I'd think thats common sense when you drop 210m on a film to expect something like 300m. I doubt they're happy with that final gross, espcially after X-Men doubled it's budget and X2 almost doubled it's budget.

It's not bad, it's not great, it's just what it is. If the film had a budget around 130m-150m and ended up with the 235m, then I could say it did pretty great, but with a budget of 210m, 235m is nothing to be incredibly pleased about.

I don't think Universal expected $200+ million for Miami Vice when they dropped $150 million on it. Once again, films do make money in other ways than just domestic grosses. $235 million for X3 is great.

Thats a different case, the movie went way over budget thanks to alot of set backs.

I dont think studios spend 210m on a movie just to break even in theaters.

Collateral dropped -56.7% on its first Monday. I'd wait for the Friday numbers to see where this is going....

But they're not breaking even, really. Without getting into a debate about "counting" international totals, DVD and more, it's really not just breaking even. Hell, even Pirates just barely breaks even if you just look at domestic gross.

you first

Oh, and I really doubt (or hope) WB didn't expect Poseidon to break $200 million total. To break even with just domestic numbers, it would need to make $250 million minimum.

No, no, that is not common sense, that is your sense. I guarantee you, they never expected $300 million, just like lmost none of us here did. You think people there have no idea of how box-office works, you think they don't know what is an achievable range for their films? C'mon, they know this stuff well-enough and they knew that the ceiling for this movie would be $250-260 million.

Im talking about WW it barely broke even.

Ofcourse they expected it to be a big hit, thats why they gave it the budget.

Oh so what are you, the executive at Fox? You talk like you know everything that goes on over there.

You think when Sony gave Spider-Man 2 a budget over 200m, they expected to only make 235m domestic? Or when Disney gave Pirates 2 a budget over 200m they expected 250m to be the ceiling?

Again, people dont spend THAT much money on a film just so they can come back even and hope to make money in another form of media.

F4 = More Profitable
BB = More Profitable
X-Men = More Profitable
X2= More Profitable
Sin City = More Profitable

It's about on par with Daredevil and V for Vendetta when it comes to profitablitiy and more profitable then Hulk in theaters, LETS PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats what happens when you give a film that most likely would never do 300m+ a budget of over 200m, it's ridiculous, the budget should've been max, 150m.

I talk like someone with comon sense, you don't.

So the next Spider-Man is supposd to cost $300 million. You think they expect it to be a lock for $450 million or what?! Do you realize that the budgets for movies will keep increasing faster than the grosses are. So, either you will start calling 90% of movies out there disappointments or see it the way it is which is that a $235 million gross is pretty good for this film and I would even call it solid for Superman.

You're thinking of this way too much in terms of just domestic gross/budget. A studio makes money off of a movie in so many ways, many of which we do not know of. It's got almost 441 million total, it will do well on DVD/VHS, it will have good rentals, and of course it is going to make a killing in terms of merchandising.

It's really not fair to look at just domestic gross and budget to determine a films profitability.

Im not just counting domestic, im doing WW. To break even it needed 420m, it's gonna do about 455m WW.

I understand theres other forms of media that it'll do well in and make a profit, but this isnt the DVD forum, it's the BO forum and in terms of it's BO, theres PLENTY of other mid range comic films that made more of a profit then Last Stand and what im saying is that the word great or awsome shouldnt really be thrown around for Last Stands BO take, thanks to a huge budget.

Then so be it, blockbuster movies will become less and less profitable in theaters, and smaller films like Devil Wear Prada will be the ones coming out on top thanks to small budgets.

Im glad you think common sense is that you would spend 210m on a film just to break even, all that hard work and time spent on a film just to break even, brilliant. Fox expected as much as possible, just like every other studio that spends tons of money on a film expects as much as possible, they dont have an f'in ceiling when they put a budget of 210m on a film, COME ON, they expect gangbuster business.

You're problem is pretty simple you are oversimplifying things WAY too much. Sure even if you are only counting WW you aren't taking so many things into account. It may not be a DVD forum, but regardless you are arguing that this film is not very profitable when this simply is not true. You can't even imagine how much money Fox made simply of merchandising. When all is said and done Fox is going to make a killing off this movie. Stop oversimplifying things so much.

The budget isn't set in stone from the start. A lot of times the studio ended up spending more than they originally planned, and in some occasions, they realized the budget was going to be way higher some months into the production. Then they have a decision to make, and in almost all cases, the studios would still rather release it in some sort of fashion instead of killing the project outright since they knew there are all these auxillary ways of getting some money in return, so a lot of times when they release a $150m film, they know the reality and actually do not expect much profit.

Of course they did and the film DID do that business.

Jeez, does everyone here think they work as executive and accounting for Fox, it's like they know how much Fox expected and know how much they made out of merchandising. How can I argue with someone that throws out figures they have no idea about, THE TOYS MADE 1BILLION AND THE UNDERWEAR ANOTHER 500m.

Yeah because the cost of making that merchandise is a big ol' 0 huh Speevy?

See, the thing you don't understand is that for any movie, and especially a movie like X3 with enormous potential to make money in many, many other areas, to break even (and even get a little extra) with just worldwide gross is very good. Fox is, when all is said and done, going to make a killing off the movie. It's going to end up making a shitload more profit than a lot of the other movies you mentioned.

It's funny because you are doing the same thing. You're acting like you know what Fox expected so before you go ahead and say that I think I'm a Fox executive, look in the mirror. You're doing the same thing.

Another person throwing out things they have no idea about. How do you come to that conclusion?

Im not throwing out numbers I have no idea about, or figures that I have no idea about, such as yourself. You're the accounter while Lecter is the executive.

I didnt throw out they should expect more money as fact, I said it's common sense to expect as much as possible for a film with that type of budget.

So then tell me why it's unreasonable to assume that when Fox approved such a big budget they weren't expecting 100 million in profit simply from the box office and they knew that X3 was one of the few films this year which had mutiple other routes of income. Why is that really so unreasonable? I'll counter with your argument. Are you a Fox executive who knows how much Fox was expecting?