That old adage, "there's no accounting for taste" should be taken literally with box office figures. The box office is at least a good barometer for how successful marketing campaigns are.

I've never once taken the box office revenue into account before seeing a film. I find it meaningless that magazines and newspapers fret and go into extraneous detail about box office figures as if it actually effects a movie goers decision on what film to see.



The only time I care about a film's financial performance is if a movie series or production comany I like (Pixar for example) tanks at the box office.

First of all, it's a shame that box office figures affect people's opinions of films. However, it goes beyond that, because those figures also determine which films are successful and which are not. People are much more likely to see a film that has already had millions of showings than a film that only had hundreds. Avatar is a perfect example of it - people only went to see the film because everyone else had, even if thy didn't know it was directed by James Cameron or "revolutionised 3D" or whatever.

Box office figures are also bad because they determine what films get made and what don't Pirates of the Caribbean made a ton of money and it got two (much worse) sequels. But some director's, because of a box office flop, don't get another chance to direct a film, even if it was good.



Despite this, I think there is a need to see box office figures, even just as a reference. I would say that they should release that information a couple of months after the film has been taken out of cinemas, to give other films a fighting chance.

On the few occasions on which I visit the cinema my choice is usually governed not by box office figures, but by your good doctoring self.



I'm sure this is preferable to being influenced purely by how much a film's taken across the Atlantic, but it's also preferable to the feeling of coming out of a dire screening eight precious pounds poorer and feeling as though I should have known better.



I still haven't quite got over going to see 'Money Train'.

Box office figures are just a big 'well done' or 'try harder' to marketing. They have nothing to say about film quality.

You have to remember if lots of people see a film on the opening weekend this is because they liked the trailer/posters/etc. When you pay to see a film you do not know if you like it yet! Maybe there should be system for refunds (I'm thinking about Pirates of the Caribbean) for bad experinces, I wold walk out of more films if it meant even 25% of the cash back.

High bock office just means more people gave it a chance, not more people actually thought it was good.

I don't think there is anything wrong with knowing the box office takings of films. I myself am a regular visitor of boxofficemojo and never once have I been influenced to go see a film by what it has taken.

I just simply like to know...

Mars Needs Moms.

A) The title is really duff (I was going to use a stronger word).

B) The concept is really duff.

C) Marketing? Rango & Rio have been building over the past few months via virals, YouTube and sites like Twitch – Mars Needs Moms? Zilch, nil, nada.



Trailer – Mars Needs Moms looks god@m awful (and no fun); and I’m an animation fan.



Still it’s Disney that’s taken the hit. The worst that can happen is they inflict another dozen Pirates of the Caribbean movies on us to recoup the losses; won’t that please DR K? :-)



Should we base our viewing habits on box office success? Certainly not. Raging Bull and Shawshank Redemption both tanked badly on their 1st releases.

Box office stats should be considered, but not to gauge the quality of the film, or as a pre-screening judgement. They really should be thought of as the very general response to a film, as to how the whole world is responding, although less to the film and more to it's marketing and anticipation. This can all sound very confusing when considering your own personal view of how successful a film is when compared to it's official box office takings. Apparently, Scott Pilgrim vs the World bombed at the box office, even though ALLLLLLL of my friends went to see it in the cinemas and is a very highly spoken movie amongst us.

I think the point is that these days movies take far more worldwide than they do in the states, I think most people will go and see a true blockbuster (and if its directed by james cameron they'll sell their grandma for tickets).

However there arent that many true blockbusters around these days that really attract that much hype.

Having said that the only films i go and see regardless is Bond and the last one of those did great at the box office but sucked wore than Sucky the Sucker fish the suckiest fish in the sea.

I agree with Nikhil4. Box office figures has become one of the deciding factors in choosing which films to see, and also which films get made. These days films live and die by the first weekend U.S. box-office takings, shame the idea of the 'worthy flop' has gone out the window. Take for example Francis Coppola, he directed The Godfather and then he directed The Conversation, which didn't do well at the box office but was still considered a great film that went onto score a few nominations at the Acadamy Awards.



These days you look at some film adverts in newspapers and the words

No 1 U.S. Box Office Hit is written in big bold letters, above all the quotes from the reviews it received. This just further proves how much box office takings have become a deciding factor.

Completely agree with jay, it's an absolutely dreadful title (perhaps the worst since Perriers Bounty.



But giving the viewing public their credit, they do get it right sometimes (ok, lets ignore Transformers) but we did hear about the huge success of Dark Knight and Inception from the states. And this initially impacted on their success in the UK, followed by word of mouth and repeat viewings.



Plus, lets not forget that box office means everything. You're only as good as your last film (in the executives eyes). That's why I'm waiting for a Terry Gilliam film to make a stack of cash, so he can make more movies – perhaps a long wait.

I agree with lolaarcana above. I do, however, think that any information about a film is used by those unable to distance themselves from the the text itself, as a measure of value to support their own opinion - whether that be "box-office smash", a "Quentin Tarentino film", if it's reacting to certain social-trends, or even historical context. While we must pay attention to these factors, it is simply to understand what impact these have upon us and we must be able to detach oneself from all such contextualisations to judge a film's "true" value. Nice work Doc.

I have friends, well aquaintances, who would only see a film they have heard someone else say is good. I'm always arguing with them that they are simply echoing some else's tastes, but on reflection, don't most of us do that, even if not so exclusively? And don't we do that in all sorts of ways, whether it be reading a book, watching a TV show, etc? If we weren't suggestible as a species, then people wouldn't spend such vast sums on advertising. We are weak Mark! WEAK!!!!!

