Cult Labs

Cult Labs (https://www.cult-labs.com/forums/)
-   General Film Discussions (https://www.cult-labs.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=563)
-   -   Up and Coming Films (https://www.cult-labs.com/forums/general-film-discussions/7372-up-coming-films.html)

trebor8273 21st August 2016 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Harker (Post 502198)
Surely that's still a current profit of $46m?? seems mad that thats considered a failure.

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

Susan Foreman 21st August 2016 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Harker (Post 502198)
Surely that's still a current profit of $46m?? seems mad that thats considered a failure.

‘The Force Awakens’ takes over $2 Billion, Is considered a Box Office Failure

trebor8273 21st August 2016 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan Foreman (Post 502207)

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

Nosferatu@Cult Labs 21st August 2016 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trebor8273 (Post 502200)
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 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?

Nosferatu@Cult Labs 21st August 2016 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trebor8273 (Post 502208)
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

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.

Demdike@Cult Labs 21st August 2016 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Harker (Post 502198)
Surely that's still a current profit of $46m?? seems mad that thats considered a failure.

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

Demdike@Cult Labs 21st August 2016 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan Foreman (Post 502207)

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.

Nosferatu@Cult Labs 21st August 2016 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs (Post 502217)
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.

Demdike@Cult Labs 21st August 2016 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs (Post 502225)
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.

iank 21st August 2016 09:32 PM

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


:behindsofa::laugh:


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright © 2014 Cult Laboratories Ltd. All rights reserved.