- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Was magnificent 7 considered a flop?
Posted on 12/22/16 at 7:59 am to biglego
Posted on 12/22/16 at 7:59 am to biglego
So I try and watch Gods of Egypt last night since a few, in this thread, said they liked it. Had to turn it off a few minutes in. Talk about "whitewashing" a movie. Not that I'm a movie snob or that it has to be historically accurate but I want my Egyptian Gods looking or at least sounding Egyptian.
1
Posted on 12/22/16 at 8:18 am to YNWA
Yeah the gods looked different than the populace. That was addressed in the movie, and it's not a big deal. There's also a black god if you watch further.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 8:20 am to devils1854
quote:
90 mil budget, made 93 mil domestically, another 70 in foreign markets.
Not really a flop, but not that successful either. It will probably end up breaking even once its rights are sold to the movie channels, and you add up sales and rentals.
Sounds like it has already more than broken even.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 8:45 am to LSUBoo
quote:
Sounds like it has already more than broken even.
You cant take the raw numbers and just say it made money. The budget doesnt include marketing, or any other money spent not on the actualy budget. Studios dont get 100% of domestic grosses. Depending on the theater, the studio loses about 10-15%, and they get even less on foreign money.
Most people use the 2.5 rule. You multiply the budget by 2.5, and that puts you in a good range to see if the movie made money. Using that, the movie would need to make $225 mil to break even. Worldwide, it made about $165. Now, once you add in people buying the movie, renting it, the studio selling broadcast rights, and any money made from marketing, you're probably looking at it being close to breaking even.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 9:15 am to devils1854
quote:
You cant take the raw numbers and just say it made money. The budget doesnt include marketing, or any other money spent not on the actualy budget. Studios dont get 100% of domestic grosses. Depending on the theater, the studio loses about 10-15%, and they get even less on foreign money.
Most people use the 2.5 rule. You multiply the budget by 2.5, and that puts you in a good range to see if the movie made money. Using that, the movie would need to make $225 mil to break even. Worldwide, it made about $165. Now, once you add in people buying the movie, renting it, the studio selling broadcast rights, and any money made from marketing, you're probably looking at it being close to breaking even.
P&A is usually pretty close to production budget. If they spent 90 million making it, they spent 75 million or more marketing it.
MGM got film tax credits on this though, so that will be a nice 20 some odd million to the bottom line.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 9:24 am to devils1854
To be honest, I thought the budget did include their marketing costs... if it doesn't, then yeah, different ballgame.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 9:26 am to Jack Daniel
I saw this in the movie theatre and it was a pretty good experience. Watched it again last night and it's pretty forgettable now. Good one time watch but leave it at that. I actually liked all the characters but it was very meh as far as storyline goes.
This post was edited on 12/22/16 at 9:27 am
Posted on 12/22/16 at 9:37 am to LSUBoo
quote:
To be honest, I thought the budget did include their marketing costs... if it doesn't, then yeah, different ballgame.
The budgets that get reported are the production budgets. P&A is separate. It can range anywhere from a 25% to 200% of the production budget. With studios and mini majors it is usually about 1:1.
The money is in a separate pot and under the control of a separate legal entity for all sorts of liability reasons.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 10:02 am to BlackAdam
Why would marketing not be included in the budget?
Posted on 12/22/16 at 2:20 pm to biglego
quote:
Why would marketing not be included in the budget?
The film is generally made by a limited liability company owned by the entity with rights to the film.
So far example Warner Bros. would create Batman LLC and fund the entity to make a Batman movie.
The P&A funds go to a separate LLC maybe Batman P&A LLC.
This structure protects each pot of money should some type of litigious issue arise.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 2:33 pm to BlackAdam
Ah. That makes sense.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 2:54 pm to Jack Daniel
Its like they didn't have a script or storyline, just put some big name actors in the desert and let them shoot guns. Not a fan at all.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 3:20 pm to Jack Daniel
Nonstop shooting.
Felt like an 80s movie if you're in the mood for a pure ridiculous action movie.
I think every character gets shot at 1000 times, the bad guys always miss...The good guys take everyone out in one shot.
"Assualt on Dodge City"
Felt like an 80s movie if you're in the mood for a pure ridiculous action movie.
I think every character gets shot at 1000 times, the bad guys always miss...The good guys take everyone out in one shot.
"Assualt on Dodge City"
This post was edited on 12/22/16 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 12/22/16 at 10:08 pm to biglego
Just b/c they "addressed" it doesn't mean their explanation actually works.
Ahh, yes well we made the gods of Ancient China mostly white because... well... because frick you thats why.
Ahh, yes well we made the gods of Ancient China mostly white because... well... because frick you thats why.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 11:30 pm to Dr RC
I feel like they assembled a great cast, but completely fricked up the writing/directing.
Should have been much better. With that said I enjoyed it.
Should have been much better. With that said I enjoyed it.
This post was edited on 12/22/16 at 11:32 pm
Posted on 12/22/16 at 11:44 pm to Dr RC
The real explanation is the producers wanted familiar actors, popular with American audiences, for the lead roles in the movie. It's not to say "frick you" to the audience or to insult ancient Egyptians.
The movie is still entertaining IMO
The movie is still entertaining IMO
Posted on 12/23/16 at 12:09 am to Jack Daniel
I liked it a lot
Posted on 12/25/16 at 11:50 pm to RebelVol
I just saw it and it just wasn't that great. It's a shame, cause I love Westerns and I like just about everybody in the movie. There just wasn't much of a story and everything was over the top. Tons of clichés and awful dialogue. The action is even kind of boring. I might have had too high of hopes for it..
Posted on 12/25/16 at 11:54 pm to Jack Daniel
I liked it
Posted on 12/25/16 at 11:55 pm to Jack Daniel
I watched it for 99 cents on Amazon. Wasn't bad, wasn't great.
This post was edited on 12/25/16 at 11:56 pm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News