Should box office results anywhere matter? There are examples of true greats that have flopped, Blade Runner and Fight Club to name a couple of my favorites. I have also seen some massive box office winners that in my opinion should never have graced the screen (here I would reference The Blair Witch Project as great example).



Not wishing to offer disrespect the great Mark, I sincerely value his commentary and criticism of movies, but I would never let a statistic, nor even a critic, dissuade me from going to see something. Liking or disliking a movie is part of the experience of being a cinema and film fan and the resulting debate and critical commentary is also part of the experience. Whilst Mars Needs Moms is unlikely to be on my list of must see films, I have often found myself sitting through the truly awful only to be surprised by others opinions and to have enjoyed the resulting debate. Opinion is personal, but expression of opinion can be enlightening, entertaining and revealing.

Mark, Mark.



As a man with a PhD in a literate subject, quick to complain about other people's use of grammar and idiom, could you be a little more accurate with using "begs the question"? Please?

Box office figures don't count for much really in Hollywood if they did then Zach Snyder would have been out of a job years ago after his mega flop Watchmen.



Speaking of his latest flop Sucker Punch.



Chris Tooky, film critic for the Daily Mail, has declared that Sucker Punch is, "The Latest Nastiest Film of All Time", and, "Here, again, the BBFC has used the 12A certificate with a jaw-dropping lack of common sense."



The link to his jaw dropping article down below.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1373437/Sucker-Punch-Our-children-films-X-rated-years-ago.html



...https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1373437/Sucker-Punch-Our-children-films-X-rated-years-ago.html

Didn't all of this obsession of box office start with Heaven's Gate? The Americans were obsessing over its growing production budget and when United Artists fell under, EVERYONE had their pitchforks ready, regardless of the film's actual quality. Heaven's Gate is to blame for a few things but you know what? The 3 hour cut of the film isn't bad at all. Hell, I think It's pretty great.

Suckerpunch got a bad Kermode review? Really? I didn't know yet... I was really looking forward to it as I was very enthused about the premise (seemed original and interesting) and the visuals were so striking to me... Hm. I'll have to check out the Radio 5 site to hear the review then.

On the one hand, looking at box office figures is distasteful to the cineaste in me because it is to drop all pretence that film is an art form and ackowledge the uncomfortable truth that it is merely a business. That said, for lovers of specific genres, keeping an eye on the box office performance of films can be a good barometer of how far your obsession is to be fed in the future. An example: "Gladiator" surprised everyone (not least the studio that made it) by becoming a huge hit. Cue a whole raft of "Gladiator" knock-offs ("Troy", "Alexander" and the like), not one of which made tuppence at the box office. No big deal, perhaps, unless you happen to be passionately devoted to sword-and-sandals epics; in this case, the box office performance of those films was a matter of profound interest since it meant that your genre of choice was as good as dead from then onwards as a viable cinematic form. Box office figures, then, are useful trend indicators which give a good snapshot of what cinema-goers can expect in the near future. Coming soon to a cinema near you: many second-rate "Avatar" rip-offs...

I think Box Office only matters in so much as nothing more clearly demonstrates "decisions made outside of your control". If you are a fan of a particular film/TV Series/Book/Game and wish to see it adapted for the screen (and you happen to live in the UK), you are at the mercy of the collective tastes of our North American cousins (in much the same way as the rest of the world is at the mercy of their presidential election results).



I'm sure the Philip Pullman fans, perhaps staring longingly at a certain boy wizard's (nearly) full complement of adaptations and wondering what could have been, will remember with some bitterness the US box office drubbing meted out to "The Golden Compass" and it's effect on the sequels.

An interesting point. I think the increase in box office consideration has certainly lead to less independent judgements made by cinema go-ers. The main reason I went to go and see Alice in Wonderland was because I was so impressed with how much money it had made, Tim Burton has done little for me ever since Corpse Bride.

What is perhaps more interesting though is your point about saying a film is good 'despite' its poor performance at the box office. Does that mean we subconsciously think a movie is a bad if it is not popular? If this is the case then I fear popularity will continue to replace ingenuity.

"I'm sure the Philip Pullman fans, perhaps staring longingly at a certain boy wizard's (nearly) full complement of adaptations and wondering what could have been, will remember with some bitterness the US box office drubbing meted out to "The Golden Compass" and it's effect on the sequels."



I think the fact that the filmmakers butchered the original text so they wouldn't offend the Christian Right in the USA had more to do with it. That's why I didn't go and see it.

I'm a filmmaker, so naturally I find it interesting when hearing about box office figures, good or bad. I agree that box office results shouldn't in the slightest put you off watching a film, but I do generally have more respect for films that can impress and satisfy an audience without spending 100s of millions of pounds.



The fact is, money doesn't make a good story, so knowing about a film's gross before watching it shouldn't make a damned bit of difference to your enjoyment. Knowing about Box Office isn't the problem, It’s letting it effect your judgement that is.

A great film is a great film no matter how much money it makes or how much it cost. A bad film is a bad film no matter how much money it makes or how much it cost.



Money does not affect quality. A great film may make no money at all at the box office. It doesn't stop it from being a great film. But you already knew this already. We should never ever judge a film based on how much money it makes. Shame on those that do. It only means that people just haven't been interested but in the end the great films always succeed regardless. People eventually stand up and take notice. The Shawshank Redemption was a flop on release yet is now fondly remembered as on of the best films of the 90s for instance and there are many other examples throughout film history.



Box office should never affect how we think about the quality of a film. Once again a great film is a great film and a bad film is a bad film no matter how much it makes.

Box office performance has never affected my view on a film.

Loved Strange Days, Fight Club and The Shawshank Redemtion for example and the idea of numbers making a difference to if I'm gonna like the film or not is daft to me.

It's the same thing with budgets of the film, I judge a £500,000 to a £100,000,000 film in an equal way. I thought Skyline was rubbish and thought Monsters was great not because of how much they cost and what they did with their resources etc, but what was on the screen in front of me.

With bad films there's a certain amount of schadenfreude involved, and the wish for justice to be meted out in the form of financial punishment to the shameless perpetrators of crimes against taste and intelligence, especially if it's a high budget film from a major studio.



A huge box office success is an indication what we can expect in the near future, in the form of franchises, formulas and the specific implementation of technology. So for the cinema industry as a whole box office figures matter, but I agree with the good Dr. that they have become far too obtrusive in our assessment of individual films.



Let's face it, as a species we're a sucker for the authority of numbers, and the mainstream media, both happily and lazily, play on this human weakness, ad tedium.

The relevance of box office is really subjective. For example, if you're one of the many who profess to hate the Star Wars prequels, then their whopping $2.5bn collective-gross won't matter to you a jot.

I never realy think about box office numbers when visiting my local cinema. It always makes me sad to see a film i like do badly, like of course Scott Pilgrim.

A film cannot be judged on the performance at the box office and ordinarily doesn't really persuade to me to watch a film or not, after all Michael Bay's films have enjoyed box office success, but that doesn't mean I'm eager to see them.

However, i would like to add. I do infact care about box office in america. There are films that i have been waiting for for years but have not been released in the u.k. Recent things like The Messenger was released in america a long time ago and yet i have not heared any news regarding a u.k release date. Even if they only go straght to Dvd i wish they would let us see them!

Does the position of a song in the pop charts make a song any better? Of course not. Similarly for films.

Box office has a major bearing on what you watch at the cinema whether you like it or not. A film that dies in the US may only get a limited release in the UK and none at all in NI. Conversely, big successful screen blockers like Avatar squat in your local cineplex, greedily consuming 3 of the 8 screens and deflecting smaller less profitable releases which would otherwise have been screened for a week or two.

People who are influenced by what's no.1 at the box office either don't care about the quality of the film or are complacent enough and commercially minded enough to think that money equals quality. For those who care, and I include myself in that group, the financial success of a film is no indication to it's quality, much like just how many awards it has won - prime example: 'Heaven's Gate' - I love it, think it's one of the best movies of the 80s, the fact that it almost bancrupt UA is completely extraneous to this as this was purely influenced by media hype and dissapointment at not getting what was expected and an over indulgent but not artistically harmful use of the budget. Box office is irrelevent to true filmmaking even when the film is a 'sure fire hit' whatever that means.

PS. Happy Birthday Roger Corman!

I haven't really looked into box offices and here's why:



Two of my favorite movies, "It's a Wonderful Life" and "Donnie Darko" were both box office flops. While "It's a Wonderful Life" cost 3.18 million US dollars, it only received 3.3 million US dollars. Some believe this because of the slightly negative tones surrounding WW2.



And "Donnie Darko" cost 4.5 million US dollars only to make 4.1 million US dollars. And this movie is a cult classic.

I know this is on a slightly different note to the box office question you pose, but I find that the existence of masses of critical information pertaining to any particular film can be problematic, even destructive. Specifically, I mean the availability of this information prior to the actual viewing of a film, can sometimes dull personal critical perceptions. I'm sure others have noticed this too, but I know of people with film tastes suspiciously aligned with the critical opinion of their chosen newspaper/blog/podcast etc. It is as though some people are particularly susceptible to an information sickness, in which over-exposure to certain critical media has muffled personal critical acuteness, and it's a real shame, as this often precludes the possibility of enjoying a film which has been deemed by some to be pulpy, pop or low-brow, but may in fact be a little gem.



Just to be clear, I'm not having a go at film critics - who would ever do such a thing!? All I mean, is that in conjunction with the insights, opinions, and superior knowledge and critical skill we are exposed to by the media, it is furthermore imperative that we develop our own opinions of films. Otherwise, we are not fans of cinema, but fans of cinema critics. As such, I feel that we have indeed lost something in our ability to access such information.

We seem to have lost the ability for independent thought. If enough people tell you something is rubbish you start believing it. Here are a list of films I've enjoyed after being told by the 'experts' that they're awful and a crime against cinema.



Star Wars Episodes 1-3

The Hole (Thora Birch & Keira Knightley)

Daredevil

The Sin Eater

Van Helsing

Jersey Girl

Southland Tales

The Happening

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Jennifer's Body

Sucker Punch



I could go on but someone mentioned Christopher Tookey. It's all very well for him to get on his high horse but during his Kick-Ass tirade last year The Daily Mail website used a banner that had Peaches Geldof in her underwear, a screen grab looking right down Sophie Dahl's cleavage and a model suggestively biting into a piece of meat.



Just in closing, I don't subscribe to 'so bad it's good' or 'guilty pleasure'. A guilty pleasure suggests you know something is awful and still enjoy it. I honestly liked these films and it all seems a fuss about nothing, big cry babies.

Let's not forget that Avatar, Titanic and Pirates of the Caribbean 2 are all in the top 5 highest grossing films of all time and great films like Ed Wood (still Tim Burton's best film and firmly in my all time top 10), Once Upon a Time in America (Proving that there was far more to Sergio Leone than westerns) and The Iron Giant (The best animated film Disney never made) all had massive losses in comparison to their budget. On top of that several films that bombed became cult classics (Boondock Saints, Dune, Flash Gorden) and still have loyal fan followings to this very day. If box office margins are a true measure of quality then the best film of all time is My Big Fat Greek Wedding, need I say more?

