It's production budget may have been around $160 million but it's probably half that again in advertising.
No. The production budget was $130 million. The other $30 million is advertising.
It's production budget may have been around $160 million but it's probably half that again in advertising.
If only profitability was that simple for films.X Men is now into profit margin as it stands on around $223 million with the Domestic total just short of $100 million after taking in $25 million over the weekend.
In second place, X-Men: First Class pulled in an estimated $25 million, retreating 55 percent. That was the second-smallest percentage drop yet for an X-Men, behind X2: X-Men United (53 percent) and ahead of the first X-Men (57 percent). It was also a marked improvement over X-Men Origins: Wolverine (69 percent) and X-Men: The Last Stand (67 percent).
If only profitability was that simple for films.X Men is now into profit margin as it stands on around $223 million with the Domestic total just short of $100 million after taking in $25 million over the weekend.![]()
All depends on what it does in the next couple of weeks but to compare
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Domestic - US$179.88m
Foreing - US$193.20m
X-Men: First Class (to date)
Domestic - US$100.75m
Foreign - US$123.34m
but here's the lesson, if they can make more money making a shitty film like Wolverine, than First Class, than the industry HAS to, for it's own solvency be inclined to furthermore ever after only produce shitty films.
Why the hell would they want to lose money?
But then there's our minds, the punters minds to consider that we expect a good film to make more money than a bad film, and a good film is therefore a massive faliure if it only makes as much money as a bad film because we have unfair expectations.
but here's the lesson, if they can make more money making a shitty film like Wolverine, than First Class, than the industry HAS to, for it's own solvency be inclined to furthermore ever after only produce shitty films.
Of course, they're not going to say "Let's just make bad movies, since they are the ones making money", however, they will look at the stories, the stars, the Director, etc of those "bad" movies that made money, and work towards duplicating that success. And, if they succeed in duplicating the same story beats, type of stars and director, then it's likely, theya re going to be churning out what some would consider to be a "bad" moviebut here's the lesson, if they can make more money making a shitty film like Wolverine, than First Class, than the industry HAS to, for it's own solvency be inclined to furthermore ever after only produce shitty films.
Why the hell would they want to lose money?
But then there's our minds, the punters minds to consider that we expect a good film to make more money than a bad film, and a good film is therefore a massive faliure if it only makes as much money as a bad film because we have unfair expectations.
The making of a good or a bad movie costs the exact same. There is no way to determine, from cost alone, what quality of work you will have.
There are cheap bad movies as there are cheap good movies as there are expensive good movies and expensive bad movies.
Yes, studios watch the bottom dollar. If this summer of comic book movies doesn't do well (and if they are good), the studios AREN'T going to go, hey, for the same price, let's just make BAD movies.
No.
They won't do that.
They'll just make different kinds of movies.
Video Piracy doesn't work like that.
Just because one might download 10 to 20 movies a night, ie 140 movies a week, in no way does that mean that that one as a pirate would ever go to the cinema 140 times in one week which would equate to some gross dollar sum in any part of the world you are living requiring you to double your weekly gross income to supplicate which would mean you wouldn't have hours in the day left over to sleep little lone play.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.