Budget: $90 000 000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend: $10 812 861 (USA) (23 October 2015)
Gross: $27 356 090 (USA) (25 December 2015)
Just enough to pay Vin...
Wow, really a major failed... we have seen theses films over and over again, and we don't need a bad actor to try to recreate something that was done 100x better...
Last Movies: - The Forest: 7/10
-The Revenant: 9/10
- Sisters: 7,5/10
- Joy: 3/10
Worldwide - 108M
So film made 139+M in cinemas
DVD,bluray,streaming rental/sales - more profit
Movie was alright. Not the worst I've seen. Good rental
but it's a major failure in USA... it did not meet expectations, even the worst Jason Statham film is bankable in the US of A. It need to work in USA to be called a hit. Here, it is clearly a BO Flop. It makes money enough to pay the theaters yeah
Last Movies: - The Forest: 7/10
-The Revenant: 9/10
- Sisters: 7,5/10
- Joy: 3/10
& why exactly MUST it work in the US? Why can't it earn money elsewhere and be... Well not successful but not a flop? I could be wrong, but it sounds like you added that because you want this to be a failure.
shareThe movie studios get a higher % of the gross in the US than in most other countries, so it is important to a film's success to have high box office in the US.
This film will not likely make back its production costs and advertising based on the rule of thumb of making double its total budget to break even. A rule of thumb that to be fair, I don't completely agree with as a movie that had a £200m budget is not likely to have had advertising costs much less than one that was £300m.
Ah, I hadn't considered that. =/ It's a shame, it wasn't the worst movie I've seen, i thought it was a fun concept.
Long Live Coulson!
All the studio cares about is that it makes a profit by the time it plays out re worldwide theatrical releases, home video releases, licensing deals, etc.
shareGood, this movie does not deserve to make money
I'm gonna refuse you an offer you can't make
There is a difference between foreign and domestic gross though. The studios only get about 50% of the foreign gross.
shareFirst we never know the true production costs. Sites like
box office numbers just repeat what they hear from the horses mouth.
Secondly the cost are usually padded with marketing, which
is differently paid by the studios. Sometimes they swap
marketing costs with lowering the price of huge film deals
for TV, streaming and On-Demand. So in practice, they don't
pay that money, they just don't make as much on certain deals.
Also, the studios often inflate production cost to avoid paying taxes.
Such movies like this are counted in a 10-20 year income.
Even if this movie makes only 2 mil a year with bluray, on-demand
and streaming, it will make another 40mil.
With 120m currently it easily made his production cost minus
the marketing and then add another 40m the next 20 years.
In this day and age, having a formula not to flop greatly is
worth a lot. That is the reason they are planning another one.
I would like to see what your evidence is for what you're saying.
shareHollywood Accounting is well known. And it works in both directions:
Return of the Jedi and Harry Potter are both "flops":
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/
Hollywood can even pay itself for inflated marketing costs
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/01054720744/hollywood-accounting-how-19-million-movie-makes-150-million-still-isnt-profitable.shtml
Who would report a cost of 60 million if they can report 120 million? Inflated costs are the pinnacle of hollywood accounting.
Yup, that sequel this movie seemed to want= not happening.
If you guys are interested in a review: https://youtu.be/aewnocCNVOI
Trying to go for an informative, and hopefully something people think is funny, youtube channel so hope you guys like. Thanks.