@Dominic Holmes - I generally find that whatever Chris Tookey says, the opposite is true

While you often can't avoid the "news" of a films financial performance, if it hits the extremes, high and low, I dislike critics who are lazy enough to lead off with this information in their review. Just tell me if it's any good or not, then, if you really must, you can talk like an accountant. I suppose if the film is a stupendous piece of rubbish, then you could bemoan the fact that its cost could have fed a third world country for ten years (or produced ten equally tedious but worthy independent films), but on the other hand does either a good film or a financially successful film justify the same outlay.

I do go see films that I might/will enjoy without looking to see how much it's grossed at the box office (although I do look occasionally just out of curiosity). The problem is though, how much a film makes these days is really important. If it doesn't make anything in it's opening weekend it gets dropped and your career (unless you've got a good reputation) goes quickly down the toilet. Executives rate you on how much money you have made, not on how good your films actually are (obviously if it's studio film they're putting money into it, so can you blame them). This is why Michael Bay and James Cameron will continue to get films into production despite how soulless their films are.

It's a cartoon generated by computers no way that it should cost anywhere near $175 Million... they could have made 17 $10 Million movies... but no one wants $10 Million movies.



I have Cineworld unlimited which means I can go see movies for free if I have the bus fare and I don't feel I want to see Mars needs Moms. I did go see Suckerpunch and it wasn't all bad the CGI stuff, Dragons, Swords, steam powered zombies I didn't mind those bits. The dancing prostitutes and the mental hospital, I was searching the seat for the fast forward button.

It's a psychological phenomenon known as "social proof": it's actually quite hard to resist doing something absolutely everybody else is doing, unless you feel really passionate about the issue, whether that be seeing a film, eating cereal, or using Facebook. If it takes more effort to resist than to go with the flow, most people will just go with the flow. Marketers know this, this is why they trumpet the box-office takings of films that do well: the actual amount made doesn't mean anything to anyone but the studio accountants; to you and me, it simply implies that millions have seen it, and that this is the way the 'flow' is going... if cinemas were entirely free to get in, then the figures being loudly trumpeted would be actual bums-on-seats, rather than dollars earned, but figures would be loudly trumpeted whatever they actually were, because that's the whole point of it.

Box office figures should, by all rights, stay on the financial pages but have crept into criticism because they are self validating. No matter what the figure they give the critic (guilty myself) a way of feeling better. If the film makes little money then you are the one who understands it and the masses are dumbed down (cue a swipe at Transformers). If it makes mega bucks then you are in step with the public. If it does well here but not in America then we can all have a good sneer across the Atlantic. If it does well in Europe then you can align yourself with the 'European sensibility' which sounds brilliant... and so on.

I pay no attention to box office when going to see a film but I do like to follow it because it shows the ebb and flow of the film industry and popular taste and how well directors, how trends move and so on do.



For example Source Code and Duncan Jones, that it has had a pretty successful outing for a film of its budget and world wide looks set to make its money back with its first week US gross about half its budget and subsequent weeks and international revenues and later dvd sales will mean this film is likely to significantly exceed its gross and make a profit (Hollywood accounting aside).

This is important because US studios, for understandable reasons, obsess over box office grosses and with directors like Duncan Jones or even big directorial names, having a film bomb means they might not be able to make that next film they had planned, they might have to do something else they might not get to make a movie with any kind of budget again. It also shows that films like Inception, Source Code and so can fly with the public, If we want more of these types of film we have a vested interest in them doing well.

You think Edgar Wright is going to get that kind of unconditional budget again anytime in a hurry after Scott Pilgrim?



On the flip side I wondered how the hell Zack SNyder (Zack SNyder! Zack Snyder!) could carry on making films, apart 300 they they werent that successful (and they were only successful in relation to their smallish budgets) but surely Watchmen and the owls one lost money, that's what it seemed like. But oh no, they all made quite a lot of money, even the owls one having strong foreign box office showings.

let's just hope sucker punch stops him doing more films (it wont) or at least superman

Unfortunately yes, we do need to pay attention to US box office figures. Not, I hasten to add, because we need to know the impulse opinion of the average American teen before forming our own pre-conceived notion of a movie's worth, but because ultimately it's the barometer by which the US studios decide which type of film we'll all be watching for the next five years.



In that respect I am extremely happy to see the latest brain dead, mo-capped, 3D CG fluff take a spectacular nosedive. The fear comes in guessing which genre will be pushed to fill the power void if the next couple of these abominations follow suit.

I always find box office figures interesting, but only in that they tend to dictate what kind of films we'll be getting for the next year. They have no gauge on the quality of the film itself.



Remember, nobody knows a film is bad for themselves until they buy a ticket and go see it. all the box office really does is tell you how well the audience have responded to the marketing campaign.

I do follow box office numbers, but it's merely a 'side-hobby' that accompanies my love of films. It's a good way of gauging the public's attitude towards mainstream cinema. When 'True Grit' started outperforming 'Little Fockers' earlier this year, a little piece of my faith in humanity was restored.



I have to admit though, If a film is made with a huge budget then subsequentally becomes a huge critical and commercial failure, I have an overwhelming urge to see it. Not in a 'guilty pleasure'/'so bad it's good' kind of way, but more a chance to marvel at the spectacle of an epic Hollywood fail.



There's an odd joy in watching a big budget disaster, it's a chance to see that the well-oiled Hollywood machine can sometimes go spectacularly wrong, It supplies vindication for us film fans who know that throwing money at something doesn't necassarily make it good.



