Barozi said:
thismeintiel said:
JoeTheBro said:
John Carter was actually a great movie. It's a shame most reviewers and movie goers didn't understand that.
Oh and that Vita paragraph is just horrible! I understand putting it on a list like this but they should at least put some effort into explaining why it belongs. By saying it cost $300 the writer comes off as manipulative. |
It's kinda weird seeing John Carter up there. It grossed ~$283M WW, so it made back more than its "production budget" and made even more with home video sales. So, it at least broke even. Of course, movie studios always exaggerate the costs of movies to make them seem bigger than they really are, so it probably made a decent profit.
As for the Vita, it's really the only product on that list that has the ability to turn things around. A few more good games, as well as an inevitable $50 price cut in 2013 (and probably a $150 Black Friday bundle), should definitely see it rise YOY by a good margin.
|
From what I've heard, films need to make about twice as much money at the box office as their budget was to break even. I pretty much doubt that it even made a $1 profit even with DVD/Blu-Ray revenue.
|
Then you're horribly misinformed. The "production budget" covers everything but marketing. Which if Disney is truthful in the costs of the film and marketing, then it would need to make $350M to break even. However, like I said above, movie studios always exaggerate their budgets to the public to make them seem bigger than they are. I'm sure Disney turned a small profit on the movie. Of course, that's not what they wanted ideally.
