Hollywood blames Halo 3 for craptacular ticket sales

[Bill Brasky]

Bad Box Office? Blame 'Halo'

Film Execs Fault Blockbuster Video Game for Worst October Ticket Sales in Years

By Claude Brodesser-akner

 

Published: October 15, 2007

The joystick has brought Ben Stiller nothing but sorrow.

 

Industry expectations for "The Heartbreak Kid," the date movie that re-teamed him with the Farrelly brothers (the duo who made him a megastar in "There's Something About Mary"), called for a $20 million to $25 million opening for the film. Instead, "Kid," which cost north of $60 million to make, managed only $14 million in the U.S. and Canada -- heartbreaking, indeed.

 

But there's more. Total industry ticket sales were only $80 million for the Oct. 5 weekend the film opened, a whopping 27% below the same weekend the year before, according to research firm Media by Numbers. That's the industry's worst performance for an October weekend since 1999. Overall, domestic receipts are down 6% from last fall.

 

Blame the Master Chief.

 

Glued to joysticks

Many film executives are convinced audiences stayed home to play Microsoft's carpal-tunnel classic, "Halo 3," which went on sale on Sept. 26. The game sold an astonishing $170 million worth of copies on its first day, before going on to sell well over $300 million.

 

It doesn't appear the Chief stayed in shrink-wrap for long, either: More than 2.7 million gamers have played "Halo 3" on Xbox Live -- Microsoft's multiplayer gaming offering -- in the first week, representing more than one-third of the 7 million Xbox Live members worldwide. Within the first day of its launch, "Halo 3" players racked up more than 3.6 million hours of game play, and that number increased to 40 million hours by the end of the first week. For those keeping score, that's more than 4,500 years of continuous game play.

 

For Microsoft, it's no wonder video games, and in particular "Halo 3," are competing with blockbusters for opening weekends. "We marketed it like a film," said Josh Goldberg, a "Halo 3" product manager at Microsoft, adding, "and now, we're just as big or bigger than film." He said "Halo 3" was marketed as an event film in terms of its partnerships, with beverage, automotive, fast feeders and mobile-phone companies all joining up.

 

"The audience on this game is the 18-to-34 demographic, similar to what you'd see in cinemas," said Mike Hickey, an analyst at Janco Partners, a Denver research firm, adding that "this could last for several weeks."

 

Next wave

And there's more where that came from. Take 2 Interactive's Rockstar Games is readying its release of "Grand Theft Auto 4." The latest edition of the hugely popular franchise is tentatively slated to hit shelves in March or early April of next year and could potentially steal box office. Mr. Hickey said it "could conceivably ship 9.5 million units" in its first week, translating to first-week sales of more than $400 million.

 

Not all of Hollywood is convinced. Mediocre reviews on "Kid" piled up from critics, and at rival studio Screen Gems, owned by Sony, marketing chief Mark Weinstock says that "box office is driven by content."

 

Mr. Weinstock, who just opened video-game adaptation "Resident Evil: Extinction" in September, notes that clearly "some young males decided to play video games" on the "Kid" opening weekend, but noted that the R-rating of "Kid" and lukewarm reviews could have hurt the film just as much as "Halo 3."

 

Correlation vs. causation

A spokesman for Paramount, which owns Dreamworks, the studio that released the Ben Stiller movie, declined to discuss whether "Halo" had caused the "Kid" boondoggle. But privately, insiders at the studio suspect the blame might lie in part with "Halo 3," and are working to determine if there was a correlation.

 

That's because, in a twist of fate, Mr. Stiller is producing an adaptation of the bestselling book "The Ruins," which Paramount will open the first weekend of April 2008 -- right in the middle of "Grand Theft Auto 4's" expected release.

 

Mr. Hickey said that doesn't bode well: "This past weekend will replicate itself next year."

 

Or worse. He said one could roughly complete "Halo 3" in roughly 20 hours played straight through, but by comparison "Grand Theft Auto 4" is estimated to take more than 100 hours to play. That means it could keep players occupied and out of the theaters even longer.