Whether it be Catwoman, the remake of Rollerball, Jonah Hex or Speed Racer, if it cost a fortune and made a pittance- I want to see it! I've long thought that you can learn just as much about filmmaking by watching a terrible film as you can a great one. Think of these films as lessons in 'what not to do'. The more negative press I read about Sucker Punch, the more I know I MUST see it. If it's as bad as everyone says it is, I'm in for a real treat.



Another pleasure to glean from box office turkeys is knowing that once there out there there's no erasing them, and the actors and directors that made them, no matter how rich and famous they are, have to live with that shame for the rest of their lives. These public embarrasments make our favourite stars seem more human and, after all, we've all made mistakes. Forrest Whitaker may have won an Oscar, but if you walked up to him and whispered the words "Battlefield Earth" in his ear, he'd shrink to the size of a pea.

in the "good old days" the film made the box office and not the other way around, and on occasion this still happens (the kings speech being an example), but too many times "box office" is used to sell films and unfortunatly youve allready given your money before you see the film so wether its another exorcist or another sex and the city clone the box office increases. By the way what is the law about demanding you money back if its a terrible film?

The box office takings (BOT) don't tell you how much people appreciated or enjoyed a film, only how much money was taken at the box office, which is the product of how much tickets cost and how many tickets were bought. This gives an indication of:



(i) the success of the marketing campaign in getting people to buy tickets

(ii) how much those tickets cost*

(iii) how many showings of a film were available



*For a weekly chart ranking takings over the previous 7 days, the ticket price is unimportant as it can be assumed to be the same for all films.



To say that the BOT infers how much people enjoyed a film would suggest that everyone that saw a film enjoyed it...



I suggest that the only time when the BOT tell you anything of note is:

(a) When a film stays in a high chart position for a sustained period (which could suggest multiple viewings or viewings based on word-of-mouth recommendations)

(b) The success of sequels, which suggests interest generated by enjoyment of the preceding film. So this might tell you how much a different film was enjoyed!



I believe the above to be reasoned and logical. So why is it is so pleasing when a film I have enjoyed enjoys success at the box office?

Looking at the trailer for Mars Needs Moms, the thing that strikes me most is: $175 MILLION!!!!! Why they didn't just film it in live action? They could have done it for half that budget. For the money they've spent, it doesn't really look any better than something like Valiant, which had a budget of $35 million.



Regarding Box Office, it's a useful indicator as to how much a film has struck a chord with the viewing public, but that's about it. Though I do seem to recall the good Dr K getting rather excited about the amount Inception had grossed in the US because it increased the probability of more intelligent blockbusters being made, so it's important in that sense as well (but I don't think too many cinemagoers are going to be upset if the box office failure of Mars Needs Moms means fewer mediocre animated comedies clogging our screens).



I don't want to start the old Inception / TDK debate again, but I went to see them both at the cinema due to the hype surrounding them and their massive grosses and, well, let's just say I came away from the cinema agreeing with the view that amazing box office doesn't necessarily mean amazing film.

Personally, I've seen enough great films go mostly unnoticed, and enough terrible films go through the roof, that for me, box office takings are no indication of quality. I tend to go on the opinions of people I trust, or trailers and clips. But still, there's even something exciting about seeing a film you know nothing about.



Look at Fight Club. I remember walking past my local cinema the week it came out, and there was a sign up saying that they were pulling the film early. Years later I worked at said cinema and asked about this; nobody was coming to see it. As in really nobody. Screenings would be empty and they didn't bother projecting the film. Ok I would put this down to a terrible, misrepresentative marketing campaign, but now? It's considered a classic, everyone has to see it.



However, I grant you that to be honest, most mainstream audiences seem to be afraid to watch something they've never heard of, and spurred on mainly by the 'everyone else has seen it' factor. 'I've never heard of it' is a phrase you'll, unfortunately', often hear used in a derogatory way. Box Office figures seem to be a way to say to audiences 'hey, it's ok, everyone else is doing it, you'll be fine'.

Box office is a determining factor for some people deciding what film to see. They open the paper, check the box office chart, see what's number 1 that week and go see it. It's a shocking way to determine what to see in the cinema



But for me it works the other way around. If i saw film I really liked, I would follow its box office numbers hoping that a lot of people would see it and it would be financially rewarded. if it was a film I really hated then I would follow its box office numbers hoping that it wouldn't do so well.



Ever since I was a kid Ive always been interested in box office numbers, I would check out the guinness book of records to see if Star Wars or Superman were the biggest box office hits of all time only to be disappointed to find that some old film called "Gone With the Wind" had made more money



to this day it really grates when films such as transformers do extraordinary business and films like the assassination of jesse james makes hardly any money



However the box office can hand out justice on occasions. Take for example Aronofsky's Black Swan, which was a huge hit all over the world and should give Aronofsky extra heft in Hollywood to make films he wants to make. On the other hand you have Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch. I took great pleasure in the film's failure at the box office mainly because I despise all of the the man's films (except for dawn of the Dead). I think he is a one of the most offensive, inept and irritating "film makers" out there, more so than Michael Bay.



B.O. can both give a director cache or take it away. Nolan's success with Batman allowed him to make Inception. Hopefully Sucker Punch's B.O. failure will force Warner's to take Superman away from him.

him being Zach Snyder

Unfortunately the US market is the only market that matters. It doesn't matter if something is the most popular show on television, or in the cinema; if its ratings drop even infinitesimally, they move the show to the Friday Night Death Slot and then cancel it, leaving us bereft of our fantastic show. It happened to the entire Stargate franchise.

i do generally look at gross figures just to see if I think a film is as successful as I thought it would be etc.



If I see figures for a film before I've actually gone to see it, generally if I'm not particularly interested in watching it anyway from the trailer, who's in it or what I know of the general plot/genre, then I won't go. It will be a sort of confirmation that I shouldn't go to that film.



However if I like the trailer, the genre, the actors in it(or have heard favourable reviews for them in the past, same with the director) then I will go and see it regardless of what it's earnt, because I feel like I'm doing my bit to show my appreciation for everyone involved if I enjoyed it.



A more recent example being The Lincoln Lawyer, according to wiki(just doing a quick check as I'm writing, so may not be totally reliable) only grossed $41 million so far with a $40 million budget, and it's out of many UK cinemas. However I quite enjoyed the film and thought it was worth my money, and I'd have gone regardless of the figures because I wanted to see it.



Generally though I think the mainstream audience will go on the following and not exhaustive list:



-Public and Media recognition of the film and favourable reviews.

-Lots of advertising, see Limitless, advertising absolutely everywhere and it's recouped 4 times its budget.

-Family recommendation.

-The film has actors, actresses or a director they like.

-It's part of a franchise that has a name everybody knows so you go to see the next installment regardless.



I actually think that yes bad figures may influence the mainstream not to go to a certain extent, however I don't think that many people actually pay much attention the figures and I think that it's far more likely that the film in question got negative reviews hence influencing people's decision not to go and thus the panning of the figures, so I think figures aren't the cause of people not going, I think media reviews are far more influential, and also advertising, which is key, as well as making sure the film gets a national, and not a selective screening.

I couldn't care less how much money a film has made. How popular something is, is not an accurate representation of quality in my book. I think stuff like Transfomers: Revenge Of The Fallen prove huge box office doesn't equal a good film. Having said that, it looks just as bad as Polar Express and A Christmas Carol.

Frankly I have zero interest in how much a movie makes at the box office. The only time it registers with me is when a movie is so hugely popular that you can't avoid it. That's not to say it isn't important to the film's makers and producers, of course they want to see good returns on their product. But for Joe public all that should matter is whether the film is any good, did you personally enjoy the experience of watching it.

As others have already mentioned box office takings are not always reliable as a means of gauging a movies quality. There are plenty of excellent films that do not get the distribution or advertising they deserve or are of limited interest and so by default do not make high amounts of money. Equally there are movies that are utter dross that get all sorts of money thrown at them and somehow against everyone's better judgement make a good return!

It's a crazy world! I just see what I want to see and leave the rest, box office takings have no effect on whether I personally choose to see a film or not.

However, they may effect whether I can actually get a chance to see a movie that interests me. If a movie bombs in it's country of origin, and has a later realease date here, wouldn't this effect it's distribution? Or is that all pre-arranged?

When you ask "have we lost anything?" by knowing these figures, the answer is certainly not, if by "we" you mean true cinema fans, those of us who appreciate the artistic value of a movie. We will always be the ones to see films based on non-financial factors such as direction and genre, as well as recommendations from friends and critics (including your good self, Dr K.).



The sort of people who are for some reason drawn to watch only financially successful films and avoid those that aren't, are the same flock of sheep who are concerned with how much money the film cost to make.



Also, I think you can make a fair comparison with the music industry here: there are always going to be those who in their droves purchase chart-topping bilge simply because it is popular, but for everybody else who enjoys their own musical niche (such as metal, punk, classical etc.), the chart statistics are absolutely meaningless. The same can be said for film.

The Shawshank Redemption: Didn't do anything at the box office; Generally regarded as one of the finest films in the history of cinema

Box office should not matter. That's for the production company and bean counters to worry about. I always thought movies were about allowing us to escape fro reality for 90 minutes, and enjoy some "movie magic" without worrying about the business end. So yes, I'd say we have lost something in this respect. We've lost the "magic".

@Dominic Holmes - agree entirely.



@Greg - I hear Mr Snyder speaks highly of you too.

I know many people don't appreciate video games but here is a video showing the technology showing how the dead behind the eyes thing is being dealt with

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkEUlqDiAeU

Firstly, some of the greatest movies of all time have bombed at the box office (Shawshank, Cit Kane et al), so anyone with a love of movies would be silly to take Box Office takings as a guide (US or UK).



Secondly, I personally use my gut feelings to guide me (even before I see any Trailers or hear any reviews), take Amelie for example, I kept on coming across it and looking at the cover of the movie (over a fair period of time), and something kept telling me to watch it, so in the end, I relented and ordered it on DVD (again, knowing little to nothing about the movie prior to ordering), I've since watched it atleast 8 times and it's one of my favorite French movies.



Box Office takings mean nothing to me.

Who gives a damn about boxoffice, we all have films we love that made no money cost nothing,with zero audiance, and a terrible title to boot e.g

PTANG YANG KIPPERBANG

has my favourite screen kiss (nearly!!!!!)

Box Office comes in a number of significant parts. The bottom line is that film making is a commercial enterprise which, even for the most obsure and challenging films, the producers hope they will have their investment at least returned whilst reaching an appreciative audience.



First weekend box office is the first real world sign of the chance the film has of being promoted by word of mouth. If many people see it, they will discuss it with friends and, potentially, it will gain a momentum to take it to the 'must see' stage. Getting a high number of people to see it on the first weekend is the responsibility of marketing (including PR), distribution and the creative team involved - actors, director, writers (+producers?).



Subsequent box office figures give an indication of whether a wave of viewing is developing and if it worth the studios/producers investing more money in continuing to promote the film.



Ultimately, the number of people who see the film over a long period dictates subsequent investment decisions and provides a (only a) standing of the film in the big screen annuals. Films that build slowly to large viewing figures clearly have something that appeals to the audience in that geographic location. THis doea indicate how well the film is received and word spread.



