'll officially make a profit on the production, let alone break even on it.

comment #32

bluetide says ...

Just got back from a showing in a mostly empty theater (of course one audience member was so devoted she brought her two year old son, who for obvious reasons burst into frightened tears). I think $55.7M is pretty darn good considering how dark and convoluted the story is and the total lack of starpower.

It will totally fall off next weekend though. Several people walked out (including thank god the women with the two year old. At least she made sure he saw the child molester scene. What is wrong with some people?) The word of mouth from most people coming out was not good. That said, I do think it will avoid the fate of Ang Lee's Hulk. Several dumb redneck action fans were in the audience and they seemed to think it delivered. It has not pissed off the fanboys; most I've spoken to thought it was outstanding. So with those two core groups, I think its drop with be more indicative of a mediocre tentpole wannabe than a disastrous one.

As for me, I thought it was a deeply flawed but nonetheless fascinating experience. The cast was pretty great, which is priority number one with a comic book movie. Only Carla Cugino and the cast of terrible recreations of real life figures sucked. Jackie Earle Haley and Billy Crudup were the standouts though. Haley's work was Oscar-worthy but Crudup deserves a ton of credit for making a glowing blue man with his junk out emotionally compelling. Patrick Wilson was strong but under-utilized. Even Ackerman was fine. Of course the title sequence was great, but I though Dr. Manhattan's origin sequence was even better. Apart from that, it kept my interest even as I grew tired of Snyder's obsession with slow motion shots of idealized violence and sex.

comment #33

YRG says ...

I'm with Mr. Moore-- I probably won't see it. I bought the comic when it was coming out monthly in the 80s... actually the last few were delayed for months before they came out. I appreciate what Mr. Snyder wanted to do by adapting the story completely to the book, but he would have been better served choosing something more contemporary, like Neuromancer, by William Gibson. Now that's a movie I'd like to see.

comment #34

D.Z. says ...

YRG: I heard they're working on a movie version of that, actually.

comment #35

Devin Faraci says ...

Has anyone here met DZ in real life? Is he as big a drooling retard as I suspect? Like, just completely autistic?

comment #36

D.Z. says ...

Devin: That's an amusing comment, considering the mess of a site you run, and all...

comment #37

soap+water says ...

sounds to me like movie bob is RIGHT on the money. Scroll back up if you missed it... about 10 comments north of here.

not everyone will 'like' watchmen, but trying to paint it as a creative or commerical failure will fast become a waste of time...

esp. when multiple viewings sink in just how well put together the thing is.

comic book fok who don't like it frankly just don't know watchmen as well as they think they do.

Does it 'beat' dark knight? probably. the long cut will likely trump everything.

and funny, think alex mcdowell designed all three films on MB's list.

comment #38

D.Z. says ...

http://www.riskybusinessblog.com/2009/03/now-watchmen-what-happens-get-ready-for-the-morning-after.html

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i801548f98188f77adb00b86a33f6470e

comment #39

Movie fan09 says ...

I always thought it would work better as a trilogy than anything else.

comment #40

D.Z. says ...

It'd work as a serial, but it wouldn't sell as one.

comment #41

jamesD says ...

I strongly suggest you guys a H - O T site for tall chix and guys-- ____Tall kiss C om ____ Im sure it will work for-- you. End your loney life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

comment #42

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

Why the hell do people keep saying that WOMEN want nothing to do with the Watchmen? What bloody B.S

the audience was packed full of women and guys... get real.

comment #43

DavidF says ...

If DZ ever publishes his big book of theories, I want to read it.

Now you're suggesting - lemme get this straight - that Johnny Depp wasn't really recognizable until Sleepy Hollow (!) gave him a boost?

And that, by extension, boosted Fear and Loathing DVD sales? Are you kidding.

We could spend all day deconstructing this but all I'll say is:
1) Anyone who rented Fear and Loathing for Depp (or Fight Club for Pitt) probably didn't make it too far with either.
Next you'll tell us The Big Lebowski only became a cult fave because John Goodman was on the DVD and he'd picked up a lot of fans with King Ralph.

2) You're crazy, but I love reading so keep it coming. Let's see those Transformers 2 BO predictions. $40 million domestic? Is that what you're thinking?

comment #44

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Not sure who has the more delusional comments here, Jeff's "I have no dog in this race" or, well, anything that D.Z. has posted.

It's funny how some people's predictions that it could possibly match or top the $70M opening frame of 300 have been now retroactively made into what EVERYONE was supposedly saying Watchmen would definitely make.

I myself never did, simply because there were too many variables at play. But mostly it was that rating and running time.

No matter how you dice it, $55M+ for a 3 hour, R-rated film based on an unknown to the general public comic property with arthouse stars is impressive.

comment #45

The Playlist says ...

REBOOT! ;)

comment #46

Howlingman says ...

"No matter how you dice it, $55M+ for a 3 hour, R-rated film based on an unknown to the general public comic property with arthouse stars is impressive."

In March, and during a recession too.

[Was "meh" on Watchmen. Just didn't work for me.]

comment #47

actionman says ...

Watchmen was pretty wild. I dug it.

comment #48

DavidF says ...

I'm curious what factor IMAX could play too.
I expect you'll have at least some people going for second viewings and some people who couldn't get in this weekend who are determined to see it in IMAX.

I know it's not a huge revenue generator but I'd expect those showings to be sold out at least for a couple of weeks, giving the flick at least a little bit of legs...

comment #49

actionman says ...

I saw it on an IMAX screen (incredible experience). I'll probably see it again, and if I do, I'd definitely see it in IMAX again.

comment #50

Aladdin Sane says ...

DZ, while I don't want to alter your view of reality too much when it comes to BD, I thought I'd share this from The Digital Bits:

The BDA estimates that 10.7 million Blu-ray capable playback devices (PS3 and standalone) have now been shipped in the U.S. in just 2.5 years since the format's inception, compared to 5.4 million DVD players shipped by the end of that format's third year. Player shipments in 2008 saw a threefold increase over 2007. For meaningful comparison, here's some data from Adams Media Research showing the U.S. market penetration of other historical home entertainment technologies at the end of their respective third year of introduction:

TV - 3%
Color TV - .5%
VHS - .5%
CD - 1.5%
DVD - 4.5%
HDTV - 1%
Blu-ray - 7.75%

(http://tinyurl.com/cjvzyy)

comment #51

storymark says ...

DZ may say some jaw-droppingly stupid things - this thread offers ample evidence of this... but when it come to villiage idiots, I'd rather hang with DZ than the desperate attention-whores constantly trying to take over Poland's blog.

comment #52

Rich S. says ...

If you're quick, you can catch a pretty decent transfer of the Watchmen opening credits on YouTube. Oddly, though, it does not include the Dylan song but another song entirely. And it does lose something on the small screen with the other song.

comment #53

chicagodad says ...

Saw it Saturday afternoon. I'd say 90% full, no one walked out. Of course, it was a miserably rainy afternoon in Evanston.

I really liked some stuff about it, really didn't like some stuff about it, and think it's gonna have a pretty limited audience. It won't lose money, but will not be a phenomenon.

I have a lot of thoughts about some of the choices Snyder made, and why I don't agree with them, but this is a comment, not a novel, and it was his movie, not mine.

Oh, and I'm sure I'll see the Director's cut DVD

comment #54

actionman says ...

"I have a lot of thoughts about some of the choices Snyder made, and why I don't agree with them, but this is a comment, not a novel, and it was his movie, not mine."

Well said, dad.

comment #55

chicagodad says ...

Oh, and D.Z.? A couple things to keep in mind:

1. Most countries are far MORE "comic literate" than America. Comics are a much more widely read and respected medium in Europe and Asia. France was completely Ga-Ga over the comic when it debuted.

2. Combine that with the fact that this movie in a large way plays to stereotypes of what America is (Tough bully- Comedian, Patronizing Millionaire- Ozymandias, etc.) and there may be more to appeal to an international audience than you'd think at first.

Not arguing that the lack of star power could hurt, but those things might mitigate it somewhat.

comment #56

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

I forgot to mention as a counterweight to the "a third walked out" (which I agree smells of BS unless it was free) type of posts that at my late afternoon screening Friday there was applause at the end and the general murmur of a crowd energized by what they saw. Of course, anecdotal stuff like this is worthless empirically.

As to the Blue-ray debate, I'm still in the camp that thinks there's a good chance it will not hit the magic 40% penetration or if does it will be just barely. The HDTV switchover is going to make people more cautious about new formats that might become obsolete in a few year's time, the economy making it even more likely.

comment #57

Gordon27 says ...

"Gordon: I said I was correct that it would be lucky to make $50 million for that weekend. And I guess it's better-than-average, but still no cigar. My original prediction was for the entire domestic theatrical run, not the weekend."

Um, yes, it's the fact that your original prediction was for the entire domestic run, not just the weekend, and it managed to trump that within a single weekend that you were (say it with me now) WRONG BECAUSE YOU'RE A FUCKING IDIOT.

comment #58

D.Z. says ...

David: Well, let's be honest. Depp was a former teen idol who went the indie route, which is why he was under the radar for so long in the 90s. [Leo went the opposite direction, which is why he became the star Depp should have been during that period.] That's why Fear and Loathing bombed. Sleepy Hollow probably did better being advertised as a Burton movie than a Depp movie.

Anyway, if you think FC and F+L would have done well on home video without Pitt and Depp's names on the cover, you're sadly mistaken. Benjamin Button and Sweeney Todd would be total bombs, if their names weren't on those respective pictures, and you know it.

As for The Big Lebowski, well, yeah, Goodman and Bridges' names would probably sell the sucker better. After all, do you think Pulp Fiction would have made the money it did, if Travolta or Willis weren't in it?

Moving on to TF 2, I'm not sure how it'll do, but I'm betting it'll cost more than it makes back this time.

Deathtongue: It'd be impressive, if they didn't owe a big chunk of that money to FOX.

