Weekend Box Office Wrap Up: September 8, 2013

Published 2 years ago by

Sept 8 Box Office Riddick Weekend Box Office Wrap Up: September 8, 2013

Universal’s favorite action star debuted to decent numbers in this weekend’s box office, while the remaining top 10 stayed relatively quiet.

Opening at number 1 this weekend is Riddick (read our review) with $18 million. Vin Diesel’s third film as the Riddick character was about on par with early weekend projections, although fans might have hoped it would do a little better.

As far as sequel talk goes, Riddick still has a ways to go before making back its $38 million budget, but it should get there. Not to mention, Universal wants to keep Diesel happy now that Fast and Furious has become their bread and butter action franchise.

Lee Daniels’ The Butler holds steady at number 2 with $8.9 million. Now at $91 million total, Lee Daniels’ The Butler is a big winner for August/September, and is showing no signs of letting up.

August 18 Box Office The Butler Weekend Box Office Wrap Up: September 8, 2013

The number 3 film this weekend is Instructions Not Included with $8.1 million, which is actually a 3% bump from last weekend’s surprising debut. Clearly, word of mouth surrounding the film’s strong showing has fueled it to a solid second weekend and $20 million overall domestic gross.

Coming in at number 4 is We’re the Millers with $7.9 million. The R-rated comedy has been going strong for the past four weeks, and is not showing any signs of letting up. The film is now up to $123 million in domestic grosses.

Holding at number 5 is Planes with $4.2 million. Disney’s Cars spin-off has done very well, all things considered, and has grossed $79 million over 5 weeks.

Falling all the way to number 6 is the concert film One Direction: This is Us with $4.1 million. It’s no surprise that 1D fell so hard in its second week, as these types of films are more about the initial burst than the sustained, deep box office run. Nevertheless, the film has made $23 million over two weeks, which is well above its $10 million budget

In at number 7 is Elysium with $3.1 million, which brings its domestic total up to $85 million. While Elysium is by no means a flop, it’s hard to imagine TriStar didn’t expect more out of District 9 director Neil Blomkamp’s sophomore feature.

blue jasmine cate blanchett trailer Weekend Box Office Wrap Up: September 8, 2013

Blue Jasmine jumped up into the number 8 spot this weekend with $2.6 million. Woody Allen’s latest is doing very well on about 1,000 screens, and has grossed $25 million in the process.

Coming in at number 9 is Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters with $2.5 million. Although the film was able to work its way back into the top 10 this weekend, its $59 million domestic total is well under expectations.

Rounding out the Top 10 is The World’s End with $2.3 million. Edgar Wright’s final film in his “Three Flavors Cornetto” Trilogy has just barely eclipsed its $20 million budget with $21 million after three weeks. Overall, the film has grossed $38 million worldwide.

Outside the top 10: Paramount’s re-release double feature of World War Z and Star Trek Into Darkness was able to propel the former film over the $200 million mark. It’s worth pointing out, though, that the box office receipts were not evenly split, as WWZ earned $424,000 while Star Trek only pulled in $63,000.


[NOTE: These are only weekend box office estimates - based on Friday and Saturday ticket sales coupled with adjusted expectations for Sunday. Official weekend box office results will be released on Monday, September 9th - at which time we'll update this post with any changes.]

Source: Box Office Mojo

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. The makers of Riddick were wise in not spending more than 38 million to produce it. It may make a small profit, considering the overseas market. If anything, at least it won’t be a bust, like the second installment.

  2. How can a website that calls itself ScreenRant, and purports to report with any basis in fact, not take into account worldwide market presales, and the potential (but almost given) dvd rental and sales revenue, download revenue, and pay per view sales revenue when speculating about whether Universal is going to make back its $38 million dollar budget? Only $38 million? In this day and age, that’s peanuts. But it “should” get there? Vin Diesel and David Twohy took major pay cuts, made sacrifices, and worked their backsides off because they wanted to make THIS movie, and they got it done.

    • It takes money to make money. It cost 38 million to produce, but they also had to spend millions more on marketing, distribution, etc.

      Yes, it will make some money. Was it what most studios are hoping for these days? Not by a long shot.

    • You don’t appear to have much understanding of how the film industry accounts the financial box office receipts and revenue for each film that opens on any given weekend.

      The hard numbers and grosses are there for any site to report the weekend financial intake. ( and the ongoing revenue of any flick in theatrical distribution )

      It sounds as if you’re simply “sensitive” to any remarks attributed to “Riddick.”

      Don’t take it so personally. Diesel made this film for people like you.

      Other than folks like you, a flick like “Riddick” is not going to appeal to the wide general movie going audience.

      • You are correct Kryptonic. What also hurts it, in addition to its limited appeal, is the fact that it looks so much like a simple reboot of Pitch Black, and it is rated R. Those factors might be appealing to the fan boys, but they poison its chances to make a good profit, and thus, continue the series.

        • Kryptonic and Jeff, I must disagree with both of you. You both seem to be asserting that films that don’t have a “mass appeal”, or a “wide commercial appeal” cannot be profitable or generate and sustain the possibility of an ongoing franchise or series. I think Universal knew full well that they weren’t going to make Harry Potter or Twilight sized profits with Riddick. Sustaining a series or franchise doesn’t necessarily depend on that kind of money, or even that kind of investment on a studio’s part anymore. The way the budget for Riddick was generated was based on an entirely different paradigm than the more commercial, wider audience appeal fare is raised and invested. Universal didn’t have to pony up nearly the usual amount of investment. The model was actually closer to what Kevin Smith has been using to make his films. Presales for international markets are a huge factor, and can go a long way to recoup costs. To say they aren’t or can’t is simply untrue. There may be sequels to Riddick that aren’t even released in the traditional sense, but are still made and find their audience, made available through other means and media. To use Kevin Smith as an example again, did Clerks 2 really make enough money to “justify” Clerks 3? Clerks 2 was paid for before it was even released through international market presales. Granted the $5 million dollars budget for Clerks 2 is a far cry from the $38 million dollars budget for Riddick. But when your leading man and writer/director aren’t pocketing multi million dollar paydays before a frame is even shot, this can go a long way to balancing out investments. Both of you are thinking “Hollywood Film Studios/Industry” logic, when much sooner than a lot of folks might think, the “Hollywood Film Studios/ Industry” isn’t going to exist anymore, at least not in its current “business as usual” present form.

          • Clerks 2

            Production Budget: $5 million

            Domestic Total Gross: $24,148,068

            To answer your question regarding Clerks 2 – yes, it did make enough to justify a sequel. Obviously, there’s a bit of a difference between paying for a low-budget comedy and a modest budget science fiction film.

            • So you’re completely ruling out, that within its budget context, that Riddick will not or cannot, once it’s worldwide revenue (all streams considered, remember)generate enough of a profit over its investment to warrant a sequel, or continue a series? You missed my point. I was comparing models, not the size of budgets. I put that forth as a way of pointing out that investments can be recouped, to some extent at least (some probably in the case of Riddick, as Universal themselves projected an $18 to $20 million box office take for its opening weekend, which it reached with $18.7 million thus far) through other means than only box office receipts. Different sized budgets, same principle. Is it so inconceivable that Riddick might take in $60 to $80 million dollars when also counting worldwide box office revenue by the end of its theatrical runs alone? And that’s not including those other revenue streams I mentioned. The other sources of revenue could only add to that.

              • 38 million to make, plus millions more in advertising, distribution, etc. The film will make some money, but enough for a studio to be inclined and motivated to again spend the money, resources, time, etc. to make another sequel? Time will tell, but it is, by no means, a sure thing…

              • I didn’t miss any point, I merely pointed out that your Clerks 2 analogy was inadequate. Clerks 2 nearly quintupled its budget. Do you think Riddick will do the same thing?

      • Well said Kryptonic :)

  3. In a weak weekend like that, blue jasmine deserve to do instruction not included numbers
    Anyway, I hope instructions not included will open up for more Spanish speaking movies out of Hollywood.

    • I think the whole environment, the technology available, along with the ways people watch films nowadays, takes the weight off box office numbers. These films have avenues to find their audiences and for their audiences to find them that don’t necessarily equate with attendance at theaters. The good stuff is prevailing more and more, and we’re seeing the big studio crap crash much more frequently. Although these same ways and means provide additional profit potential for the big budget box office underperformers.

      • I think you’re replying to the wrong person

        • No, I was responding to your comments in regards to the two films you mentioned. “Hollywood” might not open up for, say, more Spanish speaking films, but other means of people having access to see films that might not be “Hollywood Blockbusters”, will provide the pathway for more. My point is, that the box office “numbers” aren’t the final arbiter of a film’s success, or its reaching an audience anymore. Nor the sole means of a film’s profit potential. A film may well find its “deserved” audience through non theatrical release means. Box office numbers only represent the people who actually, physically went to a theater to see a movie. They don’t account for the numerous other people who will see the films through other means or media. Providing these non cinema attending viewers aren’t seeing a film through pirated means, this will generate further revenue. Films that the big studios wouldn’t touch, or see as potentially successful can and will be made without a major studios “green light”, or the need to make astronomical box office to recoup costs, make a profit, or even to “break even”.

  4. As it turned out, private funding was also necessary because Diesel and company pushed to have the movie R-rated, which is a departure from the previous films, and not as attractive to a major studio more interested in a wider box-office demographic.

    “So we ruled out the idea of a studio backing it from the beginning, which meant that we knew we had to take a more independent route and get foreign money,” Diesel said.

    “Then it was up to us to take those somewhat limited means, especially in comparison to where we were on Chronicles, and to tell a story with those limited means.”
    This is a quote from Vin Diesel from an article in the Calgary Herald by Bob Thompson of PostMedia dated 9/3/13

  5. “Riddick” ended up with $115 million dollars in box office receipts worldwide reported as of today. Guess they made back the $38 million dollar budget, eh?

    • Ah, according to Box Office Mojo, it has only made a total of 26 million worldwide. Your source??

      • My bad on the facts this time. I mistakenly quoted the total worldwide gross for COR as cited on TheWrap.com. Haven’t confirmed yours but it’s probably more on the money, so to speak. Overenthusiastic blunder on my part.

        • That’s okay, we all make mistakes. Good of you to admit it. I believe COR cost around 105 million to make, plus more for advertising and distribution, so only 115 million in returns was why it was so difficult for Diesel to get Riddick made. I am sure he is hoping Riddick makes that much worldwide, but most movies drop off significantly from their first weekends of release, so we’ll see.

  6. My movie, Elysium, still there at #7.