|
Post by icelemt38 on Aug 18, 2011 12:58:10 GMT -5
It wasn't until last year that we saw a lot of smaller budget movies of quality make so much money. On any given day, if you take the top 10 grossing movies of the year, no doubt half of them have really bad reviews or so so reviews while really really great movies don't tend to crack the top then grossing of the year unless they're made by James Cameron or Chris Nolan, lol. Re these westerns, I have absolutely no idea why The Lone Ranger needs to cost 250M! Or why it even has to cost over 100m! UC isn't quite a good comparison because other than it being in the same genre, it's budget was said to be 30m?
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Aug 18, 2011 13:19:04 GMT -5
Re these westerns, I have absolutely no idea why The Lone Ranger needs to cost 250M! Or why it even has to cost over 100m! UC isn't quite a good comparison because other than it being in the same genre, it's budget was said to be 30m? Here's your answer Irene - I guess everything has to do with special effects: www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=22619
|
|
|
Post by mamaleh on Aug 18, 2011 14:51:34 GMT -5
Werewolves? Whoa, kimosabe!
|
|
|
Post by vivianl on Aug 18, 2011 15:23:21 GMT -5
$ 215 million is still mind-boggling! Cowboys & Aliens costing $ 163 million already seems too much. But Johnny Depp is one of those few actors who can turn even the crappiest movies into money machines.
Whenever such big numbers are mentioned, I can't help but think when will come a time when production companies are willing to throw in such serious bucks without second thoughts for a Hugh starrer movie. (And it's not X-Men/Wolvie).
|
|
|
Post by icelemt38 on Aug 18, 2011 15:31:48 GMT -5
Well RS is a big investment I think at 80M for a Hugh movie. But honestly I don't see any actor outside of Depp and probably Will Smith that could carry movies with budgets that huge that isn't already built around a well known and well followed franchise of sorts.
I'd be so happy if Hugh stayed in the modestly budgeted realm of film, no need for these huge things because if they fail, they fail hard(Australia, VH anyone?) but then again when they're big, then all the power to them.
|
|
|
Post by vivianl on Aug 18, 2011 15:51:25 GMT -5
$ 80 million cannot be compared to $ 200 million+. I was more contemplating about those really ridiculously massive movie projects that are made based on the trust for certain actors. And Johnny is one such actor if not the only.
Australia and VH did not fail, if we think about ROI, 'cos they both recouped no? It is true though, that they underperformed their expectations, and maybe this is one thing that made the studios realise, Hugh is not (yet) ready to carry such huge things (as you call them).
|
|
|
Post by cath112 on Aug 18, 2011 22:27:27 GMT -5
Re these westerns, I have absolutely no idea why The Lone Ranger needs to cost 250M! Or why it even has to cost over 100m! UC isn't quite a good comparison because other than it being in the same genre, it's budget was said to be 30m? Here's your answer Irene - I guess everything has to do with special effects: www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=22619omg too funny. I was going to respond to Irene's question by saying that obviously they had to budget for robots, aliens, werewolves, zombies and lots of crashing machinery and high-tech explosions, just what any successful modern Western would need. I didn't actually think that would be real, even though a budget that high requires some serious special effects. Well, "serious" might not be the word I'm looking for.
|
|
|
Post by icelemt38 on Aug 19, 2011 1:40:20 GMT -5
$ 80 million cannot be compared to $ 200 million+. I was more contemplating about those really ridiculously massive movie projects that are made based on the trust for certain actors. And Johnny is one such actor if not the only. Australia and VH did not fail, if we think about ROI, 'cos they both recouped no? It is true though, that they underperformed their expectations, and maybe this is one thing that made the studios realise, Hugh is not (yet) ready to carry such huge things (as you call them). I honestly don't know if you can say Australia and VH recouped when counting advertisements and budget(Both had huge promotional costs). But the reason they're failures is because of their domestic BO. No movie is considered a hit unless they do well in domestically. Hugh is nowhere close to being trusted in those huge films in the same way that Will Smith and Johnny Depp are. The reason why I brought up RS is because even though the budget is relatively small compared to these Depp projects, this is pretty much Hugh's movie comparison. RS being a hit would prove to many that Hugh is a draw outside of Wolverine and in a way is a baby step to that sort of stardom which opens up a whole new world of scripts and offers. The impact of RS could be absolutely huge for Hugh and I suspect it will be a hit.
|
|
|
Post by Kristin on Aug 19, 2011 4:17:13 GMT -5
$ 80 million cannot be compared to $ 200 million+. I was more contemplating about those really ridiculously massive movie projects that are made based on the trust for certain actors. And Johnny is one such actor if not the only. Australia and VH did not fail, if we think about ROI, 'cos they both recouped no? It is true though, that they underperformed their expectations, and maybe this is one thing that made the studios realise, Hugh is not (yet) ready to carry such huge things (as you call them). I honestly don't know if you can say Australia and VH recouped when counting advertisements and budget(Both had huge promotional costs). But the reason they're failures is because of their domestic BO. No movie is considered a hit unless they do well in domestically. Hugh is nowhere close to being trusted in those huge films in the same way that Will Smith and Johnny Depp are. The reason why I brought up RS is because even though the budget is relatively small compared to these Depp projects, this is pretty much Hugh's movie comparison. RS being a hit would prove to many that Hugh is a draw outside of Wolverine and in a way is a baby step to that sort of stardom which opens up a whole new world of scripts and offers. The impact of RS could be absolutely huge for Hugh and I suspect it will be a hit. Are we hoping that Real Steel does for Hugh what Independence Day did for Will Smith then? Hmmm... Except that I kinda like that there are still people who don't know who Hugh is, LOL. ETA: Johnny Depp is in 3 of the top 10 grossing films of all time, worldwide totals over 1 billion. Will Smith is in none of the top 10, but Daniel Radcliffe is in 1 of the top 10, and 6 of the top 20 worldwide-grossing films. So does that make him a bigger box office star than Will Smith? Nope. Because Will has more films to his credit and it seems to me that Will has a bunch of films that have made a lot of money because of his star power - the Harry Potter movies would have made a lot of money with or without Radcliffe. It will be interesting to see how his film career goes now that HP is over and done with. Meanwhile, Tom Hanks is the 4-billion-dollar man. Wow. Didn't know his films made that much total. Even Hugh's films total have grossed over 1 billion, and he's just barely in the top 100 by gross at 91. Crazy. I'd never looked at this stuff before.
|
|
|
Post by wombat on Aug 19, 2011 5:08:12 GMT -5
This is going to be a bit of a ramble as each time I try to put together a coherant piece of analysis if falls apart.
Big Budget SFX = International Box Office.
In 2009, the top 5 world-wide box office list was
Avatar Harry Potter Ice Age Transformers 2012
2012??? No big stars (John Cusack?), lots of SFX, not a big hit in the US but huge internationally.
Having big stars is also supposed to help internationally - it takes longer for someone to get established internationally, but when they do, the stardom lasts longer. That's possible the reason films like Knight & Day, The Tourist, do comparatively well internationally.
Westerns haven't done too well in the US for decades (with a few exceptions). In the rest of the world, they're dead, some going straight to video. So adding lots of SFX and Johnny Depp to a project might just lift The Lone Ranger out of a dead genre and sell it to a worldwide audience.
Of course, that's what Cowboys & Aliens is trying and until it opens around the world, it can't be written off. I'd take a bet that it will easily beat True Grit's worldwide numbers and will become the highest grossing "western" since "Dances with Wolves".
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on Aug 19, 2011 13:36:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wombat on Aug 19, 2011 14:24:24 GMT -5
Meanwhile, Sherlock Holmes had a budget of $90m and grossed over $500m worldwide.
|
|
|
Post by vivianl on Aug 19, 2011 17:06:39 GMT -5
This is going to be a bit of a ramble as each time I try to put together a coherant piece of analysis if falls apart. Big Budget SFX = International Box Office. In 2009, the top 5 world-wide box office list was Avatar Harry Potter Ice Age Transformers 2012 2012??? No big stars (John Cusack?), lots of SFX, not a big hit in the US but huge internationally. Having big stars is also supposed to help internationally - it takes longer for someone to get established internationally, but when they do, the stardom lasts longer. That's possible the reason films like Knight & Day, The Tourist, do comparatively well internationally. From a revenue point of view, I can't see why the studios would think domestic sales is more important, as most movies grossed higher cross-border. Also, money and power is shifting towards the East, so sooner or later, more movies will try to adapt to the tastes of that part of the world. What you said about international stardom is especially true in Asia. People there love American movie stars! But only the really big ones. Which is why I think Hugh being a name in the US may still not mean anything in the East. Of course no doubt the Japanese will love him to pieces after RS and The Wolverine. LOL
|
|
|
Post by nmb on Aug 19, 2011 18:04:54 GMT -5
It is always good to be in a hit movie. Hollywood is about money. Money means power these days. I wish all the best for Hugh & RS. I can't wait to see it.
