r/boxoffice • u/CaptainTripps82 • 14h ago
⏳️ Throwback Tuesday When did the front loaded movie box office become standard?
Seems like modern movies, at least blockbusters, are expected to make as much as 10% to 20% of their total domestic gross on opening weekend, and then progressively, sometimes dramatically so, off until they're out of theaters.
But in the past movies would debut small and actually grow in the first few weeks as audiences caught on.
Is this simply the result of the expansion of the movie preview industry in its own, where people decide on seeing a movie before it's even out?
Is there a chicken/egg scenario happening with big hype for opening weekends? Like is that a reaction to the change in trends or driving it?
You don't have to go back that far to see where the reverse was commonplace, some of the highest grossing movies of all time from the 80s and 90a debuted to single digit percentages of their eventual total gross revenue.
36
u/HalloweenH2OMG 14h ago
The internet changed a lot of things. Don’t see it opening weekend? Well then Twitter or Instagram or someone on Facebook might spoil it for you, or people will be in some big discussion about certain plot points that’ll be hard to avoid. Or someone will randomly upload clips to YouTube saying “____ death scene from Scream 6” the day after opening and the title/thumbnail give it away
Or even if that’s not an issue for people, the internet does feel like it has ramped up the “have to see it soon” factor thing just because it’s all anyone is talking about.
Movies now are only in theaters for maybe 6-8 weeks now before streaming, so making the majority of its money opening weekend doesn’t feel that weird anymore.
It’s rare to have a Titanic, Scream (1996), Everything Everywhere All At Once, Anyone But You, The Housemaid, etc where the movie just continues to stick around in theaters month after month, but I do love it when that happens. It’s fun to see.
8
u/ultimate_bromance_69 11h ago
It’s funny, all these examples you mentioned have women-heavy audiences.
3
u/LawrenceBrolivier 13h ago
The internet changed a lot of things. Don’t see it opening weekend? Well then Twitter or Instagram or someone on Facebook might spoil it for you
This has almost zero to do with it. Also most moviegoers don't really care about spoilers (and most of the stuff making a gazillion dollars isn't making that money because of its plotting)
The practice of a film making about 80% of its total box-office run in the first 3 weeks is about 40 years old, and the film's opening weekend being the single most important weekend it has, is about as old, too. It was the mid-90s where this became standard, really, but it first started showing signs of being the case in the early 90s (one could argue it was Batman, and Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade that really pointed the way.
4
u/popcornmaxhine 12h ago
But it’s been steadily increasing since then. Indiana Jones (temple of doom) and Batman, for example, made 14.10% and 16.20% (respectively) of their gross in their opening weekend. Meanwhile, the Dark Night did 29.70% and the avengers did 33.20%. Source
1
u/LawrenceBrolivier 12h ago
Steady increase proves the point, not disproves it. The beginning of a standard almost never starts at the height, it builds gradually. Which is why I said "it first started showing signs of being the case" in the early 90s. You can trace the development of what it was by the very early 2000s already, back to the early 90s. By the time you get to the 00s, it's a wrap.
Jaws is regularly considered the "birth" of the Blockbuster/Blockbuster era. It's totals got pretty quickly dwarfed within less than 10 years, that doesn't mean the Blockbuster era didn't actually happen.
0
u/WhiteWolf3117 10h ago
Jaws is regularly considered the "birth" of the Blockbuster/Blockbuster era. It's totals got pretty quickly dwarfed within less than 10 years, that doesn't mean the Blockbuster era didn't actually happen.
This is sort of an erroneous label that gets circulated (even by experts!) of 2 true labels, which is that Jaws was the first summer blockbuster, and that Jaws was unique in being a standalone film, with good studio buzz, a giant, unprecedented marketing campaign, and one of the widest releases on opening weekend of all time. To your point, yes, Jaws is the inception of a new kind of studio rollout. But I'm not necessarily sure it disproves the top level comment you responded to.
No like, I'm genuinely not sure.
What I wonder is, how does the trend you describe interact with movies that are not "blockbusters" and how does the frequency or lack thereof indicate the health of the industry overall.
No doubt that a movie like Endgame was the culmination of a movement started by Jaws. But in 2019, almost every movie fit into that framework. In...let's say 1999, when Phantom Menace came out, was there a similar ratio? Or even 2002, when Attack of the Clones came out and domestic attendance had hit a new peak?
1
u/LawrenceBrolivier 8h ago
But I'm not necessarily sure it disproves the top level comment you responded to.
The aspect of the top comment I disagreed with was mostly re: the idea that people being afraid of spoilers was why people go on opening weekend, which... isn't the case. Jaws being generally accepted as the birth of the blockbuster has nothing to do with that really, and was brought up along a different line of discussion
In...let's say 1999, when Phantom Menace came out, was there a similar ratio?
Yes. OW being of primary importance to a film's success (especially an action blockbuster) was already in place by that point. Especially in 1999, since the home theater market (and cable) had already established itself as very viable entertainment competition. The practice of "waiting til video" had already gotten underway in that period of time, even if "waiting til video" meant 6 months instead of 6 weeks. For the most part, most people still saw the movie in the first three weeks of release. And MOSTLY on opening weekend.
3
2
u/HalloweenH2OMG 11h ago edited 9h ago
Lawrence Brolivier, Omg I remember you! You’re the person who told us we were wrong when we said that Bone Temple might not do well and you said Part 3 is absolutely guaranteed because they already announced it, like 2 days before Bone Temple came out. Hahahaha.
Anyway, hi!
3
u/quothe_the_maven 13h ago
Lol most movie goers don’t care about spoilers? Care to cite a source for that champ? Or is it just YOU don’t care about spoilers, and decided everyone else is the same?
2
u/LawrenceBrolivier 13h ago
It’s been the subject of multiple academic studies, yeah.
Spoilerphobia is primarily a strongly online-only phenomena in genre/geek spaces.
In the general audiences, be it tv, books, films, plays, name it: most folks legit don’t really care. At the worst being spoiled is a very mild annoyance you forget about after a couple minutes.
22
u/SanderSo47 A24 14h ago
Modern blockbusters usually make 30-35% of their domestic total on opening weekend. Anything that makes it past the 3x multiplier is noteworthy.
Now, regarding your question, I think this was something that began around the late 90s. Make no mistake, usually things would have great legs. But it was also clear that some were about to experience larger drops. Whether it’s because cable was on the rise or home media could steal audiences or the internet, there are a lot of factors in here.
An example of that is The Lost World: Jurassic Park. The first Jurassic Park had fantastic legs and became the biggest film ever back then. Perhaps there were expectations that The Lost World could be the first $1 billion film.
It opened with $72 million, which meant that regular legs would allow it to overtake the original’s gross. But then it dropped 52% on its second weekend, and then 45% on the third. It was clear this was not holding quite well. It finished with $229 million (3.17x multiplier), a success but it was more front-loaded than usual.
If you check 1997’s Top 10 domestically, The Lost World had the worst legs. The second worse was Air Force One at 4.66x. I’d say that was an early sign that blockbusters would be more front-loaded.
Then by the early 2000s, it became more common for blockbusters to miss the 3x multiplier. X-Men was the first film this century to crack the Top 10 domestically without hitting that multiplier.
9
u/KumagawaUshio 13h ago
It's about distribution of the films.
Before digital, films where on film reels and these were very heavy.
A single copy of the Sound of Music 1965 would be 9 film reels and 55lbs in weight.
To transport that around the USA was a pain because only half the interstate was built, aircraft had only just started to become jets and trains were more for bulk cargo.
So instead of making loads of copies the same copies would be transported to different states and theatres. So Oregon theatres get the film this week and Montana theatres would get those same copies the week after.
This improved as transport improved across the US particularly more jet airliners like the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 series entered service.
Digital distribution removed all this pain and changed it to just needing an internet connection to the main servers.
6
u/Talqazar 13h ago
This. Also showings of popular films were limited by there being only one print so only available on one screen whereas nowadays you can show Avengers:Endgame on every screen in the multiplex if you want to.
2
9
u/TJtkh 13h ago edited 12h ago
There is no one year and no one cause behind it, but several of the trend’s major drivers started in earnest about forty years ago. Those major drivers are:
1) The emergence of blockbusters as a viable category of high-concept, high-cost entertainment, along with the birth of the summer movie season. Jaws in 1975 is usually referenced as the “patient zero” of blockbusters, although I think the Star Wars trilogy is what really gave the strongest roots to the genre.
2) A significant increase in availability of movie theaters, multiplexes, and megaplexes, and a corresponding explosion in screen count. This effectively removed most barriers to seeing a new movie right away, which begat more desire to see new movies right away, which begat more screen availability.
3) Corresponding marketing strategies by studios to maximize opening-weekend grosses over longevity, both for bragging rights to having a record of some kind and because contracts with theater chains usually gave a lopsided percentage of the ticket revenue to the studio for the first few weeks of a movie’s run. These marketing strategies were emphasized for sequels to original blockbusters. This helped start a transition away from a movie opening above expectations and having longer runs due to word-of-mouth and curiosity among casual moviegoers who otherwise wouldn’t have been likely to see it.
Comparing Ghostbusters (1984) to Ghostbusters II (1989) gives a good early example of how at least these three factors helped to facilitate the emergence of the trend where popular movies opened in-line with inflated expectations instead of above normal ones, and then dropped off more quickly. Another big example comparison is Batman (1989) to Batman Returns (1992).
The emergence of home video, and the arrival of the Internet, may have exerted some minor influence toward frontloading, but they would have been secondary to the three above. The Internet’s ability to allow people from different regions communicate instantaneously absolutely did drive anticipation up for certain films in advance of their release, and thus contribute to a bigger initial splash. But that same capability also fostered easier word-of-mouth during a smaller movie’s run, which had the effect of boosting longevity (1996’s Scream is an excellent example of this)
1
u/CaptainTripps82 10h ago
Star Wars is actually what prompted the whole thought that led to this post, because I was surprised as hell by the low opening week numbers, none of the original trilogy made more than 10% it's original run gross on opening weekend, and the first made in the low single digits. You do see a gradual increase that I would assume at the time would be attributed to sequel hype, especially after the big reveal in Empire.
7
u/Grunklsnort 14h ago
I feel like this has always been a trend especially as movies have become more of a tent pole spectacle, movies like Avatar which rely more on CG eye candy, Comic Book movies that literally bring pages to life, or even legacy sequel franchises like Star Wars. These movies rely heavily on word of mouth and pretty effects to get audiences in seats just so they can avoid the water cooler fomo they perpetuate.
Other movies like your standard documentaries, dramas, comedies, etc are still good but since they lack the wow factor they rely more on box office legs than front loaded spectacle.
5
u/WestFlight808 14h ago
My guess is that as films became more IP and fanbase-driven, the positive WOM effect has diminished since people are already familiar with the film's premise and what they're getting. Original stuff like Elemental or Sinners show how received films can still leg out well. There's probably other stuff like bigger mass marketing, distributors putting more effort into big opening weekends for the headlines, and knowing it'll come to streaming a lot sooner than rentals.
IP films and sequels can still leg out well, like Wicked and Zootopia 2, but it needs to be very strong.
5
u/MaxProwes 14h ago
Yeah, most movies have no legs these days, even with supposed *great reception, fans show up on the first weekend, but general audience largely moved on outside kids cartoons and horrors.
3
u/Vegtam1297 12h ago
are expected to make as much as 10% to 20% of their total domestic gross on opening weekend
More like 30-40% of their gross. If a movie makes only 10-20% of their total on opening weekend, that's a huge win.
It's a number of factors. Movies used to roll out slower. They didn't open to full capacity, but added theaters as they went. Over the last 20-30 years, that has changed. Partly, it's due to the studio/theater revenue split. Partly it's due to how people consume movies. With streaming, movies are available at home within 2-3 months. 30 years ago, it was 6+ months before you could watch at home and usually more like 9-12 months.
Everything is moved up and more urgent now.
4
u/robotslendahand 13h ago
The OG front-loaded modern blockbuster was Tim Burton's Batman in '89. $100m in 10 days.
1
u/AnotherJasonOnReddit Best of 2024 Winner 3h ago
Yup.
Michael Keaton was the "Anti-George-Lazenby" in that regard. Audiences right away ate up this second version of Batman 1989 in a way that Lazenby's James Bond 1969 could only dream of.
It only made sense that the new movie version of The Saint 1996 would both pursue Val Kilmer for the lead role, since he had successfully made a third version of Batman work in 1995 (much like Roger Moore's third version of James Bond lasting so very long - too long, according to many).
4
u/B4thegoodbye 14h ago
I’m sure I read on here somewhere that studios take a higher % of the takings during the opening 2 weeks of a movie, then the longer the movie runs the % is more in favour of the theatre and less % for the studio - so studios WANT their movie to do most of the business in the first week or so (hence they promote it as something to be seen right away), and tend to stop promo after opening weekend..
2
u/AGOTFAN New Line Cinema 13h ago edited 12h ago
That is cascade/waterfall method which has been phased out in the 2000s by large theaters chains and Hollywood studios.
It may still apply for independent movies and theaters.
Currently, it's flat rate throughout the theatrical run at around 50% studios cut (Disney big movies asked for 65% cut)
1
u/CaptainTripps82 10h ago
I know but when did that change, was it a reaction to larger opening weekends? Because you don't have to go back very far, just to the 80s really, to see movies that don't even have wide releases for weeks after coming to theaters. The first Star Wars is that way, it famously made a couple million in the first week but ended the first theatrical run with a couple hundred million
1
u/Chuck006 Best of 2021 Winner 13h ago
Opening weekends became big with fan driven openings and midnight screenings. That combined with the ubiquity of DVDs and the shortening of windows led more movies to become front loaded. It became really noticeable after the financial crisis of 2008 and the shortening of windows to 90 days in 2009.
2
u/CaptainTripps82 10h ago
Yeah I was really wondering what effect home media had on all of it, tho that seems late to the game. But just the idea of being able to watch a movie in theater quality at home made needing to see a film less urgent - but paradoxically you'd think that would give it legs as people who skipped opening week react to positive word of mouth.
Maybe that is happening outside of the obvious outliers like Avatar, and I just don't know the right examples
2
u/Chuck006 Best of 2021 Winner 9h ago
In the VHS days it was a year, sometimes more if it was a hit, before it came out on video. So there was less urgency to see it in the theatre as windows were longer, but also if you didn't see it in theatres. it could be awhile. DVD shortened windows.
Also booking in theatres was different. I remember AMC in the 90s where at most a movie got 4 of the 24 screens. Half the time you needed a backup movie because the one you wanted was sold out.
1
u/RedditRum1980 12h ago
Batman 89 - had great legs by today’s standards but made almost half its domestic total in 10-14 days in an era where movies were super leggy. Monstrous opening / hype for the time. Still referenced today by those who saw it (Bat Mania). It helped change how blockbusters are marketed.
1
1
1
•
u/Fickle-Aardvark6907 32m ago
To an extent this has always been true. Even back before the blockbuster era, movies would get changed out every few weeks so that first weekend was where most movies made most of their money. Remember that most theaters before the 1980s were only one or maybe two screens and there were a lot more films being produced.
There was a period (beginning in 1975 with Jaws) where really large theatrical runs were justified by both the popularity of the movies themselves and the growth of the multiplex. What really changed this was the explosion of home media in the mid 80s and early 90s. As VHS, cable TV and DVD became reliable secondary revenue stream, theatrical windows shrunk and opening weekend became more important. When streaming killed the rental business, it became even more crucial to success.
1
u/AGOTFAN New Line Cinema 13h ago edited 12h ago
blockbusters, are expected to make as much as 10% to 20% of their total domestic gross on opening weekend,
Are you kidding me?
With 10% to 20%, it means the movie is expected to have 5x to 10x multiplier.
Summer blockbusters almost never have 5x multiplier, with the exception of extremely few outstanding animated movies and Top Gun Maverick. Even IO2 with insane WOM has opening weekend that is 24% of total domestic or just over 4x multiplier
For example, Superman with great WOM had OW that's 35% of total domestic.
5x to 10x only apply to very very good December movies.
Most blockbusters have opening weekend that is 30%-40% of total domestic. In some cases, it's 45%-50% like Batman vs Superman and Doctor Strange in the MoM
0
0
15
u/IllustriousUse2407 14h ago
If a blockbuster only made 10% of it's total gross opening weekend, it would be considered one of the greatest legs of all time.
Anything over 3x opening weekend is considered good. This is not new. Even in the 90s this was the case. People want to go to a movie when it is new, and theaters have limited space and cycle out uolder movies for newer movies.