Wolverine, Box Office Results... And Piracy
from the what-do-you-do... dept
A few folks have sent in Matthew Belloni's attempt to quantify how much the leak of Wolverine "cost" at the box office. On one point we agree: the number is basically impossible to calculate in any reasonable way. Yet, that doesn't stop Belloni, whose estimates seem to be based on some odd assertions. His first number ($7.18 million) is based on the obviously untrue idea that everyone who downloaded the movie didn't buy a ticket. That makes no sense, and it's odd that it's even included. The second and third numbers ($15.75 million and $14 million) are based on comparisons to other "similar" movies which grossed a bit more in their opening weekends. But, in both cases, those movies actually got really good reviews. That's not the case with Wolverine, which has received pretty damn bad reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has it at only 37% positive reviews. That's really bad. And it's somewhat ridiculous to then compare it's opening weekend to Iron Man last year. Iron Man came in at 93%. Belloni claims these movies are "review proof" but offers no evidence of that whatsoever. I know I only saw Iron Man because of the awesome reviews, and since many people have associated the failure of the Hulk movie to bad early reviews, this is actually the first I've heard that these movies are somehow "review proof."Belloni does include a somewhat snarky "$0" possibility if "the copyleft" was correct that the impact of the downloading didn't hurt the movie at all. But he doesn't do much to investigate that claim at all. He certainly doesn't explore that perhaps the real issue may not have been with the fact that the movie was leaked, but with the way 20th Century Fox responded to the leak. In acting like jerks, threatening everyone, and even firing a reviewer, it also seems likely that some people purposely boycotted the opening weekend. Instead, if the studio had been smart and actually responded in a smart way, it could have increased interest in the actual movie. So, I'd argue that if there was any "loss" in opening weekend revenue, the fault would have to lie with the studio for its reaction, rather than the leak.
Either way, the movie still brought in $87 million and destroyed the competition in the theaters this past weekend. It's difficult to see how anyone in Hollywood could claim with a straight face that the leak did much harm to the movie. The movie brought in a ton of money, and even if we grant the implausible theory that the leak "harmed" the theater revenue, once again it seems like if the studio and the theaters just focused on giving people a reason to see the film in the theaters, the leak would be totally meaningless.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: box office, copyright, leaks, piracy, wolverine
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Huh
Does FOX employ reviewers? If so they cant have much credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess that means a great opening weekend, a shitty follow-up weekend, and then it'll be out of the theaters within a couple more weeks.
And of course Hollywood will blame piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all relative
(I'm kidding, but they won't be.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would just like to say...
You asshats WHINED like babies that this leak would UTTERLY DESTROY the box office and interest in this movie. You moved to have STRONGER LAWS made to counteract this "threat."
You stomped your feet and screamed at the top of your lungs to whoever would listen that this was a disaster, that it would cut the very heart out of the movie business. You cried that if this sort of "piracy" kept happening, that this was the beginning of the end!
Now that you are proven absolutely, unequivocally and completely wrong (see also: Dark Knight), you only have 2 possible responses:
a) Eat crow, admit it wasnt as big a problem as it appeared and that if you make something people WANT TO SEE and give them a reason to pay for it, you will profit from it.
or
b) Whine and complain EVEN MORE that, though the movie made 87 million, it COULD HAVE MADE MORE and that you are somehow "suffering" or "deprived" because of it, thus showing your absolute avarice and naked greed for all the world to see.
So which is it hollywood? Because you cant have it both ways.
PS - I'm quite sure the victims of the Somali pirates would be overjoyed that you keep using the term "pirate" for copyright infringement (not a crime, btw, its a civil matter), thus marginalizing their plight and deaths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I would just like to say...
Filesharers are, like you say, committing infractions of civil statutes and/or violating user agreements which falls under contract law, also civil.
So, the devils are actually confusing the issue, at least in the public eye, by using the term "piracy". True, WE know that individuals who participate in P2P are not committing CRIMINAL acts, but the more they use piracy and the more they get away with it, the more the term will entrench itself into daily usage, and the more the filesharers will be equated with CRIMINAL pirates. Until a judge (probably one eyeing a career change into politics or in the private - media related - sector) decides that the public perception just has to be true and the difference will disappear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(that comment probably did more harm than piracy, i better watch my back)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
..because we knew it was going to be a shitty movie before we had to fork over $10 to see it.
I'd say, more than piracy, putting out a shitty movie may have hurt their sales a little.
That being said: I saw the leaked version and still went to see it. I know, I'm a sucker. I thought that maybe if the special effects/music were added that maybe it would make the overall experience better.
It didn't.
PS- Go ahead and wait until after the credits roll. What you'll find is completely retarded on more levels than I can explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then you don't know who that character is (character's name withheld intentionally).
I liked the movie. And that's all I'll say since this isn't a movie review site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really, how bad of a movie could this be? Worse than the Ang Lee Hulk movie??? Worse than Daredevil??? Worse than Elektra???
Is it head-scratchin' bad??
Or eye-gougin' bad??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comparing to other movies
What the hell is this? Now movies should make *more* money because we're in a recession?
If you compare it to X3, Hulk, and Fantastic Four (all similar PG-13 movies), it Box Office seems reasonable. There is no way you can compare it to Iron Man, which is a vastly superior movie.