 

http://adage.com/latestnews/article.php?article_id=121130

[MCHufnagel]

Meh, I saw the trailers/ads for this movie and for me it's a rental only, at best. The people who play Halo wouldn't have any interest in this type of movie anyway. Just admit that the movie is a bomb.

[moycon]

Meh, I saw the trailers/ads for this movie and for me it's a rental only, at best. The people who play Halo wouldn't have any interest in this type of movie anyway. Just admit that the movie is a bomb.

 

I was thinking the same thing.

Hmmm should I play kick-ass Halo 3 or go see yet another lame Ben Stiller love "comedy"

[mimo]

It's about time that Hollywood woke up and made something original with a story line instead of regurgitating the same old same old.

Maybe then they would see better audiences.

[MCHufnagel]

mimo, love your signature! I think everyone here who is married is in the same boat.

[ninjarabbit]

Long story short: Hollywood is looking for a scapegoat.

 

I suppose games like Super Mario Bros 3, GTA 3, and whatever edition of Madden caused crappy ticket sales too.

[Lord Helmet]

You know, I hardly ever go to the movies anymore.

 

With Netflix, my 65' HDTV, surround sound, and microwave popcorn....who in the hell needs anything that a theater has to offer?

[8th lutz]

Hollywood doesn't get it. They are just looking for scapegoats.

 

People are starting to get tired of watching movies that don't have orginal storylines. People also know when a movie stinks.

 

This is not due to videogames, but hollywood doing it to them selves.

[Bill Brasky]

You know, I hardly ever go to the movies anymore.

 

With Netflix, my 65' HDTV, surround sound, and microwave popcorn....who in the hell needs anything that a theater has to offer?

 

 

Holy shit! You own a 65 foot HDTV?!?!?!

[MCHufnagel]

You know, I hardly ever go to the movies anymore.

 

With Netflix, my 65' HDTV, surround sound, and microwave popcorn....who in the hell needs anything that a theater has to offer?

 

 

Holy shit! You own a 65 foot HDTV?!?!?!

What you don't own a barn to see movies in?

 

Actually I own a 46" HDTV and feel the same way. In addition I get to have an adult beverage of my choice and nobody around me talking during the movie!

[Lastblade]

You know, I hardly ever go to the movies anymore.

 

With Netflix, my 65' HDTV, surround sound, and microwave popcorn....who in the hell needs anything that a theater has to offer?

 

 

Holy shit! You own a 65 foot HDTV?!?!?!

What you don't own a barn to see movies in?

 

Actually I own a 46" HDTV and feel the same way. In addition I get to have an adult beverage of my choice and nobody around me talking during the movie!

 

True true true, but the phone still rings.

[NE146]

I got 3 50" hdtv's around my pad, and I haven't watched a single movie on them. Heck I haven't watched a movie in near 8 months anywhere.

 

Movies suck. Play videogames

[Scumdogg]

Interesting how they neglect to consider that neither Ben Stiller nor the Farrelly brothers have made a worthwhile movie in years. And poor ticket sales of Resident Evil Extinction? Jesus. The blame for that can't be placed anywhere but the first two Resident Evil movies.

[Atari5200]

65' hdtv....wow but I agree, with my mesely 42" lcd and surround sound set up, my theatre experience is my ass on the couch watching movies. screw theaters.

[Bill Brasky]

I used to go to the movies until they closed down our local $1.00 theater. It's not worth $10.00 to see a movie when you can buy the DVD for $10-$13 .

[Hyper_Eye]

I made my own theater and have no need to hear pre-teens pretend to scream during stupid parts of stupid movies. I have an 80" screen with an HD front pj. I also have a nice surround sound system and comfortable chairs. With HD-DVD's to watch I see no reason to pay for movie tickets just to leave the theater once again realizing why I hate going there.

[ninjarabbit]

This topic makes me feel pathetic, I only have a pair of 29'' regular TVs

[Lord Helmet]

Doh...

