2013 Movies: The 10 Riskiest Box Office Bets (Revisited)

Published 1 year ago by This is a list post.

Man of Steel SupermanIn January of 2013, we chose 10 films we thought would be the Riskiest Box Office Bets of the year - i.e., films we thought would have the hardest time finding success, either financially or critically. Now it's time to take a look back and see just how accurate - or off the mark - we were.To determine if the reward was worth the studio's risk we'll take into account a couple factors: Listed Budget Compared to domestic and international box office returns, as well as Rotten Tomatoes/IMDb/Screen Rant ratings.Each film will receive a "Worth It" or "Not Worth It" risk assessment and then we can discuss (or argue) in the comments about how right or wrong we were.

Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters - WORTH IT

Hansel and Gretel Witch HuntersBudget: $50 MillionDomestic: $58M - Foreign: $170M - Worldwide: $226MRatings: IMDb: 6.1 - RT: 54% - SR: 2 StarsEverything about Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters should have been  a failure - a January release, over-stylized hyper-violence, making a fairy tale more "adult" - but oddly enough, it turned out to be a lot of fun to watch.The movie isn't without its flaws - which explains its average review scores - and it barely managed to clear its production budget domestically. But if it weren't for the saving grace of the foreign box office, there most likely wouldn't be a sequel in the works.

Movie 43 - WORTH IT

Movie 43Budget: $6 MillionDomestic: $9M - Foreign: $21M - Worldwide: $30MRatings: IMDb: 4.4 -  RT: 25% - SR: 2 Stars Movie 43 was the occasionally funny, raunchy-for-the-sake-of-being-raunchy, early season comedy we all pretty much thought it would be.If this film would have released in the Spring or Summer, it's not likely it would have made its budget back - which proves how invaluable release dates can be to a film's financial success.Still, even with lackluster reviews, it managed to somehow rake in a box office five times its production budget - so it isn't a complete failure.

Oz: The Great and Powerful - WORTH IT

Oz The Great and PowerfulBudget: $215 MillionDomestic: $235M - Foreign: $258M - Worldwide: $493MRatings: IMDb: 6.4 - RT: 59% - SR: 3.5 StarsDisney spent over $200 million dollars making a movie that only managed to squeak out $20 million profit domestically (a flop by Disney's standards), along with lackluster reviews.We enjoyed the film a bit more than most, but even with a talented director like Sam Raimi at the helm and the latest CGI effects, the cast and story just couldn't get over the rainbow with most viewers.Thank the 3D upcharge and impressive international box office receipts for this film's salvation.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation - WORTH IT

GI Joe Retaliation - Cobra Commander and Storm ShawdowBudget: $130 MillionDomestic: $123M - Foreign: $253M - Worldwide: $376MRatings: IMDB: 5.8 - RT: 50% - SR: 2 StarsWhile the first film was a guilty pleasure to watch in 2009, the sequel suffered from bad dialog, flat characters and over-the-top action - even for a movie based on a comic book.Regardless of what critics thought, though, the worldwide appeal of G.I. Joe was enough to more than double the studio's investment and green light a third installment.

The Hangover III - WORTH IT

The Hangover IIIBudget: $103 MillionDomestic: $112M - Foreign: $239M - Worldwide: $351MRatings: IMDb: 5.9 - RT: 45% - SR: 3 StarsThe Hangover's impromptu (and unnecessary) trilogy mercifully came to an end this summer, but not before more than tripling its production budget - with help from the international box office, of course.The box office reflected how audiences quickly grew tired of the Wolf Pack and their outlandish antics - $254 million from Part II compared to $112 million from Part III. If they tried to make Part IV it would most likely fail at the box office.

Man of Steel - WORTH IT

Man of SteelBudget: $225 MillionDomestic: $291M - Foreign: $372M - Worldwide: $663MRatings: IMDb: 7.4 - RT: 77% - SR: 4 StarsMan of Steel may be the only true "Worth It" film on our list. It received generally high marks from audiences and critics alike, easily recouped its giant budget without help from the international market and was even proclaimed to be the Best Superhero Film of the Year by some.It's not a perfect film by ANY means - I could go on at length - but generally speaking, it's the best Superman installment audiences have seen since Superman II in 1980.