Of course, high box office does not necessarily equal high film quality. This may be subjective but Avatar is an indisputable recent example.

I always thought that you used box office figures to give the impression that you knew something about the industry! However, it is your impression of the individual films that I'm interested in.



For me, box-office makes no difference to whether I see a film or not. Box office is only interesting in that it might give an indication as to whether we could see more of a film type or director when the Hollywood execs look at the bottom line after a film has run it's course. (e.g. "Moon" was good and made money. Hurrah - give Duncan money to make more)



The things I look at, not in any order, are:



- who acts in it - do I like them?

- who directs?

- What's the subject matter?

- What does Empire have to say about it (plus pinches of salt)?

- What did Mark have to say about it (with adjustment for known taste differences)?

- Is Michael Ironside in it? (if "yes", don't go).

Nothing unusual about this story. Mars Needs Moms is the worst thing I've had to endure watching in a very long time. Everything about it is irritating. The title, the animation, the voices, the plot, the script - especially the script. It seems to have been written by a bunch of spoilt teens having a laugh on their lunchbreak.



Box office figures have never dictated whether I see a film or not, but they're a good gauge of public taste. It's a rare occurrence but on this occasion, I'm with the public.

Hi Mark, like the blog.



I don’t let box office figures rule my judgment on going to see a film at the cinema or buying old films on DVD. For instance, I watched Rampage (1987) recently, William Friedkin’s second serial killer film of the 80s which wasn’t even released in the US for 5 years and when it was it did very poorly. I managed to track down a Polish DVD release as it isn’t available anywhere else.



On a separate note, I quite enjoyed the film. I thought it had a creepy atmosphere and raised some interesting issues about the insanity plea. The bloodthirsty Charles Reece brought to mind Patrick Bateman, but without the biting satire, obviously. I preferred Cruising and I still think Michael Mann’s Manhunter is the masterpiece of the genre, especially because it’s like watching a moving expressionist painting.



Overall, I thought Rampage was underrated, but since you’re a Friedkinophile, I’m curious to know what you think of it and Friedkin’s other lesser known films.

@BlurchZapZap re: Ironside.



Nooooooooo! Ironside is a true b-movie/exploitation (inter)national treasure. "Scanners", "Total Recall", "Starship Troopers" (and not forgetting his rather decent turn in "The Machinist") - they wouldn't have been half the films they were without him.



I dream of a film one day featuring the following:

- Michael Ironside

- Miguel Ferrer

- Gary Busey

- Ernest Borgnine



Come on Hollywood, make it happen!

Oh, oh , oh can I have another one:



- Clancy Brown (a.k.a. "Kurgan" from Highlander)

I used Box Office figures during a presentation at university. Can't really think of another use for them unless someone's asking you to stump up the money to make another. Not very likely.

@Joel_Cooney. I'll never forgive Ironside for his involvement in ruining Highlander. Alexander Godunov might have made a nice addition to your list, but he is sadly no more. Maybe Kurtwood Smith ...

Box Office figures, just like expert "Critic" ratings are baloney. Films are an art form and not every piece of art is to everyones taste.



Who cares how much money a film makes? It is NO indication of quality. Neither is the budget of a film or a five star review.

I couldn't give a stuff about box office stats. The only reason I missed the last Woody Allen film was because I had no-one to go with, and didn't feel like lone wolfing it. My order of criteria for seeing a film is usually - 1. The Director, 2. The reviews and info I've read, and 3. Who's in it. I know it sounds snobby, but I'm a connoisseur, dammit!

Irked by a poster's comment about 'Troy' being a Gladiator knock off that 'didn't make tuppence' at the box office.



Er, no. It made $500 million at the box office (that's almost $50 million more than Gladiator)

Hey Marky Mark!



What's with the product placement in the background?



I thought this was not allowed on the BBC or are blogs exempt?

To be honest, I interpreted Mark's comment about Sucker Punch's poor performance at the box office as being part of his ongoing battle against the idea that the majority of people are not interested in seeing intelligent movies. In this context, Sucker Punch would then be an example of how studios promoting a movie doesn't always work when the reviews and word-of-mouth has been particularly negative.



Other than that, the existence of big-budget 3D flops brings up the question of what happens when Kermode's thesis that 3D is but a passing fad comes in conflict with his thesis that big-budget movies always make up their budgets. For what would have happened with Waterworld if Costner et al had decided that it should be released exclusively on Laserdisc? Sorry if that's been brought up in the past.

OK, so a film that took $175million to make has bombed at the cinema. Excuse me while I laugh my arse off.



*Composes himself*



Mark has already answered his own question in the podcasts. I distinctly remember him saying - I don't know when - that box office takings are merely a reflection of the number of people who went to see a film, NOT how many people actually enjoyed it. Isn't that the real point? Imagine how different it would be if people were able to get a refund after seeing a duff movie (assuming people were honest with themselves and each other); quite conceivably Zack Snyder, Michael Bay et al would be out of a job! Yay.

For the most part, I'm not really concerned by box office figures - I go to see the movies that interest me, regardless of how well they've done.



HOWEVER, I'd be a liar if I said I ignore the box office completely, albeit with a bit of a twist: I've noticed that lately, the better a movie does at the box office, the less excited I get about watching it. I couldn't tell you why, it's just an irrational impulse. It isn't that I'm not interested in the movie anymore all of a sudden, I still want to see it - but for some reason the sense of urgency disappears. I just end up waiting for the DVDs.



