http://gamingtrend.com
October 30, 2014, 01:54:25 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Waterworld? Bah, Chump Change! Superman is teh Win!  (Read 1418 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21076



View Profile WWW
« on: September 26, 2005, 03:26:07 PM »

http://www.entertainment.news.com.au/story/0,10221,16673176-7485,00.html?from=rss

Sweet Jesus!  That is a whole lot of $$ for a movie with a cast list of "who are you?" people.
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
Dafones
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2150


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2005, 05:29:24 PM »

Wow. That is a lot of money. However, I am currious to know how much had been wasted before Singer ever took the reigns. Tim Burton had a pay or play contract, as far as I know, and ten years of production hell would most definitely add a great deal to the bill.
Logged

Now Playing: GTA - San Andreas [PS2]
Yoshi's Island DS [DS]
dbt1949
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2619


Don't tread on me


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2005, 05:34:48 PM »

You know,if they'd give me just 1/10 of that,their movie would probably be the same and I would be a happy camper.
Logged

Ye Olde Farte
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2005, 05:46:48 PM »

Quote from: "Dafones"
Wow. That is a lot of money. However, I am currious to know how much had been wasted before Singer ever took the reigns. Tim Burton had a pay or play contract, as far as I know, and ten years of production hell would most definitely add a great deal to the bill.


Plus Nic Cage's $20 million pay or play deal.  I'd be far more interested in finding out how much Singer's movie is going to cost minus all of the development hell portion.  I bet that would lop at least $100 million off the budget.
Logged
AgtFox
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3051


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2005, 05:47:02 PM »

OK...the bigger news (simply because Superman's price is probably the overall budget for the whole process including 10 years ago to now) is that Goblet of Fire cost $305 million to make?  Sheesh!

Profits have declined for the HP movies since the first one with Azkaban taking in almost $790 million worldwide compared to the first movie which took in almost a billion and Secrets which took in $876 million.
Logged

Xbox Live: AgtFox
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2005, 05:57:09 PM »

Yeah the GoF number is shocking because they can reuse sets, costumes, and other assets from previous movies.  

It will still be hugely profitable for Warners though, even with a $300 million budget.
Logged
Dafones
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2150


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2005, 06:56:09 PM »

Quote from: "Kevin Grey"
I'd be far more interested in finding out how much Singer's movie is going to cost minus all of the development hell portion.  I bet that would lop at least $100 million off the budget.


That's, um ... that's exactly what I was getting at. He he, sorry if I didn't get the words out right.

And damn, didn't know that Nick Cage had a 20 mil pay or play contract as well. Christ. What genius ever allowed anyone to put such a contract under Cage's hands to sign?

*Head to keyboard*
Logged

Now Playing: GTA - San Andreas [PS2]
Yoshi's Island DS [DS]
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21076



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2005, 07:00:47 PM »

Wow, only 790 million?  Hell, they should just stop now, they'll be starving soon. slywink
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2005, 07:02:51 PM »

Quote from: "Dafones"

That's, um ... that's exactly what I was getting at. He he, sorry if I didn't get the words out right.



The words were right- I was just agreeing with  you smile
Logged
AgtFox
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3051


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2005, 07:17:22 PM »

Quote from: "Knightshade Dragon"
Wow, only 790 million?  Hell, they should just stop now, they'll be starving soon. slywink

Well, trends for the HP movies would say that Goblet of Fire may go in the low 700s or even high 600s.  That's only 2:1 profit...granted, it's profit nonetheless.   However we need to take into account how much they will put into marketing, so that 2:1 profit will be even less when you take the worldwide marketing money into the equation.
Logged

Xbox Live: AgtFox
gameoverman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1422


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2005, 07:54:20 PM »

I think the HP movies are profitable for reasons well beyond mere boxoffice.   Considering past profit, and future expected earnings for the series as a whole, I can't imagine any studio exec saying no to a 300mill budget.

edit: On the other hand, taking that kind of chance on a new Superman movie, with only the name of the director as a hedge, is just plain crazy!
Logged
Biyobi
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 718


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2005, 08:03:59 PM »

Quote from: "Dafones"
Quote from: "Kevin Grey"
I'd be far more interested in finding out how much Singer's movie is going to cost minus all of the development hell portion.  I bet that would lop at least $100 million off the budget.


That's, um ... that's exactly what I was getting at. He he, sorry if I didn't get the words out right.

And damn, didn't know that Nick Cage had a 20 mil pay or play contract as well. Christ. What genius ever allowed anyone to put such a contract under Cage's hands to sign?

*Head to keyboard*

The same "genius" that thought Nic Cage would have made a good Superman to begin with.

*joins in the head-to-keyboard action*
Logged
AgtFox
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3051


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2005, 08:04:23 PM »

That is true, although Warner sees no money from books sold as far as I know.  In fact, I believe they only have through book 5 signed (not that anyone else would beat Warner in a bidding war).  Not sure if they see action figure sales or not, so they are just going on box office and DVD sales (which is a lot, don't get me wrong).
Logged

Xbox Live: AgtFox
Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2005, 09:54:43 PM »

Can anyone else here believe someone spent upwards of 150 million on Troy, Alexander AND Wild Wild West?

Wow.  That's not a good ROI.

Quote from: "AgtFox"
Quote from: "Knightshade Dragon"
Wow, only 790 million?  Hell, they should just stop now, they'll be starving soon. slywink

Well, trends for the HP movies would say that Goblet of Fire may go in the low 700s or even high 600s.  That's only 2:1 profit...granted, it's profit nonetheless.   However we need to take into account how much they will put into marketing, so that 2:1 profit will be even less when you take the worldwide marketing money into the equation.


