Assault on Precinct 13 (2005) had a reported production budget of $30 million and earned $35,294,470 worldwide in the Box Office Mojo record. Its United States and Canada total was $20,040,895. Those figures point to a weak theatrical return, not a profitable release simply because ticket sales exceeded the production budget.
The distinction matters: cinemas retain part of ticket revenue, and making a film is not the same expense as marketing and releasing it. This article examines the remake’s reported costs, opening weekend, domestic run and overseas earnings. The broader guide to the 2005 Assault on Precinct 13 remake covers the film beyond its commercial performance.
Reported Budget and Box Office Figures
The following figures use a single database for consistency. An alternative worldwide total and a different opening weekend figure appear in The Numbers, discussed below.
| Measure | Reported figure |
|---|---|
| Production budget | $30,000,000 |
| Domestic gross: United States and Canada | $20,040,895 |
| International gross | $15,253,575 |
| Worldwide gross | $35,294,470 |
| Opening weekend listed by Box Office Mojo | $7,000,000 |
| Widest domestic release | 2,297 theaters |
| Domestic release date | January 19, 2005 |
| Domestic distributor | Rogue Pictures |
All monetary figures here are in US dollars, without an inflation adjustment. “Domestic” means the United States and Canada, rather than the United States alone. “Worldwide” combines domestic and international theatrical receipts; it does not include DVD sales, television licensing or digital rentals.
How Much Did the 2005 Remake Cost?
The $30 million figure is a reported production budget, not a published account of every payment made on the project. It provides a useful benchmark for judging the theatrical result, but it should not be presented as an audited final cost.
The available database entries do not provide a budget breakdown. They do not establish how much went to cast salaries, sets, stunts, effects, music or postproduction. Assigning a dollar amount to any of those categories would turn an estimate into an invention.
That also puts a boundary around claims about why the remake cost what it did. A siege story can concentrate much of its action in one building, but a contained setting does not establish a contained expense. The number of locations alone cannot tell a reader what a production should have cost. The separate account of how Jean-François Richet made the remake addresses the filmmaking rather than attempting to reconstruct an unavailable ledger.
For this commercial assessment, the useful question is therefore not whether every dollar appears on screen. It is whether the reported theatrical revenue was large enough relative to the reported cost. On that measure, the film had little room to spare even before allowing for the difference between ticket sales and money returned to its backers.
The Opening Weekend: $6.5 Million or $7 Million?
The remake opened domestically on Wednesday, January 19, 2005. Its first Friday through Sunday weekend ran from January 21 to January 23. The Numbers’ financial record for the film lists that weekend at $6,502,724, ranking sixth across 2,297 theaters. Its cumulative domestic gross through Sunday was $8,040,854.
The three day weekend and the five day opening total answer different questions. The weekend figure measures Friday through Sunday business. The cumulative total also includes Wednesday and Thursday. Treating the larger figure as a standard opening weekend would exaggerate the launch when comparing it with films released on a Friday.
Box Office Mojo lists a $7 million opening instead. The two databases therefore agree on the eventual domestic total but do not present identical opening weekend figures. For a detailed account of the run, the $6,502,724 figure provides a precise benchmark. When quoting the $7 million figure, identify it as the value listed by Box Office Mojo rather than combining the two records without explanation.
The commercial reading is straightforward. A sixth place start across more than 2,000 theaters was not a breakout launch. The film had broad theatrical access, but its opening did not establish the level of demand that would make a $30 million production cost easy to recover.
Did the Domestic Run Improve After Opening?
The second weekend offered a better hold than an abrupt collapse. From January 28 to January 30, the film earned $4,289,986, a decline of about 34%, while remaining in 2,297 theaters. Its cumulative domestic gross reached $14,757,794. Those results appear in The Numbers’ January 28 weekend chart.
That distinction matters. The film’s early problem was the size of its opening, not an immediate disappearance of its audience. Keeping roughly two thirds of the previous weekend’s business helped, but a reasonable hold from a modest starting point still produces a modest total.
The same chart placed it tenth, down from sixth. It was continuing to earn money without strengthening its position among the leading releases. A percentage decline can look reassuring in isolation; the dollar amount tells the other half of the story.
Using the $6.5 million opening, its eventual $20 million domestic finish was approximately 3.08 times its first weekend. That calculation includes the midweek opening receipts in the final total, so it is not a perfectly like for like comparison with a Friday release. It does, however, show that the film earned substantial additional revenue after its first weekend without turning into a much larger theatrical success.
The final domestic gross amounted to about two thirds of the reported production budget. That is a comparison of scale, not a calculation of how much production spending the domestic release repaid.
International Earnings and the Worldwide Total
Overseas markets supplied roughly 43% of the worldwide gross in the Box Office Mojo record. Among the listed territories, the United Kingdom contributed $3,795,067, France $2,483,110 and Spain $2,065,351. These territorial figures appear in Box Office Mojo’s worldwide and international breakdown.
Those earnings added meaningful revenue beyond North America, but they did not turn the film into an overseas hit large enough to change the commercial picture. Its international total remained below its domestic total.
There is also a database discrepancy worth preserving rather than smoothing away. The Numbers reports $16 million internationally and $36,040,895 worldwide. Both records give the same $20,040,895 domestic finish. The difference between their worldwide totals therefore comes from international reporting.
The practical answer to “How much did it make?” is approximately $35.3 million worldwide using Box Office Mojo, or approximately $36 million using The Numbers. Either answer should name the database. Neither changes the assessment very much: worldwide ticket sales were only about 1.2 times the reported production budget.
Do not average the totals into a supposedly more accurate third number. An average would be a new calculation, not another reported box office result. Keeping each database’s domestic, international and worldwide figures together makes the figures easier to check.
Was Assault on Precinct 13 a Box Office Flop?
It is reasonable to describe the remake as a theatrical underperformer. Calling it a box office flop is defensible in ordinary usage, provided that label is not used to imply a documented lifetime loss of a particular amount.
The central issue is that gross receipts are not studio income. Ticket revenue is divided between cinemas and distributors, with further fees and release expenses affecting what reaches producers. The Open University’s explanation of theatrical revenue sets out that distinction between box office gross, distributor receipts and the producer’s eventual return.
Subtracting the reported $30 million budget from the $35.3 million worldwide gross produces a difference of about $5.3 million. It does not establish a $5.3 million profit. That subtraction assumes every dollar paid at a cinema returned to the production and ignores the expense of releasing the film.
An Illustrative Calculation, Not a Loss Estimate
Consider a deliberately simple hypothetical: if distributors received half of a $35.3 million worldwide gross, their theatrical receipts would be about $17.6 million. That would be well below the reported $30 million production cost, before any further deductions.
The 50% share here is an illustration, not a claim about the remake’s actual contracts. It demonstrates why “grossed more than its budget” is not enough to establish profitability. Changing the assumed share changes the result, and an actual account would require the real terms.
A firm profit or loss figure would also require information missing from these public records: release spending, territorial agreements, receipts from later distribution and the costs charged against them. There is no sound basis here for announcing an exact loss or a precise break even target.
The supported finding is narrower but still clear. The theatrical gross was weak relative to the reported production cost. That is a commercial assessment based on the available figures, not a substitute for the film’s final accounts.
Could DVD and Later Releases Have Changed the Result?
The film’s commercial life did not end with its cinema run. Its official Universal Pictures At Home listing presents DVD and digital editions, including digital purchase and rental options. It confirms those routes for later distribution, but it does not disclose their cumulative revenue.
That leaves two tempting claims unsupported. One is that the theatrical result proves the film never recovered its costs. The other is that DVD or later viewing rescued it financially. Both require revenue and expense figures that a product listing does not supply.
Later sales could contribute to cost recovery without making the initial cinema release a success. Equally, continued availability is not proof of a strong return. A title can remain in a distributor’s catalog without the public receiving a full account of its earnings.
For that reason, the worldwide box office should remain a theatrical figure. Adding an unverified DVD estimate to it would create an apparent lifetime revenue total whose parts could not be checked. The more useful distinction is between a documented weak cinema performance and an undisclosed result across all distribution channels.
What the Commercial Record Actually Shows
The remake’s figures support a consistent reading despite the differences between databases: a reported $30 million production budget, a modest opening, approximately $20 million domestically and roughly $35 million to $36 million worldwide. Its second weekend hold helped extend the run, but did not produce a major recovery.
Those numbers do not, by themselves, explain why more people did not buy tickets. They cannot isolate the effect of marketing, release timing, reviews, the cast or familiarity with the title. Attributing the result to one of those factors would require evidence beyond a revenue chart.
They also should not become a shortcut for judging the film against Carpenter’s original. The comparison of the 1976 film and the 2005 remake examines the creative differences; box office answers a separate question about the remake’s theatrical reach.
The most accurate verdict is therefore concise: Assault on Precinct 13 (2005) underperformed in theaters, and its worldwide gross did not demonstrate that it had paid for itself. Its exact lifetime profit or loss remains outside what these public figures establish.