This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Who is this? Who is this? I came to fight the vampire with a soul. Guess you shouldn't have sold it, huh?"
11972 members | you are not logged in | 24 November 2020


April 14 2012

The Cabin in the Woods heading for #3 weekend. Deadline reports that CitW grossed $5.5 million on Friday, and is heading for a $13 million weekend, against a budget of $30 million.

So is that good? Bad? Expected?
At studio expectations as I understand it.
It's 18A where I am, so the numbers look encouraging to me given the restricted audience. Personally, I think it's fantastic considering it was looking for a while this movie might not have even seen the light of day.
I read somewhere that Lionsgate were expecting a weekend gross of somewhere between $10-$12 million. This is slightly better than that but still not great.
There's not much reason to care about the numbers, to be honest - joss has The Avengers, drew is working with Spielberg.
Confused about the weekend estimates. The Three Stooges got 5.6M on Friday (i.e. just 0.1M ahead of The Cabin) and their weekend estimate is 17.5M. It is too big difference comparing to the Cabin's estimate, methinks.
They may factor the negative CinemaScores into Saturday's estimates.
That's as The Three Stooges is a family film and they usually having higher Friday to weekend multipliers.
It makes a change not to worry about a sequel.
Much as genre fans can appreciate the exercise, I really think there's too much nontraditional horror going on for this to be any kind of a hit. Cult classic, definitely, but not mass appeal hit by any means. As Gossi notes, I think our heroes will go on to a few more slivers of success in the near future.
I was just looking at Box Office Mojo, and sure enough Cabin in the Woods came in third yesterday, BUT it came in first when you look at $ per screen (Hunger Games is on 6100 screens and earned $1,057/Ave., 3 Stoogies is showing on 4100 screens and earned $1,372/Ave. , and CitW is on only 3100 screens and earned $1.774/Ave.). Really Cabin came in first in the per theater, per screen, and per show numbers. Doesn't this count for something?
The Cabin in the Woods opened just behind Stooges with an estimated $5.5 million, which is a fairly unremarkable Friday the 13th opening for a horror movie. Among Lionsgate horror movies, it was off from all Saw movies with the exception of the first, and it also made notably less than My Bloody Valentine 3-D ($8.2 million) and Hostel ($7.6 million). It did at least wind up higher than last April's Insidious ($4.78 million, and not a Lionsgate movie), and that had the supernatural angle going for it. Cabin should get to around $15 million for the weekend.
- Box Office Mojo
Saw went on to get $100m in total, and spawned a billion dollar franchise which made Lionsgate. That's another way of looking at it, Box Office Mojo.
Problem is, movies nearly always drop off in week 2 and on.
I wonder how it will do internationally.
Marvelknight616, I don't know in other countries but in Italy it should open the 20th and I still havn't seen a single trailer of it, and our local cinema website still doesn't have any info on it.
Simon suggested that at least with CitW, we don't have to worry about a sequel. Someone asked about that in its screening in Berkeley nearly two weeks ago.
If the budget was only 30 million, it should make a profit. Blu-ray and digital video sales ought to explode.

[ edited by Sunfire on 2012-04-15 01:50 ]
I think maybe we should be not discussing plot points in the threads that aren't about discussing the movie itself?
Thank you, The One True b!X. That just blew a fairly big spoiler for me.

Personally, I don't care from numbers or critics' opinions. The only numbers I worry about is dollars - how much will it cost, and do I have enough to go to the theater? And the only opinion I care about is mine.

In fact, to be perfectly honest, I tend to get turned off films that people are constantly raving about and that get over-exposed online. I have yet to see Titanic (either version) because it was so hyped up when it first came out, and I'm turned off The Hunger Games because it's everywhere you look on the internet.

If I see a trailer for a movie and it looks like something I'd enjoy seeing, and I can afford to, I'll go see it in the theater. (The last movie I saw in a theater was Deathly Hallows, Part 2. Prior to that was Wolverine. That's how often I go.) If it looks pretty good and/or I'm broke I'll wait for DVD release, and see if Mom gets it through Netflix.

Cabin and Avengers I fully intend to see in the theater, even if I have to go by myself. Which...I should go check my local theaters and see if they're showing Cabin.
It makes a change not to worry about a sequel.

