PDA

View Full Version : LR: Garfield 2: A Tail of Two Kitties Trailer!


RobertoOrtiz
03-20-2006, 12:46 PM
http://latinoreview.com/filmpreview.php?id=26
(Look under trailers)

-R

ernest
03-20-2006, 03:21 PM
wow, they are making a second one??
I always thought the first one was a big failure at the boxoffice :shrug:

tufif
03-20-2006, 04:12 PM
Does anybody know if they're going to make all of the animals cgi this time? What turned off a lot of people about the first one is that you had this great looking cgi garfield, but whenever he was around any of the real animals it just didn't look right. We need cgi odie!

Lordiego01
03-20-2006, 04:13 PM
wow, they are making a second one??
I always thought the first one was a big failure at the boxoffice :shrug:

Funny.. I always thought the first one was a big failure in every single way.

ReBootedOne
03-20-2006, 04:30 PM
Garfield the Movie? Yup, it was preeeeetty much horrendous.
Garfield 2? I'm guessin' it's gonna be preeeeeeetty much horrendous x2.

-eric

Matt Leishman
03-20-2006, 05:34 PM
lemme chime in here, seeing as how i'm currently working on it ...

"in my personal opinion" given what information we've been given concerning how well the first picture did ... the reason that garfield 2 is being made is because it actually made a LOT of money. In Europe the first garfield movie doubled America's box office take. In checking with boxofficemojo.com the first garfield film made just barely shy of $200 million worldwide, where in total it cost only $85 million to make (including marketing costs) ... sounds like a money maker if I ever heard of one. Now I'm not saying the first film was stellar, and I'm not gonna venture my opinion as to whether or not the 2nd film will be stellar as well (I'm just a vfx artist, what do I know?). But business is business, and if the first movie made $200 million, I'd make a second one too ... and make sure I target my European audiences as well seeing as how they seemed to love it so much moreso than the American audiences ... I'm just sayin.

beaker
03-20-2006, 05:35 PM
wow, they are making a second one??
I always thought the first one was a big failure at the boxoffice :shrug:http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=garfield.htm

Domestic: $75,369,589 38.0%
+ Foreign: $123,232,506 62.0%
= Worldwide: $198,602,095


Production Budget: $50 million
Est. Marketing Costs: $35 million

JeroenDStout
03-20-2006, 05:51 PM
Well. I liked the first one. Mostly... ...alright - a bit. A little bit. But I did like the first one.

MrPositive
03-20-2006, 05:52 PM
Son of a bi......scuit...

chrisWhite
03-20-2006, 06:42 PM
Sounds like an excuse to finally rent the first one...

HamsaPaksham
03-20-2006, 08:02 PM
I´d rather see Garfield muted and 2d.
Oh and Jeniffer Love is playing Snow of White in first movie?
It´s strange, cause Garfield creator helped to write this bad taste movie.
I thought the movie would be at least at the level at the current productions, but I was wrong.

havokzprodigy
03-20-2006, 08:27 PM
The only thing I really dis-liked about Garfeild was the interaction between CGI Garfield and live-action human hands.

Jadetiger
03-20-2006, 09:53 PM
Why....... I mean on top of terrible story, stupid jokes, mindless fluff, and who knows what else, the thing that bugged me so much was Garfield being all CG and all the other animals being real, doing a little lip animation like Dr. Dolittle(probably wrong spelling). They were all over the place, the whole movie lacked structure. And I really could have done without the Who Let the Dogs Out dance. I did really like the way that the Garfield character was animated, but the movie was very shallow and inconsistent... not that Garfield has not be deep or anything.. and some how we find a sequel. Almost as puzzling as Cheaper by the Dozen 2.

Matt Leishman
03-20-2006, 10:39 PM
.. and some how we find a sequel. Almost as puzzling as Cheaper by the Dozen 2.

Again, 20th Century Fox is a business. Their main goal is to make money. The first Garfield film made them over $110 million profit ... it makes perfect sense why they would make a sequel. I'm not saying that I condone the current hollywood trend of making sequels, especially for films that aren't my cup of tea. But the bottom line, when you boil it all down, is that they will make money on this next film, they're not artists looking to push any envelopes ... they are suits looking to make money. period.

Rick May
03-21-2006, 02:47 AM
"in my personal opinion" given what information we've been given concerning how well the first picture did ... the reason that garfield 2 is being made is because it actually made a LOT of money. In Europe the first garfield movie doubled America's box office take. In checking with boxofficemojo.com the first garfield film made just barely shy of $200 million worldwide, where in total it cost only $85 million to make (including marketing costs) ....

Somehow I doubt the production costs were only $50 and marketing $35. Considering how much CG there was, I'd guess the production costs were higher.

Also, even though a film makes $200 million in a box office, half of that goes to the theaters. That brings it down to $100 million. Plus the distribution fee which brings the total down even lower. That means the film probably broke even.

With all that said. Breaking even is all most producers want to do. The real money is in DVD and tv licensing. I'm sure the film made some money. Now they are making a "franchise".. :D

alivegy
03-21-2006, 03:48 AM
Also, even though a film makes $200 million in a box office, half of that goes to the theaters. That brings it down to $100 million. Plus the distribution fee which brings the total down even lower. That means the film probably broke even.

