the golden compass

posts about #thegoldencompass more →
The Most Expensive Movies Of The Past Decade
Twilight's First Day Is A Hit - But What Happens Next?
Golden Compass May Be Solo Dark Material
"Golden Compass" Is Steampunk, Not Fantasy

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

iCurmudgeon
09/29/09

In reply to The Most Expensive Movies Of The Past Decade
@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.

Where are the trademark lawyers?
Reply

iCurmudgeon was starred iCurmudgeon was unstarred

TheGreenRanger
09/22/09

In reply to The Most Expensive Movies Of The Past Decade
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.
Reply

TheGreenRanger was starred TheGreenRanger was unstarred

Jeb_Hoge
09/22/09

In reply to The Most Expensive Movies Of The Past Decade
It's interesting how much this list coincides with the most disappointing movies of the past decade.
Reply

Jeb_Hoge was starred Jeb_Hoge was unstarred

Shadowdagger
09/22/09

In reply to The Most Expensive Movies Of The Past Decade
You know, you don't have to invest over millions of dollars to make a great movie.
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.
Reply

TheGreenRanger promoted this comment Edited by Shadowdagger at 09/22/09 3:17 AM Shadowdagger was starred Shadowdagger was unstarred

TheGreenRanger
09/22/09

@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.
Reply

TheGreenRanger was starred TheGreenRanger was unstarred

Pope John Peeps II
09/21/09

In reply to The Most Expensive Movies Of The Past Decade
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.
Reply

Pope John Peeps II was starred

disatess
09/21/09

In reply to The Most Expensive Movies Of The Past Decade
umm I think some serious flaws in these budgets numbers .... 230 million for quatum of Solace , I think not .
Reply

disatess was starred disatess was unstarred

Annalee Newitz
09/21/09

@disatess: Do you have a source for the budget of that movie?
Reply

disatess promoted this comment Annalee Newitz was starred Annalee Newitz was unstarred

disatess
09/22/09

@Annalee Newitz: I checked box office mojo they claim 200 million not 230 . got that was boring as hell movie ,who pay somuch for a crappy film .
Reply

disatess was starred disatess was unstarred

Trai_Dep
09/21/09

In reply to The Most Expensive Movies Of The Past Decade
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.
Reply

Trai_Dep was starred Trai_Dep was unstarred

Batmanuel
09/21/09

@Trai_Dep:

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.
Reply

Allen_Richards promoted this comment Batmanuel was starred Batmanuel was unstarred

Allen_Richards
09/21/09

@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.
Reply

Allen_Richards was starred Allen_Richards was unstarred

ceptri
09/21/09

In reply to The Most Expensive Movies Of The Past Decade
That's a real shame that Master and Commander didn't turn a profit. I would have loved to see that franchise continue.
Reply

Evil Tortie's Mom: R.O.A.C.H. promoted this comment ceptri was starred ceptri was unstarred

snarklenyc
09/21/09

In reply to The Most Expensive Movies Of The Past Decade
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".
Reply

Chip Overclock promoted this comment snarklenyc was starred snarklenyc was unstarred

Chip Overclock
09/21/09

@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.
Reply

Edited by Chip Overclock at 09/21/09 5:44 PM Chip Overclock was starred Chip Overclock was unstarred

amygdala
09/21/09

In reply to The Most Expensive Movies Of The Past Decade
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.

Now $105 million seems like chump change.
Reply

Allen_Richards promoted this comment amygdala was starred amygdala was unstarred

Allen_Richards
09/21/09

@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.
Reply

Allen_Richards was starred Allen_Richards was unstarred

brett108
09/22/09

@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.
Reply

Allen_Richards promoted this comment brett108 was starred brett108 was unstarred

Allen_Richards
09/23/09

@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
Reply

Allen_Richards was starred Allen_Richards was unstarred

AshThePirate
09/21/09

In reply to The Most Expensive Movies Of The Past Decade
Just a general observation.

Mega Budgets seem to equal crappy movies
Reply

geiko promoted this comment AshThePirate was starred AshThePirate was unstarred

geiko
09/21/09

@AshThePirate: I saw that too. But as long as they make money, they'll keep making them.
Reply

geiko was starred geiko was unstarred

Anekanta - killed by a cacodemon
09/21/09

In reply to The Most Expensive Movies Of The Past Decade
I'm curious to know how much the original Matrix movie cost to make, compared to how much it made back.
Reply

Sevius
09/21/09

@Anekanta: According to Box Office Mojo, it cost $63 million to make and took in $463,517,383 worldwide.

A wise investment, that.

[www.boxofficemojo.com]
Reply

omgwtflolbbqbye promoted this comment Sevius was starred Sevius was unstarred

GreyHammer
09/21/09

@Sevius: now can you compare the loss of revenue due to two non existant shitty sequels
Reply

GreyHammer was starred GreyHammer was unstarred

CoffinDodger (If the typos crap. Blame my keyboard)
09/21/09

In reply to The Most Expensive Movies Of The Past Decade
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!!!
Reply

Nasdaf
09/21/09

In reply to The Most Expensive Movies Of The Past Decade
Can we extend the timeline to include Waterworld?
Reply

Nasdaf was starred Nasdaf was unstarred

Alexander Card
09/21/09

In reply to The Most Expensive Movies Of The Past Decade
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.
Reply

stereobot promoted this comment Alexander Card was starred Alexander Card was unstarred

stereobot
09/21/09

@Alexander Card: That is quite the allegation. Do you have evidence?

Re: the $400 hammers, that sounds more like fraud and embezzlement.
Reply

stereobot was starred stereobot was unstarred

zark169
09/21/09

@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.
Reply

Evil Tortie's Mom: R.O.A.C.H. promoted this comment zark169 was starred zark169 was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion