Comments on: Saturday Box Office: Rush Hour 3 dips; Bourne Still Strong

By: Tejas

Tejas — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:42:23 +0000

The film distributor only gets about 60 % of the gross .

So If RH 3 does 150 million at Box Office , New Line Cinema will only get $ 90 million & $ 60 Million will got to the theatre like AMC , Famous Players , Cineplex etc .

The movies budget is $ 140 million ..plus there is cost of marketing & advertising the movie …which is not included in this 140 million.

The movie will have to do atleast $ 300 million to recover its budget & marketing costs.

Since China & Hong Kong rights are not owned by New Line its going to be hard to do $ 300 million for RH3

Ofcourse the DVD sales later on will help recover the costs & also TV /Cable/Satellite rights will also add to that.

By: Steve Mason

Steve Mason — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 05:02:56 +0000

Hello all,

My name is Steve Mason, and I’m the guy who wrote that $50M was slightly disappointing. I’ve got nothing against Brett Ratner or Chris Tucker or New Line. In fact, I opened RUSH HOUR 3 at my theatres across from USC in Los Angeles (where the film did very well).

The movie business is really just an expectations game. People expected a number in the $60M-$65M range. It didn’t get there.

Also, New Line is reportedly paying 40% of the domestic gross to Tucker, Chan and Ratner. Tucker was paid $25M (against 20% of the gross) and Chan was paid $15M (against 15% of the gross). That’s not all. Ratner gets $5M (against 5% of the gross) and screenwriter Jeff Nathanson was paid well over $1M.

If the picture grosses $150M domestic, which is very possible, Tucker gets $30M, Chan gets $22.5M and Ratner gets $7.5M. That’s $60M right off the top.

Now, here are 2 other amazing caveats. New Line does not have distribution rights in China and Hong Kong where Chan is huge. Jackie has the right to distribute RUSH HOUR 3 in those territories. (Good for Chan!) Also, New Line made a 2 picture deal with Chris Tucker. The 2nd film has yet to be determined, but he will be paid the same price of $25M vs. 20% of the gross.

All of this adds up to a “slightly disappointing” weekend. You decide how “slight” that disappointment is at New Line.

By: Uh Dur

Uh Dur — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:31:23 +0000

So sad that people look at numbers and say “That’s a big number, so it must be good.” Yeah, 50 million is great in terms of, if I had 50 million dollars, I’d be one happy dude. But if you’re expecting 10 million more (which is a big difference in the film industry) then 50 million will still disappoint. Not to the point that anyone is going to slice their freakin wrists or anything. But definitely to the point where noone is going to be making Rush Hour 4. Do you get it now guys? Probably not. But that’s just because you don’t understand basic economics. I blame public schools.

Say you were expecting a 150 dollar check from Wendy’s, but you only got 125. Wouldn’t that be a slight disappointment? Or maybe you don’t know what the word slight means? Is that the problem? Look it up. Then maybe you’ll understand what Peter is saying.

By: Peter Sciretta

Peter Sciretta — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:45:32 +0000

Jeff is a noob and [l]nE CenT X: The studio had hoped that the film would do at least $60 million, so yes, $50 million is a slight disappointment. Steve Mason does the box office anaylsis, not me. I’m the one who hates Brett Ratner and the movie. I don’t think Steve has any feelings for or against Ratner. So his report is not “trying to diss” Rush hour 3. Steve looks at the numbers, expectations and past history, nothing else. He is as unbiased as you will get.

Mission Impossible 3 made $47.7 million in it’s first weekend and CNN runs an article titled “”Mission: Impossible III” disappoints”. And yes, both of those films had the same exact budget. Was CNN biased and slandering (or whatever the hell you’re claiming) M:I:III?

By: Jeff is a noob

Jeff is a noob — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:02:34 +0000

50 million is a disappointment huh Jeff, your a fucken idiot. If the movie did around 20 million, of course it would of been a disappointment. The fact is Rush Hour 3 is on its way to do 250+ worldwide and thats is suppose to be a disappointment. /film hated the movie and wanted to trash it anyway they could so they grab at any straws that they could to diss Rush Hour 3. In all my life I never heard about a movie doing 50 mill its first weekend and was called a disappointment, oh wait “slightly” disappointment. /film wants to diss Bill O’Reily for his slander shit that he say, yet /film is doing the exact same shit. Bunch of fucken hypocrites in this piece of shit site.

By: Jeff Nyman

Jeff Nyman — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:03:33 +0000

I’m not sure why people are getting so worked up over some wording, but I think the “slightly disappointing” (note the qualifier of “slightly”) refers to the notion that you hope sequels will do as well or better than the previous one. That was certainly what studios looked for with “Shrek”, “Spider Man”, and “Pirates of the Carribean.” If you run a studio, you’re presumably not hoping the sequels do worse, right?

In checking, it looks like “Rush Hour 2″ had an opening of close to $70 million. So if “Rush Hour 3″ does $20 million behind that — well, yeah, that might be slightly disappointing to the studio.

Also, from what I can see, no one said “Rush Hour 3″ was a disappointment (as a movie). Rather, that the box office take was slightly disappointing (as a dollar value). Everyone should read carefully before jumping up and getting so excitable.

By: [l]nE CenT X

[l]nE CenT X — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:55:22 +0000

Wait, let me get this straight, Rush Hour 3 is a disappointment yet it made 50 mill. over the weekend and cost 140 mill to make (1/3 of its budget), yet Stardust only made 9 mill and cost 70 mil to make (1/7 of its budget). Rush Hour 3 is going to make about 250-300 million worldwide and Stardust is probably going to be on DVD in 2 months. Yet, Rush Hour 3 is the disappointment???

/film can shut the fuck up, because this piece of shit site didn’t like the movie, don’t put up slander garbage shit like this on the site, this site is now no better than FOXS News. Wow can’t believe a site like this would do something like this.

By: sirjorge

sirjorge — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:16:45 +0000

Yeah, I don’t know why news and blogs are saying that 50 million opening isn’t that good.

This is the 3rd MOVIE in the series…then again..I’m an idiot.

By: nalindra ferdinando

nalindra ferdinando — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:34:13 +0000

A 50 million opening is good by all means I don’t know why guys at ifilm always look for worst.They did that for 300 as well before release saying it’ll only earn 40 million in its first weekend.