Time to give X-Men 3 some recognition...

[danoyse]

Of course I would rather have the higher box office figures but, not at the expense of destroying half the fanbase and hurting the future of sequels and spinoffs.

Hurting? They're moving forward with the spinoffs as we speak.

The Cyclops fans are mad, but he's not getting a spinoff anyway.

 

[ntcrawler]

Where the **** was Nightcralwer! Anmd where the maother ****ing hell was GAMBIT?!?!

NightCrawler? What NightCrawler? They pulled a Chuck Cunningham on him. Don't worry about Gambit, he had his cameo in X2. Granted it was only a name on a computer screen, but still

 

[ntcrawler]

Hurting? They're moving forward with the spinoffs as we speak.

The Cyclops fans are mad, but he's not getting a spinoff anyway.

He doesn't need to have a spinoff. Unlike Wolverine he can share screentime quite more gracefully with the other cast members. The only moments he'd need for himself could be done as flashbacks to his childhood or early days. Powers first manifesting, losing his parents, his accident, meeting Jean for the first time, etc. Otherwise he's quite capable of being a team player. Which is what I thought the X-Men were about.

 

[Theweepeople]

I have yet to see you back up your own statistics..

You already asked me this question in another thread and I gave you an answer. If your short term memory is really this bad then I don't see how telling you the same answer again will make a difference.

In fact, you've said yourself that math is not your best subject.

Yet, I have a degree in chemistry. I never said I wasn't good at math.

Now I work in marketing, so let me explain a few things. And if you respond to any of this with "this has nothing to do with my post", you are clearly not reading them.

-You're calling X3 a disappointment because of it's profitablity. These movies are ranked according to their box office gross, not the profits the studio made. When you see that list at the end of December with the Top 10 highest grossing movies of the year, it's a good bet you'll see X3 on that list.

-$238 million, not to mention $400 million+ overseas, is an impressive number. $122 million opening weekend is an impressive number. First to reach $200 million in a year after a box office slump is an impressive number. A third film that pushed it's series over the $1 billion mark is an incredibly impressive number.

In terms of marketing, you don't go on about how much the studio made on it. You point to those numbers, which as I've said, are quite impressive, and go from there....into sequels, spinoffs, etc. Which for X-Men, are already underway. It's up to the studio to decide how much they're going to spend from there.

-Want an example? Take Hugh Jackman's Broadway show, "The Boy From Oz." Big hit musical, right? Well...mostly.

The show opened in October 2003 to not-great reviews, and the box office was slow enough that the theater columnists started swinging around like vultures claiming the show was a flop, would close by Christmas, and that Hugh had basically screwed his own career by taking a year off from action movies to place a song-and-dance man.

Well, that didn't happen. Word got out on Jackman's incredible performance (I saw the show, I can say it was incredible), and by January, it was the hottest ticket in town. The show was selling out every night, and got 5 Tony nominations.

But Jackman was slated to leave the show in September, and the show hadn't recouped it's investment. Technically, it wasn't a hit. They couldn't find an actor to replace Hugh so the producers asked him to extend his contract, but he was due to start another film (and at that point, was doing 8 shows a week on a broken foot), and wasn't able to stay.

So how did they make their money back? They opened up the house seats for the last weeks of performances, sold them for a staggering $350 a ticket, which sold out in a day. And when Hugh played his final performance in September 2004, the show had managed to recoup it's investment. Even the theater vultures were waving their white flags and calling it a hit.

Was the show a blockbuster? Not really. I don't think any investor got rich off of that show. But it is still..a hit, Tony-award winning musical.

As for Hugh? His career has skyrocketed since the show, even more since the first X-Men movie. They're even restaging the show in Australia right now as an arena tour. He could come back to Broadway reading the phone book for 2 hours and people would invest their money in a heartbeat.



Now, before you respond with one of your trademark "that has nothing to do with my original post" comments...it has everything to do with it.

The show didn't make a lot of money for their investors, but it was hit...one that opened up a lot of doors to make more hits.

The fact that the show barely recouped, or that X3 might not be as profitable...is just a footnote. It's for industry people to worry about.

Okay. I agree with your commentary on Hugh Jackman however, your reasons to believe X3 was a good investment for the future of the X-Men franchise are flawed. Take a look at these numbers.

