LordTheNightKnight said:
Why are you mentioning budget, when I clearly meant how much money it made? Again, how would any of them know the film would make three times its budget back? They way they worked the money made it clear they were hoping to just break even. Pearl Harbor was a crass attempt to duplicate what they thought was the formula that Titanic usd. |
I'm mentioning budget because most studios don't put that much money into a film to break even. They usually do it hoping for it to sell gangbusters. I just don't agree that when Fox put down the money for this, they didn't anticpate a cash cow, otherwise they probably wouldn't have put down so damn much in the first place.
Regarding Pearl Harbor being a poor man's attempt at Titanic though, year I pretty much agree there. That stems from them thinking they could get Academy Award level performances out of a Ben Affleck and Michael Bay duo though, which is hilarious a situation as any. On the other hand, the best reports peg it at $130 million for a production budget which is much less than Titanic had four years earlier, and it still grossed $450 million, which is nothing to sneeze at. It doesn't seem they were willing to throw the studio behind Pearl Harbor the same as Fox threw their support behind Titanic.








