@SeverinoLimpet: I thought Oakley had a lock on unobtainium. I still have a pair of their hideously expensive sunglasses with an "unobtainium frame" around here somewhere.
We aim to entertain. Well, we also respect women, and someday, homosexuals as well. Signs that as a nation, we are advancing. I need to remind myself of this from time to time, so many dbags out there... Its just they (dbags) make the biggest scene, the good people just keep going on with their lives.
@Shadowdagger: I wouldn't say today's directors are any worse than directors of yesteryear, its just what the public pays for. Movies are a business, and movies that don't follow the basic plot for success usually don't get made, nobody wants to invest on a risky business venture. I mean sure, transformers 2 sucked, but strictly from a business perspective, it was a brilliant success. As long as people keep paying for these big budget disasters, they will continue to get made. Sometimes you get lucky, an actual original/good movie is made, but otherwise you have to search a littler harder to find the hidden gems that don't make it nationwide.
Haha. 317 million to make a movie which, when appearing on my television for free on a Sunday evening, I changed the channel away from to watch a nature documentary.
Do keep in mind that when discussing US Box Office, the exhibitor keeps (roughly) half. So the studio's cut is correspondingly smaller and the break-even that much more tantalizingly, beckoning from afar.
I thought it was a bit of a sliding scale, with the studio getting almost all of the box office for the first few weekends, and the exhibitor getting a larger percentage over time. The idea being that with a blockbuster, the studio makes money off of the first weekend ticket sales, while the exhibitor makes their profits off of selling popcorn to the throngs coming out to see Megan Fox run in slow motion.
@Batmanuel: Yep, and that's whey the opening weekend is so crucial these days. When I was putting myself through college 15 years ago, the split was 90/10 studio/theater for the first weekend and it scaled every week afterwards. by the time a movie hits second run, you're usually at or past the 50/50 split.
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, literally brought me to my wit's end. I cannot believe that much money was spent on that ridiculous ridiculous movie. I feel like each production team should also have a moral compass that serves a kind of filtering function. Someone to say, things like, "well, actually Gore Verbinski, we COULD give Johnny Depp more eyeliner for a paltry $2 million more, or we could feed 2 million people for a day with that amount and still produce a crap movie that will be loved by the masses".
@snarklenyc: I agree. It's a rare movie that, given that I took the time to actually go to the theatre to see it, I consider a complete waste of my time and money. That movie achieved that rare distinction.
Remember when Cutthroat Island was the biggest money-loser of all time? In 1995 dollars: Total cost: $115 million. Total US box office earnings: $10 million.
@amygdala: i'm one of those dorks who's on BoxOfficeMojo every day or so checking for information. Just going by figures from other movies in that time period, if you factored in 14 years of inflation, you're looking at a movie costing just under 200 million and banking under 20 million. 180 mill is a pretty big chunk of change.
@Allen_Richards: Thats a 5% inflation rate. Is inflation actually that high over the last 14 years on average? I need to check the Consumer Reports database.
@brett108: My numbers there are a bit exaggerated, and actually based on numbers from 1991 (TERMINATOR 2, specifically). You'll ahve to scale it back a bit for 1995
Wow..thats a lot of cash. Can I have some. I have an idea for a film involving robotic lesbians, 2 headed monkeys and a jar of Marmite. If you front me 300 million I could get Bay in to direct the action and slow mo and we can make Optimus prime breakdance. Give me cash!!!
this is money laundering, plain and simple. they dont spend 220 million to make it they write 220 million in checks but it's like the old 400 dollar hammers the .gov used to buy it's just laundering.
@stereobot: The $400 was always a misrepresentation of facts because the cost was an averaging of many things being bought in one batch. Essentially the gov got 10000 hammers and some missiles, all at $400 each.
09/29/09
Where are the trademark lawyers?
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
A true artist makes art even out of dogpoop.
But yeah, today directors seem to be blinded by all those fancy CGI effects rather than telling a good and original story.
Very sad.
Oh well, nevermind.
09/22/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
09/22/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
I thought it was a bit of a sliding scale, with the studio getting almost all of the box office for the first few weekends, and the exhibitor getting a larger percentage over time. The idea being that with a blockbuster, the studio makes money off of the first weekend ticket sales, while the exhibitor makes their profits off of selling popcorn to the throngs coming out to see Megan Fox run in slow motion.
09/21/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
Now $105 million seems like chump change.
09/21/09
09/22/09
09/23/09
09/21/09
Mega Budgets seem to equal crappy movies
09/21/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
A wise investment, that.
[www.boxofficemojo.com]
09/21/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
09/21/09
Re: the $400 hammers, that sounds more like fraud and embezzlement.
09/21/09