If everything you have been saying about X-Men being successful because of its worldwide gross is true then would you mind explaining to me why sequels weren't made for any of these films

Budget Domestic Worldwide
Batman&Robin 125mil 107 mil 238 mil
Hulk 137mil 132 mil 245 mil
Van Helsing 160mil 120 mil 300 mil
Godzilla 130mil 136mil 379mil
Lethal Weapon 4 140mil 130mil 285mil



There were plans to make sequels for each of these. All these films have 2 things in common. They struggled domestically to make money over their budgets and their worldwide gross was much greater than their budgets.

 

[Theweepeople]

Hurting? They're moving forward with the spinoffs as we speak.

The Cyclops fans are mad, but he's not getting a spinoff anyway.

What does Cyclops getting a spinoff have to do with anything? I don't give a crap about X-Men spinoffs. I want to see X-Men movies period. Not movies that have the title X-Men were the plots revolve around one character named Wolverine.

 

[Theweepeople]

Here are the same numbers I posted a few posts ago. This is more clear.

Budget Domestic Worldwide

Batman and Robin 125mil 107mil 238mil

Hulk 137mil 132mil 245mil

Van Helsing 160mil 120mil 300mil

Godzilla 130mil 136mil 379mil

Lethal Weapon 4 140mil 130mil 285mil

 

[danoyse]

You already asked me this question in another thread and I gave you an answer. If your short term memory is really this bad then I don't see how telling you the same answer again will make a difference.

We're talking about your statistics on this thread, to which you have very little to back up.

Yet, I have a degree in chemistry. I never said I wasn't good at math.

From the first post of your "Reality Check(Budget vs Profit)" thread:

Quote:
"Math may be one of my weakest subjects however it is easy to understand that this is not an impressive profit percentage of budget for any movie company to have. "

And while a chemistry degree is quite impressive, it hardly qualifies you as a box office expert.

If everything you have been saying about X-Men being successful because of its worldwide gross is true then would you mind explaining to me why sequels weren't made for any of these films

Budget Domestic Worldwide
Batman&Robin 125mil 107 mil 238 mil
Hulk 137mil 132 mil 245 mil
Van Helsing 160mil 120 mil 300 mil
Godzilla 130mil 136mil 379mil
Lethal Weapon 4 140mil 130mil 285mil

There were plans to make sequels for each of these. All these films have 2 things in common. They struggled domestically to make money over their budgets and their worldwide gross was much greater than their budgets.

Van Helsing, Godzilla, and Hulk were not sequels. You can't compare them to X3 because when these were made, their studios spending a ton of money trying to start a franchise, but stopped after the films opened big, dropped sharply and generated little or no interest for an immediate sequel.

The "Hulk" sequel is only just getting off the ground now--and not by Universal, and possibly even without Eric Bana.

There was really no plan by the creative team for a "Lethal Weapon 5." Donner & Co have tossed it around for awhile, but they pretty much wrapped up the series with the last film. But if they decided to do a 5th, the studio probably wouldn't have a problem with it.

And "Batman & Robin"? There has been another movie--"Batman Begins." They gave the series, which had certainly worn out it's welcome with "Batman & Robin," a break, but there is another successful Batman movie out with sequels to come.

X3 has been the 3rd part of a successful franchise, with spinoffs in development before the third film hit theaters. With X3's box office run winding down, and the inevitable DVD release planned for the fall...those spinoffs are well underway.

They intended for X3 to be the last in that series. There's no 4th movie in that series planned. If anything, they left it open for character to return in spinoffs--and if all goes well, who knows? Maybe an X4 after all.

 

[danoyse]

What does Cyclops getting a spinoff have to do with anything? I don't give a crap about X-Men spinoffs. I want to see X-Men movies period. Not movies that have the title X-Men were the plots revolve around one character named Wolverine.

Well, your point in these threads is that X3 was not profitable for Fox.

The fact that these spinoffs, which involve characters--whether you like them or not--are part of the X-Men universe, are going forward, is simply proof that X3 was successful enough for production on these to move forward.

That's all I'm sayin'.

 

[obeastdyke]

X-men has already made about 430 million WW thats not what I would call a flop. It still has China/Japan to open to.

 

[Theweepeople]

We're talking about your statistics on this thread, to which you have very little to back up.

I don't know why you keep on asking me this. My statistics are a summary of data I collected, analyzed, interpreted, and presented. What do you want me to do? Give you a summary of my summary?