On the other hand, if a movie I've been meaning to watch anyway (or that I have already seen) isn't doing too well, I end up wanting to support it more - like with Scott Pilgrim, which I returned to see in two different cinemas multiple times to do my tiny part to help.

i cant really agree more tht sometimes box office takings does ruin a trip to the cinema with my mates. on several occasions we have gone and the suggestion that "oh that film seems to be popular..." leads to be being bored for 2 hours and about £20 worse off!



the main culprits being:



Hereafter (cinema was full and literally half left before the god-awful end)

Avatar (was very good but no where near as good as figures suggested)

Furry Vengeance

Transformers 2 (at least the first one was daft but good fun)

Troy

The Tourist (awful)

Pirates of the Caribbean 2 + 3

Year One

Hall Pass

Battle Los Angeles

Tron Legacy

The Da Vinci Code (everyone of my friends hated this too. Awful)

2012

Jennifers Body (not even worth looking at megan fox for 2 hours)



and thats pretty much all i can bother writing about that.



Although on the bright side, true grit did well (brilliant film) so did, Dark Knight and Crash. So there may just be an argument against yet!



Nb

@Nick_KingoftheRoad_Buggey further to what you say i generally also agree that whatever chris tookey says is the opposite. he seems to (almost) always want films to be from the 1930's!!

@Chris_Page



couldn't agree more with the fact the script was edited out of all it's atheist and anti-christian views - it absolutely ruined the movie. You might as well have made the Harry Potter series without featuring magic and the effect would have been the same. I just can't understand why they then decided to make it!



Pointless.

I often look at box office statistics, purely out of interest and because it's nice to know when a film I like has produced a profit, but this does not affect at all my decisions on which films to see (many films I've loved have not done greatly at the box office) or my opinions of the films. Once I'm enjoying a good film, any thoughts regarding box office statistics are cast out of my mind.

Box Office seems to come to light more when the budget is at the extreme spectrum of film-making. Whether it makes any money in comparison to it's budget, or on the flip side makes 400x more. Scott Pilgrim and Mars Needs Moms are examples of this, as is Danny Dyer's vehicle Pimp.

I'm usually aware of Box Office takings as they seem to be held in some regard by film journalism and are shown on websites and magazines. I only get annoyed when a film I rate isn't making the money for whatever reason and I think we might not see that particular type of film or budget by a particular film-maker.

I actually think box office is a pretty good barometer of mediocrity. If you look at the top grossing films of all time, it's an indicator of how safe public choices are when it comes to cinema. Yes, there are some excellent films in the top list (Toy Story 3, The Dark Knight, Jurassic park), but almost of all of them are about spectacle, big special effects and broad themes that appeal to the widest possible audience. The truly interesting or challenging films (apart from Inception) don't tend to make as much money. It's the same with music. The top twenty at any time has usually included the safest, blandest music available. The most popular in any field is usually the least interesting overall.

More pernicious than judging a film by its box office takings is judging it by its score on Rotten Tomatoes. That's just accepting a bland critical aggregate without bothering to find out what critics actually said, or whether you have any faith in them individually.

Citizen Kane was a box office flop back in its day, but later on it gained a place in cinema history as one of the greatest films ever made. Catwoman, a work of poor quality, failed at the box office. The difference between the two is that one of them is actually a great film. So, what does the box office figures tell us? The audience can be right (Catwoman), but it can also be very wrong (Citizen Kane).

The box office is a pointer of what-to-do in order to make a profitable film. Twilight saga does well at the box office? More films about vampires, please! That's what the studios need. To the rest of us, the audience, it is a pointer of taste. You can actually learn a lot by trusting (or not trusting) the box office. Blockbusters are mostly loud mediocre adventure films or remakes of the lowest quality. But once in a while, when a good film does well (Inception), you realize that thanks to the box office figures, more and more people will watch it and probably love it. And the studios will finally realize that if they want to please the audience, they should stop making stinkers. And Michael Bay will finally be unemployed.

Box office figures are like the lives of celebrities - very boring, a complete indulgence, and totally irrelevant.

I would think that box office is no indicator of how good or bad a particular film is but it is interesting in so far as you can maybe see trends in film making and the choices film studios will make in the future.

And it is no more an indication of a good film than an Oscar or Bafta or whoever nomination but it does fill up column inches and blogs which is what film criticism is about. isn't it?

Go on, admit it; you'd argue box office reflects quality if you loved the movie and it did well, or if you hated it and it bombed...

Maybe others do but I for one am someone who monitors box office ratings with a nerd like obsession (thank you boxofficemojo.com) whilst giving it no respect as a commentary on the films merit. I rushed to see Scott Pilgrim vs the World as I did The Dark Knight.

With the internet, the genie is out of the bottle, and you've just got to accept that people will be aware of how well a film has done in the US and how well it's doing over here. However people must be aware that viewing figures never tell the whole story - Scott Pilgrim is an excellent example of this, and I can also think of a number of films that got bigger and bigger because of word of mouth.



Personally I am far more influenced by film reviews (both in the newspaper and online) than I am by box office figures.

Sorry for the late comment - playing catch up with the Kermode.



I live in Toronto in Canada. I've noticed something odd lately - especially now that this is a "film town" these days. Many people who are not "artsy" types have been telling me why they have been seeing films.



Apparently, for may people, if a film makes a lot of money, it's good. So they decide what to see based on that criteria.



I should point out that there are some independant cinemas in Toronto that don't show mainstream films. There's the new Festival Lightbox theatre, which charges $15 a ticket... and... nope, all the rest have closed.



You have a point Mark. What I would like to know is, why do the box office figures appear in the Arts & Culture sections of newspapers. Surely information like that belongs in the business section?



Perhaps you can see what I'm getting at...