MovieChat Forums > Creature (2011) Discussion > $331,000 for the weekend, $220 per scree...

$331,000 for the weekend, $220 per screen avg.

posted 13 years ago by Rob_Brown78
19 replies | jump to latest

WOW.

At the theater that I manage, we've had 8 paying customers for this thing all weekend. Not that this was going to do well or that it was even close to looking like a good idea on paper, but I wonder what else this distributor could have done with the money that it cost to give this thing an ill-advised wide release? Even if it would have gone straight to the Chiller network, it would have been more profitable. They could have financed more movies and done anything else with them, but instead they pissed their money away. Smooth move.

[–] Mental_Cat 13 years ago

They should have given that money to Tucker & Dale vs. Evil... 1500 screens for Creature. 50 for Tucker & Dale. So Sad...

[–] Rob_Brown78 13 years ago

Well, it all comes down to who is holding the money. One studio, even a no-namer like the one that put out "Creature", could have the money to put out anything they want on as many screens as they want (not that it's a necessarily a good idea to do so), while another studio could be sitting on an excellent film, but not have the resources to get it the attention it deserves. When it comes to the theaters, or rather the theater owners or the higher-ups in the chain, it's all about who's THROWING the money at you. I work for Regal, which wouldn't ordinarily give a no-budget, no-name movie like this the time of day, but it must have been worth it to them to do so this time around. WE definitely won't be the ones hurting from it. It's just another movie wasting space at a time of year where even bigger studio films are doing the same thing.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rob_Brown78 13 years ago

If anything, theaters got it cheap, but 1500 is a hell of a lot of screens for something that no one's heard of. Warrior, which was put out by Lionsgate (and has been sitting on the shelf for 2 years) came out on 1700 or so with a pretty decent amount of marketing. It didn't do well, but it's at least gotten some more positive attention. Advertising on the internet doesn't mean a whole lot, as I see banners pop up on movie sites every day that I don't recognize or feel the need to click on, and SyFy has a fraction of the viewership that even something like TNT or USA has. Besides, anyone that saw Creature advertised on SyFy probably thought it was an ad for next Saturday's new original movie or something.

While Sheinberg's business know-how probably figured into getting this thing as wide as it got, I certainly have to question why they'd even bother. I know in the past that studios have basically held their own films hostage (I specifically remember New Line forcing chains to pay more for Rush Hour 2, or else they weren't getting Lord of the Rings), but in those cases, it usually involves those films being tethered into some other deal. I doubt that Bubble Factory has that kind of stroke or any upcoming releases that are THAT highly sought after to where big theater chains would spend the ransom money on Creature.

I don't think there's such thing as bonuses or reassurance money, at least not when you're dealing with giant theater chains. When it comes to the money we make as a theater, we benefit more from the long play, as studios take a higher percentage towards the beginning of a film's run, and if it's something that's going to be in and out in a week or two, or if it's something incredibly front-loaded, we're not going to get as much of a return as we would on something that will play for months. We made more on Greek Wedding than we did on Star Wars and Spider-Man way back when, and now we're going to make more money on The Help than we will on Harry Potter or Transformers.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] leobaylor 13 years ago

I don't know much about theatrical distribution, but i do know that when it comes to renting movies, people are more likely to rent a movie that received a theatrical release over a direct-to-dvd title. While hardly anyone saw this movie, when it hits the video shelves in 3 mos, someone who comes across it might think, "didn't this come out in theaters?" and might be more likely to rent it instead of the other made for dvd creature features. Still, that's a terrible result. A friend of mine saw it Friday afternoon and told me that there were 8 people in the theater. Sounds like an above average result for this movie.

[–] crazychurchill 13 years ago

I saw it on Saturday and there was a total of five people in the showing I went to.

[–] dgates64 13 years ago

'Warrior' seemed like an obvious attempt to copy 'The Fighter'.

[–] Rob_Brown78 13 years ago

Actually, "Warrior" probably wrapped before "Fighter" even started. It filmed in Pittsburgh back in the summer of 2009 and had been sitting on the shelf for a while. I started working in Pittsburgh-based films shortly after that, my first film being "Love and Other Drugs", and I met a lot of people that had worked on both "Warrior" and "She's Out of My League", which was ANOTHER movie that was shelved for quite some time that seemed like it was never going to come out.

[–] dgates64 13 years ago

'The Fighter' probably helped UN-shelve it I suppose.

[–] Hantise 13 years ago

Well, it all comes down to who is holding the money. One studio, even a no-namer like the one that put out "Creature", could have the money to put out anything they want on as many screens as they want (not that it's a necessarily a good idea to do so), while another studio could be sitting on an excellent film, but not have the resources to get it the attention it deserves. When it comes to the theaters, or rather the theater owners or the higher-ups in the chain, it's all about who's THROWING the money at you. I work for Regal, which wouldn't ordinarily give a no-budget, no-name movie like this the time of day, but it must have been worth it to them to do so this time around. WE definitely won't be the ones hurting from it.

Very well said! Also don't forget about all the money spent on pimping this at the horror conventions. They have booths with "Creature Girls" giving away free swag. That costs. Plane tickets cost. Sponsoring cons costs. Obviously they had some deep pockets for this and really dug into them.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ajy1 13 years ago

At a midday screening on Sunday in midtown Manhattan, there was a grand total of 2 people in the theater, me and one other person. I was hoping to get a private screening and was THIS close to doing so. Oh well.

[–] NeedysBoy 13 years ago

moviedigger555 writes:
"Just looking at the Bubble Factory's past films there's no way they had a whole ton of cash."

Really?

They got Seagrams' money. Seagram's -- once the largest distiller in the world.

You know in The Simpsons when "The Critic" asks Rainier Wolfcastle how he sleeps at night, and Wolfcastle says, On a big pile of money with many beautiful ladies? Yeah, that kinda money.

For all we know the Sheinbergs run the Bubble Factory as a tax write-off. One big deduction.

"I think it's time to see Amanda sticking guns in people's faces."

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NeedysBoy 13 years ago

moviedigger555 writes:
"I doubt Seagrams is handing them a ton of cash."

Seagram's is gone, but I read it was originally backing The Bubble Factory. So, I don't think the Sheinbergs' used their own money to start the company. Real businessmen never use their own money.

"You're probably right about the tax write-off stuff as well."

You bet! There's a lot of magical book keeping in Hollywood. Films that make millions and millions never make a profit; and small-time productions keep appearing regardless of their financial viability.

"I think it's time to see Amanda sticking guns in people's faces."

[–] merickson83 13 years ago

The Bubble Factory should stick to making bubbles. They have one movie about every three years, like it's an occasional hobby.

[–] saga_heart 13 years ago

Here's the link to an article that discusses this, for anyone curious about it:

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/creature-feature-s-opening-one-of-the-worst-ever-at-the-box-office.html

Regards.

[–] NeedysBoy 13 years ago

Ouch!

Too bad.

This is a laudable goal, though:

"Hopefully we will pave the way for independent filmmakers to have a new template for indie films to be released on a national level."

"I think it's time to see Amanda sticking guns in people's faces."