web
counter
 

In the Battle of Goth vs. Geek, Goths Lose Less

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (14)



51RHgAKcJ4L.jpg

I touched upon this trend extensively last week, the notion that — despite what many of us would like to believe — genre movies still have a fairly limited audience. The Goths and the Geeks are still just as marginalized at the box office as they are in society. They may run 80 percent of all movie websites, but their readership is obviously not a representative cross-section of America.

Below, I looked at two of the most popular trends in studio filmmaking — horror movie remakes and adaptations of graphic novels — to further my point. That point still stands: It’s not that there’s not an audience for these films, it’s simply that the audience is limited. The studios behind horror movies seem to understand this a little better than those behind graphic novels. But the reality is this: Where the studios constrain their production budgets to match the make-up of their audience, success is far more likely. Big-budget risks aren’t worth it. Watchmen, The Surrogates, and, especially, The Wolfman, are the prime examples of this.

Here are the last five movies in each category; their box-office; their budgets; and their profit. Note: Marketing and promotion is not taken into account, nor is eventual DVD profit and international box office.


Geeks

The Losers: $24 million (est) box office. Budget: $25 million. Profit: ($1 million)

Kick-Ass: $45 million (est) box office. Budget: $30 million. Profit: $15 million.

The Surrogates: $38 million box office. Budget: $80 million. Profit: ($42 million).

Whiteout: $10 million box office. Budget: $35 million. Profit: ($15 million).

Watchmen: $107 million box office. Budget: $130 million. Profit: ($23 million).

Total Profit: - $66 million


Goths

The Crazies $38 million box office. Budget : $20 million. Profit: $18 million.

The Wolfman: $61 million box office. Budget: $150 million. Profit: ($89 million).

The Stepfather: $29 million box office. Budget: $20 million. Profit: $9 million.

Sorority Row: $12 million box office. Budget: $12 million. Profit: $0

Friday the 13th: $65 million. Budget: $19 million. Profit: $46 million

Total Profit: - $16 million


The lesson here is not a bad one. It’s simple: Keep your budgets within the $20 to $30 million range and you are almost guaranteed profitability once international box office and DVD sales are taken into account. If you go over a $50 million budget, that likelihood is significantly lower. The good news is, you don’t need a huge budget to make an entertaining film. (The inverse is also true: Smaller budgets don’t guarantee a better film.)

Budget stats are not available yet for the next two graphic novel adaptations, Jonah Hex and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, but my guess is that the former is overinflated, while the latter is closer to $30 million (and thus more likely to eek out a profit).









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Brian Cox Is Nobody's Stand-In! | Eloquent Eloquence | Rick Astley and The Human Centipede | The Two Most Horrifying Concepts on the Planet Together At Last









Comments

Me thinks you flipped your results. Should be 66 for Goths, 16 for Geeks.

Posted by: TylerDFC at April 26, 2010 12:26 PM

Where are the bitches in all this?

(I'll save gp the trouble...)

Oh, here I am!

Posted by: Cindy at April 26, 2010 12:29 PM

@TylerDFC,

There's a negative infront of the 66M. I suppose it would be easier to see if it was shown like this: ($66M)and it in red.

Posted by: Dangerous Dave at April 26, 2010 12:29 PM

I love horror movies and hate remakes. It makes me very sad that every single offering in the horror category is a stupid remake.

Excuse me while I hug my old horror movie DVDs and cry.

Posted by: Nat Kittyface at April 26, 2010 12:42 PM

This is a great news!! so, for celebration, I want to recommend you lonely guys who hate lonely nights a great online club to meet your activity partner, romance and lover, either for heat or passion: ___Tallconnect.com___ the most popular place for hot modelss, handsome men meet and mingle! u might be surprise what u end up with!!LOL :-)

Posted by: Jacklove at April 26, 2010 12:44 PM

this is NOT great news. Therefore, I reject your site recommendation.

Posted by: dene at April 26, 2010 12:50 PM

I'm not sure that horror fans are by default "goths." Whoever said you were a "goth" if you enjoyed horror movies? It doesn't make sense.

You've changed.

Posted by: superasente at April 26, 2010 12:54 PM

Maybe tall people hate comics and horror movies. Maybe that's what spambot's trying to say. This would indeed be good news for someone who hated those two demographics.

Posted by: Nat Kittyface at April 26, 2010 12:59 PM

Using the term "profit" to describe a loss isn't helping my understanding of this one either.

Posted by: TylerDFC at April 26, 2010 1:03 PM

Those Wolfman numbers look screwy...

Posted by: Todd at April 26, 2010 1:15 PM

I am beginning to question this entire premise. I agree with superasente on the whole horror movie fan/goth thing. I have no idea how many goths there are out there, I don't think I've met any since college, but I am pretty sure most horror movie fans aren't goths.

I also question your entire "geek" premise as well. Why aren't movies like Iron Man, Dark Knight, X-Men, Spider-Man, LoTR conisdered "geek" movies. The first four series are all based on comic books, which are decidedly geeky, and the last was based on a fantasy series, unquestionably geeky.

The main difference between those movies and the "geek" genre movies listed above are: (1) popularity of the source material; (2) budget; and/or (3) stars.

So, really what you're saying is that films based on well known comic book characters that have large budgets and/or well-known actors are going to make more money than films based on less known comic characters that have smaller budgets and/or lesser known actors. Uh, yeah. I totally agree.

If constructing very narrow definitions of what a "geek" film is and engaging in a bunch of "fuzzy math" helps you sleep well at night, DR, please go right ahead. The truth is, it's a Geek's world and you're just living in it.

*backstab*

*critical hit*

*double damage*

PWNED.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at April 26, 2010 1:27 PM

You need to at least include worldwide take for each of these films. Domestic-only isn't doing justice to the point you are trying to legitimately make. Cut too many corners and your legitimacy of argument gets cut too.

Posted by: Recondite at April 26, 2010 1:27 PM

2 of your geek movies are still at theatres, including the losers which only just opened.

I also agree with the above criticisms of this argument.

i would argue that as far as entertainment goes, we live in a geek world. video games are about the most profitable thing there is. manga is big business. the movie machine churns out ever greater numbers of comic book movies, sci-fi/action movies, animated movies, horror movies.

you want to know a geek world? its the norm to spend inordinate amounts of time sitting alone at the computer nattering about stuff.

Posted by: idleprimate at April 26, 2010 2:02 PM

I can understand why Watchmen cost $130 mil to make but I can't understand why The Wolfman cost $150 mil to make.

I'm guessing it's because of the salaries of the actors involved?

Posted by: John W at April 26, 2010 7:07 PM