Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
I'm totally ignorant of that. 
But comparing the numbers of other big films (not the blockbusters)...and knowing that those "Expendable" films were number one at the box office when they came out...I'm theorizing that they made damn good money (also the fact that they have now made a third one...I assume the studio would have stopped after the first one if it hadn't been a big money maker).
I saw that the Spiderman movies for instance made about twice as much as the Expendables. But that's a mega-blockbuster.
The Expendables is never gonna be that. But by that measure...neither are 99% of the movies released.
I'm just saying that when you make a movie for $80 million and it makes $274,470,394 I call that "damn good".
But I definitely bow to your knowledge of how those numbers come out. I don't have a clue.
But if that's not good, then I guess all the movies that were not number one this week are REALLY bad financially.
How the heck does Hollywood even stay in business if they can't profit off of those numbers?
Is everything just riding on the one or two super-gigantic blockbusters each year? |
It makes you wonder why they spend $150 million(or more) on a movie when it needs to make 3 times that amount to be considered a major moneymaker. Not every movie can be The Avengers or Titanic. Most movies that cost that much tank by Hollywood accounting standards.
Something like Paranormal Activity, that costs a few grand to make, and ends up making more money than the latest Tom Cruise movie --- that's a real profit.