"Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey" sequel promises substantially larger budget

[weberrygt]

6,000,000 / 100,000 = 6000% profit!

For comparison, and I am just making these numbers up: $2B on a $500M budget ~ 400% return. Obviously, a B means so much more than any M, but it's hard to ignore such a rate of return.

[KManX89]

Originally Posted by weberrygt

6,000,000 / 100,000 = 6000% profit!

For comparison, and I am just making these numbers up: $2B on a $500M budget ~ 400% return. Obviously, a B means so much more than any M, but it's hard to ignore such a rate of return.

Such an overrated statistic. No shit it had a bigger multiplier than any blockbuster, it was made for less than my lunch money. But in terms of actual profit, it doesn’t even come close to making what tentpoles typically make. By that logic, the Saw films all did better than Endgame, but we all know which movie made more green for their respective studio (hard profit, not revenue).

Which is why, if you’re curious, you owe it to yourself and fellow moviegoer to not pay to see this garbage (and it will be garbage just like the first one was). It doesn’t take many paying consumers like that for it to go black, hence we’re gonna keep getting more of these garbage heaps from a hack director who’s made no secret of the fact that he’s so eager to be the next Daniel Ferrands.

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

Originally Posted by KManX89

Such an overrated statistic. No shit it had a bigger multiplier than any blockbuster, it was made for less than my lunch money. But in terms of actual profit, it doesn’t even come close to making what tentpoles typically make. By that logic, the Saw films all did better than Endgame, but we all know which movie made more green for their respective studio (hard profit, not revenue).

Which is why, if you’re curious, you owe it to yourself and fellow moviegoer to not pay to see this garbage (and it will be garbage just like the first one was). It doesn’t take many paying consumers like that for it to go black, hence we’re gonna keep getting more of these garbage heaps from a hack director who’s made no secret of the fact that he’s so eager to be the next Daniel Ferrands.

Guy seems like the biggest hack in the world. Not being able to come up with a creative idea in his bones. using other peoples ideas to make his crappy horror movies.

[weberrygt]

Originally Posted by KManX89

Such an overrated statistic.

[Show spoiler]No shit it had a bigger multiplier than any blockbuster, it was made for less than my lunch money. But in terms of actual profit, it doesn’t even come close to making what tentpoles typically make. By that logic, the Saw films all did better than Endgame, but we all know which movie made more green for their respective studio (hard profit, not revenue).

Which is why, if you’re curious, you owe it to yourself and fellow moviegoer to not pay to see this garbage (and it will be garbage just like the first one was). It doesn’t take many paying consumers like that for it to go black, hence we’re gonna keep getting more of these garbage heaps from a hack director who’s made no secret of the fact that he’s so eager to be the next Daniel Ferrands.

Yes of course. I am not saying to replace, nor am I commenting on the actual movie itself. I am saying that it still pays to fund other movies besides the tentpoles you referenced. There is still opportunity to profit. I would be curious to see a ranking of movies by rate of profit/return.