World War Z - WORTH IT

World War ZBudget: $190 MillionDomestic: $202M - Foreign: $338M - Worldwide: $540MRatings: IMDb: 7.1 - RT: 73% - SR: 3 StarsEven though much of Max Brooks' apocalyptic horror novel was changed for the movie adaptation of World War Z, the movie still turned out to be solid performer with both critics and at the box office.Even though the entire third act went through extensive reshoots, WWZ was entertaining to watch - thanks in part to the solid performances of Brad Pitt and relative newcomer Daniella Kertesz as Segen.

The Lone Ranger - NOT WORTH IT

The Lone RangerBudget: $215 MillionDomestic: $89M - Foreign: $171M - Worldwide: $260MRatings: IMDb: 6.6 - RT: 56% - SR: 2 StarsDisney learned three very important lessons from The Lone Ranger:1) Just because a movie has Johnny Depp in some outrageous makeup doesn't mean a film will be successful.2) Modern audiences don't care much about 60-year-old TV shows.3) No Western action/comedy movie should ever cost $200+ Million.

Pacific Rim - WORTH IT

Pacific RimBudget: $190 MillionDomestic: $102M - Foreign: $306M - Worldwide: $408MRatings: IMDb: 7.1 - RT: 78% - SR: 3 StarsFor months, we were super-hyped to see the giant robot carnage the Pacific Rim trailers promised us - and for the most part, director Guillermo del Toro delivered that, and more, in spades.It's bewildering that domestic audiences didn't warm up to the action flick, but international audiences loved it, and that's the only reason the studio's investment was ultimately "worth it".


OldboyBudget: $30 MillionDomestic: $2M - Foreign: $2M - Worldwide: $4MRatings: IMDb: 4.9 - RT: 44% - SR: 3 StarsMost fans of acclaimed Korean director Chan-wook Park's Oldboy knew that a Spike Lee/Hollywood remake wasn't going to be very successful. However, no one knew that it would be THIS unsuccessful.It appears that American audiences just weren't interested in seeing this remake in theaters. It's possible the film does better in DVD sales, but to rank behind films like Top Gun 3D and The Wizard of Oz 3D is embarrassing, to say the least.

2013: The 10 Riskiest Box Office Bets (Revisited)

World War Z HelicopterOut of the 10 films we focused on, only one failed to at least meet its production budget, so almost all of them could be called successful on some level. But if not for the international market, four films would have failed financially, while three others would profit less than $10 million.Such is the power of the modern international audience - a lesson we won't forget in 2014.You can read our original predictions HERE and then make your own decisions about which movies flopped and which movies didn't.Follow me on Twitter - @MoviePaul.
TAGS: gi joe 2, hansel and gretel witch hunters, man of steel, movie 43, oldboy, Oz: The Great and Powerful, pacific rim, the hangover 3, the lone ranger, world war z


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. The only reason Movie 43 was successful was because it was cheap. $6 million. YUCK :(

    • @Whatever – Ya know, cheap is the way to go when making a movie that may not produce big box office numbers. A lot of these films would have been consider huge financial successes if not for their ridiculously high budgets.

      But hey, it’s not my money their losing :)

      Paul Young

      • You mean “they’re”, right?

        • @Cave-sih Man – Well yes, of course. But it’s so awfully kind of you to point that out.

          Paul Young

  2. Why bother saying whether the movie is “WORTH IT/NOT WORTH IT” if you’re going to call MoS the only true worth it risk?
    Pacific Rim wasn’t well received because it was a Gundam movie nobody asked for. Plus it seemed like it was a way to bank on the transformers crowd before part IV comes out summer 2014.
    Wolverine should have been on the list and marked WORTH IT. It’s predecessor was weaker than Miley Cyrus in a dance-off. Making another was a big risk that paid off domestically and abroad.

    • Well yeah, it has a whole billion dollar franchise running on its heels.

    • Even though I agree that X-Men Origins: Wolverine was not a good film, It did fairly decent at the box office…I’m not sure that I would consider The Wolverine to be a risk.

    • @Nedrud – What I meant was MoS is the only movie on this list whose return was worth the investment risk.

      Paul Young

      • @J83 I stand corrected. Origins did bring in quite the box office in spite of it’s numerous blunders.
        @Paul understood, thanks for specifying for me.

      • World War Z also looks like it was worth the investment risk.

  3. Nice! Cool article. Two things though..

    I am trying to make sense of this sentence: “for the most part, director Guillermo del Toro delivered that, and more, in spades.”

    It sounds contradictory.. But maybe that’s just me.

