Seriously baffled
-
BlueeRain — 10 years ago(February 13, 2016 07:50 AM)
Well if it had a net profit of $8 million it was profitable.
A profit is actually what you make over what you spent. So it wasn't a profit unfortunately.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/profit
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." Socrates -
Theshornwonder — 10 years ago(February 21, 2016 12:43 PM)
and, just because you included a definition of profit, here's one of "net"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/net
In the future, understand what you're talking about before trying to educate others on it. -
BlueeRain — 10 years ago(February 26, 2016 05:45 PM)
by Theshornwonder and, just because you included a definition of profit, here's one of "net"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/net
In the future, understand what you're talking about before trying to educate others on it.
Woa dude chill out. How about in the future don't be such a prick? It not attractive.
They still made a crappy amount of money after all the work they put into it. No matter how pretty you try to make it.
You
were
contradicting the OP and the other guy when you knew damn well what they meant:
by briand10 After spending nearly $300 million to produce and market it, apparently the net profit was only $8 million.
According to what I've read, a movie generally needs to earn more than double its cost to be
considered
profitable.
Which is why I got snarky to begin with. Then you got all pissy when I made a mistake. You should know by now that phones are pretty damn small and, yeah, I didn't even notice it said NET. All I noticed was you "correcting" the briand10 guy. So kill me for not being infallible.
Lastly I work in Theatre and have co-produced a few shows. So I know what
I
meant. In the real world when
you
actually produce something yourself you will understand what it really means - to all the people involved. You do not spend 300 million dollars expecting to take in that little money. And it's not just the money that's put into a production. It's a lot of hard work, care, and hours.
In the meantime work on your character because it is quite unpleasant. I liked the film also btw.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." Socrates -
-
DrWhen — 10 years ago(March 27, 2016 05:04 PM)
It's a case of not living up to the hype. They made a big deal in the marketing about the production cost but a lot of that was due to the weather especially the hurricane. After all the hype people went and got Mad Max on jet skis.
-
david_hokey_16 — 9 years ago(April 21, 2016 06:04 PM)
The explanation about people not liking the truth of what we are doing to our planet for not liking this movie is stupid. I'm an environmentalist and I hate that people are ignoring what we are doing to this planet. First of all, the movie is inaccurate in its depiction of the rising water levels. If the ice caps were to melt the water would not overtake the Earth. The movie is cheesy with characters that have no likeable qualities. It has action scenes but is otherwise slow and boring and runs way too long. The story has more than a few plot holes and the dialogue is poor as well as the acting. The only thing decent about it are some of the technical aspects such as the sound and special effects and even then this movie doesn't come to mind when you think about the best films in those categories. So, while some may find it enjoyable it is far from being a great movie. Average if nothing else.
-
gavdoig — 9 years ago(October 02, 2016 01:58 PM)
At tbe time that this film was released, K Costner was hot with huge hits like dances, bodyguard, robin hood all under his belt. This film had a huge budget and had high expectations but critics didnt like the sci fi/ post apolocalyptic thing and wanted more of the same of previous films. In retrospect this film isnt as bad as was made oht to be at the time. Just my 2 cents