All That Chat - re: Actually, it was considered a hit

HOME ALL THAT CHAT ATC WEST COAST SHOPPIN' RUSH BOARD FAQS

LOGIN REGISTER SEARCH FLAT MODE

not logged in

re: Actually, it was considered a hit

Posted by:	MockingbirdGirl 09:11 pm EDT 04/02/14
In reply to:	re: Actually, it was considered a hit - keikekaze 08:00 pm EDT 04/02/14

I haven't looked up Count's box-office, but just as a hypothetical example, if a film costs $50 million to produce and it grosses $70 million, it's not making a $20 million profit. It's probably losing about $15 million Monte Cristo cost $35 million to produce and grossed $75 million, and was considered a modest hit at the time. A movie marketing budget is typically 50% of production's costs... but even if Disney spent $20 million on marketing, the movie would still have made $20 million -- a tidy sum. The claim that it was "probably considered a failure" is untrue.

reply \|

Previous:	re: Actually, it was considered a hit - keikekaze 08:00 pm EDT 04/02/14
Next:	re: Actually, it was considered a hit - keikekaze 01:52 am EDT 04/03/14

Thread:	re: Actually, it was considered a hit - keikekaze 01:52 am EDT 04/03/14 re: Actually, it was considered a hit - chrisampm 10:07 pm EDT 04/02/14

All That Chat is intended for the discussion of theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)