Theaters only get a very small percentage of ticket sales, which is why a small bag of popcorn costs $10.

beaker
03-21-2006, 04:02 AM
Somehow I doubt the production costs were only $50 and marketing $35. Considering how much CG there was, I'd guess the production costs were higher.I found another page that says it was 70 million, so somewhere between those two.

Also, even though a film makes $200 million in a box office, half of that goes to the theaters. That brings it down to $100 million. Plus the distribution fee which brings the total down even lower. That means the film probably broke even.Movie theaters make nothing close to half. Thats why food is so expensive and why they started putting commercials in front of the movies because they make dick off the actual movie.

dan1el
03-21-2006, 06:36 AM
isn't it just an early aprils fool ?

Rick May
03-21-2006, 03:42 PM
Theater owners typically take 30% of box office in a movie's opening week, pursuant to a contractual formula between theaters owners and distributors. By the sixth week, the ratio is reversed, with theaters keeping 70%.

So, you can boil it down to 50%. You might as well, that is how most of the studio number crunchers do it when getting a ballpark estimate on what they need to make.

The price of food has very little to do with it. Despite what the theater owners will lead you to believe.

Pavlovich
03-21-2006, 04:22 PM
quote from my girlfriend who was concession manager at two theaters:

"Kind of, but it is much more sever than that. For example, a blockbuster movie that a theater “must have” will get as little as ten percent to start in some cases. Then there are movies like Titanic that we keep and keep and keep and we can end up getting 90% profit on ticket sales... But what they don’t take into account is that when we’re making 90% on ticket sales, or even 70% the movie is not new anymore and only a handful of people are even seeing it. So yeah, they do make the majority of their profits from concessions... And as the department manager I can assure you that is where our money is coming from and that is why the markup is so extreme."

for what it's worth

Lordiego01
03-21-2006, 04:42 PM
I always wondered what type of person pays $8.50 for a medium bucket of popcorn with chemical butter and a bath-tub of soda.

And they'll stand in LOOOOONG lines to pay for their overpriced candy, they'll leave to refresh right as the movie is starting or in the middle of it..

This, and the fact that people will answer their phones and just chat at during a movie is the main reason why I never go anymore.

I never understood it and I never will. And it doesn't matter that Im from a country where eating and drinking at the movie theater is considered low and rude.

Rick May
03-21-2006, 04:57 PM
There is a lot of disagreement between studios and theater owners on who should get what and how. I don't know much from the theaters owners perspective. But, I have worked closely with studio producers in the past on this very same topic to be able to come up with acceptable feature budgets. And in a nutshell, that is how (the 50% figure) a good portion of them do the quick math. The number waivers, but if you average it all out, that is generally accepted as an appropriate figure to slap on it.

Theaters and studios will never agree on who is getting the short end of the stick. Theaters blame studios for the movies being crap for the loss in revenue (and excuse for jacking the concession prices up) and studios blame the decline of the theater experience.

beaker
03-21-2006, 05:04 PM
Theater owners typically take 30% of box office in a movie's opening week, pursuant to a contractual formula between theaters owners and distributors. By the sixth week, the ratio is reversed, with theaters keeping 70%.

So, you can boil it down to 50%. You might as well, that is how most of the studio number crunchers do it when getting a ballpark estimate on what they need to make.No, it doesn't boil down to 50%. Unless the movie is Titanic, most movies make 90% of their profits on a film in the first 2 weeks. After that, they make very little. Look at the week 6 take for any movie, usually well below 1 million a week for even a big film. Most films don't even make it 6 weeks in the theater.

Rick May
03-21-2006, 05:09 PM
No, it doesn't boil down to 50%. Unless the movie is Titanic, most movies make 90% of their profits on a film in the first 2 weeks. After that, they make very little. Look at the week 6 take for any movie, usually well below 1 million a week for even a big film. Most films don't even make it 6 weeks in the theater.

I'm just reflecting the generally accepting math that is used by many producers/execs that are doing calculation estimates. You can accept it or not. No skin off my back.

umfridus
03-21-2006, 07:40 PM
Yep, all the box office crunchers count roughly 50% of cinema intakes towards the makers/distributors of the movie. As a matter of fact loads of movies don't turn a profit in their cinema runs these days and have to rely on the home market (DVD and VHS), which is huge. So there's no doubt Garfield made quite some money.

kurtw
03-22-2006, 12:44 PM
Again, 20th Century Fox is a business. Their main goal is to make money. The first Garfield film made them over $110 million profit ... it makes perfect sense why they would make a sequel. I'm not saying that I condone the current hollywood trend of making sequels, especially for films that aren't my cup of tea. But the bottom line, when you boil it all down, is that they will make money on this next film, they're not artists looking to push any envelopes ... they are suits looking to make money. period.

Hey Matt, be careful, if you dare to suggest the industry is all about making money, you'll be branded as not being an artist in the eyes of cgtalk dot com. :)

CGTalk Moderation
03-22-2006, 12:44 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.