|
|
|
Post by Kristin on Aug 19, 2011 18:05:40 GMT -5
This is going to be a bit of a ramble as each time I try to put together a coherant piece of analysis if falls apart. Big Budget SFX = International Box Office. In 2009, the top 5 world-wide box office list was Avatar Harry Potter Ice Age Transformers 2012 2012??? No big stars (John Cusack?), lots of SFX, not a big hit in the US but huge internationally. Having big stars is also supposed to help internationally - it takes longer for someone to get established internationally, but when they do, the stardom lasts longer. That's possible the reason films like Knight & Day, The Tourist, do comparatively well internationally. From a revenue point of view, I can't see why the studios would think domestic sales is more important, as most movies grossed higher cross-border. Also, money and power is shifting towards the East, so sooner or later, more movies will try to adapt to the tastes of that part of the world. What you said about international stardom is especially true in Asia. People there love American movie stars! But only the really big ones. Which is why I think Hugh being a name in the US may still not mean anything in the East. Of course no doubt the Japanese will love him to pieces after RS and The Wolverine. LOL The film industry is primarily based in the US - that's why domestic BO matters most to the big studios. Of course there are plenty of foreign films - from Europe, Asia, etc and living there, you know them. In the US, the majority of the popularity is not going to see all that many foreign films if they're not in English; therefore, while you'll get tons of American-made films, Americans as a group don't get to see a whole lot of foreign films, either because they're only shown in big cities or, like I said, they have to endure subtitles, which, even though I've seen a lot of great foreign films myself, I've always found having to read the text while watching the action slightly disconcerting, and I don't think I'm alone there. America definitely does not import as much as it exports as far as film and television goes.
|
|
|
Post by icelemt38 on Aug 19, 2011 21:57:00 GMT -5
Kristin is completely right, it all gets down to where was the movie is made and all high grossing movies are American made, therefore American grosses are the most important when looking at success. Mamma Mia! was huge overseas, but you'll never see it touted as one of the hugest successes ever when talking about American successes.
And Kristin, isn't looking at BO and numbers interesting? That's why I'm so into this stuff and follow it so closely week by week. Big stars who perform movie after movie are extremely hard to come by. Put Depp in a lesser known film and there's no guarantee it'll do well. It's not like the old days where studios are built around stars, now it's all about pre known characters and franchises, as well as remakes and things based off known material. Rarely are original works that successful these days, and the ones that are aren't necessarily because of the stars involved. Inception would have done well even without Leo in the lead. So this is where I really don't even care or want Hugh to ever reach that point of stardom, I'm more concerned about him getting into films of great material. I can live with Hugh never ever doing a big budget movie again as long as his movies are of quality. Now if he could make films that make money and are real good, then all the more power to him, and I believe RS really could be that ticket of his. Hugh is a teensy different from Smith and others because he started with Wolverine, so he's already known as that and that's his money success film, guaranteed. He doesn't need another, now if RS does well and has sequels, it's not bad because it's so modestly budgeted for a big movie.
|
|
|
Post by cath112 on Aug 19, 2011 22:37:42 GMT -5
I'm torn because I want RS to do well for all involved, but the idea of sequels leaves me cold. I agree with everything you said about wanting high quality movies for him so I'd just as soon he wasn't tied up doing RSII and III. Okay Okay, I know I haven't even seen it yet. However, it could far exceed my expectations and be great and I might really really like it. I still don't want him tied up doing boxing robot movies. Just imo, of course.
|
|
|
Post by icelemt38 on Aug 20, 2011 1:45:15 GMT -5
I guess I liken it to the Wolvie movies now, only RS movies cost less and require less of his time. Also RS doesn't require him to bulk up or change his body in any way so with that, he won't need to spend anymore time outside of shooting on the movie. Wolvie movies take up so much time, but since he's getting to that age where it just isn't that smart to continue those movies, it's good to have a blockbuster you can fall back on. Especially one that follows a solid first movie.
Having said that, I think Hugh knows that it's all about the balance of films, so like after Wolverine, Hugh has Les Miz, and then perhaps a whole lot of other movies he'd do before the RS sequel would even be ready. Even better is lately it does seem as though he has passed on a few stinkers or big budget movies that wouldn't really help his career any like that SJP movie we talked about, Snow White and the Huntsman, and Fantastic Voyage. Looks like he is being more picky now then he's been in the past. Good thing is that means that most likely he's been getting more interesting projects he'd rather spend his time on. Hopefully RS gets him some big time recognition as a viable BO lead and Les Miz gets him into the big leagues.
|
|
|
Post by wombat on Aug 20, 2011 1:54:39 GMT -5
He's coming to the end of his Wolverine days, so replacing that with a Real Steel franchise isn't so bad so long as he does interesting stuff in between.
I watched a subtitled film last night and after a short time I forgot it was subtitled. It wasn't an "art film", just a regular thriller, so I got caught up in the story. The brain adapts remarkably well. Unfortunately, I'd still be put off by subtitles when choosing which film to watch.
The media, especially online, seem to judge a film by its US box office so that's probably reflected at the studios. It's more of a marketing issue than a financial one, though. At some level, the studios are acknowledging the importance of overseas grosses even if it's only PR spin following disappointing US box office. It probably also comes in when greenlighting a project - a film based on a popular british children's book is going to be easier to finance than a western because of the expectation of overseas box office. (I chose "british" there because I was thinking of titles that are better known outside the US).
|
|
|
Post by narrows101 on May 22, 2012 14:02:49 GMT -5
|
|