Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_ixiiq10 wrote

22

ghjm t1_ixilo7o wrote

It could also buy you twenty or thirty mid-budget movies that are driven by characters and stories rather than by CGI effects.

24

JarvisCockerBB t1_ixj43l9 wrote

You mean like TIL? Which no one saw. Or She Said? Which also no one saw. How about Emily the Criminal, Three Thousand Years of Longing, Death on the Nile, Nightmare Alley, The Card Counter, Worst Person in the World, Tar. You make it seem like there's this huge audience for these films when the truth is, barely anyone is even watching these stories in the theater.

And fwiw, I've seen 7 of those films all in the theater to barely anyone around.

5

raltyinferno t1_ixk35f4 wrote

Do they say anything about viewership?

No one is denying the big cgi blockbusters have higher viewership, but that doesn't change the fact that that budget can cover a lot of good character films.

1

braamdepace t1_ixip4rc wrote

That’s under the assumption that you are spending $0 in P&A which is insane for the movie industry. Way of Water is estimated to cost around $400 with P&A. $250mm budget $150mm P&A. Also you are talking about a movie where a lot of the budget was spent prior to the crazy inflation and interest rates we’ve seen recently. All the movies you mentioned are sequels though so proof of concept has been established and generally sequels are more expensive. So with inflation adjusted and some P&A, you could see $1B make

Either -Titanic and Avatar (Amazon would be pumped for this outcome)

Or - John Carter and Waterworld (Amazon would be less happy)

Realistically you might get, a few decent movies, but a billion isn’t really that much all things considered. Especially when Amazon Prime is generally viewed as the streaming platform with some of the worst content.

Edit: P&A stands for prints and advertising (usually 50% if a films budget)

3