Page 1 of 1
Bad year for Holywood
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:51 pm
by Gob
Using the "double the budget" formula on 50+ million dollar movies.
1. 47 Ronin *
Budget: $200 million
WW BO: $43 million
Amount needed to break even: $357 million
2. Jack the Giant Slayer
Budget: $195 million
WW BO: $198 million
Amount needed to break even: $192 million
3. R.I.P.D.
Budget: $130 million
WW BO so far: $78 million
Amount needed to break even: $182 million
4. The Lone Ranger
Budget: $215 million
WW BO so far: $261 million
Amount needed to break even: $169 million
5. The Wolf of Wall Street *
Budget: $100 million
WW BO so far: $34 million
Amount needed to break even: $166 million
6. Ender's Game
Budget: $110 million
WW BO so far: $88 million
Amount needed to break even: $132 million
7. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty *
Budget: $90 million
WW BO so far: $53 million
Amount needed to break even: $127 million
8. Walking with Dinosaurs *
Budget: $80 million (according to IMDB)
WW BO so far: $54 million
Amount needed to break even: $106 million
9. White House Down
Budget: $150 million
WW BO so far: $205 million
Amount needed to break even: $95 million
10. The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones
Budget: $60 million
WW BO so far: 80 million
Amount needed to break even: $40 million
11. The Internship
Budget: $58 million
WW BO so far: 77 million
Amount needed to break even: $39 million
12. Red 2
Budget: $84 million
WW BO so far: 142 million
Amount needed to break even: $26 million
13. After Earth
Budget: $130 million
WW BO: $244 million
Amount needed to break even: $16 million
Re: Bad year for Holywood
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:10 pm
by Long Run
Should have made a deal with the devil if they wanted to make money.
Re: Bad year for Holywood
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 8:01 am
by MajGenl.Meade
Shorely, shome mishtake? Not with the good name of Holy wood to maintain, LR.
Re: Bad year for Holywood
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:42 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
It's all my fault, I went to see none of them. As a matter of fact, I did not go to the movies at all in 2013.
and I'm not going tonight either
Re: Bad year for Holywood
Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:54 pm
by Joe Guy
The movie makers have had a bad spell.
Re: Bad year for Holywood
Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 2:02 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
Joe Guy wrote:The movie makers have had a bad spell.
Poor babies.
Re: Bad year for Holywood
Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:47 pm
by dgs49
Do I understand correctly that the amount need to break even is ADDITIONAL? Or is it TOTAL (which means some of these are profitable)?
Re: Bad year for Holywood
Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:48 pm
by dgs49
Never mind.
Re: Bad year for Holywood
Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:54 pm
by Rick
Wow I thought this had something to do with the Vatican
Re: Bad year for Holywood
Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 2:02 pm
by TPFKA@W
I have seen 2 movies on that list, both rented from the red box thing for $1.29 each. Of the 2 one was decent. I don't think I have been to a movie theater in at least 2 years and possibly longer.
Re: Bad year for Holywood
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:21 pm
by dgs49
One of the most fascinating aspects of "Hollywood" is the opaque decision-making process by which the studios decide which of the thousands of scripts that fly in their doors every year that they will produce. It is a decision that has huge economic ramifications, and a wrong one could go a long way toward bankrupting a film production company.
Like wildcat oil drilling, they usually lose money but hope to cash in with the occasional "blockbuster."
Still, it is easy to look in retrospect and call the decision-makers "fools" for having bet on some film that turned out to be a turkey. Same for television programs.
You know they must have many, many late-night conversations in which they commiserate with one another, saying that the public was just too unsophisticated or stupid to appreciate the great work of art that was placed in front of it.
Re: Bad year for Holywood
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:57 pm
by Big RR
More likely that the public was too intelligent/sophisticated to buy the crap they were handed. Look at the 12 films heading this thread, nothing artisitic among them; big budget blockbusters, mostly with lots of special effects and explosions (probably not in Wolf of Wall Street, but then I haven't seen it). Apparently you can sometime lose by underestimating the intelligence/sophistication of the American public.
Face it, to draw people to the theaters they lard movies up with special effects that don't look as good on TV. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Re: Bad year for Holywood
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:08 pm
by Gob
I've seen two of those, (they were time killers on the flight to the UK,) Red 2 and White House Down. I could have seen "After Earth" too, but I would rather stare at my thumbs for two hours than watch a Will Smith mawkfest.
Apart from Catherine Zeta Jones's legs they were total wank. (I could possibly have phrased that better.) And even old Mariette Larkin is looking a bit rough these days..
Hollywood needs to realise that not all of us are low IQ, ADD, teenagers from Buttfuck Nevada.
Re: Bad year for Holywood
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:46 pm
by Reality Bytes
I too have only seen 2 of those films ironically Gob the same 2 that you did, Red 2 and White House Down I completely agree that White House Down is crap of the worst kind but I absolutely loved RED 2 and have watched it several times - admittedly though I didn't go to the cinema to see either of them.
A far better terrorists attacking the White House movie is Olympus Has Fallen, I rather enjoy a ridiculous plotted movie provided that there are an impressive amount of bullets & explosions some half decent acting and a script that doesn't take itself too seriously which is why I really like the Expendables movies and can't wait for number 3 with Mel Gibson & Harrison Ford & Wesley Snipes! That one is definitely going to be worth the price of a cinema ticket.
Re: Bad year for Holywood
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 1:17 pm
by oldr_n_wsr
The first Expendables was on TV last night. I watched Drugs Inc.
I said a prayer for those featured that they may someday find their way into the program and get their lives back 
Re: Bad year for Holywood
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:55 pm
by Sue U
I saw Red 2 as well, and thought it was a silly bit of fluff, but fun to watch the cast, especially John Malkovich being a nut and Helen Mirren being hilariously deadpan. (Mary Louise Parker got a few good lines but I thought her character was not written or used to best effect, and her talents were largely wasted.) But RB, I have to vehemently disagree on The Expendables. We were lured into the theater by ads and trailers for the first one indicating it was some sort of comedy, or at least a very tongue-in-cheek affair, but I found it to be just a depressingly noisy, violent, and ploddingly written and executed "action" film. I won't make that mistake again.
I saw Jack the Giant Slayer on the tee-vee a couple weeks ago; worth a miss.
Re: Bad year for Holywood
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:31 pm
by Reality Bytes
It might be worth you trying Expendables 2 Sue - if only for Chuck Norris it too is a noisy action film but I thought the humour was more obvious in the 2nd one and they don't take themselves too seriously - well actually they do but thats what makes it funny in a way lol