My prediction for Joyful Noise was very close to the actual box office. I predicted it would
top out at about $20 million and so far it has grossed $21.9 million. I should be paid for making these predictions - just kidding, but so far my predictions are is 100% correct. I did learn the total budget for this movie is $50 million, so it's another come from behind run.
It's only been out for 10 days, so I don't think it has topped out yet. It'll probably wind up at about $30 million.
The movie will likely top out at $30-33 million, so Mr. Stram is NOT correct. The movie benefited this weekend from rebroadcast of Dolly on Letterman, and Queen Latifah on Jimmy Fallen (also rebroadcast before this past weekend). Its still in over 2000 theaters, not bad for 3 weeks. The movie also only cost $25 million from all the sources I've seen. Its currently at $27 million as of Monday.
MAS hasn't a clue - or as we say from this side of the pond a 'wind-up merchant'. ;-)
The information on the net states its overall total cost is 50 million. See Boxoffice Mojo. The movie has surpassed my prediction of $20 million as its top, but not by much. It's still very much in the red.
Correction: The site for reporting for joyful noise is boxoffice.com. So far they are reporting boxoffice sales of 27 million on a total budget of 50 million. There is something to be learned here and that is Hollywood is more interested in concepts that feature stars than good stories. Really, all the emphasis on good screenwriting is misplaced when you look at the movies they actually produce: Edgar, Joyful Noise, Arthur, all very weak movie concepts built around stars they believe can fill the seats. What they are proving is star power has its limits; it's been shown over and over that stars alone can't fill the seats, but Hollywood hasn't gotten the messsage yet. Someone at these meetings has to standup and say, "Time out, do we really have a concept strong enough to make a profitable, entertaining movie?"
You're right. Joyful Noise looks like it might lose money. Time to re-shape the industry like they do whenever any movie loses money. Thanks for pointing that out. We're all very impressed.
Wikipedia reports the budget was $25 million (which feels likely), and they didn't seem to put a whole lot into advertising, so I think your cost numbers are very inflated.
And while your "stars" theory might hold true for certain movies, Queen Latifah and Dolly Parton are hardly the kind of "stars" that are going to justify making a movie solely because they are in it. I actually think they made the movie because a) they liked the story, and b) it was relatively inexpensive. Which is something we should encourage, in this age of often making movies just because things in them blow up real good.
And at the end of the day, though it apparently wasn't a very good movie, I don't think it's going to lose much when all the other revenue streams are factored in.
I agree with Scott, that $50 million is an inflated figure. Studios have a history of advertising a movie cost much more than it did to make people think it's worth seeing. If it has gross $27 million the film will make a modest by good return by the end of it's distribution cycle.
What is the point to all this? His predictions are pretty much what Hollywood insiders predicted, so it pretty much just shows what he reads (Boxofficemojo and boxofficereports and most likely boxofficeguru).
To call Edgar, Joyful Noise, and Arthur movies that the studio was building around "stars" is a stretch to say the least. Edgar was a movie built around the idea of winning awards. Joyful Noise was clearly aimed at the female bible belt country (never thought to be a huge box office hit, thus its January release) and Arthur is a remake from a successful 80's film that actually saw Dudley Moore get an oscar nod (which is still amazing). Again that was released in the dumping ground for movies that expected to fail, so I don't think the studio had much hope for it. If they were going for star power in Arthur they would have cast Will Ferrell, Adam Sandler, or even Kevin James who are all much more bankable actors than Russel Brand. Comedies like Jack and Jill and Zookeeper are better examples of movies with light concepts built around star power. Both under performed to studio expectations but still made a lot of money (80 million each).
I have already spent too much time writing on this subject. But Michael, if you really want to impress people try making a tough prediction that no one sees coming, like if you were to predict that Big Fat Greek Wedding would make over 200 before it was released then maybe we'd say you have some sort of gift for picking winners. Just regergitating expert opinions and calling it your own is fairly lame.
No, I don't read other predictions. I made all my predictions by watching the trailer and evaluating the commercial and entertainment potential of the concept. Most of my predictions were made when there was no other prediction online. All my predictions are mine only. It's funny, when I made the prediction about Edgar, someone on this site said DeCaprio was a huge star and would fill the seats. When I predicted Joyful Noise would be ho-hum at the box office, someone here said Dolly's fan's would make it a winner. So far my predictions have been 100% correct, far better than studio execs and that's a fact. I simply have a better feeling of what makes a good movie.
Um, you were about $10 million off on Joyful Noise - Not even close really...