Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) bombed earlier in the summer with a movie called Speed Racer. If you said you didn't see that one, I wouldn't be surprised. However, in the interest of cosmic balance, the media company scored with its new Batman flick, The Dark Knight. And when I say scored, I mean it. The film is estimated to have taken in about $155 million over the past three-day weekend at domestic theaters, according to Boxofficemojo. If this estimate holds, then it represents record business. Spider-Man 3 currently holds the three-day record of $151.1 million.
Mamma Mia!, distributed by General Electric's (NYSE: GE) Universal didn't come close to the Bat. It came in second with around $27 million. Hancock from Sony (NYSE: SNE) was third with $14 million, and it will be crossing the $200 million mark in about a week or so. Time Warner's Journey to the Center of the Earth was fourth, while Universal's Hellboy II: The Golden Army was fifth. That film took a steep 70% drop compared to its debut-weekend performance. I didn't think it would fall that far, but I suppose the Batman juggernaut left it no choice but to step aside. It took in a weak $10 million for the weekend.
I have one criticism for Knight, purely from a financial/shareholder perspective. I see that the run time for the movie is two hours and thirty minutes. Have studios figured out yet that shorter movies yield less risk? Sure they have. Then, the question is, why do they allow it? Films need to be as short as conceivable. It allows more scheduled showings, it reduces budget bloat and it's more attractive to time-strapped patrons.
Obviously, Knight is performing way beyond expectations. In fact, I read that some theaters scheduled extra screenings to keep up with the movie's popularity. Nevertheless, in my opinion, studios such as Disney (NYSE: DIS) and News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), as well as the ones already mentioned, need to focus on films with minimal run times. Although I can't say with scientific certainty, it feels as if the movie industry has been doing this lately anyhow.
However, what happens if you try to tell an auteur like Christopher Nolan (Knight's writer/director) that his project needs to be a certain length? I'm sure all hell breaks loose. When needs for high returns on capital collide with creative artists, studio heads oftentimes cave, proving that there's no shortage of wimps in Hollywood...
Disclosure: I own Disney and GE; positions can change at any time.
Is the market always right?
Comfort Zone Investing: How this all might play out
Stock picks and pans for troubled times: AAPL, COST, EWBC, IBM, YUM, PG ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-21-2008 @ 9:10AM
Josh said...
I find it funny that your saying that movies need to be cut short to enjoy larger revenues when in fact Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, Spider-man 3, All the Lord of the Rings movies and many others have proven that they can have box office success with longer running times. I think a movies box office is dependent upon content and fan base and pop culture interest. Do I want to see a 3 hour Pixar film? No, but can I sit through 2 and a half hours of action film? Yes, as long as it doesn't have too much down time and the plot remains interesting. I highly doubt that run time get in the as much as you think especially with The Dark Knight since theaters were scheduling showings beyond regular hours to meet demand.