Posted on: Wednesday, January 7, 2004

Blockbusters may no longer be hit flicks

By Scott Bowles
USA Today

More movies reached "blockbuster" status — grossing $100 million at the box office — in 2003 than ever before.

But should that impress anyone? Ticket prices keep rising, and the cost to make and market a film keeps going up (now an average $89.4 million, according to the Motion Picture Association of America). So crossing that milestone doesn't mean what it used to: It takes fewer moviegoers to get there, and getting there doesn't automatically mean moneymaker.

"Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" took in $100.8 million, but it cost more than $160 million to produce and promote. While films like that can recoup their losses internationally and on video and DVD, many analysts and studio executives say it's time to redefine "blockbuster" — or throw it out. Some argue that the label should be reserved for movies that take in $200 million because that remains rarefied air: Six movies topped that mark in 2003.

Russell Schwartz, marketing chief for New Line Cinema, says even $200 million might not be a true measure. "... it's hard to say something is a hit just because it reaches a certain level of sales."

Many maintain that $100 million remains a valid measure of success. The 25 films that took in more than $100 million last year brought in almost half of all ticket sales, according to box office trackers Nielsen EDI.

"That's a lot of money. ... It's big. And to me, that's the definition of a blockbuster," says Paul Dergarabedian of box office tracking firm Exhibitor Relations Inc.