Onyxmeth said:
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.(1) 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,(2) 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. |
1. You're assuming Fox put down all the money for it. They didn't.
2. Not Oscar winning. In terms of recreating the box office formula. A lot of people assumed the love story was shoehorned into Titanic, when it was about having the breadth of the ship from the experience of those two, while not using loads of B an C plots among different groups, that previous such films did. But since it was believed the love story sold the film, this had one shoehorned in.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs








