PDA

View Full Version : 350 million dollars to make a movie...


oldandslow
06-16-2006, 01:19 PM
I guess I really do not understand the world of pop culture.

http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,1204671_1_0_,00.html

vailpass
06-16-2006, 01:33 PM
I guess I really do not understand the world of pop culture.

http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,1204671_1_0_,00.html

If it earns $500 million then it is a solid investment. What's not to understand?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-16-2006, 01:38 PM
If it earns $500 million then it is a solid investment. What's not to understand?

I'm trying to imagine what a pr0n starring Natalie Portman and Kate Beckinsale would gross.

CanadianChief
06-16-2006, 01:43 PM
I'm trying to imagine what a pr0n starring Natalie Portman and Kate Beckinsale would gross.

Probably about $2 billion dollars in the tissue market! :whackit

oldandslow
06-16-2006, 01:44 PM
If it earns $500 million then it is a solid investment. What's not to understand?

Waterworld.

KcMizzou
06-16-2006, 01:45 PM
I'm trying to imagine what a pr0n starring Natalie Portman and Kate Beckinsale would gross.I dont know, but they'd have my 20 bucks.

AZORChiefFan
06-16-2006, 01:50 PM
Superman has been quoted "Superman don't fly for nobody unless he gets paid" & "Superman has kids to feed" So since you can't have a Superman movie without Superman he had the studio over a barrel.

Fish
06-16-2006, 01:52 PM
I'm trying to imagine what a pr0n starring Natalie Portman and Kate Beckinsale would gross.

http://www.thepoorman.net/wp-content/5kittens.jpg

Dear Lord..... please.... NO..... think of the kittens.......

morphius
06-16-2006, 01:59 PM
Well, they did go through a bunch of directors, and even more rewrites for this movie. I'm sure that alone had to set them back a chunk of change.

tk13
06-16-2006, 02:03 PM
Well, they did go through a bunch of directors, and even more rewrites for this movie. I'm sure that alone had to set them back a chunk of change.
That's what it said in the article. The actual Singer movie cost 200 million or so... which is what I'd read/heard. But then you add all this advertising across the world and all the failed attempts in the last decade, it adds up to that.

morphius
06-16-2006, 02:08 PM
That's what it said in the article. The actual Singer movie cost 200 million or so... which is what I'd read/heard. But then you add all this advertising across the world and all the failed attempts in the last decade, it adds up to that.
I didn't make it past the fisrt page, cuase I realized I just didn't care. But I remember them going after pretty big named directors, and each of them would dump the last written version and start from scratch...

vailpass
06-16-2006, 02:08 PM
Waterworld.


If it earns $500 million then it is a solid investment. What's not to understand?

That is why they call it "investing" not "withdrawing".

J Diddy
06-16-2006, 02:20 PM
Superman has been quoted "Superman don't fly for nobody unless he gets paid" & "Superman has kids to feed" So since you can't have a Superman movie without Superman he had the studio over a barrel.


ROFL

keg in kc
06-16-2006, 02:21 PM
One of the reasons the 100 million mark at the box office doesn't mean what it used to.

They're basically printing money with this one, I'd think. I can't imagine what the opening weekend will be like, after seeing what a mediocre X-3 grossed.

keg in kc
06-16-2006, 02:22 PM
Speaking of Portman, I read somewhere that she's finally naked in a film. And it won't end up on the cutting room floor like Closer.

Problem is, she's being tortured, apparently. Ugh.

BigRedChief
06-16-2006, 02:38 PM
Speaking of Portman, I read somewhere that she's finally naked in a film. And it won't end up on the cutting room floor like Closer.

Problem is, she's being tortured, apparently. Ugh.

Gross. Let her be seen in all her nakedness without some dude with electrodes near by

keg in kc
06-16-2006, 02:45 PM
Worse than that, I think. I believe I read she was being tortured medieval-style. Like on the rack. Or something.