Why do movies come out in different months in different countries?
 

Do they reuse the promo materials? So the actors can do promo stuff in the countries?

Aeonflux is just now coming out in Australia.. I remember seeing it out in the fall in Canada...

I guess it ensures the movie companies spread their releases so in turn to get as longer "new" release period as possible..

I think the bean counters must have to work hard sweating over this..

shipped by boat cargo...

They sell off distrobution rights to different countries. So a movie in the US may take longer to release in Australia because the international distributor may want to see how well it sells in the US. Alot of times the studio won't sell international rights to the movies while they are in the theater in the US because they would rather take the proit from the US sales to buy themselves a better deal on international distrobution.

But when the announce the release dates (6-12 months before the film launch), they always list the dates for international locations.. and they are spread out, IE Jan in US March in UK April in Sweden July in Aussie etc.. and they also release flops.. :2 cents:

That's beacause (as you know) you need to spend your money promoting a film. If I had a budget of $4m to promote a film internationally, i'll spread it out. I'd spend $3m in the first country, then make that money back from movie sales and then I'd have the same amount of money to drop on the next country.

So I'll spend $1m securing and setting up 4 countries with marketing material etc.

Then I'll spend $3m in country #1 which will yeild a $10m return in 4 month.

Take take the original $3m and use it for country #2, pay back the $1m for setting everything up and leave myself a $6m profit.

Country #2 makes $10m in 4 months. Still floating the same $4m and bring in $6m profit again.....and so it is writen

If you only spend $1m in each location you're hard pressed to make the same as if you spend $4m. The profitability of movies is in the $ spent wisly in marketing, not production of the film......

Big film studios can't afford to invest the money into advertising? I mean it could also do a backfire, like with internet piracy and internet advertising. They will have to use their budget to advertise the movie over and over again. Especially with top 500 type sites (imdb etc..) they lose all of the non north american markets. They could just do a LUMP sum marketing campaign (across all the countries of distro), and then invest the lump sum of profit and make more intrest. I don't see the benefit of the system you have provided.. unless it was an indy or small film. Aeonflux was a fairly big budget flop as well. Especially the word of mouth and *buzz* factors that you get from talking to family over sea/friends etc.. the benefits are endless.

I have the answer, just give me a minute to reply, i have some biz to attend to...i'll post when i'm done.

it doesn't make sense all the time. but it does to someone

trade stipulations

I know it takes a while for them to add subtitles and stuff for non-english speaking countries, but that doesn't apply to Australia.

In fact we've been getting some of the bigger movies here the same week as they're released in the USA...

*double post

Remember that the studios aren't making all the money. Don't get me wrong but the studios are a small (but important) part of the picture.

The average film, and this is a fact, will break even on the silver screen. This is usually due to the fact that most of the marketing is paid for during the theatrical releases. DVD and home distribution as well as merchandising is the profitable link in the movie industry. Almost all the money made in theatrical releases are rolled into marketing for the DVD home markets and rentals.

Last year's films released here (USA) made about $9b at the box office, $30b was make on DVD and other ancillary revenue. Of the $30b, $10b was from Walmart! Last year Warner Brothers made 60% of all it's revenue from Walmart alone.

One of the reasons they market so heavily to such an unprofitable market is because the impact of the marketing rolls over to the home and rental markets.

That being said, when a Aeonflux spent $55m filming the movie, of that there was maybe $10+m in marketing to the USA. Out of that, it has only grossed $25,857,987 (actual numbers) from the US. Lakeshore Entertainment (the production company) sold distribution to Paramount Pictures which is taking 50-66% of the revenue from the movie (depending on how much Paramount Pictures put into marketing vs Lakeshore Entertainment). International grosses are as follows:

1-06-2006 - Europe Market = $1,618,731
1-06-2006 - Spain Market = $1,468,288
2-24-2006 - UK Market = £961,020
2-24-2006 - South Africa = $243,604

More than likely Paramount resold the film to other distributors who could do better in those markets. The other factor is the fact that you have to "sell" your film to the theaters. So local distributors are good if you need help getting the film into the theaters. This all takes money and a piece of the pie.

So that being said........would you want to invest MORE money than you had to in that movie? :)

I'm sure with a film on that tight budget, they are having a hard time selling it to markets, but they realize that the film will become profitable in the home and DVD rental fields. But it's a waiting game.

In fact, the highest return on investment for a movie are the ones that go straight to DVD. Dirty Love with Jenny McCathy and Carmen Electra hit #2 on Blockbuster's best seller's list. Turned into a nice investment for their investors because they played their cards right made millions in a short amount of time. Cudos to them.

If you haven't rented Dirty Love, do it. Or look for it at Walmart... :)