|
The two other movie threads active right now got me thinking of this: Movies that surprise you with how much/little money they made or cost. Baseketball: A movie with a relatively modest $23M budget and released at a time when South Park was on fire in the media. Box office: $7M I found that sort of surprising, all things considered. It was pretty heavily promoted, had a really good soundtrack, released with quite a bit of hype due to the South Park connection, I know a lot of people who've seen the film (even if they didn't like it a ton), but it still couldn't even make back it's budget. Snakes on a Plane: Made about what it cost domestically, only about $34M. Given the huge amount of internet meme hype it generated, it was far from the huge performer it was expected to be, but I still assumed it did more than that. Some reasons I've heard attributed to its lack of success were just burn out on the film by audiences before it came out and the surprisingly strong reaction to Talladega Nights that had come out at the same time. JediTalentAgent fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Feb 2, 2016 |
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterworldquote:Box office All in all, no one has experienced how incredible this film is until they watch the Fan Edit "Ulysses Cut".
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
NurhacisUrn posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterworld That's a loving crazy cost. And even crazier that it eventually broke even. in 1995.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
that lovely CGI movie Mars Needs Moms had an estimated budget of $150 million it made $39 million
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
The latest Chipmunk movie that had the misfortune of opening against Star Wars and was considered a flop the first week of release has clung to dear life and has so far accumulated about $83M domestically. So, it's still going to only end up with about $87M before it's gone from theaters, but I think a LOT of people are surprised it's done THAT well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
I can't believe that "Grown Ups" 1&2, "Just go With it" and "Jack&Jill" all had budgets to the tune of $80 million, and that they actually earned it back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
The budget of the first Saw movie was between $1 million and $1.2 million; It grossed $55 million in the US and ended up grossing $100 million worldwide. All of the Saw movies, when combined and adjusted for inflation in 2011 after the last movie, grossed a total of $953 million, compared to a total estimated budget of $67.7 million. Another interesting detail, from wikipedia: According to David Hackl, all of the traps are real objects, and not CGI. They were designed to look horrific but ultimately be safe for the actors in them. Writer Marcus Dunstan said: "It's built to function there on the day", and added: "It works. So if there's a scalping chair — there really was a chair with working gears to grind and pull your scalp back." The most potentially dangerous item was a "water box" used in Saw V, in which one of the actors (Scott Patterson, as Peter Strahm) had to keep his head submerged as long as possible. Another element of the traps is that Hackl desired a specific look of rust and menace, but he also wanted them to have a type of beauty about them." soscannonballs fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
Farmland Park posted:I can't believe that "Grown Ups" 1&2, "Just go With it" and "Jack&Jill" all had budgets to the tune of $80 million, and that they actually earned it back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE5aKNAcU2I
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
swap.avi
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
The oft-quoted Office Space, which I seem to remember as sort of reviewed well enough made only a surprisingly low $10M during its theatrical run. It, along with something like Boondock Saints (with only $30K), continued popularity HAS to be almost solely due to DVD, VHS and cable airings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator The original Terminator film cost $6.4 million to make and made $78.3 million at the box office (about $38 million in the US and $40 million is the rest of the world). Not a bad return.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
mdm posted:swap.avi You guys are assholes, those girls probably saw $5 of that benji.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
Funny that boondocks saints and office space made so little considering everyone and their mother has seen those, and probably owns a dvd copy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
I thought it was kind of hella hard to get a good handle for some films for earning and poo poo because of hollywood accounting. Like the LoTR films working out to a net loss or something because of moving numbers around
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 11:09
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Funny that boondocks saints and office space made so little considering everyone and their mother has seen those, and probably owns a dvd copy. The Big Lebowski made 17 million with a budget of 15 million.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
It's crazy how much money is spent on silly films no one really likes or cares about. If a little chunk of a film budget fell off of a truck and into my bank account I'd be set for life, but unfortunately it must to be allocated to a CGI bear, or something like that. It doesn't seem fair, to me, honestly I think they should use the money on food or housing instead of CGI bears.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
ninety posted:It's crazy how much money is spent on silly films no one really likes or cares about. If a little chunk of a film budget fell off of a truck and into my bank account I'd be set for life, but unfortunately it must to be allocated to a CGI bear, or something like that. It doesn't seem fair, to me, honestly I think they should use the money on food or housing instead of CGI bears. i think they should spend the money hiring thugs to beat you up
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
Robo Reagan posted:i think they should spend the money hiring thugs to beat you up Seems like a waste of resources but if someone wants to do that they can, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
ninety posted:It's crazy how much money is spent on silly films no one really likes or cares about. If a little chunk of a film budget fell off of a truck and into my bank account I'd be set for life, but unfortunately it must to be allocated to a CGI bear, or something like that. It doesn't seem fair, to me, honestly I think they should use the money on food or housing instead of CGI bears. it goes to the food and houses of the proud men who make cgi bears for a living these are the hairy gay man bears we're talking about right? just wanna make sure
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
Fonzarelli posted:it goes to the food and houses of the proud men who make cgi bears for a living Do people who make CGI bears truly deserve the gift of life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
ninety posted:Bernie Sanders 2016 Also, the original Halloween only had a $375,000 budget and has made a total of $47-million.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
ultrabindu posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator James Cameron may waste 2+ decades on dumb Avatar poo poo and be a psychopathic prick besides, but the dude knows how to squeeze every dime out of his budgets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
wow avatar made nearly $3 billion i heard it was garbage though
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 17:15
|
|