ouch... Ghost Rider flick getting slammed by the critics

[MysterioMenace]

The debate here is this, if a film makes more money the it had spend to make it - whether it was intended to make more then it made or not BUT STILL made more then it spent making it - is it a success? I say yes, I say common sense says yes personally. It’s as simple as that. My question is, how isn’t it? Superman returns made what WB says it was at least expected to in order to make a Sequel, it surpassed it and though certainly expectations were higher for Kal El’s return and it was a disappointment on some levels, how is a film that made more then it’s production value and warranted a sequel a box office disaster? When I put it like that, how can you even argue the latter? It’s completely logical. And for what it's worth, I'm not some superman fan boy - I don't even like Superman much.

 

Then for what it’s worth, I really didn’t see much more in the way of Superman stuff then I did Ghost Rider stuff as far as marketing goes - but then I‘m not looking for blankets, party supplies and decorative plates.

[Last Son of Krypton]

The debate here is this, if a film makes more money the it had spend to make it - whether it was intended to make more then it made or not BUT STILL made more then it spent making it - is it a success? I say yes, I say common sense says yes personally. It’s as simple as that.

 

Ok, we're completely going away from what the original argument was about, but I'll ask you this. What films come to mind when you think success vs flop? For arguments sake, lets just take a few of the highest bugdeted films of all time. Wild Wild West, Waterworld, Poseidon, and Alexander are all in the top 15, but they don't exactly come to mind when you think about successful films now do they? All of these films barely made more than what they put into it, while all of them also were complete BOMBS/FLOPS in the U.S.

 

It is a FACT that films are geared toward certain audiences. Therefore, you have to take that into consideration when expecting certain box office numbers. For example, films rated 'R' typically don't generate as much money as films rated 'G, PG,or PG-13" because they are geared towards a much smaller audience, adults in general. Therefore, this also means that the studio knows this, and expects this, thusly, not willing to sink $200 million into a project that likely won't have as high a chance for a return on that investment.

 

You simply have to take into account the general audience that each specific movie is aimed at. Its really ignorant to think otherwise. I understand what you are saying about if a profit is made, then in your eye, its successful, however, I think that the studios would disagree. They have their number crunchers and such, but sometimes a film just doesn't meet expectations, and by industry standards, not ours, the film isn't successful. To put it even more simply, the movie industry is simply dealing with financial numbers that us fans can't even comprehend in our wildest dreams. Lets just say (insert movie name here) makes $10 million more than what was spent on a $100 million budget. Now to us, $10 million is more than we'd ever see in our lifetimes, but to the studio, its just a drop in the bucket. While it would be "successful" by your definition, in no way would such a film be deemed a success by the studio. So yes, you must take into account the audience when deeming a film successful or not, the studios certainly do.

 

Now back to the original statement that started this whole thing. Saying that GR is a flop, less than 24 hours into the first day is completely insane. It may be your opinion that it WILL flop, but in no way is it a fact that it is or even will be. Stating your opinion as fact is always asking for trouble, and that looks like what this thread has turned into.