    Second thing, so I guess you’re going with the audience RT percentages? Cuz if you go by the tomatometer then Hansel and Gretel was at 15 not 54, and MOS was at 55 not 77.

    • Yup it’d the audience ratings. I thought Movie 43 was taking the critics one cause it was so low but it turns out it was the audience rating. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie rated that low from audiences aha.

      • Yeah that movie looks like the worst thing ever. There are several 2013 R rated comedies that are much more worthy of your time: The World’s End, This is the End, We’re The Millers (haven’t seen that one but I’ve heard good things)

    • @MovieDude – Actually, I took the higher of the two Rotten Tomatoes scores and used that one.

      Paul Young

      • “Fascinating.” (spock voice)

        That’s very generous of you. MOS deserved a better score anyway, but don’t worry I’m not one of the fanboys that will attack you if you say otherwise ;) This prbly sounds sad but I had the MOS tomatometer memorized for some reason. That’s what tipped me off in the first place.

        • @MovieDude – LMAO! That’s not something I wouldn’t go spreading around ;)

          Paul Young

        • I think Man of Steel deserves at least an 85%, A lot of people I know haven’t seen the movie and I watched it with them (i’m on my 19th time). They all enjoyed it and said they felt very inspired by the scene when he’s overcoming the world engine and when Jor-EL tells him he can save everyone. Nobody I know really hated the movie, some people were disappointed because they expected a Marvel style movie (comedy).

  4. I find World War Z was the big win, follow closely by Man of Steel. World War Z went through reshoots, rewrites, apparently conflicts with the director and the rest of the team and some bad press (mostly because of the factors that I listed). So it’s a huge surprise that it got more than half a billion. It was a solid movie, didn’t think I would enjoy it too.

    • I agree with your order on WWZ and MoS. I enjoyed both and as for WWZ, the only small issue I had was (again, most likely because of the things you mention), the third act (small/intimate) had a very different feel than the first two (grand/epic).

  5. oldboy only pulled in $4M worldwide on a $30M budget? geez

  6. @ Paul Young

    Cool to see you contributing to articles and not just being the game warden. ;)

    • @Mindbender – HAHA! Thanks man. It’s been awhile since I’ve had the extra time to focus on putting some articles together but I always doing these year-end pieces. I’ve got some cool ideas for some posts in 2014 too :D

      Paul Young

  7. Happy New Year

  8. I can’t fathom why Pacific Rim did so poorly stateside. I guess there’s a niche audience for that style of film. I, for one, absolutely loved it and keep telling people to watch it. Iron Man 3 shat all over a potentially fantastic villain and used the same storyline as the first 2 (Billionaire businessman who was slighted by Tony Stark uses similar technology to try to destroy Iron Man).

    • @kozy – I can’t either. I thoroughly enjoyed Pacific Rim but I guess maybe American audiences like the “safe bet” of a sequel over something more original. It confused me as well.

      Paul Young

      • @Paul Young

        I keep juxtaposing its domestic gross with that of the Transformers franchise and it just baffles me.

        Let it be known however that I hold Pacific Rim in MUCH higher esteem than Transformers. I just thought the grosses of those films would be a good indicator for PR before its release given they both revolve around massive robots.

        • If the box office draw of Pacific Rim is any indicator, I think there’s a good chance Godzilla doesn’t do incredible well either nomatter how good it is. A solid cast lacking a huge name, a director with an excellent indie sci-fi film in Monsters under his belt and an excellent first trailer make me excited. Your average movie-goer is gonna see another re-boot and shrug it off. I find re-boots acceptable if the predecessor sucked. Not to mention, monster movies aren’t billion dollar properties. I’d be very surprised if Godzilla cracks $200MM.

          • I don’t know man. The Godzilla teaser was shown before Desolation of Smaug and when Godzilla finally appeared at the end (in the debris), people actually gasped in my theater aha. While I didn’t think the teaser itself was all that good, it definitely got people aware of the film and most likely excited. Anything can happen but seeing that type of excitement from the folks in my theater for the teaser alone gives me hope that the movie will do well in the box office spawning future sequels.

          • I have thought the same thing. Still, I’ll bet Godzilla does better than PR. It’s being marketed VERY well thus far, and Bryan Cranston still has a huge fanbase after Breaking Bad. If the trailers and other promotional stuff stays as good as it is up to its release then it could do very well.

