Quoted from Bogey So far, grossed $273 million - monster profit.

715 mil worldwide. The movie made a killing.

Quoted from Bogey "Just another contained film...usually run cheaper...more likely to turn a profit." Budget was $100 million - not too cheap. So far, grossed $273 million - monster profit.

That's why I put 'usually' in the sentence. I couldn't give a fuck how much it made.

Quoted from DustinBowcot That's why I put 'usually' in the sentence. I couldn't give a fuck how much it made.

You should care, Dustin, as it's very important to understand how movies make money, how much they make, and maybe even why they make money or lose money.

To me, it's very interesting.

$237 million? Holy f uck.

Deserves every penny. I've seen it three times and spent about $150 on this film (took a bunch of dates to see it). And honestly, I don't regret it. This movie wasn't just a film. It was an experience.

Quoted from albinopenguin $237 million? Holy f uck. Deserves every penny. I've seen it three times and spent about $150 on this film (took a bunch of dates to see it). And honestly, I don't regret it. This movie wasn't just a film. It was an experience.

If the film helped you get a root bro, then the budget is worth it

Nothing gets the ladies going like George Clooney, generic back stories, and vomit inducing special effects.

Quoted from Dreamscale You should care, Dustin, as it's very important how movies make money...

I know how they make money. PR. Most Hollywood films are sold before they come out... a little like a Mayweather fight. By the time the film comes out people are pumped ready to see it, and by that time only need the smallest of returns from the film to reinforce their belief.

Quoted from Dreamscale very important to understand how much they make

I already know it made a lot, just like many other must-see films people are suckered into watching. I just don't ride that train.

Quoted from Dreamscale and maybe even why they make money or lose money.

Hollywood makes money because of great PR and (often) a mediocre script. A shitload of CGI seems to help too.

Indie's make money because they are great films.

What else is there to know?

Dustin, I hear what you're saying, but it's so far from the truth.

So many big tentpole pictures do not make money - as in compared to their budget.  many, many films now rely on the overseas returns to turn a profit.

If you pay attention to sites like boxofficemojo.com, you'll find that the vast majority of releases, big or small, do not turn a profit in their theatrical runs.  DO they make it back when you factor in VOD, Blu-Ray, DVD, rentals, cable, satelite, etc?  Hard to say, really, but thta's the ongoing mystery and for me, it's a mystery that's very entertaining to follow.

I'm pretty good at seeing a trailer and seeing what the budget is and predicting whether or not it will do well.  Strange that all the powers that be can't do this, or maybe BO losers are OK in certain ways.  I don't know, nor do I get it.

Jeff tried to film himself when a sex toy experiment went horribly wrong and got stuck in his clacker.

He couldn't budget

@Jeff Well then perhaps you'd be suited as a producer. All it takes is an eye for what sells and what doesn't... initially, anyway.

Personally, I prefer to just write wherever my mind takes me, then let someone else figure it out and tell me what direction they want it to go in. Stories can go anywhere, so many different directions and not every producer will have the same vision.

As you pointed out also, there is no sure-fire remedy for success, aside from films that have had so much PR it's impossible to fail.

Quoted from DustinBowcot As you pointed out also, there is no sure-fire remedy for success, aside from films that have had so much PR it's impossible to fail.

You're absolutely correct.

It just comes down to how much these movies take in - some more than others.

Some flicks make lots of money, but are deemed failures.

Some flicks are critical darlings, but not BO winners.

Then, we have the pure crap remake horror movies that are made dirt cheap and can't help but turn a dime.

Then, finally, there are Stevie's scripts that hopefully won't see the light of day, because they'd be BO atomic bombs!  

I think it's called the 'dribble down ' effect.
You have a film, say MAN OF STEEL, it's gonna make money. Worldwide. This is their baby that is gonna give birth to a whole load of other things.  Come back to Superman in a moment. * Maybe

The Weinsteins, for example. DIMENSION and DIMENSION XTREME, their direct to DVD stable.

Blockbusters are meant to rake in the serious cash from all over the world. That includes DVD, Blu-ray, netflix whatever deals they have now. It's not just America, its GLOBAL.
Cinemas, theatres are unfortunately on the wane. Companies know this. They don't spend $20M on billboard advertising for nothing. Internet ads are probably cheaper so let's just wait for that one.

Point is, you make a BLOCKBUSTER. The profits from that film create budgets for smaller movies. Regardless of genre, these range from $40-20 - MEDIUM RISK or $20-10M - LOW RISK.

TONS of movies are made from these profits and loads are released within budget restrictions. They make profit, they fund the next blockbuster.

Goes round and round.

Jeff, it would be interesting to see results of a company over the scale of a year. Not one individual movie. A YEAR. Scale the profit and loss. You might be surprised.

But there's no guarantees.

Look at John Carter. And the Lone Ranger. I've seen neither but I've heard they are both awful. I've also heard they are both good, some say really good. But both lost a fortune.

They say to make their money back most movies have to take double their budget to cover marketing and other costs. So in that case, each would have had to take 400 mill to make money. Neither made anywhere near.

And then there's After Earth. I like Will Smith, He's good at what he does. And like most I used to like Shyamalan. I care not about reputation, though it's bound to have some effect. I watched this on DVD a few months ago just to see how bad it was. It's not bad. It's truly painful. Smith does what he can, but everybody in it looks terrible. It deserved to make nothing and it did just that.

All this is about there's no guarantees. Some will say Gravity was bound to make money. It could have been different. It could have flopped. I've seen plenty here who are indifferent about it.

The people who made Carter, Ranger and After Earth didn't think they would lose money. They would have been sure they were going to make lots and maybe more.

R

R,

They don't gamble anymore. That's what I'm saying, They used to. Now, it's not a gamble. It's a calculated choice made by several people in several different organisations. Think I'm lying?

Gravity was gonna make bank. It was nailed on, Promotion sealed that.

Look at THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and MAN OF STEEL. Newspapers give 5 out of 5. Come on, really? Both are fairly awful films yet they are "SPECTACULAR" and all this kind of media rubbish.

I don't follow you. I point out the flops but you just talk of success. Losing a load of money is a gamble that didn't work out.

I like both MOS and TDKR. The latter a lot. But that's beside the point. Reviews have known to be ignored. Look at Bay and Transformers. They were almost universally panned by critics. Yet made a mint.

If your argument is they stop a flop by promoting it why do so many films fail to profit. They spent a lot of money on Mars Need Moms, Green Latern.

They still do. 47 Ronin? RIPD. Both dead on arrival.

As far as how a film with do - Nobody knows anything.