From the first post of your "Reality Check(Budget vs Profit)" thread:

Quote:
"Math may be one of my weakest subjects however it is easy to understand that this is not an impressive profit percentage of budget for any movie company to have. "

And while a chemistry degree is quite impressive, it hardly qualifies you as a box office expert.

I never said I was an expert and yet I can easily recognize box office statistical trends and interpret them.

Van Helsing, Godzilla, and Hulk were not sequels. You can't compare them to X3 because when these were made, their studios spending a ton of money trying to start a franchise, but stopped after the films opened big, dropped sharply and generated little or no interest for an immediate sequel.

This is an incredibly weak argument. You do remember that Spiderman 1(budget 139 million), Pirates of the Caribbean:Curse of the Black Pearl(budget 140 million), and Chronicles of Naria(budget 180 million) all started franchises that spawned sequels.

The "Hulk" sequel is only just getting off the ground now--and not by Universal, and possibly even without Eric Bana.

The Hulk 2 script was in developmental hell for 3 years and now I have read the new Hulk movie won't be a sequel.(Probably because the first one was crap and the franchise has to start over).

There was really no plan by the creative team for a "Lethal Weapon 5." Donner & Co have tossed it around for awhile, but they pretty much wrapped up the series with the last film. But if they decided to do a 5th, the studio probably wouldn't have a problem with it.

This is not completely true. Donner made a public announcement about making another Lethal Weapon film if LW4 was very successful and the cast wanted to do another.(I remember reading an interview about Mel Gibson considering doing another Lethal weapon movie 8 years ago. Danny Glover would have come back for obvious reasons. Chris Rock had not done too many films at the time so he would have agreed.)

And "Batman & Robin"? There has been another movie--"Batman Begins." They gave the series, which had certainly worn out it's welcome with "Batman & Robin," a break, but there is another successful Batman movie out with sequels to come.

Warner Bother's stock took a hit after Batman and Robin came out and the company suffered financially even during the release of the first Matrix films. Things didn't turn around for Warner Brother's until the release of the first Harry Potter movie.

X3 has been the 3rd part of a successful franchise, with spinoffs in development before the third film hit theaters. With X3's box office run winding down, and the inevitable DVD release planned for the fall...those spinoffs are well underway.

These spinoff's could flop due to the over and under exposure of characters in the X-Men films. We've already seen 3 movies about Wolverine and Magneto. Why would fans want to see an Emma Frost comic book movie? That's the worst comic book movie idea I've seen since Catwoman and Electra spinoff classics were made.

They intended for X3 to be the last in that series. There's no 4th movie in that series planned. If anything, they left it open for character to return in spinoffs--and if all goes well, who knows? Maybe an X4 after all.

Had X3 been done right there would be future X-Men movies for sure. Singer had planned on filming X3 and X4. There are so many quality story lines in the X-Men comic. A movie company could reasonably make 6 to 9 movies with the right cast, budget, and creative team.

 

[danoyse]

I never said I was an expert and yet I can easily recognize box office statistical trends and interpret them.

But you do say your statistics speak for themselves, and they're not very clear.

This is an incredibly weak argument. You do remember that Spiderman 1(budget 139 million), Pirates of the Caribbean:Curse of the Black Pearl(budget 140 million), and Chronicles of Naria(budget 180 million) all started franchises that spawned sequels.

"Chronicles of Narnia" is a much beloved 7-part book series. Disney was looking to start a franchise that would be as successful as Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, and the sequels were planned if the first film did well. They used the Christian themes of the story to market the film to religious groups--to get in on the money that "Passion of the Christ" made. They succeeded, and the second film is being made.

"Pirates of the Caribbean" got a sequel because the first film was surprise hit. Again, it was highly profitable, but originally it was never intended to be a franchise. A good chunk of their budget on the sequels was spent just trying to get the 3 stars back, which included a letter of apology to Johnny Depp for doubting his ability in the first film (early screenings made studio execs so nervous they considered replace him).

"Spiderman" was a monstrosity of a hit--it outgrossed a "Star Wars" prequel that year. Of course it continued with sequels.

The Hulk 2 script was in developmental hell for 3 years and now I have read the new Hulk movie won't be a sequel.(Probably because the first one was crap and the franchise has to start over).

And because the first one wasn't successful enough to jump start a sequel right away.