Are you talking 600-700 in domestic or overall, since the international market is extremely lucrative.  There are also all of the marketing gimmicks, be they Harry Potter Goblet of Flame-colored Pepsi at Burger King, or whatever.
Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2005, 09:57:48 PM »

Troy was extremely profitable with international BO and dvd sales, so thats not a good example. Either way this is simply insane-and I have a feeling the movie isn't going to be that good (I have no real reason to say that, just a gut thing). Either way, that's just crazy.

I also didn't know the HP budget had skyrocketed so out of control. It will stake make plenty of cash, but thats a bit absurd. Studios need to start locking it up.
Logged
Laner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4693


Badassfully


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2005, 10:05:13 PM »

Pay or Play?
Logged
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18584



View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2005, 10:32:30 PM »

I think the play or pay people should be forced into the movie.

Like every 30 sec, theres a segway where Cage is in prison getting it up the ass, or eating dog shit, or being put through a series of unlikely embarassing moments. Maybe a mock wedding of him getting hitched to Roseanne with her saying something like "I swear, Nick! I *am* the lovechild of Elvis". I dunno, personally humiliating stuff. It's better that HE'S being humiliated, rather than the memory of Superman, and all the goodness Christopher Reeves brought to the role.

I mean shit, if he's gonna cost the movie that much, we may as well all enjoy it. If he breaks the contract, then they're off scott free. smile

I'd buy THAT for a dollar.
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
AgtFox
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3051


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2005, 10:52:22 PM »

My numbers came from worldwide money for HP.  Domestic has consistently gone down as well.

Domestic/Overseas/Cost/Marketing

Sorceror's Stone: 317,575,550/658,900,000/130 million/40 million

Chamber: 261,988,482/614,700,000/100 million/50 million

Azkaban: 249,541,069/540,250,000/130 million/50 million

Goblet : ?/?/305 million/?
Logged

Xbox Live: AgtFox
Dafones
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2150


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2005, 11:06:48 PM »

Quote from: "Laner"
Pay or Play?


A situation where Hollywood talent - actors, directors, producers, etc. - manage to sign a contract that guarentees that they get paid, whether the movie is made or not. They are, however, contractually obligated to participate in the filming of the movie if it does go into production, whether they begin to despise the production or not, ie. they can't drop out as some wise individuals do, jumping off a sinking ship, as it were.

Or something like that.
Logged

Now Playing: GTA - San Andreas [PS2]
Yoshi's Island DS [DS]
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2005, 11:55:17 PM »

Once you understand how far more movies get talked about, arranged, even written and cast, but never get made, you can appreciate why people want to be paid whether anything gets done or not.  

It's a fairly common arrangement, especially with 'properties', since if you want to make, for example, a movie about 'Superman', you have that locked up for the period of the contract.  Think of it like putting a non-refundable deposit on a property, actor, writer, whatever.

I first heard about this with the guy "Catch Me If You Can" was based on (Frank Abagnale Jr.).  It was rather amusing: he had been selling the movie option for years, getting paid while the movie project was being tossed around and never used.  He finally declined to renew the option, since he had a family, etc., and had second thoughts about having that chapter of his life being put on film.  It was at that point Spielbergo fell in love with making the story and got the movie made  :roll:

I guess the irony was how he spent all that time being a con and making money, and here he was getting paid by Hollywood for literally nothing all those years.  From what I heard, they were quite generous.
Logged
Big Jake
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1300


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: September 27, 2005, 12:03:06 AM »

Waterworld (1995) $175m
Wild Wild West (1999) $175m
Van Helsing (2004) 170m
Terminator 3 (2003) $170m
Alexander (2005) $155m
Speed 2 (1997) $150m
Armageddon (1998) $150m
Lethal Weapon 4 (1998) $140m
Stealth (2005) $138m (data from The-Numbers.com)

Apparently lots of money means you make a really bad movie.

ps - Stealth also is currently listed as the Highest Loser of all time, at $108m+.  By comparison, that's $50 million moe than Battlefeild Earth.  It's in danger of doubling up BE.  Now that's a failure.
Logged

The price of great bacon is eternal vigilance.
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #21 on: September 27, 2005, 12:06:41 AM »

I actually liked Waterworld.  Where else do you get to see Jeanne Tripplehorn naked?  

Battlefield Earth was also a good movie, IMO.  It isn't like Sci-Fi films have some kind of critically acclaimed history.
Logged
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21076



View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 27, 2005, 12:34:45 AM »

Quote
Jeanne Tripplehorn


Vomit.  Damn, I almost got that image out of my head and you had to bring it back up....back to therapy. :/
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
Dramatist
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 316


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: September 27, 2005, 03:26:57 AM »

I bet the underwater part of Goblet of Fire helped skyrocket the budget.
Logged
whiteboyskim
Senior Staff Writer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7850


Hard partier


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: September 27, 2005, 03:32:11 AM »

Quote from: "unbreakable"
I actually liked Waterworld.  Where else do you get to see Jeanne Tripplehorn naked?  


Basic Instinct. And it was really her there, not the "ass model" you saw in Waterworld. biggrin
Logged

Behold the glory of my new blog!
Filmmaking is vision plus faith plus balls, all 3 of which Hollywood knows little about.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.128 seconds with 73 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.04s, 2q)