but im glad it is. with a budget of 165 million, and box office of 405, I dont know how the film made money... normally the Budget we get doesnt include the advertising, and I remember seeing this everywhere.
but the costumes and sets and scenes were soo amazing and intricate. its likes this films a game set on high video settings. and in comparison every other film looks like its on low graphics
Sometimes movies of a more artistic nature(that win awards) don't necessarily have to worry about metrics as much. Sometimes the potential legacy of a movie is taken into consideration. There are many movies that haven't done well in the box office, but go on to being watched and enjoyed many years later; so eventually, the movie does make back it's money and then some. The Wizard of Oz for instance didn't make money when it was first released, but over 80 years later it has become one of the most beloved motion pictures of all time. All these movies nowadays that make lots of money in a month are soon forgotten. Sure, they made their money, but will they carry on for years to come? Many to most will not. That is probably why Dune is getting a chance to finish the story with part 2. Due to the fact that young people generally aren't interested in older movies, they don't understand that some movies have a staying power that most recent blockbusters just don't have.
shareohhh I agree 100%./ this was clearly made by a skilled filmmaker and true auteur/ directer vs say Michael bay.
problem in those films NEVER get sequels. im happy this one seems to be getting one.
It's not really a sequel, but a continuation of book one of Dune. The book Dune is epic and one movie(like David Lynch did in the 80's) just doesn't cut it. I've read the book and the second half is really really good. Looking forward to it.
sharebro tis a sequels. its a second/followup instalment to the first film. I know how you Dune heads are :p my buddy came over and we talked about dune, him and his wife and daughter were obsessed with the books. and he would pretend to be them, outraged and upset anytime I didnt know every bit of lore.
I agree though one film would not cut it. I am also looking forward to the second film. my point was Hollywood almost NEVER makes a second film when the first lost money., but as you said as I watched this, I felt that "for artistic reasons we have to see his vision and a second film"
but Hollywood rarely sees it that ways. directions artistic vision for a sequel film only get made if it lines up with financial reasons
[deleted]
its one of the most beautiful films ive ever seen. clearly you dont agree with me or Modica. but for artistic reasons I feel the story needs to be completed and deserves to.
if it was some Michael bay film, no ti doesn't. if its one of the most beautiful artistically amazing films ive ever seen, then yes. its like an artist painting half a canvass. and already its one of the best ever done. it'd be a shame IMO to not finish the painting
[deleted]
I guess if Bloodshot gets a sequel, it's all downhill from there.
shareI agree it shouldn't be made, Dune movies will never be widely popular.
share
Well, the rule of thumb is that studio pictures need to make double the budget to break even... so £405 from £165 may represent a profit. As you say, it depends on the advertising budget and other costs, which we don't know.
It's also worth pointing out that studios are almost never honest about budgets anyway. It's routine to use accounting tricks and fake shell companies to inflate budgets in order to reduce on-the-books profits. And some movies are deliberate tax write-offs (although I'm sure that's not the case here)... But -- point is -- there's really no way of knowing on publicly available figures what a film actually cost to make, whether it turned a profit or how much of a profit it made.
'Hollywood accounting' is all smoke and mirrors.
the budget we are given never includes marketing budget which for these big action moves can be huge.. also studios make about 50% on American box office, 30-40% on foreign.
"It's also worth pointing out that studios are almost never honest about budgets anyway. It's routine to use accounting tricks and fake shell companies to inflate budgets in order to reduce on-the-books profits. And some movies are deliberate tax write-offs (although I'm sure that's not the case here)... But -- point is -- there's really no way of knowing on publicly available figures what a film actually cost to make, whether it turned a profit or how much of a profit it made.
"
OHHH for sure. they never want to "make money". that means taxes. for sure ive read about some of it.
the budget we are given never includes marketing budget which for these big action moves can be huge
could be hoping on post theatrical sales which could push them into profit. and true if they are getting a second then ya probably shading accounting means a profit in some way. and its a huge risk when the first had such a huge budget to gamble on another loss so likely ya it profited decently
sharecould be hoping on post theatrical sales which could push them into profit
I realize I’m replying to a three month old topic, but I should just point out for the record that the first movie was simultaneously available on HBO Max while it was in theaters, which would’ve obviously diluted the box office numbers for the film, at least domestically.
share