Comparing B.O. is difficult because there is little correlation between ratings and B.O. There is probably a correlation between advertising budget and B.O. but those numbers are common knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comparing to other movies
I agree. This movie was rated similarly as X3, Hulk, and F4, and took about the same at the box office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comparing to other movies
Also, it has to be remembered that as well as being a popular and good movie, Iron Man was the first movie ever to feature that character. The X-Men movies focussed so much on Wolverine as a central character, this might as well just have been called X-Men 4: The Prequel. Other than fleshing out the origin story already discussed in X2 and serving the geeks with some otherwise omitted character appearances, this film had little reason to be made in the first place.
Compared to other 4th movies in franchises and other similarly panned/rated comic book movies, Wolverine has done exactly how you'd expect it to. Later movies in franchises also typically make less money than their predecessors, so making less money than X3 shouldn't be a surprise.
It's just yet another CYA move for Fox to make in front of their investors to try and explain why the shitty output they've been making over the last few years isn't making as much money as it used to. I'm personally hoping that Terminator: Salvation (another 4th movie in a franchise) and the new Harry Potter both suffer similar leaks, then turn out to be both good movies and highly successful. Just to compare and contrast...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Profit is profit. If the industry was actually coming out in the red, AND it was DIRECTLY because of "piracy" I'd agree with you, but they're not; and I'm living proof that just because there are leaks, doesn't mean that EVERYONE saw it.
Also, movie theaters offer an environment that [most] home systems just can't compete with. So even if someone saw the "pirated" version, that doesn't mean that they ARE NOT going to see it in the theaters. It could even be argued that doing so actually HELPS the industry, because someone who wouldn't have gone to the theater, now wants to BECAUSE of the "pirated" version they saw.
They're just bitching because their profit is (supposedly) not AS HIGH.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too bad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I will concede that piracy probably does hurt crap entertainment, but I would also submit that this is a good thing for consumers, it lets us filter the good from the bad and makes in less profitable for the MAFIAA to keep pumping out garbage movies. The fact that Mr. Belloni would side with the multi-million dollar corporation and their right to continue to peddle swill to the unwitting consumer is very telling of the way the entertainment industry thinks of its customer base...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's all about blame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's all about blame
-Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only one dollar was lost because of the leak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it weren't for the leak...
I think that it's ridiculous to assume that because someone downloaded an unfinished movie that they wouldn't bother to see it in it's finished form in the theater. I would imagine that it would be compelling to go and see the finished product to see how it compared with the earlier version that was downloaded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consider the Source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kinda off-topic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kinda off-topic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kinda off-topic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It did lousy because...
If he would have said "It was awesome!", I would have gone ahead and taken my girlfriend to see it. But I'm not going to waste good "man film" currency with her by taking her to a movie that's only so-so. I'll save it for Star Trek next weekend.
The reason films tank or thrive is CONSUMERS. Whereas before, you had to wait until the day after the film to get a review... perhaps longer if you had to wait for the Sunday paper, now it's all instant. Now, you can get a 1 second text that tells you.
They need to stop blaming people, piracy, aliens or whatever and start making good films that people want to see. Put up or shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movies and Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Reviews...
Maybe these reviewers were watching the incomplete version that they downloaded from a torrent... ;D
Why that cgi was just awful! ;P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
or maybe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impact not mentioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impact not mentioned...
I'm not actually trying to make the case for this, but it seems just as possible that downloading a bootleg copy of the movie could cause people to go see it who otherwise wouldn't, and that wouldn't be a $0 impact but a -$ impact (where negative dollars are dollars they got that they otherwise wouldn't have).
Lastly, I really enjoyed the movie as did the friend I went with. But that's sort of irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My research
I don't know why it got bad reviews, I actually thought it was pretty good, especially the bit where Wolverine ... (no, I won't spoil it for you guys (other than the clowns that don't realize a movie called Wolverine has a character in it called, wait for it, "Wolverine" :-).
I actually prefer to pony up the money to see what I think will be good movies, and reviewers don't know squat about my tastes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact that the movie apparently sucks certainly didn't make the boycott any harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They did lose money
But the only reason anyone can think of this is a loss is because (generally) you cant get a refund if the film sucks.
It's interesting that the position that it is OK to sell defective product and refuse refunds is a key assumption in behind any estimate of the losses piracy causes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have not purchased any form of entertainment in the past 10 years. I have my neighbors mail order rentals sent to me and we do our thing, I give them to him and he returns them. We both benefit and everyone is happy. Cept the Maffia.. who cares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Belloni
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolveryawn (see what I did?)
On a side note, I noticed all the ads right before the movie came out were really pimping the special effects. I was wondering if this was an effort to lure the workprinters into thinking the finished effects were worth the price of admission alone. I haven't seen the leaked film (yet), but I'll go out on a limb and say they probably weren't. Anyway, would it be reasonable to chalk the costs of this possibly changed advertising strategy up to the downloaders?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Common sense tells me that any comic book fan who see's this unfinished cut of the Wolverine film will want to see the finished cut. Anybody who see's the leaked version and doesn't have an interest in seeing the movie in an actual theater on a giant screen and movie theater sound isn't a part of your core audience and probably wasn't going to go see the movie anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know but George Lucas know? Repackage the movie with or without extras, add or takeout effects and you have your core audience by the short hairs. I guess the short of all this is tell us what you're selling, make it worth our time and money, and market it to the right groups and you won't have to worry about someone squinting at their computer screen watching a 2inch representation of your movie for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]