Posted on 12/16/2009 12:14:03 AM PST by Brugmansian
If they made 230 million globally, what’s stopping them from filming whatever they want to film? Just don’t expect to make much money in a country where the majority of people still identify themselves as Christians.
Yeah..seemed odd to me. They made a profit. Why not go on?
>> Why not go on?
A convenient excuse to avoid making another film.
You have to remember that only 50-60% of the gross goes to the studio, the rest goes to the theaters/distributors.
So only you take off the 40-50% off the total gross, and add in the promotion/advertising costs, the movie lost money. Which is why there is not going to be a sequel. It has nothing to do with Christians halting his movie. Although they may have done so by refusing to go see it.
Reminds me of an updated old WWI song, "Good Bye, Broadway; Hello Bollywood!
Yup, Pullman is just mad that God via Narnia kicked arse against Athiesm. The childish world view of Athiests shows up in so many different ways.
Message aside, the books get worse and more boring IMO.
Worldwide Marketing budget is usually about the same as production costs when all is said and done, 'cause they add dubbing foreign languages or subtitling... so, figure total costs of $360 Million... So net before taxes of $82 mil... nothing to Sneeze at... but given the risks of sequelitis... I can see the antsy ness of investors. 11% return after taxes on the original might not translate to sequel 1 or 2.
it cost so much to make that even if it did earn 230 million, it isn’t enough to make a profit.
And since when do “conservative Christians” rule the movie market?
The dirty little secret is that EWTN and other markets pointed out that part one of his trilogy was fairly benign, with only broad hints against the church...but the story got more obvious and anti God/anti Catholic in part two and three.
In contrast, “The Passion of the Christ” grossed north of $611M in worldwide box office (not rentals, just theater tickets) despite
- outright bans in some countries
- produced in a language spoken only in a small obscure region
- being funded entirely from the director’s pocket
- vying for most violent movie ever (PGs tend to earn far more than hard-R)
There is some truth to this, but he gets the cause backward when he lays the blame for the dark times of the church on the belief in the divinity of Christ.
Certainly Martin Luther had a more profound belief in Jesus as Lord then the corrupt church leadership who were selling indulgences and worse.
Excellent point. Kind of takes the wind out of the poor persecuted atheist line.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with Bill Donahue. Read the entire story.
as if Hollywood gives a rats ass what is offensive to Christians, let alone Catholics
That’s what the author is crying about. May have to pay for something himself.
They know that they will lose money on it.
Those numbers don’t show a profit - gross is the ticket receipts AFAIK. The theatres have to take their cut.
It used to be huge blockbusters cost $100 million to make, now any little tinpot anti-Christian film gets nearly a fifth of a billion dollars?
This book, triology or whatever this thing may be called is totally ANTI - God.... if people do NOT wish to spend their money on this then so be it.
Even in the type of world we live in today, evil does not always prevail there is good still among us.
Most of all parents, ALWAYS check out these books and movies before allowing your children to see them.
MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!
If his work was good enough to make it in the marketplace of ideas it would have made it. There are plenty of atheists out there to buy anti-religion work. He has only himself to blame for not getting a wider audience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.