This is not completely true. Donner made a public announcement about making another Lethal Weapon film if LW4 was very successful and the cast wanted to do another.(I remember reading an interview about Mel Gibson considering doing another Lethal weapon movie 8 years ago. Danny Glover would have come back for obvious reasons. Chris Rock had not done too many films at the time so he would have agreed.)

8 years ago? They're always talking about doing another Lethal Weapon--this is a group that loves working together, and certainly don't need the money. Notice the last film ended with their family photos running through the end credits.

Again, if they decided to do another Lethal Weapon...it would be done. The 4th might not have been the most successful in the series, but it's a popular series. But the cast & crew just haven't done it. Has nothing to do with the box office.

Warner Bother's stock took a hit after Batman and Robin came out and the company suffered financially even during the release of the first Matrix films. Things didn't turn around for Warner Brother's until the release of the first Harry Potter movie.

But Batman was, and continues to be a tentpole character for the studio--evidenced by the continuation of the series with "Batman Begins," which has a sequel in the works.

These spinoff's could flop due to the over and under exposure of characters in the X-Men films. We've already seen 3 movies about Wolverine and Magneto.

And these are popular characters--especially Wolverine. He's got one of the longest running stand-alone comics of all the X-Men characters, and has been very popular in the 3 films--which gives him a built-in audience already. It's the obvious choice for a first spinoff.

Why would fans want to see an Emma Frost comic book movie? That's the worst comic book movie idea I've seen since Catwoman and Electra spinoff classics were made.

Who's making an Emma Frost spinoff? So far, I've read the planned spinoffs are Magneto, Wolverine, and the X-kids.

Catwoman was the first film--and it underperformed and any chance of a franchise died there.

Elektra was a little-known character outside of the comic-fan universe, from a movie that wasn't nearly as successful as X-Men. Didn't have a lot going for it.

Had X3 been done right there would be future X-Men movies for sure. Singer had planned on filming X3 and X4. There are so many quality story lines in the X-Men comic. A movie company could reasonably make 6 to 9 movies with the right cast, budget, and creative team.

Possibly. We'll never know what would have turned out if he stayed.

6 to 9 movies in a series--retaining most of the same cast and crew--is rare. It took Star Wars nearly 30 years to make a 6-movie series. But there are more X-movies coming.

 

[Theweepeople]

But you do say your statistics speak for themselves, and they're not very clear..

I can't force anyone to accept statistics. I can tell you that statistics show a basketball player averaged 20 points a game. If you ignore those facts then what is the point of telling them to you again.

"Chronicles of Narnia" is a much beloved 7-part book series. Disney was looking to start a franchise that would be as successful as Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, and the sequels were planned if the first film did well. They used the Christian themes of the story to market the film to religious groups--to get in on the money that "Passion of the Christ" made. They succeeded, and the second film is being made.

"Pirates of the Caribbean" got a sequel because the first film was surprise hit. Again, it was highly profitable, but originally it was never intended to be a franchise. A good chunk of their budget on the sequels was spent just trying to get the 3 stars back, which included a letter of apology to Johnny Depp for doubting his ability in the first film (early screenings made studio execs so nervous they considered replace him).

"Spiderman" was a monstrosity of a hit--it outgrossed a "Star Wars" prequel that year. Of course it continued with sequels.

Is this a rebuttal to what I previously said? I know all of this information. The reason I mentioned these films was because you said I could not compare the previous high budget films produced to start series with X3 because they were domestic flops. If that was your argument then it was refuted with my comparison of 3 high budget films produced to start franchises that made a ton of money domestically with X3.

And because the first one wasn't successful enough to jump start a sequel right away.

.


Are you agreeing with me or did you miss my point?

8 years ago? They're always talking about doing another Lethal Weapon--this is a group that loves working together, and certainly don't need the money. Notice the last film ended with their family photos running through the end credits.

Again, if they decided to do another Lethal Weapon...it would be done. The 4th might not have been the most successful in the series, but it's a popular series. But the cast & crew just haven't done it. Has nothing to do with the box office.

Lethal Weapon may not have been the best example but, a better domestic gross would have increased the likihood of a Lethal Weapon 5 movie being made 6 years ago. Now there is no chance another Lethal Weapon gets made. Are you serious about Warner Brother's considering making another LW sequel?