I laughed.
Also, it's sort of irrelevant what the movie cost to make, so I'm not sure why box office reports are citing that figure. Lionsgate didn't make this movie, it simply bought it from MGM. As far as I know, we have no idea what that figure was, or how much Lionsgate then spent on marketing, but that's the figure that matters. Not the production costs.
I was just thinking the exact same thing b!X; did Lionsgate pay $30 million for the film? It cost $30 million for MGM to produce, but they went bankrupt, so if Lionsgate paid less than that then they won't be too concerned if they make less than that. And frankly I think it would have been crazy for Lionsgate to pay full price to a company that is already in bankruptcy.

I was just checking with Box Office Mojo, and under 'Production Cost' they simply say 'N/A', so clearly they don't believe it is necessary for CitW to make back whatever MGM spent.

[ edited by embers on 2012-04-14 22:25 ]
Lionsgate is paying for the marketing, though; I guess it is difficult to get a cost on that. And EMBERS, maybe N/A means 'not available' to them, not that there was a zero dollar value for production/acquisition cost.
I made the spoiler invisible. Let's be careful about specific plot references outside the spoiler marked threads.

For the newer people, you can learn how to make spoilers invisible on our "about" page. It's just a little HTML, works pretty well for these things.

[ edited by Sunfire on 2012-04-15 01:56 ]
ShadowQuest , I would heavily suggest rethinking that strategy. "Too many people like it, so I refuse to see it" just makes you miss out on great movies. Titanic truly is a great movie...just sayin.

[ edited by Sunfire on 2012-04-15 12:56 ]
It'll do fine. Even a 13-15 mil weekend it still at the studio expectations. It'll come close to making up its budget domestically and make up the rest internationally. I have no doubt Cabin will make money in the end (even if there wasn't this weird MGM/Lionsgate debacle).

The low CinemaScore, especially for women, is discouraging.
What's with all the bold text? Fixed?
There's no sequel but a good box office would still help Joss & Drew if they ever wanted to do another horror movie with Liongate.

Or perhaps a small sci-fi movie, as I'm not sure how they could come back and do a straight up horror movie after Cabin In The Woods.
Deadline just upped the weekend estimate to $15 million based on the saturday numbers.
So it made $5 million more than Serenity in its opening weekend.
But with inflation its possible that the actual number of people seeing each film was similar.
Yep. It also has a proper European release at same time (Serenity was staggered, and most of Europe got cancelled).
Box office mojo is reporting Cabin In The Woods came in 3rd this weekend with $14.8 million. The average theatre for Cabin is bringing in $5,283 more than the Three Stooges $4,918 but not quite as high as the Hunger Games $5,490.

They have put it up on the chart of Horror Comedies, where it has the 7th top weekend box office.

[ edited by Matt_Fabb on 2012-04-15 21:21 ]
According to Entertainment Weekly Lionsgate bought The Cabin in the Woods for just under $20 million so I think it should be quite profitable.
Which means it will have made back 75% of acquisition costs its first weekend
Yeah. I had heard they paid less than than MGM paid, because; bankruptcy. $15m domestic plus international the opening weekend means they're likely just covering marketing after 3 days. Not shabby.

[ edited by gossi on 2012-04-15 19:05 ]
I think Lionsgate is well aware of the DVD profits too, because this is a movie I will have to own (I do hope for commentaries and extras! LOL).
Dana5140 - Yes, second weekends usually have a big drop off, but I think Cabin is well placed in that very little is coming out this next weekend. It shouldn't lose too many screens either, as two of the three "major" releases for this weekend are already at a pretty low theater count -

Matt_Fabb - I was looking at that chart earlier too, and what is even better, is if you take out the sequels, it's the third place horror comedy opening weekend :o) Also four of the six above it are all Scary Movie movies.
I read here that Lionsgate paid around $12m for it. So I'm sure they will be happy with the money they are making back.

But in terms of whether you'd really consider something a financial hit, surely it's not that great if it can't make back what it actually cost in its opening weekend. To me, the figures for this don't look that much better (if any better, when you take inflation into account) than the figures for Serenity, which was considered a financial flop (although I don't doubt it made its money back in the long run with DVD sales and TV rights and the like).

So unless it's going to be a word-of-mouth-slow-burner - which I doubt - I don't think Cabin's box office is looking that great, for what it cost to make. It's just that the history with MGM going bankrupt has made that somewhat irrelevant.

This thread has been closed for new comments.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.

joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home