Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
bronco67, I just looked up the domestic for the first one...it was $103,068,524 for domestic box office.
And looks like the budget was $80,000,000.
With a worldwide box office of $274,470,394 that's what I would call making money "hand over fist" for sure.
And why would you think the "main" number is domestic? The money spends just as good from domestic and international doesn't it?
Anyway...it was the number one movie at the box office when it came out.
The second one did even bigger numbers:
The budget for "2" was $100.000,000 so it cost $20,000,000 more to make.
But it ended up making $305,428,192 worldwide so it made more money than the first one did.
I don't know man...those are big numbers in my mind.
Not "Spiderman" type numbers. But pretty damn good money for a movie of mindless action and fun.
|
It's not considered successful. Look into how box office success is gauged. Maybe the second one could be considered much better money-wise, but there's a lot more that goes into the movies' cost besides the raw budget you see.
This is an extreme example, but the first Paranormal Activity cost 15 grand to make and grossed $193 million worldwide. That's hand over fist.
If a movie cost 30 million to make, and made Expendables size box office, that's very successful.
I guess it's all about our own definitions of what constitutes a major success. I don't really care how much they make, because I like the Expendables movies no matter what. But they're not "successful" by most Hollywood yardsticks. This subject is something I've been paying attention to for a long time as a movie buff. A movie has to gross 3 to 4 times it's budget to be considered a money maker. DVD can help later.