Quote:
Originally Posted by DogofKrypton
There are TWO measures of success, and they are the only two that matter:
1. "THOR" had a production budget of $150 million dollars. Much smaller than the SR with a higher return.
2. "THOR" has a sequel curretnly in production.
|
But in this instance, the context was box office as a
general measure of appeal/popularity - the extent to which a movie has successfully tapped into the cultural zeitgeist (or has failed to do so). And under that criterion, profitability is irrelevant. Movie X is either more popular than movie Y, or it’s not. Knowledge of production budgets does not retroactively affect how many people actually saw the films.
Quote:
|
The rest is just useless fan-wank for a film that failed, when it SHOULD have succeeded if it was any good.
|
That's a dubious claim. Some positively loathe
Titanic. Does its undeniable popularity mean that those critics are wrong, that they should change their minds? I'm a big fan of Whedon's
Serenity - which bombed. But does that mean it "failed" in
all respects?
Quote:
|
Oh, and SR was in theaters almost 3 weeks longer than "THOR" was. So take that into consideration when you talk about "units sold".....
|
Also irrelevant. If a "unit" takes a week or a year to sell, it's still only one "unit" sold.