 

inches...not feet...

 

 

I'd have to knock out a wall to get a 65 foot tv in my house

[Video]

Halo 3? Well, I'll admit Halo kicks total ass. But the real problem with the box office is...well, the movies suck. I'm sorry, but there's really not a nice way to say it. If Hollywood would quit recycling stale(albeit good) movies, and releasing trash, then they would get better sales. Plain and simple.

 

Some of us dont' bother with the theatre anymore anyways. Why go to the theatre for $5-$15 (and then extra for snacks or whatever) when I can BUY the damn movie for $10-$20 in a month, watch it in the comfort of my home, and eat whatever I want without paying an arm and a leg for it, AND get deleted scenes, commentarys, alternate angles/endings etc??

[Artlover]

To Hollywood;

 

Stop making sucky garbage movies no one wants to watch.

 

 

 

To Theaters;

 

Stop charging f'in $10 a ticket to watch these sucky garbage movies.

[Scumdogg]

To Hollywood;

 

Stop making sucky garbage movies no one wants to watch.

 

 

 

To Theaters;

 

Stop charging f'in $10 a ticket to watch these sucky garbage movies.

 

 

Both of those requests should actually be addressed to Hollywood, i believe. Theatres make ridiculously little, if any, profit on ticket sales. That's why food and drinks are so expensive, they basically need to sell you a $6 bag of popcorn to pay their employees and other overhead. The cost for a theatre to "rent" prints of movies is astronomical, and this will continue until Hollywood realizes not every movie needs to cost $150 million plus. The lowering costs of home theatre setups vs. the rising cost of movie tickets is making theatres obsolete and pushing them out of business left and right. You don't think they'd like to lower their prices and get people back in there?

[Jess Ragan]

I dunno, maybe the film was a piece of puerile shit?

 

Paramount always does this. A few years ago they blamed the weak ticket sales of Tomb Raider on the quality of Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, conveniently forgetting that people would have watched the movie anyway if it had been good. Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone should stop pointing fingers at everyone else for his failures and start taking personal responsibility for them.

[godslabrat]

Both of those requests should actually be addressed to Hollywood, i believe. Theatres make ridiculously little, if any, profit on ticket sales. That's why food and drinks are so expensive, they basically need to sell you a $6 bag of popcorn to pay their employees and other overhead. The cost for a theatre to "rent" prints of movies is astronomical, and this will continue until Hollywood realizes not every movie needs to cost $150 million plus. The lowering costs of home theatre setups vs. the rising cost of movie tickets is making theatres obsolete and pushing them out of business left and right. You don't think they'd like to lower their prices and get people back in there?

 

Yet another reason I don't mind buying my movies on DVD/BR. Not only is it a better deal for me vs going to the theater, but home video sales are very profitable for the studios. More and more movies are "breaking even" at the box office and then going on to make craploads of money at BB and CC. I'm not a big fan of the push to "Video on Demand", but it's clear that hollywood wants it bad, because it gives them the steady income the theater offers, without the overhead of the theater building itself.

 

But blaming halo? Come on, that's actually lamer than the record companies blaming poor music sales on Napster, and not the fact that not everyone wants to listen to gangsta rap and bubble gum pop.

[christianscott27]

Its strikes me that the Ben Stiller movie is a date movie so I find their "Halo" argument deeply flawed.

[shadow460]

I got sick of paying $8 for movie tickets long ago. I still wanna go once in a while, but by the time you add $20 for two tickets to $40 for dinner, that's a little more than I want to spend in an evening. On top of that, you can't work in dinner in a non crowded restaurant around the screen times for just one particular movie. fighting the crowds makes that evening worth less than $10, let alone $50.

 

Let me wait around until 9:30 PM when the crowds are gone, then I'll go terrorize Applebee's or the Texas Roadhouse. I'll bring along a good conversation (like my parents did) or the PSP and a movie.

 

Besides, I can't put a theater in my pocket and run it off batteries while I watch the show.