• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Cowboys & Aliens: Review, Discuss, Grade, Sequel, DVD **SPOILERS**

How do you grade Cowboys & Aliens?

  • A

    Votes: 13 22.8%

  • B

    Votes: 26 45.6%

  • C

    Votes: 12 21.1%

  • D

    Votes: 2 3.5%

  • F

    Votes: 4 7.0%
  • Total voters
    57
  • Poll closed .
Poirot said:
Well, I went to the BoxOfficeMojo site and they said the global take was $174m. So, with a cost of $163m, that means the studio had an $11m profit. Not much compared to other films. But, it did have the virtue of "earning out" (making more than it cost to make). DVD/BluRay sales will add to that take as will sales to PPV outlets and cable.

Whether there will be a sequel or not will probably depend on the total take. However, there may be problems getting Daniel Craig to reprise his role now that James Bond has been brought back to life. A lot of critics don't like James Bond either. But the franchise did have a history of being a cash-cow for MGM ... and if handled right, it will continue to be a cash-cow for Sony/Columbia.
Click to expand...
No, $174m for a $163m budget is not a profit. You need to add Marketing costs onto the $163m, which is generally believed to be about 50%, I believe. Therefore, the cost would be $163m + 80m +/-

Also, International Box Office is a much smaller take for the Studio than Domestic, so you need to deduct from the $174m, a percentage of the Foreign portion.
 
Studios don't get all the money from the Domestic Box Office either. I don't know the percentages (and they vary from film to film) but they get the biggest part of the first few weeks and then increasingly smaller ones (which means the studios actually want the films to be frontloaded at the box office, because that's when they get the most money). The rule of thumb I've heard most often is that studios get 50-55% of the Domestic Box Office.
 
nvek86 said:
Studios don't get all the money from the Domestic Box Office either. I don't know the percentages (and they vary from film to film) but they get the biggest part of the first few weeks and then increasingly smaller ones (which means the studios actually want the films to be frontloaded at the box office, because that's when they get the most money). The rule of thumb I've heard most often is that studios get 50-55% of the Domestic Box Office.
Click to expand...

Studios typically will find a distributor. Many times the distributor is a subsidiary of the studio, but sometimes not. The distributor will pay the studio a flat fee plus a percentage of the box office. The distributor then places the film in theaters, and charges them a flat fee and/or a piece of the box office. The studio never gets the full box office, but the fee they collect for the film to be in theaters should help cover the cost. Studios are more concerned with how many theaters the film shows in, and how long it runs. That shows how much they make more than box office.
 
Gave it a "C-", very uneven. Not the best acting I've ever seen. Non-sensical plot drivel: Aliens who can travel interstellar distances, who are hyper-intelligent, act like animals and try to chew their enemies in the 19th century, when they have frickin' laser beams and air superiority.

RAMA
 
Sindatur said:
Poirot said:
Well, I went to the BoxOfficeMojo site and they said the global take was $174m. So, with a cost of $163m, that means the studio had an $11m profit. Not much compared to other films. But, it did have the virtue of "earning out" (making more than it cost to make). DVD/BluRay sales will add to that take as will sales to PPV outlets and cable.

Whether there will be a sequel or not will probably depend on the total take. However, there may be problems getting Daniel Craig to reprise his role now that James Bond has been brought back to life. A lot of critics don't like James Bond either. But the franchise did have a history of being a cash-cow for MGM ... and if handled right, it will continue to be a cash-cow for Sony/Columbia.
Click to expand...
No, $174m for a $163m budget is not a profit. You need to add Marketing costs onto the $163m, which is generally believed to be about 50%, I believe. Therefore, the cost would be $163m + 80m +/-

Also, International Box Office is a much smaller take for the Studio than Domestic, so you need to deduct from the $174m, a percentage of the Foreign portion.
Click to expand...

On average, studios (acting as the distributor) take 50-60% of domestic grosses and 40% of foreign grosses. Exhibitors (the theaters) take the rest. And, importantly, those percentages don't account for the cost of advertising.

At least, those were the numbers as far as Jay Epstein crunched them back in 2005.

So, no, Cowboys & Aliens (which I haven't seen) won't be making a profit, at least based on theatrical box office. It will probably get closer to breaking even based upon home video sales/rentals and, very importantly, television sales.
 
Yahoo! Entertainment has placed Cowboys and Aliens on it's list of Turkey films of the year.
It's a shame to cause this movie really was fun and enjoyable unlike some of the others on the list that I saw and would rank as mediocre.
 
Oh yes, if you think this film is one of the worst of the year - you simply have not watched many films this year.

I really enjoyed C&A.
 
Mr Light said:
If the movie was unsuccessful I'd say it's more because young people don't like Westerns. That was my main complaint about it, it was basically a Western movie that happened to have aliens in it.
Click to expand...

I saw it on DVD this week. Grade D.
I felt for a Hollywood big budget scifi action movie it should have had a simple story. The story just was not there.

Technically it was great. Western vistas, cinematography, VFX, explosions, gunshots.

Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford and Olivia Wilde were all great in their roles. Paul Dano was pretty weak in his drunken son role.
Adam Beach was good and touching at times.
I never even knew it was Sam Rockwell playing the doctor. He disappeared behind that beard.

I cannot recommend this movie to anyone.
A $163 million budget movie and no I will not recommend it.
I still am shocked it was greenlit unless it looked better on paper somehow. It was the story that was lacking.
Maybe it was the directing of Favreau?

I enjoyed the last act of the film for its action.
 
I think the direction was fine, but yeah, the story was definitely lacking. A story about cowboys fighting aliens just had the potential to be so much more exciting and scary.
 
I just watched this for the first and I really enjoyed it. It wasn't anything groundbreaking, but I thought it was a very fun, well acted, well directed, and well written alien invasion movie. I can't vote in poll, but if I could I would give it an A. Does anyone know if the novelization was any good?
 
I caught this on PPV a few weeks ago and thought it was pretty good. If there was a flaw it was that it could have used a little more humor, ala "Iron Man."
 
Captain Craig said:
It was based off of a comics graphic novel.
Click to expand...

I read the graphic novel a few months ago. Completely different story than the movie with no similarities whatsoever. But really fucking cool. Although I enjoyed the movie, the graphic novel is probably better. Though I doubt the movie would have done any better in the box office if it were a straight adaption.
 
Watched it last week and really liked it. Ford, Craig and Wilde were good. It had been a while since I'd seen the Kurgan in a film. I always enjoyed his work.

All-in-all, just a fun, action movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top