            It’ll have some steep competition with holdover from TASM2 and X-Men DOFP which premieres right after that. Personally I’ll see be seeing all three of those. :) Good for me, potentially bad for Godzilla.

            • Yup, 2014 summer is when I’ll be at the theater at least once a week :) aha.

          • Yeah, I think that’s a real question mark, how much American filmgoers are really interested in movies that are basically generic characters battling giant monsters. CLOVERFIELD did about 80 domestic. $100 million may be about the ceiling for this type of movie, Jackson’s KING KONG excepted.

    • What part of the Extrimis Virus is similar to the Iron Man suits?

      • Well, it’s more the billionaire slighted by Tony Stark in the past part. When I saw the trailers with The Mandarin, I had an expectation and when The Mandarin turned out to be a joke, I was not happy at all. All 3 plotlines were just too similar to me. I wanted something different. I was also annoyed when Pepper came back too. Pepper dying would’ve been a fantastic twisted in my opinion. A better storyline would’ve been The Mandarin really being the The Mandarin and killing Pepper early on in the film.

  9. I think Carrie is a little bit risky, I mean remaking a cult classic? but turns out to be not that bad

  10. These RT numbers are just user ratings, the critic ratings are much different.

  11. Wolverine was awful! Nothing happened and it was just the same boring stuff!

    • Nothing happened? Are you sure about that?

      Sure, it wasn’t an all out action movie but it never claimed to be. It was always meant to be a character study, similar to the comic book it was based on that went more personal and inward-facing than the usual X-Men “all action, no development” route.

      That’s why the comic is still beloved to this day and why the movie that emulated it was also a success in my view and the best superhero movie of the year. We got to see what makes Wolverine tick instead of seeing him just tear through everything for the sake of going the Michael Bay route for no reason at all. It also meant that because it was a quiet character study, the few action set pieces also stood out a lot more than usual.

      • ^^^+1

  12. Am I the only one that enjoyed the Lone Ranger? granted it wasn’t the best story but I still enjoyed

  13. The following was said about Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters.

    “But if it weren’t for the saving grace of the foreign box office, there most likely wouldn’t be a sequel in the works.”

    So then Paul, impossible question time. Why do you think Hollywood execs ignored the international box office for movies like Dredd and Pacific Rim and used the domestic gross to decide not to go ahead with a sequel while H&G: WH was given an instant sequel announcement?

    I also have to say, I finally saw Oz: The Great And Powerful on TV a few weeks ago. Definitely not worth it. It had decent special effects but it felt like the characters were one dimensional, there wasn’t much story, Oz went from horrible person to likable hero almost on a dime and the latter half of the movie felt rushed.

    • @Dazz – Well, even with the international box office Dredd was still $15M shy of breaking even – though it did REALLY well in DVD sales.

      Paul Young

      • Maybe Hollywood should follow the example of A Field In England’s example?

        That movie released simultaneously at cinemas, on streaming sites, on DVD and on a television channel (FilmFour) on the same day and people were given the option of how they saw the film. It did pretty well too, despite being a weird black and white civil war re-enactment piece.

        That way, movies like Dredd could release on all those formats and revenue can be generated from the different ways people choose to watch rather than solely focusing on what’s looking to be an outdated (but still traditional) method of paying to see something on a huge screen?

        Think that might have a future or will Hollywood reject what isn’t traditional?

        I mean, you get Goldilocks commenting with his “I’ll wait for it to hit Netflix” posts, maybe he won’t have to wait so long if they did the simultaneous release for all movies and his viewing of it on that medium could help initial release instead of being taken into account down the road when a studio stops caring about a film’s bank?

        • This does happen here with smaller indie cinema, which is basically what A FIELD IN ENGLAND is.

          The mid-budgeted TOWER HEIST was going to do a limited VOD run in conjunction with its theatrical run, but theatre chains threatened to drop the film, so Universal backed off. I can’t recall if anybody else has done a sort of regular Hollywood release this way yet, but it’s presumably coming at some point if someone can figure out how to make the numbers work.

          • When you say “here”, I assume you mean here in the UK? (sounded like you assumed I was American, felt I had to comment to rectify that, lol)

            I’m wondering if the FilmFour channel provided money via advertising during the ad breaks, in which case all 20th Century Fox would have to do is demand a slightly higher than usual price when they do a simultaneous release in cinemas and on the Fox channel and then add up VOD and DVD/Blu Ray sales to the cinema total.

