That $70 million budget listed on here is a typo right?
This looks like a made for television or direct to DVD film. No way the budget could be that high for a movie without a single respectable name and below average special effects at best.
shareAre you for real?? $70m for a movie is nothing these days
"No respectable names"
Kellen Lutz was a main character in the twilight movies and Liam McIntyre was the lead in the Spartacus series, both of which were a hugh success.
These 2 actors alone will mean it will at least make its money back even if the story sucks.
Are YOU for real? Kellan Lutz is very, veeery far from being a respectable name. The success of Twilight had absolutely nothing to do with him. Also, he's a really bad actor and definitely not a leading man material. As for his fanbase, it's mostly comprised of teenage girls and they are hardly the target group for Hercules.
Liam McIntyre is a TV actor relatively unknown to the masses.
People aren't going to flock to theaters just to see those two in a movie, give me a break.
The trailer looks so excruciatingly bad that I doubt this movie will have any success whatsoever.
Jesus...there many worse actors out there, who could have been given the role. Like these big, bulky action stars...you know...like Dwayne Johnson!! Such a terrible actor (however I do believe his film will do better, just because it's him)
Do you really think just teenage girls spent nearly $400m on twilight, get real!! And I never said people would flock to the cinema, I said it would at least make it's money back, which it will!!
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Dwayne Johnson is a good actor your an idiot of you think otherwise
shareI like him as an action hero but he is no actor. Get real...
shareI gotta say though he's pretty friggin awesome in Southland Tales. He should his acting chops in that.
_______
http://ThatWasJunk.com
http://www.PaPeopleProd.com
You are right, I like Dwayne Johnson but he's a terrible actor.
Watch Snitch and you would realise what I'm talking about!
[deleted]
I kinda agree with you, I saw the trailer and I was like, this is going to be horrible but I decided to give it a crack only because I wanted to see Liam McIntyre.
Yes, I agree with you masses don't know him and I only watched him because I loved Spartacus.
Is there a worse recomendation than starring in Twilight...honestly.
shareLol you made me laugh even more than the typo comment, you seriously never even bother visiting boxofficemojo or checking budgets. 100 mill + budget movies, are not as normal as you say.. the number one at the moment is 40 mill, only 3 movies from the top 10 go beyond 100 mill and they have 2 to 3 weeks of separation between. Only 4 cross the 50 mill budget, the 4th is this one, Hercules, compared to The Hobbit, then the top 21, I use 21 cos the 21 in the box office is Gravity so I give you an extra movie.
Out of 21 movies, 6 get to 100 mill budget. and 8 out of 21 get past 50 mill budget.
So, actually getting more than 50 mill for a movie is quiet an achievement, 70 mill is a lot these days for a movie, while producers are searching for the next PA, SAW, Purge, Jackass, Tyler Perry.
You clearly have not much insight of the film industry "These two actors will mean it will at least make its money back even if the story sucks" lOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOl
Kellen Lutz was a main character in the twilight movies and Liam McIntyre was the lead in the Spartacus series, both of which were a hugh success.
he said "respectable", not people you know. I didn't know either of them (thank the Gods) but I very much doubt that they had any weight in Twilight crap and Spartacus Boobs being "hits"
For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco share
You can't be serious.
1) Kellen Lutz is a nobody. Period. I have nothing against the guy, is just the true.
2) "$70m for a movie is nothing these days". Wrong. You can do a lot with that amount of money. One of the most trashed directors, Michael Bay, made Pain & Gain for $26M and it looks like 10 times expensive than this one... and that film had Mark Wahlberg and The Rock...
This movie is utter crap.
I cant agree more, and I'll add that the movie 300:Rise of an Empire cost was 110 mills, with a billion times better special effects/cgi and with a billion times better actors....if we assume that this load of crap here has actors....
shareWell, both mark wahlberg and the Rock did'nt get paid for acting in the movie. Instead they agreed on geting % of the profit. If they both would get paid for acting in the movie they both would get 20 mills so that would bring the budget up it 66 mills. And the movie was Michael bay's movie, he did not get paid. If he would get paid it would be around 15-20 mills so we have a budget of 80-90 millions for pain & gain. But this movie just profs that you can make a "high budget" movie cheep.
share[deleted]
No those names aren't enough for 70 million.
Although 70 million isn't the biggest budget out there it's huge.
If you think that Gravity last year cost a 100 million, with bigger cast bigger director y'know, and a huge special effects spectacle.
It would be more expensive than 300.
So
it's probably more likely to be 700000 dollars, that's 3 zeroes to much, that's what it looks like anyway.
I think you still have a lot to learn about movie stuff.