will there be a sequel for this movie?
just wanted to know if there will be a sequel for this movie..... I Am No. 5 maybe?
shareI think there are threads here that say the movie didn't do well enough for a sequel. I like the books, and would like to see sequels.
shareAccording to wiki it had a 50 mil budget, made the budget back in the US and another 90 mil overseas. I don't know how Hollywood thinks, maybe they only count domestic box office.
sharehttp://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=iamnumberfour.htm
this website it says its budged is $50 mill and it made in total $144,500,437.
i don't understand why the sequel didn't get a green light.
~~*AIM*~~
KEIRAHOLICNº14
Forever POTC
sequel would likely cost more unless they had contracted the actors with sequels in mind. Given the budget and how much would have been spent on marketing, it wasn't that big of a break out and unless the contracts were written with sequels in mind, it's not a guarantee the sequel would make a profit.
shareYep. Lot of people. Myself included don't see where all the money goes. I mean.. You can take an educated guess and try to consolidate all the possible expenses and just from a guy with no film budgeting experience I can see how the number here on IMDb or posted elsewhere presented might be the initial estimate, or a ballpark figure given publicly. I bet it excludes: marketing, tons of unforeseen construction, delay, permit, locating, and relocating costs, re-scouting, rush orders for CGI, break-downs, repairs, maintenance, cast maintenance, catering (they brought on a spider specialist with paperwork and tons of legal documents in that Breaking Bad episode where the kid had the spider in the jar, and paid that guy something like 10k!), plus fuel expenses.
This is Hollywood of course they are living the dream right, so limo rides, not Burger King every day, but expensive meals, makeup, wardrobe, bringing in special props, greasing the right palms. And at the end of the day you want to get paid well for your efforts right? Everybody's boss gets paid, and their boss has investors who expect a return on their investment, who paid the other manager indirectly to pay you pay your employees to pay their contractors out and it trickles down to our dollar coming back in at the box office. I'm guessing with the digital revolution and all, movies can only expect to really make their largest chunk of money in the first few months or so, sure you have DVD sales but I hear the domestic theater tickets are the large majority of revenue, and determine the trickle-down income afterwards based on initial success. You need about three times your investment back to even consider a sequel, that has got to be a pretty solid bet that it will make less than the first, with people expecting something new and more exciting.
But I might not know what the heck I'm talking about, if anybody knows a lot about this stuff I would be happy to hear what you have to say.
I think those special effects cost a lot more than we realize, involving sophisticated computers, programs, and many "illustrators." And these days most movies are crammed with them. I watched "30 Days of Night" (filmed in New Zealand and full of special effects - they virtually created a very realistic frigid Barrow, Alaska - complete with "breath vapor" when it was actually 80 degrees and summer) with the commentary once, and the director talked about how Peter Jackson had created one of the world's best effects houses in NZ to pull off the "Lord of the Rings" movies (which - regardless of how you feel about that whole fantasy/hobbit/middle-earth thing - you have to admit were pretty amazing technical achievements). In any event, they came to a part of the movie that had some stunning effect, and they all talked about how beautiful and realistic it was, and that it was done by WETA (PJ's effects co.). The director said, "They are amazing and can do anything, but VERY expensive . . . but, you get what you pay for."
shareThis was just on TV (again)... and I was reading through the posts...
I know this is an old post, but out of a gross of $150M worldwide, that leaves about $75M after the theater's cut. Take ~10% for the distributors (domestic and international) you have $67M. Add in A&M costs of only $30M (they knew is was going to be a flop) and you are looking at $37M in net income against a $60M budget... and you have a Box office 'flop'. Not to say that with DVD/BluRay sales, Cable/TV licensing rights they have not made money, but sequels just do not get made with a first film losing that much as sequels tend to earn even less then.
No, GROSS means what they took in... that isn't what they made. All of their costs and expenses still have to be deducted from that.
Also, that is the ticket RECEIPTS... that also does not account for the small portion that goes to the theaters.
And the budget was about $60 Million, not 50.