Aladdin: Shipping does not = purchasing.

chicago: I don't doubt that they like comics in other countries. But they read different comics than we do, which is why Asterix (and possibly Tin Tin) would bomb here the way that, say, Punisher, would bomb there. And they go to these flicks for the same reason as us: to be entertained. So I don't think they'll get a kick out of watching a movie which only re-enforces their world views.

comment #59

Gordon27 says ...

"TV - 3%
Color TV - .5%
VHS - .5%
CD - 1.5%
DVD - 4.5%
HDTV - 1%
Blu-ray - 7.75%"

By my math (7.75 / 5), this means that more people bought 'The Dark Knight' on Blu-Ray than had color TVs, VHSes, or even CD players three years after the technology existed.

comment #60

Gordon27 says ...

"Anyway, if you think FC and F+L would have done well on home video without Pitt and Depp's names on the cover, you're sadly mistaken."

Well, I'm glad we settled that. Now let's here from somebody who isn't braindead.

"the way that, say, Punisher, would bomb there."

So you're using a movie which did bomb here to explain why a movie which did not bomb here would bomb over there?

comment #61

chicagodad says ...

DZ, a couple of points.

I'm speaking as a comic book fan that lived in Paris, and made efforts to seek out comic shops when I traveled.

First, Watchmen was translated, widely read, and beloved overseas.

And comics exchange works much the same way films do. We see very little of their stuff, and they see a great deal of ours. The same sort of "trade imbalance" applies to comics. They read tons of American comics. The shops are probably 75% American stuff, in terms of shelf-space.

And finally, you seriously argue that people don't like entertainment to reinforce their world view? Really?

comment #62

NYMinute says ...

At the Imax showing on Saturday @ 12:30 afternoon, it was mostly couples. Geeks and their significant others, no doubt. How significant that is can be debated, but the audience was almost 50% female and the auditorium about half full. Anecdotal evidence, but there you go.

comment #63

D.Z. says ...

Gordon: "Um, yes, it's the fact that your original prediction was for the entire domestic run, not just the weekend, and it managed to trump that within a single weekend"

My original prediction was $75 million max. I said $50 million as the likely number. I'm only off by $5 million, and I still have yet to see it top my "ceiling", so don't act so smug yet.

"By my math (7.75 / 5), this means that more people bought 'The Dark Knight' on Blu-Ray than had color TVs, VHSes, or even CD players three years after the technology existed."

Your math doesn't take into account the different prices for the other products at the time of their release. Nor does it take into account the buying power of the dollar and/or average income available for said luxury items.

chicago: I'm sure it's got an int'l. following, but there's an American sensibility to the material you have to "get" to "appreciate" it on a wide level. And I'm sure they get printings of our stuff, too. But whether those printings do as well financially there as they would here is a different story. And yes, if people preferred entertainment which re-enforced their viewpoints, then Michael Moore's movies would make more than Michael Bay's movies.

comment #64

Yuval says ...

Arguing with D.Z. is truly an educational experience. To any parents and future-parents out there I would say - Teach your kids how to argue logically or they'll turn into a D.Z.

comment #65

Gordon27 says ...

"I'm only off by $5 million, and I still have yet to see it top my "ceiling", so don't act so smug yet."

Interesting, so you think that it might manage to lose five million dollars before it leaves the box office? I'm not sure how a movie would manage to do that.

It already outgrossed your prediction; you only mentioned the "ceiling" after it had already topped your prediction. Drop the crap, you stupid sack of shit.

"Nor does it take into account the buying power of the dollar and/or average income available for said luxury items. "

Your point doesn't take into account that people have to buy Blu-ray players and HD-TVs before they can even play Blu-ray discs, the combination of which is significantly more expensive than a CD player ever was.

As for the suggestion that the economy is better now than in the 1980's (when CD players were introduced), that people are more disposed toward buying frivolous non-neccessities... I have to wonder where you're living, man. It doesn't sound like the same world as the rest of us, but in this one instance, it sounds like a nicer one.

comment #66

D.Z. says ...

Gordon: "Interesting, so you think that it might manage to lose five million dollars before it leaves the box office? I'm not sure how a movie would manage to do that."

That pay-off to FOX might help.

"It already outgrossed your prediction; you only mentioned the "ceiling" after it had already topped your prediction."

Actually, before.

"Your point doesn't take into account that people have to buy Blu-ray players and HD-TVs before they can even play Blu-ray discs, the combination of which is significantly more expensive than a CD player ever was."

Actually, CD players were about the price of BD players when they came out and the current price of HD-TV sets. And they don't *have* to buy HD-TVs, just those converter boxes.

"As for the suggestion that the economy is better now than in the 1980's (when CD players were introduced), that people are more disposed toward buying frivolous non-neccessities... I have to wonder where you're living, man."

Actually, I was implying the complete opposite situation. The dollar had more value 20 years ago, which is why market penetration for certain luxury items would take longer than it does today, since you had to be in a certain bracket to afford these items. Currently, however, the larger supply of product merely indicates the higher production costs manufacturers are taking upon themselves to get their goods into stores and off of shelves. Thus, even though more people are buying BD players than they would other electronics, it's merely due to artificial price depreciation, rather than actual market demand. So, ironically, these companies *lose* money on more people buying their wares, since they require that many consumers just to help them break even on their losses.