CJohn Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 At least John Carter's poor opening numbers elicited some emotion out of people! Yeah, it was a weekend to forget. Jack's numbers are just fucking boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wadey Wilsoney Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 This is a really underwhelming start to the year. I hope it's not a sign of things to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Jack&Jill, John Carter, Jack the Giant Slayer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 In the end Tom wins with Jack Reacher actually being a solid sucess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Somewhere right now Brad Fuller and the Platinum Dunes team is smiling.Jack the Giant Slayer is the reason why Friday the 13th is dead. When I and others, spoke to him on twitter and email, he explained to us that WB would no longer finance another Friday sequel, even though the first one did incredibly well, because they were going to move ahead with bigger films like Jack the Giant Slayer. Now keep in mind this was 2010 when he told us this. They were not interested in smaller movies that were sure to turn a profit for them because they wanted to concentrate on films like JACK THE GIANT SLAYER. Those were Brad's words verbatim.With a production budget of about 200 million and not doubt a marketing budget that will put this close to 300 mill, they are going to need a massive WW haul to make this profitable. If this opens to 20 million in NA, it won't make 60. Now it might do well internationally, I don't know. But wouldn't it be a huge slap in the face if they made less profit on this than they did from Friday the 13th?Fuck you WB for being greedy and fuck you for abandoning a property that has a incredibly loyal following so that you can sink piles of money you made from films like TDK and Potter into a film like Jack, that no one cares about. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sims Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 A little disappointing. I was hoping for less than 20M. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Jack was not supposed to have a 200M budget. His initial budget was 130M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Jack was not supposed to have a 200M budget. His initial budget was 130M. second time Bryan Singer has gone way overbudget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 second time Bryan Singer has gone way overbudgetDosent he always? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Jack was not supposed to have a 200M budget. His initial budget was 130M.Friday the 13ths budget including marketing was about 40 mill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wadey Wilsoney Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Here comes a 400M budget for DOFP... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecstasy Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Here comes a 400M budget for DOFP... Not from Fox. I doubt very much they let him run the tab up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) What is DOFP?X-Men? There is no way an X-men movie would cost that much. Edited March 2, 2013 by baumer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalo Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 hmm, I'm not surprised it's not doing well. they shouldn't have put most of the focus on fake-looking CGI Giants. how on earth did they spend almost 200m on this film with CGI like that? I'm actually going to see it tomorrow most likely more out there not being anything to see in forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) Friday the 13ths budget including marketing was about 40 mill. And I don't believe they spent 100M with marketing either. It was actually a weak marketing campaign. I would say 50-60M. John Carter had a 100M marketing campaign and it was clearly much bigger than this one. Jack the Giant Slayer was also supposed to be a major Summer blockbuster. And have an epic marketing campaign with the strong teaser trailer. We all know what happened with the first trailer for the new release date. For no apparent reason, they did that shitty kids trailer that appealed to nobody. And the posters were hilariously bad. They tried to change that with the trailer released 2 weeks ago but it was too late. In 2010, I would also say making Jack the Giant Slayer, after the massive Alice 1B WW result, for a Summer release date would be a fantastic idea. Of course now it is easy to say that making a Friday the 13th sequel would be a much better way to spend the money gain with movies like Harry Potter and The Dark Knight Edited March 2, 2013 by CJohn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) Somewhere right now Brad Fuller and the Platinum Dunes team is smiling.Jack the Giant Slayer is the reason why Friday the 13th is dead. When I and others, spoke to him on twitter and email, he explained to us that WB would no longer finance another Friday sequel, even though the first one did incredibly well, because they were going to move ahead with bigger films like Jack the Giant Slayer. Now keep in mind this was 2010 when he told us this. They were not interested in smaller movies that were sure to turn a profit for them because they wanted to concentrate on films like JACK THE GIANT SLAYER. Those were Brad's words verbatim.With a production budget of about 200 million and not doubt a marketing budget that will put this close to 300 mill, they are going to need a massive WW haul to make this profitable. If this opens to 20 million in NA, it won't make 60. Now it might do well internationally, I don't know. But wouldn't it be a huge slap in the face if they made less profit on this than they did from Friday the 13th?Fuck you WB for being greedy and fuck you for abandoning a property that has a incredibly loyal following so that you can sink piles of money you made from films like TDK and Potter into a film like Jack, that no one cares about. Hear, hear! WB became really greedy after HP and TDK successes and now is turning expensive cash grab mediocrity like The Hobbit and this. I`m actually stunned that something like Argo was not only made but got preferential treatment by the studio during the Oscar season. Edited March 2, 2013 by fishnets 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecstasy Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 What is DOFP?X-Men? There is no way an X-men movie would cost that much. Yep. Days of Future Past. And I agree even with every cast member they bring back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 And I don't believe they spent 100M with marketing either. It was actually a weak marketing campaign. I would say 50-60M. John Carter had a 100M marketing campaign and it was clearly much bigger than this one. Jack the Giant Slayer was also supposed to be a major Summer blockbuster. And have an epic marketing campaign with the strong teaser trailer. We all know what happened with the first trailer for the new release date. For no apparent reason, they did that shitty kids trailer that appealed to nobody. And the posters were hilariously bad. They tried to change that with the trailer released 2 weeks ago but it was too late. So in 2010, I would also say making Jack the Giant Slayer, after the massive Alice success, would be a terrific idea.But how do we know how much they spent in marketing? I'm not just talking in NA, I mean WW. Even so, a 250 million dollar film needs more than 500 to break even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLK Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Somewhere right now Brad Fuller and the Platinum Dunes team is smiling.Jack the Giant Slayer is the reason why Friday the 13th is dead. When I and others, spoke to him on twitter and email, he explained to us that WB would no longer finance another Friday sequel, even though the first one did incredibly well, because they were going to move ahead with bigger films like Jack the Giant Slayer. Now keep in mind this was 2010 when he told us this. They were not interested in smaller movies that were sure to turn a profit for them because they wanted to concentrate on films like JACK THE GIANT SLAYER. Those were Brad's words verbatim.With a production budget of about 200 million and not doubt a marketing budget that will put this close to 300 mill, they are going to need a massive WW haul to make this profitable. If this opens to 20 million in NA, it won't make 60. Now it might do well internationally, I don't know. But wouldn't it be a huge slap in the face if they made less profit on this than they did from Friday the 13th?Fuck you WB for being greedy and fuck you for abandoning a property that has a incredibly loyal following so that you can sink piles of money you made from films like TDK and Potter into a film like Jack, that no one cares about. 2X rule means it will need $400 million WW to break even. I don't see it making $300 million+ from overseas markets, not when Oz and Gi Joe are potentially more attractive movies. I think the best case scenario is $80 million domestic + $250 million overseas which won't be sufficient. I do wonder what kind of shelf life movies like this can expect. Is it possible that movies based on ageless fairy tales can keep making money for a longer duration from the home media markets compared to more contemporary blockbusters ? Is this why studios don't mind investing this kind of money for movies like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wadey Wilsoney Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Not from Fox. I doubt very much they let him run the tab up. I was exaggerating a bit, but I can't say I'm not concernerd. DOFP: huge, high-profile cast, Sentinels, possible 3hr running time due to intricate plot, Singer's propensity for going over budget. And a huge marketing campaign = worry. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
