Fox12 said:
Analysts are idiots.
What could they possibly need $800 million for? The marketing and production costs are half that, and those are the primary expenses.
the way it works with movies is you need budget * 2 to make even. this is because the studios only get around half of the money from box office back while the other half goes to theaters, taxes, ect. so you need to have American box office twice the budget. And i specify american here because the overseas distribution is handled by other companies and as a result they actually get very small percentage of the foreign box office.
Of course we should probably account for the money laundering that happens in hollywood accounting and the real expenses budget is probably a bit smaller.
Einspanner said:
Analysts... almost always worthless and almost always less accurate than a coin flip. Forgettable assholes to a man/woman. Remember Michael Pachter?
Funny thing, Muchael Patchers predictions came out true 50% of the time (like literally exactly 50%) which, given the predictions being quite specific is a very large number and far better than random. Pachter was more right than most people give him credit for.
IOwnTheSpire said:
Are professional critics even worth listening to at this point, instead of seeing the movie ourselves and judging accordingly?
my experience with rottentomatoes is that if that site hated it - ill love it.
mduncan50 said:
Currently 34% on Rotten Tomatoes with a 5.2/10 average score. Metacritic has it at 44/100. Well that appears to have landed with all of the grace of a chunk of kryptonite.
doesnt matter, the public loved it. 9.0 on IMDB [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/reference]