            Other studios might have to form working relationships with other networks though to do the same since FilmFour got away with A Field In England due to helping finance the film as they do with a lot of our movie output in recent years.

            • By “here,” I meant America. I assumed you were in the UK.

              Again, there are small-budgeted indie films already doing this sort of thing in the States. If you only have to recoup a 300,000-pound budget, it’s a viable approach. If you need to make $100 million-plus (as DREDD would have needed to do to be successful), it’s not clear that the numbers make sense to bypass the traditional model of opening in brick-and-mortar theaters first.

              • Except that with movies like Dredd, DVD and Blu Ray sales were higher than ticket sales, which could help out potentially.

                Just seems a shame to me that great movies like Dredd do better on the home video market when they should have done well in cinemas too first time round and yet Hollywood is allowing terrible sequels to terrible movies while putting up a brick wall and blocking great movies from having great sequels.

                Between that debacle and the Academy Awards ceremony, I’ve honestly lost faith in Hollywood being able to make good, sensible and logical decisions.

                • Unless a sizable portion of the people who bought DREDD on home video or VOD are also people who bought tickets to see it in the cinemas. And if a sizable portion of those people wouldn’t have bought theater tickets if they could have gone straight to DVD, which is the assumption that studios and theater chains are currently making, that offering alternative distribution channels will keep people away from the movie theater, resulting in lower returns on investment for the studio. It doesn’t really matter for indie or art-house films that only play in a handful of theaters in large cities anyway, but it does matter for films like DREDD.

                  I don’t see how refusing to throw money at future installments of a cult franchise that hasn’t proven to be financially viable is “putting up a brick wall.”

    • H&GWH made 4.25 times its production budget; PACIFIC RIM did about 2 times its production budget. Generally, studios like to do 2.5 times the production budget (leaving aside issues like the MoS licensing offsets mentioned below). Factor in that a dollar made overseas is worth less to American studios than a domestic dollar due to exchange rates and differences in distribution deals and you can see that PACIFIC RIM just wasn’t a big moneymaker for the studio.

  14. No, Movie 43 was NOT worth it…

  15. Forgive me, but I am sure the general consensus was that ‘Man of Steel’ needed to break 1 billion in order to actually turn a profit?

    Not saying it wasn’t worth it if true, because the numbers are solid either way.

    • You are forgiven, ’cause I have absolutely no idea where you are getting that from:

      MoS made over 3/4 of what it cost back via endorsement deals before the movie opened. A (record setting?) $185 million if I remember correctly.

      • Variety I think. The Hollywood Reporter also (at the time. Maybe it was just guesswork on their part).

        But, whatever. It’s a mute point anyways. Reboot successful :)

        • Man of Steel

          Here’s a really general guess on how it all boils down …

          Budget: $225 mil
          Marketing: $100+ mil
          Product Placement: $185 mil
          Back Deals: ???
          World Wide: $663 mil
          Theaters: 1/3rd of BO

          663 + 185 – 225 – 100 – 1/3rd = $350 mil

          • You know that the studio only gets about 50% of the box office and even less of the international? So by your calculations it only ended up making about $15mil profit.

      • Mindbender, I thought I read somewhere before of you saying MOS broke DVD/Bluray sales too. That’s quite a lot in addition to the toys and merchandise + theater ticket sales. Pretty sure, MOS profited a lot. I mean, there wouldn’t be a second film if it didn’t. It’s a feat too considering it’s a reboot from a flop and that ever since the news started of it, there’s been plenty of controversy. From Lois’ red hair (even though the original Lois did have red hair) to Superman’s trunks to Henry being British to his costume being dark…. Geez. And then when the movie came out, it divided everyone and attracted trolls of all kinds. Also, since the theme dealt with a touchy topic, it didn’t do that well in China. I seem to remember an article MOS having problems there. Surprisingly, it held on worldwide and got that much.

  16. Yikes!!! Old Boy only made 4 million worldwide???
    That seems almost impossible in this day and age.
    If you figured an average ticket price of @ $10 that means only 400,000 people at the most paid to see this movie in the theater worldwide.
    That’s awful.

    • There’s a movie that came out recently that did even worse, didn’t even break $1million worldwide. I forget which movie but I laughed when I read it a few weeks ago. That one had to hurt whoever made it.

      • Danny Dyer’s last movie (‘Run For Your Wife’) made £774 opening weekend at the UK Box Office. ‘Eastenders’ was fate revealing itself as fact.

