'Steve Jobs' Film Debuts Impressively in Limited Release

[MacRumors]

Only a limited number of fans have been able to see Steve Jobs over the weekend, thanks to its initial small scale release in only Los Angeles and New York on October 9. Despite that limited run, the Danny Boyle-directed film has debuted with impressive numbers, making $521,000 in its first weekend with a per-theater average of $130,250 (via Variety).

Although those numbers landed the movie well below any top-earning spot for the weekend box office at large (it placed sixteenth overall), that per-theater average places Steve Jobs as the fifteenth highest PTA figure in film history. As the rollout for the film expands -- 25 new markets and 60 theaters on October 16, and then 2,000 theaters on October 23 -- Universal has doubled down on its release strategy, believing the slow trickle to wide release will help generate positive word of mouth.

"By holding back and platforming it in this way, we let the public know what this movie is all about and we generate a hotter 'want to see' among audiences," said Nick Carpou, head of Universal's domestic distribution operation.

Universal hopes these limited release numbers translate into bigger returns when Steve Jobs debuts in wide release next weekend, aiming for a similar trajectory as The Social Network's $97 million overall domestic haul. Current analysts predict at least a $20 million opening wide release weekend for the new film, pointing to the ubiquity of Apple products, largely positive early reviews, and the audience's hunt for "prestige movies" at this time of year as the main factors for its potential success.

Article Link: 'Steve Jobs' Film Debuts Impressively in Limited Release

 

[AngerDanger]

Oh, shoot, another SJ film article. Steve's afterlife notification system is going to be buzzing with mentions of his name.

Can't we just let him rest in peace?

 

[Zirel]

That's how much money talking about Steve Jobs (right or wrong) makes...

If it were a movie about Nicola Tesla, Hewelet and Packard (the founders), Fairchild, etc...

Would it make that much money?

Don't think so...

 

[jpgr15]

and the audience's hunt for "prestige movies"

What the heck is a prestige movie and why are people hunting for them?

 

[Rocketman]

Almost went to see it in LA yesterday but didn't want to drive over an hour to get there. Will wait a week.

 

[lewisd25]

A successful limited release doesn't guarantee a successful nationwide release. I would have to imagine that a huge percentage of the film's audience in NY and LA are comprised of hardcore Apple fans. Will general movie goers flock to theaters to see this? If there is Oscar consideration, then perhaps they will.

 

[2457282]

Just slightly off topic - I am wondering about the whole going to the movies thing. Pretty much everyone now has a large TV screen at home (for the sake of argument say 40 inch or larger). With streaming like Netflix or Apple TV, I really don't see why people are drawn to pay so much to go to the movies. I will wait for this to come to one of my streaming services and then maybe I will watch it. But paying over $20 just for the tickets (not to mention transportation and other expenses associated with going out), for a movie that will play well on my screen at home makes no sense. Congrats to the movie for making tons of money, but please wait a little while longer before you get a few dollars from me.

 

[rdlink]

A successful limited release doesn't guarantee a successful nationwide release. I would have to imagine that a huge percentage of the film's audience in NY and LA are comprised of hardcore Apple fans. Will general movie goers flock to theaters to see this? If there is Oscar consideration, then perhaps they will.

I think that might be the point of the release strategy. So much of hollywood movie success is about "buzz." You release the movie to film festivals, where people who love to go to and talk about movies will watch it and create a low buzz. Then release it in markets that trend toward movie watching, and where the subject matter will generate interest. As this happens buzz noise builds, and by the time the "masses" have access to it there is momentum, and everyone wants to go watch it because they won't be "in the know" and "cool" unless they do.

 

[madKIR]

I went to see it in NYC last night.
I think it's beautifully crafted. Kate Winslet is the star of this movie.

I don't get why Jobs' wife wanted to kill this project. They still showed him as a loving and caring person.

 

[rdlink]

Just slightly off topic - I am wondering about the whole going to the movies thing. Pretty much everyone now has a large TV screen at home (for the sake of argument say 40 inch or larger). With streaming like Netflix or Apple TV, I really don't see why people are drawn to pay so much to go to the movies. I will wait for this to come to one of my streaming services and then maybe I will watch it. But paying over $20 just for the tickets (not to mention transportation and other expenses associated with going out), for a movie that will play well on my screen at home makes no sense. Congrats to the movie for making tons of money, but please wait a little while longer before you get a few dollars from me.

I think that there are multiple factors in play. Some people don't have the patience to wait to see a movie they have been anticipating. Others just love the "going to the movies" experience (I don't). I think that for many of them the idea of spending $35-$40 for an evening out at a movie with a friend/date/significant other is budget friendly compared to other forms entertainment, such as a meal at a restaurant, and a couple of drinks at a bar. Plus there's the "shared experience" aspect of going to a movie. Sort of like the people who like to line up at the Apple store on iPhone release day.

I, personally am with you. I will generally wait for a movie to come to my home, and rarely do I find a movie that I'm excited enough to see that I'm willing to put up with the costs and aggravation of going to the theater. But I understand why some people like it.

 

[Keane16]

Just slightly off topic - I am wondering about the whole going to the movies thing. Pretty much everyone now has a large TV screen at home (for the sake of argument say 40 inch or larger). With streaming like Netflix or Apple TV, I really don't see why people are drawn to pay so much to go to the movies. I will wait for this to come to one of my streaming services and then maybe I will watch it. But paying over $20 just for the tickets (not to mention transportation and other expenses associated with going out), for a movie that will play well on my screen at home makes no sense. Congrats to the movie for making tons of money, but please wait a little while longer before you get a few dollars from me.

Mostly agree. I do the same for most movies except the big action types. Something like The Hobbit or The Avengers, with large battles and thumping sound. Also "good" 3D films - Avatar and Gravity, I don't think a normal home set up does them justice.

As much as I like my home cinema, going to an actual theatre is certainly worth it for some films. Also as @rdlink mentions above - it's still worth it compared to other forms of entertainment.

Like you, Steve Jobs will most likely be streamed when available.

 

[doelcm82]

A successful limited release doesn't guarantee a successful nationwide release. I would have to imagine that a huge percentage of the film's audience in NY and LA are comprised of hardcore Apple fans. Will general movie goers flock to theaters to see this? If there is Oscar consideration, then perhaps they will.

What makes you think that all the hardcore Apple fans are concentrated in these two cities (or have the resources to travel to them just to see a movie)? Once this film is in wide release, hardcore Apple fans around the world will see the film at their local theaters. It may not be a blockbuster like Jurassic Park, but it also doesn't have the enormous budget. This buzz suggests Steve Jobs is bound to make plenty of money for the filmmakers.

 

[2010mini]

What the heck is a prestige movie and why are people hunting for them?

When we have been given train wrecks like Fant4stic and Pan. It's understandable why we want good movies

 

[TallGuyGT]

I would have seen it in NYC this past weekend, but people playing on their phones during a movie drives me crazy. I had a feeling that with this one it might be worse.

On the othe topic - now that I have a big screen TV with decent sound, I go to movies much less. I do still go for event movies - I just can't duplicate the sheer size and amazing sound of the newer theaters at home.

 

[2457282]

I think that there are multiple factors in play. Some people don't have the patience to wait to see a movie they have been anticipating. Others just love the "going to the movies" experience (I don't). I think that for many of them the idea of spending $35-$40 for an evening out at a movie with a friend/date/significant other is budget friendly compared to other forms entertainment, such as a meal at a restaurant, and a couple of drinks at a bar. Plus there's the "shared experience" aspect of going to a movie. Sort of like the people who like to line up at the Apple store on iPhone release day.

I, personally am with you. I will generally wait for a movie to come to my home, and rarely do I find a movie that I'm excited enough to see that I'm willing to put up with the costs and aggravation of going to the theater. But I understand why some people like it.

Mostly agree. I do the same for most movies except the big action types. Something like The Hobbit or The Avengers, with large battles and thumping sound. Also "good" 3D films - Avatar and Gravity, I don't think a normal home set up does them justice.

As much as I like my home cinema, going to an actual theatre is certainly worth it for some films. Also as @rdlink mentions above - it's still worth it compared to other forms of entertainment.

Like you, Steve Jobs will most likely be streamed when available.

I agree with Keane that there are some movies worth watching in theater, especially with sweeping cinematography. But those are far and few between. And for the shared experience that rdlink refers to, I do movie nights at home with friends. We can watch and discuss the movie and share drinks and food. I find that more satisfying than going to a theater, sitting in the dark for 90+ minutes and then going home. When I was a kid and took girls there to make out in the back row - then it was a bit more worth it. Now, I prefer shared conversations that are a bit more intellectual and stimulating. And yes going to the movie is in theory cheaper than going out to dinner, but again, I am willing to pay the extra dollars to get a good meal and a good conversation versus staring at a screen in the dark with no discussion.

Maybe it's just my years, but both from a financial and from an experiential perspective, I rarely see the case for the movie theater. I love movies and watch them often, I am just thinking that the big companies should start rethinking their model as my guess is that people are increasingly more hesitant to go to the movie theater, at least in my group of friends and in my city (where there are two independent film theaters and maybe two cineplexes with little demand for more.

 

[Zorn]

Just slightly off topic - I am wondering about the whole going to the movies thing. Pretty much everyone now has a large TV screen at home (for the sake of argument say 40 inch or larger). With streaming like Netflix or Apple TV, I really don't see why people are drawn to pay so much to go to the movies. I will wait for this to come to one of my streaming services and then maybe I will watch it. But paying over $20 just for the tickets (not to mention transportation and other expenses associated with going out), for a movie that will play well on my screen at home makes no sense. Congrats to the movie for making tons of money, but please wait a little while longer before you get a few dollars from me.

IMO it comes down to patience. If a movie looks really good, and I know I can see it right away for $10, that's worth it to me. Their screen is a lot bigger than mine, and for me it's not worth saving a small amount of money to wait 6-8 months. I'm sure there's also a lot of people that don't want to feel left out when everyone in their office or group of friends is talking about a hot new movie.

 

[yillbs]

IMO it comes down to patience. If a movie looks really good, and I know I can see it right away for $10, that's worth it to me. Their screen is a lot bigger than mine, and for me it's not worth saving a small amount of money to wait 6-8 months. I'm sure there's also a lot of people that don't want to feel left out when everyone in their office or group of friends is talking about a hot new movie.

god forbid people actually get out of the house Pushing everything to in home just gives all the fatties more time to sit on their butts and do nothing, at least when you go to the movies you get 100 or so steps on the apple watch

 

[123]

What makes you think that all the hardcore Apple fans are concentrated in these two cities (or have the resources to travel to them just to see a movie)?

Nothing makes him think that. In big cities there are enough fans to fill a few theaters without "being concentrated".

 

[123]

This PTA thing seems ridiculous. Open only the biggest theater for the next much anticipated blockbuster and there's the new world record.

 

[Rocketman]

Several posters to this site keep referring to hardcore fans and fanboys.

It is regular workaday folks that buy Apple products and love them. They like the products and the benefits they receive.

The fraction of any population that is a so-called fanboy is under 1%. Yet they have a large portion of the mindshare and mocking by some posters here.

That makes me believe they are on the other end of the bell curve themselves. Anti-fanboys.

 

[lincolntran]

Several posters to this site keep referring to hardcore fans and fanboys.

It is regular workaday folks that buy Apple products and love them. They like the products and the benefits they receive.

The fraction of any population that is a so-called fanboy is under 1%. Yet they have a large portion of the mindshare and mocking by some posters here.

That makes me believe they are on the other end of the bell curve themselves. Anti-fanboys.

Or insecured tech geeks who always want to feel validated.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Kind of annoying when movies aren't just released everywhere.

I had to travel 40 miles to find a theater showing The Theory of Everything last year. I greatly enjoyed it, but it would have sucked if I had to travel all that way only for the movie to not end up being any good.

 

[doelcm82]

Nothing makes him think that. In big cities there are enough fans to fill a few theaters without "being concentrated".

So we can expect this movie to do well in other big cities around the country, like Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Miami, Phoenix, San Diego. And of course in San Jose and San Francisco.

 

[Böhme417]

Kind of annoying when movies aren't just released everywhere.

I had to travel 40 miles to find a theater showing The Theory of Everything last year. I greatly enjoyed it, but it would have sucked if I had to travel all that way only for the movie to not end up being any good.

VERY annoying. Their strategy here is one that doesn't work for me. If I'm constantly bombarded with ads/reviews about a new movie, but I can't see it yet, I'm just going to get annoyed and then lose any interest in seeing it.

 

[RadioGaGa1984]

Macrumors must get a kickback from the movie or something.