> “Thunderbolts” was slightly cheaper, costing $180 million to make and closer to $100 million to market.
> Still, “Thunderbolts*” needed to make $425 million worldwide to break even, a figure that seems unachievable.
Where does the other $145 million go?
magicalhippo · 1d ago
The movie theaters might want some to show it?
ceejayoz · 1d ago
Other way around. They rent the films from the distributor.
magicalhippo · 10h ago
I worded that exceptionally poorly.
What I meant was, when I pay some money for a ticket, not all of that goes back up the chain. The movie theater keeps some of it, yet box office numbers are before that as I understand it[1][2].
> Still, “Thunderbolts*” needed to make $425 million worldwide to break even, a figure that seems unachievable.
Where does the other $145 million go?
What I meant was, when I pay some money for a ticket, not all of that goes back up the chain. The movie theater keeps some of it, yet box office numbers are before that as I understand it[1][2].
[1]: https://stephenfollows.com/i/150400340/what-share-of-box-off...
[2]: https://newsletter.oscars.org/news/post/bond-and-broccoli-al...
Let's go through the litany:
- Moneygrab reboot
- Disposes of all the old actors, except the one who always a bas relief and never really had a part of his own
- Skeletal approach to continuing the franchise
- Empty world; First because Endgame reprised The Leftovers and second because the world is literally empty
- Actors bring lazy disinterested schtick instead of charisma to bear for parts written with no character
- Pointless action
- Plot is a drug / alcohol intervention managed by Trump's press secretary
- No reason to care about what happens next in the franchise
- Regards itself as merely a collection of tropes
- Most interesting part doesn't rise even to a Star Wars "can you at least put on towel" moment
But other than this what an incredible installment for a dead franchise!