Don’t be fooled by the headlines this summer that likely will focus on how strong movie ticket sales look compared to last year. Researchers at SNL Kagan predict that domestic box office for the period from late April to the end of August will be up 1.7% to about $4.2 billion. Not bad – especially considering that this year’s figure counts 42 releases vs. 45 last year — right? Not so fast. When Kagan looks at all sources of income including international sales, home video, and TV, it estimates that this year’s crop will generate $4.45 billion in profits on $12.3 billion in revenues. That’s down slightly from last year’s $4.49 billion in profit on revenues of nearly $13 billion. The forecast follows Kagan’s estimate that only 2 out of 16 releases in April clearly will be profitable: Fox’s Rio and Universal’s Fast Five. Three others could be profitable for distributors, depending on the terms of their deals with exhibitors: Universal’s Hop, FilmDistrict’s Insidious, and Summit Entertainment’s Source Code.
While the studios sort through their finances, theater chains will enjoy any uptick in summer sales. Box office revenues in the first quarter for the four biggest publicly traded chains – Carmike, Cinemark, Reading International, and Regal – dropped 17.2% vs the same period last year to about $803 million. Their concession sales were down 12.6% to about $337 million, although sales per customer rose 3.2% to $2.97.


Insidious is a maybe? It had a $1.5 million production budget. Did James Wan have a 90% backend deal or something?
How can Insidious not be profitable? The budget was $1.5 million, yet it made over $50 million in US alone.
How is it that INSIDIOUS “could be profitable”? It cost nothing, was picked up for 5 million and grossed 50 million.
If Insidious, a movie that cost a million dollars to make and has grossed 50 million domestic, can’t turn a profit then there is something severely wrong with our business model.
Yeah that sounds fishy. What gives, David? I think Kagan is wrong in their estimates.
Welcome to Hollywood JJ!!!
The films so far this year suck. I’ve always been a big moviegoer. This year I hardly go at all. Nothing interesting , nothing new, nothing funny , no new talent worth watching, no new trends. But plenty of the Same ole shit.
as long as file sharing continues the industry is going to fade away,
What about Something Borrowed? Cost $6 million, opened at $15 million.
Insidious is making profit (for the exhibitors), not the distribution company. Whatever the acquisition department paid for the movie they basically made their money back, but unless Insidious does 250+, they aren’t going to make more than whatever their distribution agreement mandated which could be 5-8%.
So it stands to reason that because it wasn’t a studio picture, there isn’t much financial upside except to the independent producers.
how can it not turn a profit? ask forrest gump
That’s just dumb math they’re using. HANNA, INSIDIOUS, MADEA, SOUL SURFER, SOURCE CODE will all be profitable.
I don’t claim to know the ins and outs of the business but I find that very hard to believe. Films making 2,3 or more times their budget at the box office alone prior to hitting the home market and still not profitable?
I’d question Water for Elephants and Scream too
so many morons on this site. The scary thing is many of you folks probably work in the industry which is why it’s so screwed up. It isn’t about the production budget you dingbats. It’s about every cost all in. Do you think TV spots are given out free to Hollywood.
You want to know how Insidious is only on the “maybe” make a profit list? Because it costs a MINIMUM of 35-50 mil to in publicity and distribution costs to put a film into theaters, 100 mil if you’re opening worldwide. Then you usually only get about 55% for most films. (more if you’re Avatar and can leverage the theater changes).
So for those of you who failed math, here we go. 55% of 50 mil is 27.5 mil. 5 mil plus 35 mil equals 40 mil. 40 mil minus 27.5 mil is – oh, yeah – minus 12.5 mil. If Wan gets gross points and he probably does then it’s even worse for Insidious.
But hey, I’m sure you know better than the expert who was interviewed for this article.
You think we don’t know that?
The point here is that it SHOULDN’T be the case. Make a widget for a dollar, and spend 100 dollars to market it, that’s bad business.
Well, I certainly didn’t say the suits in Hollywood know what they’re doing. It’s truly incredible incompetence. I’m just saying it is true that these flicks do lose money. And often lots of it.
So where’s the math taking the home business into account?
and what’s negative $12.5 million plus $40 million in dvd revenue plus probably $7 million from pay tv plus another few from VOD and free tv? even a dingbat who failed math can add that up to a nice profit. you’re right that cost is not all about production budget, but revenue is not all about theatrical box office.
Bill is 100% correct,
P&A is the profit killer,
Kagan doesn’t have a clue. They’ve already been slammed by the studios for their wrong DVD report, now comes this. A big brand gone south in the hands of amateurs. Like Blockbuster.
Bill, Insidious costing 35 for p&a is crazy. there is no way they spent that on that particular title… On tent-poles maybe they get to $100M worldwide…not on small genre pics/pickups…
Insidious surely will be profitable.
And, by the way, your tone is a bit ridiculous.
Wait, shouldn’t Thor be profitable?