|
VanillaGorilla posted:If I'm being honest, that a DT movie is happening at all is kind of a miracle. There have been maybe a couple of adaptations of King's work that have been decent. And even if they made a decent DT adaptation, it likely wouldn't do gangbusters at the box office. It's just not that hot an IP, and it would be a costly project for any studio to take on - which is exactly why the big Ron Howard thing collapsed in on itself. Not really, unless I'm reading it wrong almost every movie based on a Stephen King work made a profit. Eight of them have made over $75 million if you adjust for inflation. Carrie, The Shining, Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile, Misery, Stand By Me, it's definitely more than "maybe a couple" and he's a big name people go out to see his work. In total Box Office Mojo has his movies making over $2B with an average of about $56M which seems more than decent.
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 12:05 |
|
|
Basebf555 posted:This is kind of uncharted waters though, because King's stuff has never really been the type to necessitate $100mil+ budgets, this is really the first time his material is being used to create a major blockbuster. The standards of success are a lot different, when you make The Mist for 18 million and it makes 60 million, that's a success. When you spend 80-100 million on The Dark Tower that puts it into a different category where just making a few hundred million at the box office isn't going to cut it. I can see that, but I don't necessarily agree. The Running Man is Arnold just a couple years after Terminator with a pretty significant budget and it did pretty well. BUT then you have something like Dreamcatcher where they spent almost $70m and definitely didn't recoup that money so yeah it could go either way. I'm curious about your last point, though, how if the budget is $100m and they make "a few hundred million" presumably $300m+ how does that not cut it? That seems like a pretty decent profit but I'm sure I'm missing something.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:A decent profit isn't really the return on the investment that studios are looking for from these huge tentpole blockbusters. It's a zero sum game, so that 100 mil and those years spent in development could have been used for something that theoretically could have done a lot better than "just" 200 or 300 million. It would be regarded as not a flop, yet still somewhat of a missed opportunity. I'm not saying I agree with that but its the way these huge films are evaluated these days. Gotcha, I hadn't thought about that but it makes total sense.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 16:34
|
|