        • That’s the movie, thanks Ajeno.

    • I was just browsing box office mojo’s list for movies released this year and last on the list is a movie that was released in 1 theater called “Storage 24″ and it made $72.00.
      It’s now my mission in life to see this movie. :)

  17. I think calling some of these films profitable just from their domestic take is inaccurate. That would mean that the studios would have to get 100% of the ticket sales, which obviously they don’t.

    Studios can make up for it down the line through their “Hollywood accounting” that rips off the people who helped make the film, but it is still a bit optimistic to think that certain films are profitable only from certain sales figures (which doesn’t even take into account marketing budgets).

  18. Oldboy was a bismol failure because they didn’t sell the movie, Heck I didn’t even know about it until I looked at this list!, and I like to think I stay on top of all new big budget releases. If you are going to spend a lot on a movie, sell the film to the general public!

    • The domestic box office is comprised of box office returns from America AND Canada.

  19. P.S. At least Pacific Rim did better at the box office, than most of the other big sci-fi movies that released in 2013 (Star Trek:ID,excluded of course),like ‘Oblivian’ and ‘Elysium’,and both of those movie had big stars in them,namely Tom Cruise,Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon.

    • Oblivion was a ripoff masquerading as original sci-fi. 2 parts Wall*E, 2 parts Moon, and one part Independence Day with a few other influences mixed. Having seen Moon, which is a far superior film in general, really just ruined Oblivion for me.

  20. If a film makes more money then it’s budget, it is financially successful. But it is not necessarily “worth it”, as you have to take the critical response into account. Man of Steel, World War Z, and Pacific Rim are the only “worth it” films on this list, as they are the only films to make what a studio would see as a successful profit and to receive positive reviews (their reviews obviously weren’t all positive, but to get over 70% is very good).

  21. Look, I was as surprised as anyone out there, but Movie 43 was hilarious, and I’d put it up against that Anchorman 1 & 2 dreck any day.

    • @movie fan – No said Movie 43 wasn’t funny but honestly, the studio handle it the right way in order to maximize their profits – low budget and an early-season release. I’m sure they were hoping for slightly better return than $3M but the overseas market helped them a lot. It was smart on their part.

      Paul Young

      • I’m saying Movie 43 wasn’t funny :P.

        There were one or two funny moments, but for the most part it was a lot of obscene sexual gags masquerading as actual comedy.

  22. The next man of steel movie will be a big risk with Ben

  23. If a movie makes more than it’s production budget, it isn’t necessarily profitable. The studio only gets about 50-55% of the domestic box office and 40% of the international. On top of the production budget there is also the cost of marketing. The bigger movies spend $100mil+ on marketing. So in actuality, many of the movies on your list that you considered WORTH IT didn’t turn a profit (not including DVD sales and cable TV airings); Pacific Rim, Oz & WWZ. Since MoS had a marketing budget of over $100mil, it barely made a profit.

  24. How the hell did Hangover 3 cost 100 million +.

  25. Well…in finance terms you have to discount all future cash flows to its present value to determine if it was worth it. As long as it has a net present value of greater than 0 it is theoretically OK for a studio to do. Movies like Old Boy are so upside down they are just a huge loss regardless.

    Someone above said MOS barely made a profit maybe this is true in the short run but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t worth it from a finance standpoint (which is all that matters). If the production cost was $200 mill and the marketing was $100 million (rough numbers) and it made $600 million global gross profit and $300 million net profit it is not only profitable but will have a great NPV (net present value) when you factor in positive future cashflows from all other sources of revenue and discount them back.

    I agree with someone above who said that the second one will probably be riskier for a variety of reasons. I can’t see them doing it cheaper than the first one.

  26. The reasons for the Loner Ranger not being successful need to be reconsidered. Especially number 2. Movies about 60 year old TV Shows are great, just not bad movies.

    Updated movies are fine, but some just need to be kept true to the theme material. The Lone Ranger was not a wimp. But, what do I know I am “just another White Man”, the enemy of the movie. So why would I want to see it? Hey, I am just the target audience.

  27. I know Screen Rant loved Man of Steel and all but it only has a 55% on Rotten Tomatoes, not a 77. It also has a 55 on Metacritic. Overall the critics really weren’t too kind to it.

  28. the reason oldboy didnt do any good is because spike lee is a rasist an no one like him or his stupid movies