But Batman was, and continues to be a tentpole character for the studio--evidenced by the continuation of the series with "Batman Begins," which has a sequel in the works.

Once again I'm not sure if this is a rebuttal to anything I previously posted.

And these are popular characters--especially Wolverine. He's got one of the longest running stand-alone comics of all the X-Men characters, and has been very popular in the 3 films--which gives him a built-in audience already. It's the obvious choice for a first spinoff.

Wolverine is popular enough to make a spinoff but, the timing for this film make be completely off. The question is will fans want to see a Wolverine movie after seeing 3 X-Men movies about him.

Who's making an Emma Frost spinoff? So far, I've read the planned spinoffs are Magneto, Wolverine, and the X-kids.

Just go to thexverse.com and look up past archives to find the Emma Frost spinoff information. I don't know anything about an X-kids spinoff. You've got to be freaking kidding me. Are Storm and Wolverine going to lead the younger X-Men into battle again?

Catwoman was the first film--and it underperformed and any chance of a franchise died there.

Elektra was a little-known character outside of the comic-fan universe, from a movie that wasn't nearly as successful as X-Men. Didn't have a lot going for it.

I mentioned these two financial flops because they have something in common with the Wolverine movie. They are comic book spinoff movies.

Possibly. We'll never know what would have turned out if he stayed.

6 to 9 movies in a series--retaining most of the same cast and crew--is rare. It took Star Wars nearly 30 years to make a 6-movie series. But there are more X-movies coming.

There are spinoff's on the way but, I am unconvinced Fox will make anymore X-Men movies. They won't have time to make X-Men movies before their contract with Marvel runs out.

 

[danoyse]

I can't force anyone to accept statistics. I can tell you that statistics show a basketball player averaged 20 points a game. If you ignore those facts then what is the point of telling them to you again.

I haven't been ignoring them. I'm just pointing out that your "statistics" aren't absolute.

Is this a rebuttal to what I previously said? I know all of this information.

Really? Because you're not using them well as examples.

The reason I mentioned these films was because you said I could not compare the previous high budget films produced to start series with X3 because they were domestic flops. If that was your argument then it was refuted with my comparison of 3 high budget films produced to start franchises that made a ton of money domestically with X3.

No, it was because they were not sequels.

Let's put it this way...if X3 was the first X-Men film, and it performed the same way it did now, Fox might not have profited enough to justify sequels or spinoffs.

But X3 was not the first X-Men film. It was the third. It is a franchise--and the series as a whole (including X3) has profited enough that spinoffs are in the works, and character story arcs were left open to bring them back for future movies.

Lethal Weapon may not have been the best example but, a better domestic gross would have increased the likihood of a Lethal Weapon 5 movie being made 6 years ago. Now there is no chance another Lethal Weapon gets made. Are you serious about Warner Brother's considering making another LW sequel?

The box office for Lethal Weapon is moot at this point. They were making sequels because they made a lot of money, but also because Donner and the creative team enjoyed making them. By the third one, they weren't even using a script anymore--just improvising from story outlines.

There's very little chance of a Lethal Weapon 5 at this point, but if that same crew decides to get back together and make one, I don't see the WB turning them away.

By the way, this is another problem with your statistics. The Lethal Weapon movies are from the late 80s-early 90s. How do you compare that box office to now, before the inclusion of DVD release windows and internet piracy?

Wolverine is popular enough to make a spinoff but, the timing for this film make be completely off. The question is will fans want to see a Wolverine movie after seeing 3 X-Men movies about him.

Off how? The soonest we'll see a Wolverine movie is 2008.

And the answer is yes. Despite the cries of certain fanboys, Wolverine is very popular character. As long as the movie is good, it should do well.

Just go to thexverse.com and look up past archives to find the Emma Frost spinoff information. I don't know anything about an X-kids spinoff. You've got to be freaking kidding me. Are Storm and Wolverine going to lead the younger X-Men into battle again?

How is Emma Frost a spinoff when she's never been in the original films?

I mentioned these two financial flops because they have something in common with the Wolverine movie. They are comic book spinoff movies.

The last appearance of Catwoman was in "Batman Returns" in 1992. That's a 12-year gap between then and the release of the "Catwoman" movie--with a different actress in the role.

"Elektra" was a spinoff of "Daredevil," which had no sequels and didn't even make as much money as the first "X-Men" movie did. The character had very little recognition outside of the comic book fans.

