ddddeeee Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Rumored $300m for MIB3. $160m for TR from Farrell himself. Scary version of this for Sony is $500m combined (if that $200m rumor for TR was true).That figure for MIB3 includes marketing. Not sure why it's being brought up since it was most definitely a success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Lass Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I think a 38 million opening weekend for Bourne Legacy is actually excellent. It was very risky to do this movie without Matt Damon, it could have been a total disaster, but 38 million is actually very solid. I don't know what you guys were expecting. I don't know in terms of budget what the movie is, but if it's anywhere around 100 million, I think this movie still will be profitable after international box office, dvd sales, etc. come into play. I actually think it's a nice surprise that the movie did as much as 38 million in its first 3 days, the franchise somehow survived without its main star, and that was a difficult task. The L.A. Times reported production budget as $130M, but Box Office Mojo lists the production budget as $125M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vc2002 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 More like He'd be happy that the reboot bombed hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impact Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Congrats Nitro Circus-your PTA is lower then MIB3 and barley higher then Ted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfirebird2008 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 That figure for MIB3 includes marketing. Not sure why it's being brought up since it was most definitely a success.No, the rumor was production budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Lass Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Strictly speaking, TBL is a sequel and not a reboot. A reboot means the story is being re-told, or the canon as set by the previous films is disregarded. TBL doesn't fit either definition. The principle characters are back, save for Damon but he is mentioned throughout and even shown once, and the plot continues where the previous films left off. In that sense it isn't a spinoff, either. I have to say it is a straight sequel. Cannon and principle characters? This is a 'no spoiler' thread so all I'll say is ... uhmm, oooo-kay. And I wouldn't classify this as a sequel at all. I'd call it a sidequel, a parallel story about a different agent with different concerns/problems/goals set in the same universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 No, the rumor was production budget.Fairly sure the final figure being circulated was 300M for Production, and Marketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfirebird2008 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Fairly sure the final figure being circulated was 300M for Production, and Marketing. Nikki said rival studios claimed it ballooned from $225m to $300m for production alone. http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/men-in-black-3-opens-to-1-3m-midnights/ Here’s why the cost of MIB3 soared: The time travel elements of Etan Cohen’s script had to be re-worked by Jeff Nathanson who needed more time to pull off the tricky plot device while Cohen worked on another project. So the film shut down for about six weeks, which is a rarity for a major tentpole, and then Cohen came back to finish the movie. That caused the cost to skyrocket from a range of $225M (which is what Sony claims as the budget) to $300M (which is what rival studios say it really was). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Why would shutting down a film for 6 weeks cause it to go up by 75 million dollars? That makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lab276 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Why would shutting down a film for 6 weeks cause it to go up by 75 million dollars? That makes no sense.People still have to get paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Rth does not report daily numbers any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 People still have to get paid.So? You're telling me that there is 75 million dollars in salary for 3 weeks work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lab276 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 So? You're telling me that there is 75 million dollars in salary for 3 weeks work?6 weeks.I'm not a filmmaker, I'm not 100% certain how the process works, but there are lots of people who work on films and they still need the money, not to mention that there were likely clashes with contractual obligations. So for 6 weeks they were essentially doing nothing. I'm sure it would quickly add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 6 weeks.I'm not a filmmaker, I'm not 100% certain how the process works, but there are lots of people who work on films and they still need the money, not to mention that there were likely clashes with contractual obligations. So for 6 weeks they were essentially doing nothing. I'm sure it would quickly add up.I guess you're right. That just seems like a big waste of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 you have to pay for storage, the rent of things you needI am sure the costs of not filming are enormous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 you have to pay for storage, the rent of things you needI am sure the costs of not filming are enormousI know this is irrelevant and I'm not usually like this but wasting 75 mill to do nothing seems so frivolous when there are so many people that could use that kind of money to eat and get shelter. I know it could never be used for that but it's just mind blowing to think that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfirebird2008 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I know this is irrelevant and I'm not usually like this but wasting 75 mill to do nothing seems so frivolous when there are so many people that could use that kind of money to eat and get shelter. I know it could never be used for that but it's just mind blowing to think that.It's mind blowing to think that Hollywood spends as much as they do while others are struggling just to get by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bballman24 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Feeding the egos of Hollywood costs a lot more than saving the lives of hundreds of millions. Pure lunacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gideon Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 When i think that firssst numbers were at 18Mfri and almost 50we...38M sounds "meh" but without the main star of the previous 3, not bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 No Monday numbers yet? Not even Rth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
