EVA Posted September 8, 2016 Author Share Posted September 8, 2016 Either THE WOLFMAN (2010) or WORLD WAR Z, depending on if 1) you classify WWZ as "horror," which I have a hard time doing, or 2) you believe that the wolfman movie really cost $170 million, because boy is it not on the screen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niners Fan in CT Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 4 hours ago, RIPPA said: Final Destination - $23 Million (Worldwide Gross - $122.8 Million) 2 - $26 Million (Worldwide Gross - $90.4 Million) 3 - $25 Million (Worldwide Gross $117.7 Million) 4 aka THE - $40 Million (Worldwide Gross - $186 million) 5 - $40 Million (Worldwide Gross - $157.8 million) I am surprised there aren't yet plans for another unless I missed the announcement. With how overseas has expanded I'd imagine a sequel could do over $200M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Speaking of where did the $$$$ go: Spoiler Jack's nose, I guess That Jack Nicholson/Michelle Pfeiffer werewolf movie had a higher budget than JURASSIC PARK in, I think, the same year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 Vanity Fair had a great article on why World War Z ended up costing $400 million and totally spiraled out of control. Essentially: Brad Pitt's production company were inept idiots and had no real idea how to handle a project of this size. In fairness, the film ended up breaking even and made (something?) of a profit. Zombies are cool these days and all. But it is still insane what a debacle the making of that film ended up becoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 17 hours ago, piranesi said: That Jack Nicholson/Michelle Pfeiffer werewolf movie had a higher budget than JURASSIC PARK in, I think, the same year. I saw that in the theater - I can't remember if I had a pass to the screening or if I paid for it Clearly I am part of the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 Wait, there's a Jack Nicholson/Michelle Pfeiffer werewolf movie?!? Literally, this is the first time I've heard of this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Another thing, I think "known" actors often hurt horror films, because they depend on getting sucked into the story even more than most genres do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 36 minutes ago, Brian Fowler said: Another thing, I think "known" actors often hurt horror films, because they depend on getting sucked into the story even more than most genres do. There's something to this. The guy on B Movie t.v. put it this way (paraphrasing) One of the things that makes Texas Chainsaw Massacre so scary is that the cast is all complete unknowns so you can't be like 'I'm not worried because that's Rock Hudson and I've seen him in other movies" and instead you're like "HOLY SHIT THESE AREN"T ACTORS AND I THINK THERE"S A CHANCE THIS IS SOME KIND OF SNUFF FILM!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.H. Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Shit I'd rather watch a 70s horror flick with a cast of unknowns than a big budget horror flick with a name actor. I'll take "The Touch of Satan" (which is pretty awful with no budget) over the Del Toro Wolfman (which is awful with an insane budget) any day! James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_MJ_ Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 I remember that Nicholson WOLF film. Popped up on tv every once awhile back in the day, but to hear it came out the same time as Jurassic Park is something else. It felt late 80s more than early 90s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerome Miller Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 Sully demolished Snowden, Blair Witch, and the completely unnecessary Bridget Jones 3 this weekend. I really like Sully. The first half-hour is kind of a struggle with Clint's politics getting shoe-horned in, but once they focus on recreating the crash "Rashomon" style, it finds its balance and becomes a really great film. And for those of you complaining about "Sully" fictionalizing the NTSB investigation, you do realise that Rudy was 99% fiction, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 When do we get a Sully film from the point of view of the geese, though? They were the true victims here. They didn't ask to be horribly chopped up to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 On 9/18/2016 at 0:37 PM, Jerome Miller said: Sully demolished Snowden, Blair Witch, and the completely unnecessary Bridget Jones 3 this weekend. I really like Sully. The first half-hour is kind of a struggle with Clint's politics getting shoe-horned in, but once they focus on recreating the crash "Rashomon" style, it finds its balance and becomes a really great film. And for those of you complaining about "Sully" fictionalizing the NTSB investigation, you do realise that Rudy was 99% fiction, right? Fuck Rudy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerome Miller Posted December 27, 2016 Share Posted December 27, 2016 Passengers is headed for Bombsville. My local network affiliates were inundated with new ads stressing it's a romance and all the great reviews it's supposedly getting. I love Chris Pratt, but he wasn't the main reason Jurassic World and Guardians were huge hits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Wilson Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 I only read a few 'predictions' but Rogue One so far seems to be out-performing what I saw predicted. A few places said it "might" top the money list for movies that came out in 2016 but it almost already has for domestic and it may for global also which would be impressive since Star Wars isn't as much a global brand as super hero movies. I now can't find an updated predictions but I assume that 550 mil/1 billion won't be an issue. I never went into the spoiler thread since I just saw it this week myself, but I am not sure why it did better than expected. I think people forget sometimes that if movies come out in Dec/Jan, are quality movies, and appeal to a large base it is likely to do really well. There is so little competition and people are off work, movies just kinda hover for months. It seems to happen every year, I remember that Frozen shocked people with how much it made but it just kinda floated along making money every weekend. As a Star Wars fan I am glad it did well, as since its not a fluffy happy kids movie I was afraid if it didn't meet expectations that Disney would dumb down future off-shoot movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Remember how last year, Universal came out of nowhere to have the best year ever at the box office? Disney shattered it this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death From Above Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 No big deal just 5 of the 7 highest grossing films on earth how was your day (And basically certainly 5 of the top 6 by the time Rogue One is finished, maybe even sweeping the top 5.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Is there an official count on how long it took them to make back the 4.billion they paid Lucas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bustronaut Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Less than a year, most likely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Wilson Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 It would be hard to tell between movies, shows, toys, etc. but also subtracting marketing, production costs, additional salaries, etc. I don't imagine they technically have made it back yet since their "take home" for the two movies is probably less than 1.3 billion (I saw an article that had Disney's profit on Force Awakens at 780 million which seems reasonable and Rogue One will be less than that), and I can't see them making a profit of over 2.7 billion on a cartoon, video games, toys, and other merchandise to get up to 4 billion. I would guess based on no real knowledge of how their finances work that they would have made their money back by the time the Han Solo movie finishes up. Most of the articles I have seen estimate that Force Awakens generated about 6 billion in sales, but that is before subtracting all the costs so I assume Disney doesn't see it as making their money back quite yet. Also, keep in mind they paid for it in 2012 but it was three years before the movie started bringing in the bulk of their profits, so they spent a lot more than 4 billion I am sure in those years on additional staffing, R&D, etc. I am sure their books are more complicated than anything I could ever imagine. There are also those things like Disney can show previews for their other movies before Star Wars that benefit indirectly but its hard to put a price tag on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death From Above Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Purely anecdotal but when in Walmart before Christmas there might have been literally a third of the entire toy sections dedicated to Star Wars merch. I've honestly never seen any one brand with that level of saturation. Hell, it was good luck finding much else. I'm actually a bit curious/frightened what the total Star Wars toy empire is worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Just remember, in 76 Fox had so little faith in the movie, they let Lucas keep the merchandise and story rights, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazzil Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 12 hours ago, Brian Fowler said: Remember how last year, Universal came out of nowhere to have the best year ever at the box office? Disney shattered it this year. Already? Wowee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Ha ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts