Still got to add digital and blu/ DVD sales which I'm sure nowadays is were more money is made.

How much doses it have to make to be a suucess . most moves aren't going to make over 500 million or even double what it cost to make

I'm I the only person who thinks avatar is overrated ? First time I loved it but each time I watch it I like iess and less, if you add inflation etc I wonder how much older films like star wars have made

I thought conventional wisdom was a film had to make double the budget to break even; that equates to the costs of making the film and publicising it (the bigger the production costs, the bigger the publicity budget), but whether this extends to the home cinema market is something I'm not so sure about.

However, the home video market is tiny compared to how it was when Blockbuster was somewhere many would go on a Friday evening so people could sort out their entertainment for the weekend.

Because of how much theatre/cinema chains charge to show films, a vast amount of money has to be put aside for that. As such, something like Spectre, which cost $250 million to make, had to bring in $650 million just to break even and begin making its backers a profit.

This is interesting reading:

When Does a Movie Break Even at the BoxOffice?

No, you aren't. I thought it was visually stunning, and the effects superb, but the 'Smurfs in space' story was laughable, and some of the dialogue was cringeworthy.

It's nowhere near profit unfortunately. Nos explained it well a couple of posts back.

That headline is a right load of rubbish. It didn't tank at all. Just because it didn't beat Avatar does not mean it tanked.

I thought the piece was sarcastic in its use of the words 'failure' and 'tanked', something illustrated by the number of records it holds outlined at the bottom of the article. I think they are saying it only 'tanked' when compared to the box office success of Titanic and Avatar, the latter of which it may go on to beat.

Possibly, though i didn't read it that way as nowhere at all have i read that it was considered less than an outstanding success so suggesting it tanked in an article seemed like headline grabbing out of nothing nonsense.

Don't be silly, the press would never do that.


:behindsofa::laugh:

I don't doubt that it is clickbait using a headline to attract attention because the story is basically saying what a huge success Star Trek Beyond has been, and continues to be.

Now that's very sarcastic. :nod:

how many times have you read so and so low budget film that only cost 8million to make, made 33 million has been hailed a success that a sequel will follow.
So any film that makes over a hundred million + over all the cost can be classed a success surely?
Or am i missing something?

Its just typically proves that everything now is all about money, and more they make the more greedy they get the less satisfied they are.

I think it's all to do with the bottom line, with films which are cheap to produce and cinemas willing to show for a small fee potentially making a huge profit against major studio films costing hundreds of millions of dollars and having cinemas demanding more money because of 3-D projectors, D-Box seats and other expenses, plus everything that goes into trailing the film at cinemas, on TV, posters for buses, bus stops, buildings and in cinemas (also major plastic or cardboard displays in theatre foyers, special cups, and other promotions) eating into the profit margin potential of something like a Star Trek, Marvel, or Disney film.

Of course, with a known commodity, you don't need the same level of marketing when the 'consumers' at cinemas are already brand aware and just need to be told there is a new film from that series/franchise – the expenditure is all about launching the brand in the first place.

Made me recall an anecdote from Kit Harrington.

I can't remember where from, perhaps on Graham Norton's chat show or even Empire.

Harrington was talking about filming Spooks: The Greater Good on location in London, however they had to keep stopping the cameras as double decker buses kept passing with Harrington's image on them promoting Pompeii which was hitting cinemas at the time.

I always assumed the publicity/advertising was accounted for in a films budget.

Unfortunately not.

That's why Bond films have so many corporate partners. Pays for the films being made.

There are really two different budgets: production and publicity/distribution.

It's one thing to get a film made and quite another to get it in cinemas.

You would think that some film could sell themselves with little advertising. Because of what the film is.
And others i think go overboard, to extend their in youre face and you're sick of hearing about it 3months before it even hits the cinema, so no wonder it cost them a fortune.
Yet others sell them self, little unknown films with hardly any advertising but do reasonable ok, from all the film critics and reviews in papers and magazines.
Its a funny old world..

One might reasonably expect that a big budget film from a well-known franchise – the next Avengers movie, for example – would need very little in the way of publicity, but do you really think Marvel/Disney wants to take the risk of people going purely due to word-of-mouth? I don't, and believe they want as much exposure as possible to guarantee bums on seats and as many watching the film in cinemas as possible.

In terms of counter-programming, smaller movies rely on word-of-mouth, adverts in magazines, on radio, and TV, using a relatively small budget to reach the target audience (those not interested in whatever blockbuster is going to dominate the cinemas at the time) with minimal financial outlay.

You be surprised how many people i know that dont watch many films outside the Hollywood/ Blockbuster zone and think they be rubbish because its not a success if it hardly gets much publicity. And can barely name a film if it isnt.

Actually, I don't think I would. It is a bit like those who only know music that is in the charts and played on Radio One.

Probably not true but wish it was...


Lesbian Brokeback Mountain: Emma Watson & Margot Robbie Confirmed?

Shares in kleenex taking a sudden spike.:lol:

I'm sure there have been rumours of a female version since about a year after the Ang Lee film was released, probably including at least one pornographic film.

Besides, one of the best films of last year was about forbidden lesbian love: Todd Haynes' sublime Carol.

Erm...i might watch that. Maybe...[emoji5]

Thats a yes :nod: then

I've already pre-ordered the Blu ray in my head.

:laugh::nono:

Surely this must be a first japanese making a remake of a American film.
And not the other way round.

I've looked on the Internet and the only other I can find is Ghost: Mouichido Dakishimetai, a remake of the Jerry Zucker film with Demi Moore, Patrick Swayze, and Whoopi Goldberg.

I must admit, Unforgiven looks to be really good, but I don't know why this is the first I've heard of it because it was first screened at festivals three years ago.

I didn't know either, someone posted it on mark kermode appreciation site on fb.
And it work as a video and not a link dont know why :lol:

You were entering the wrong link – it either needs to be the full URL or you can use the YouTube icon (the red square with the white arrow in the middle at the right hand of the bar on the top of the box where you type) and enter the code, such as gC9PGikiOlo, between the two tags.

The thing is i tried everything everybody tells me, im on a tablet and when on youtube all it allows me to do is click on the white arrow thats allows to share on twitter fb etc, but i can only copy link to clipboard i even had a friend to have a look and he cant figure out why.

Nope - try again! ;)

You need to stick the 7P0jR-g99Vs bit in YOUTUBE tags (as per below but without the spaces).

[YOUTUBE VIDEO ]7P0jR-g99Vs[/ YOUTUBE VIDEO]

becomes...

You need to add it like this (only without the space):

[ YOUTUBE VIDEO]7P0jR-g99Vs[/YOUTUBE VIDEO]

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P0jR-g99Vs

without the 's' after the http becomes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P0jR-g99Vs

If you don't use the YouTube code option, don't use the share link from YouTube, use the URL, but remove the S from the HTTPS prefix.

As such, this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P0jR-g99Vs

Becomes this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P0jR-g99Vs

Do apologise if doing it wrong :lol: and being a nusiance :tongue1:
But im trying like said all it allows me to do it copy and thats it,
Ok ill try again with something and remove the s like you said. Even tho suzie told me few week back and still didnt work.