MrPink Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Had to pay up for the salaries. Obviously well worth it given the grosses. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 It is a comedy. 100M for a comedy is crazy. But Little Fockers also costed 100M so I guess everything is fine. It's a third sequel to a series that has made more than a billion dollars off a budget of about 100 million. They spent 100 mill on it because they had to. And it is going to pay off huge for them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggestgeekever Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 (edited) It's a third sequel to a series that has made more than a billion dollars off a budget of about 100 million. They spent 100 mill on it because they had to. And it is going to pay off huge for them. Yes and no. It's probably going to make them profit at the box office, but the outlook on the home market is probably not so rosy. I'm also sure WB would have preferred Todd Phillips actually made, you know, two well received sequels instead of what they got. Edited June 2, 2013 by Biggestgeekever 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Gary Scott Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Saw Mud wished I liked it more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Saw Mud wished I liked it more spill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Saw Mud wished I liked it more I dunno, isn't 4/5 still pretty damn good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Gary Scott Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 spillI wanted to love it. MM was great but it's a tad slow. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Gary Scott Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 I dunno, isn't 4/5 still pretty damn good?With 99% I expected to love it though so it was disappointing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatebox Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 I dunno, isn't 4/5 still pretty damn good? For Michael Scott, anything less than 5/5 is terrible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPink Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 I dunno, isn't 4/5 still pretty damn good? .5 better than Hangover 3. F this world. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinHood26 Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Saw Mud wished I liked it more Exactly how I feel, I think I expected to much with its 99% RT score. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Generally to me anything over 3/5 is really good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Generally to me anything over 3/5 is really good. WWZ just received that grade in Total Film UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Gary Scott Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Generally to me anything over 3/5 is really good.I call it disappointing cause with the reviews I expected a great movie. I still liked it and would recommend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 WWZ just received that grade in Total Film UK. Well they gave 4/5 to Hangover 2, what do they know. I'd say my rating system goes like this 0/5- Reprehensible garbage 1/5- Pure crap 1,5/5- Crap 2/5- Disappointing 2,5/5- Generally not that good but has some good things in it 3/5- Good 3,5/5- Very good 4/5- Terrific, would watch again 4,5/5- Even better 5/5- Superb, cream of the crop stuff 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecstasy Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 I call it disappointing cause with the reviews I expected a great movie. I still liked it and would recommend it. Why was it disappointing? You can't just say because it was slow, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLK Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 After Earth http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3687&p=.htm "The audience was 51 percent male and 60 percent were 25 years of age or older." I think this was a major problem with the movie. This isn't a good age breakdown for a summer movie with a 14 year old lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 (edited) After Earth http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3687&p=.htm "The audience was 51 percent male and 60 percent were 25 years of age or older." I think this was a major problem with the movie. This isn't a good age breakdown for a summer movie with a 14 year old lead. they probably went to see big willy I see that dig Ray on Fast 6. Fu Edited June 2, 2013 by Dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Gary Scott Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Why was it disappointing? You can't just say because it was slow, lol.Idk I just expected a better movie with the 99% RT score Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecstasy Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Idk I just expected a better movie with the 99% RT score Better in what way? Story, visuals, acting? emotional impact? The thing about RT is that the 99% score doesn't mean it's a rave. It just means that 99% of the critics think it was a good movie. To what degree of "good" varies from critic to critic. If you were a critic would you give it a rotten? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