"Wolverine" is already in production--a character from 3 successful films that have played up a mysterious past. It's got the same actor playing the role, and scheduled to release not long after the current X-Men film. I have no idea how successful it will be, but it's got a lot more going for it than the examples you suggested.

There are spinoff's on the way but, I am unconvinced Fox will make anymore X-Men movies. They won't have time to make X-Men movies before their contract with Marvel runs out.

How many times do you need to hear that spinoffs are coming? Whether you like it or not, this falls under the X-Men universe.

 

[Theweepeople]

I haven't been ignoring them. I'm just pointing out that your "statistics" aren't absolute.

What do you mean? Are my calculations incorrect? Were you unable to perform a simple calculation?

Really? Because you're not using them well as examples.

Could you clarify how I am not using them well as examples? Why do you keep changing the subject every time a make a point?

No, it was because they were not sequels.

Did you remember how this conversation even started? I compared X3 to some high budget films produced to start franchises that flopped. You said my comparison was irrelevant simply because those films were not sequels and didn't generate enough fan interest to be successful. So then I showed you 3 high budget films produced to start franchises that made a ton of money. Your response changed from "those were sequels not generating enough fan interest to be successful" to "those were just sequels". So now are you are telling me my comparison is irrelevant simply because X3 is a sequel and despite that X-Men 3 and the 3 films I mentioned have the commonality of being films in franchises? How is that logical?

Let's put it this way...if X3 was the first X-Men film, and it performed the same way it did now, Fox might not have profited enough to justify sequels or spinoffs.

But X3 was not the first X-Men film. It was the third. It is a franchise--and the series as a whole (including X3) has profited enough that spinoffs are in the works, and character story arcs were left open to bring them back for future movies.

Yes, this maybe be true and like other franchises that were damaged or detroyed with a third film in the series X-Men may suffer the same fate. Alien 3 had a similar profit percentage with X-Men 3, it kicked butt overseas, and look at what happened to that franchise(Aliens 4 ). A spinoff was made and critics hated it. The failure of Avp 2 will destroy any chance future films involving Aliens and Predators will be made.

By the way, this is another problem with your statistics. The Lethal Weapon movies are from the late 80s-early 90s. How do you compare that box office to now, before the inclusion of DVD release windows and internet piracy?

Did you even bother to notice the only Lethal Weapon movie I talked about in my previous thread was Lethal Weapon 4 which came out in 1998?

Off how? The soonest we'll see a Wolverine movie is 2008.

And the answer is yes. Despite the cries of certain fanboys, Wolverine is very popular character. As long as the movie is good, it should do well.

Yes, 2008 is too soon since we have already had 3 wolverine movies in 6 years(2000-2006).

How is Emma Frost a spinoff when she's never been in the original films?.

Half the time I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me due to some of your bizarre responses. Of course Emma Frost was not in the original stories. That's why it makes no sense for Fox to consider making an Emma Frost spinoff. Did you bother to go the thexverse.com like I told you where there is information about Fox making this movie?

The last appearance of Catwoman was in "Batman Returns" in 1992. That's a 12-year gap between then and the release of the "Catwoman" movie--with a different actress in the role.



"Elektra" was a spinoff of "Daredevil," which had no sequels and didn't even make as much money as the first "X-Men" movie did. The character had very little recognition outside of the comic book fans.

"Wolverine" is already in production--a character from 3 successful films that have played up a mysterious past. It's got the same actor playing the role, and scheduled to release not long after the current X-Men film. I have no idea how successful it will be, but it's got a lot more going for it than the examples you suggested.

This is one of the few things we can agree on.

How many times do you need to hear that spinoffs are coming? Whether you like it or not, this falls under the X-Men universe.

Here is another one of your strange responses where you misunderstood something I said. The funny thing is you posted my quote which contradicts this response in your last post. I never said Fox would not make spinoff's. I said Fox would not make more X-Men movies. Spinoffs are not X-Men movies. Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[superion]

Here are the same numbers I posted a few posts ago. This is more clear.

Budget Domestic Worldwide

Batman and Robin 125mil 107mil 238mil

Hulk 137mil 132mil 245mil

Van Helsing 160mil 120mil 300mil

Godzilla 130mil 136mil 379mil

Lethal Weapon 4 140mil 130mil 285mil

These films did not get sequels because the worldwide gross did not cover the cost.

Batman and Robin needed to make at least $250 million just to cover the production cost not to mention marketing.

Hulk needed at least $274 and Van Helsing $320 million before marketing.

Lethal Weapon 4 just barely covered its production cost and was the 4th of the series anyway. I doubt Mel gibson was interested in doing anymore and without him the series is dead.

Only Godzilla was profitable. It may not have gotten a sequel because the people who it made rarely make sequels. The filmmakes did Independence Day which was a huge hit but they never made a sequel to it either.

X3 has covered its production cost of $210 with its worldwide gross of $430 now. It may still be in the red because it will not cover its marketing cost which may increase the overall cost of the film to $260 to $270 million. But that just tells me that Fox needs to do a better job of controlling its budgets not that X3 made to little money.

 

[Demon Within]

Oh lord, do some people need lives.

Wow, the movie is number 72!!! Oh, it's all over now.

Honestly, could you be any more obsessed with that second week drop?

And considering "Pirates" had a $55 million opening day, I have to imagine (unfortunately), that "Superman" will be joining that list quickly as well.

Theweepeople, unless you have actually conducted a survey with every single member of the general public, you do not know what they think.

In fact...head over to Entertainment Weekly's mid-year movie winners/losers article...and find this:

http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,1210545_1_0_,00.html



Other winners include Sony and Brian Grazer (for "DaVinci Code" which also received mixed reviews and had significant drop in it's 2nd weekend), Tyler Perry (for "Medea"), Vince Vaughn, and horror movies, due to the big opening day for "The Omen". I should point out that "The Omen" had significant drops as well.

"Losers" include Tom Cruise for MI3, WB for "Superman Returns" (and EW is owned be the WB) and the underperforming "V For Vendetta", "The Lake House, and "16 Blocks," Lindsay Lohan, Basic Instinct 2, and aging action stars.

And I should point out that while I was being completely sold out from every theater playing "Pirates of the Carribean" last night...X3 was still playing at every single theater.

What bomb is still playing over a month later?

V>X3

 

[Demon Within]

Oh and X3 is a disappointment.

 

[Theweepeople]

These films did not get sequels because the worldwide gross did not cover the cost.

Batman and Robin needed to make at least $250 million just to cover the production cost not to mention marketing.

Hulk needed at least $274 and Van Helsing $320 million before marketing.

Lethal Weapon 4 just barely covered its production cost and was the 4th of the series anyway. I doubt Mel gibson was interested in doing anymore and without him the series is dead.

Only Godzilla was profitable. It may not have gotten a sequel because the people who it made rarely make sequels. The filmmakes did Independence Day which was a huge hit but they never made a sequel to it either.

X3 has covered its production cost of $210 with its worldwide gross of $430 now. It may still be in the red because it will not cover its marketing cost which may increase the overall cost of the film to $260 to $270 million. But that just tells me that Fox needs to do a better job of controlling its budgets not that X3 made to little money.

What are you talking about? The production cost of a movie is included into the budget. All of the films I mentioned had a worldwide gross greater than their budget.

 

[superion]

What are you talking about? The production cost of a movie is included into the budget. All of the films I mentioned had a worldwide gross greater than their budget.

The studio only gets 55% of the BO. So your worldwide box office needs to double your production and advertising cost to put the movie in the black. That's been mentioned numerous times in these BO threads.

 

[Theweepeople]

The studio only gets 55% of the BO. So your worldwide box office needs to double your production and advertising cost to put the movie in the black. That's been mentioned numerous times in these BO threads.

Are you sure about this? The studio really only gets a little more than half of the B.O.

 

[superion]

Next update: Monday evening - Top 110+ Actuals
<<Last Weekend <Last Year View Index
TW LW Title (click to view) Studio Weekend Gross % Change Theater Count / Change Average Total Gross Budget* Week #
1 N Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest BV $135,634,554 - 4,133 - $32,817 $135,634,554 $225 1
2 1 Superman Returns WB $21,815,243 -58.5% 4,065 - $5,366 $141,642,667 $260 2
3 2 The Devil Wears Prada Fox $15,014,778 -45.5% 2,882 +35 $5,209 $63,110,544 $35 2

* Production Budget in millions. On average, studios earn approximately 55 percent of the final gross.

I copied this from BO Mojo's weekly summary of the weekend Box Office.