She’s starred in three big budget high profile films in her career so far. All of them have bombed, including the new Hunger Games prequel no one asked for.
Time to cut her loose.
Hunger Games is not a bomb, may not be a hit, but will break even
sharemovie studios dont make films to break even.
shareStudios don’t even make movies to make a slight profit, look at Fincher’s, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, that movie was remarkably well made and even turned a profit, but it wasn’t enough for the studio to commit to finishing the trilogy, even though the fans (myself included) were clamoring for them.
Instead we got a Rooneyless, Spiderweb, shit show which of course dug its own grave and then bombed face first into oblivion.
And how much you wanna bet we get more Hunger Games films, ain’t that a bitch. Not that I have anything against The Hunger Games, I’m just really salty we didn’t get to see Rooney finish TGWTDT trilogy.
She did do 3 high profile movies, but you can't say the success or failure of those movies, at least the first 2, are entirely on her. Those failures should be carried on higher shoulders, like Steven Spielberg or Zachary Levi.
I think snow white however will be make or break for her, since she plays the title character.
Not necessary. Beauty and the Beast was gigantic. And it did nothing at all for Emma Watson career. At that point producers saw that she is not a solo star and Beauty made those money only because of famous story and would do it with any actress.
I think Emma Watson's career was not so much of finished, more of given up.
She was a very rich woman, and I think she picked her projects. And now I think she basically given up as an actress. She started as a child, this probably was not a career choice she made herself.
More like she saw she can't act and that she won't be cast in lead roles in big projects or Oscar movies.
Never underestimate greediness of Hollywood people. Money are never enough for them.
I was saying not so much she was not offered. I think she rejected those offers, for whatever reason.
shareNo, I think she was never offered anything and Hollywood producers just gave up on her. With her level of fame she expected big roles or invitations to come and they never did. Of she went to few auditions and was not cast. And then she just gave up and semi-retired.
You could actually see what kind of movie she HAD to take before retirement. Because those were the only ones she was offered.
They were just bad and flopped. And low budget. Like 15 millions. And she was bad in them. They were not some low budget Oscar baits
Regression
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pBwIsVGaL4
Colonia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBSMl343fsw
The Circle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUlr8Am4zQ0
Big offers did not come after Beauty and the Beast because she wasn't good i it. It was the story that made those money. She had small supporting role in Little Women. And then Florence and Saorsie got all praise for it while she was ignored. She is barely in trailer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AST2-4db4ic
But those were before Beauty and the Beast, which is a success.
Also little women, which is another huge success.
It is quite hard to believe she did not have offers after those 2.
We will never know if she had offers. There are a lot of actors in Hollywood and there are way less good or big roles. And every semi-famous actor wants to sit and choose projects but only mega superstars have that choice. People like Emma must fight and audition for big roles.
They could be offered some projects like those I mentioned above. And they either have to take them or sit without job. And then even those offers may stop coming. Some actors wait and wait. And then just give up. Which I feel like happened with her.
There was also controversy with her Little Women appearance. As I mentioned - she was forgettable in it, barely in trailer and her role was very supporting. And she was cast only because other actress dropped out. And then she skipped whole promotion season for God knows why.
Emma Watson refused to join the promo tour for “Little Women,” Page Six can reveal.
Watson’s been MIA, and we’ve been told that her reps informed Sony Pictures she would join co-stars Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen, Laura Dern, Timothée Chalamet and her royal highness Meryl Streep only at the premiere at MoMA on Dec. 7.
While the rest of the cast has been hitting the promo circuit hard, with late-night appearances, morning-show spots and touring the globe, a movie source revealed: “Emma’s reps told Sony that she would only do the premiere. We don’t really know what happened, if she wasn’t happy with the movie or fell out with the cast.”
However, a source insisted that Watson was thrilled with the film, pointing out that she had flooded her Instagram account — she has 52.9 million followers, more than anyone else in the cast — with photos of the movie, and said she’s also not a lead character. Having such a massive social media footprint means she could easily skip the tour and have equal impact, the insider pointed out.
The little women was in 2019, and the following year:"In June 2020, Watson was appointed the youngest member of the board of directors of Kering, the owner of various fashion brands such as Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent. Watson will chair Kering's sustainability committee."
I think that was what she was more into now, and why she gave up being an actress, it was definitely a step up from being just a celebrity.
She was given real power, the ability to bend the world to her will. On a separate thought I think she should be cast as the evil queen in Snow White, and say something like:"There is only power and people too weak to seek it."
Well Hunger Games prequel didn't flop completely, sadly. It just wasn't as big as Hunger Games. But they were smart enough to spend only 100 millions on budget. So it will break even. Probably. We don't know how much was spend on promotion.
It has okeyish numbers in US, will have 100 millions after second week, But worldwide numbers are horrendous. It made only 56 millions overseas. When this is kinda blockbuster and must have bigger. People outside USA are just over this Hungers Games thing.
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Hunger-Games-The-The-Ballad-of-Songbirds-and-Snakes-(2023)#tab=box-office
it seems like itll barely break even or lose money. often blockbusters like this have a matching marketting budget. but of course we cant know for sure.
400 million would be a safe number to assume break even. its currently at 137 millon
People always guess those "break even numbers" very roughly. It's easy to say "bomb" when it has budget of 200 millions. When its only 100 millions and it makes 100 millions it hard to guess. Don't forget they they sell movie countless times to tv showing, to streamers etc. There used to be dvd. Could be toys, merchandise.
Studios can milk those movie for years. Twilight, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Home Alone are constantly on tv still have to bring enormous money to their studios. Same with Hunger Games.
That's why studious sometimes do sequels even if movie didn't exactly broke box-office.
They aren't making their money back on streaming.
shareWell they do sell movies to streamings. For millions. They don't give them for free to streamings.
No, they don't get money every time someone watches is. But they do get money 1 time when they allow their movie to particular streaming.
Netflix one time payed 100 millions to keep Friends on their platform for only few months, I think. And then it went to another streaming.
i mean they dont release the marketting budget but the "rule of thumb" on these types of films is marketting is equal to production. what you think they spent 10 million in marketting? 20 million? its a "big" franchise and they invested 100 million in the production. they aint about to let it go unnoticed and risk a 100 million dollar production budget by under marketting.
https://collider.com/hunger-games-ballad-of-songbirds-and-snakes-box-office-budget/#:~:text=At%20a%20reported%20production%20budget,between%20%24165%20million%20and%20%24200
"At a reported production budget of $100 million (making it the second least-expensive film in the series next to the original The Hunger Games at $78 million) and a likely marketing budget of $100 million, "
Don't forget they they sell movie countless times to tv showing, to streamers etc. There used to be dvd. Could be toys, merchandise.
Well it's not what we, public, think.For us it's just fun to speculate and proclaim. But it's the producers and studios that make decisions. Don't be surprised if Lionsgate will decide to do more Hunger Games counting this as "moderate success".
Like that Walking Dead franshise. No one watched original show for years, they spend huge money on salaries for main cast. Everyone thought they were just losing money at this time. But they still ordered 10 spin-offs and prequels to it. Because in their calculations it was good investment for their network with having at least something people talk about and selling it to other countries. Because AMC don't have new popular shows anymore so they milk what they have.
There was this The Whole Nine Yards comedy with Bruce Willis and Mathew Perry in 2000. It had budget of 41 millions, and made 57 domestic + 28 international = 85 millions overall. We would say it flopped or barely broke even. But studio ordered sequel because for them it was success when they counted all the money they got from selling it after theatrical release.
Well it's not what we, public, think.For us it's just fun to speculate and proclaim. But it's the producers and studios that make decisions. Don't be surprised if Lionsgate will decide to do more Hunger Games counting this as "moderate success".
Like that Walking Dead franshise. No one watched original show for years,
The Walking Dead premiered to 5.35 million viewers, making it by far the biggest series debut AMC had seen to that point and one of the largest in cable history. The six-episode first season was fairly steady throughout its run, averaging 5.24 million viewers on the night it first aired.
WORLDWIDE
$106,371,651
Interesting. "The numbers" has different numbers. They lave lower International
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Whole-Nine-Yards-The#tab=summary
Domestic Box Office $57,262,492
International Box Office $28,265,375
Worldwide Box Office $85,527,867
I should have spent few paragraphs explaining in details Walking Dead. I thought you knew. As everyone kinda knew it at this point.
Walking Dead became mega famous. Then started killing main characters for Shock Factor and media frenzy. Which prompted people to stop caring about characters since what's the point. Every time some beloved character was killed - many people stopped watching. And since it was going for way too long - their storylines became boring and repetitive. So by the last few seasons not many people watched it and former fans begged them to just end this misery.
And they had huge main cast - salaries must have eaten many millions per episode. And it's very expensive show to make with whole apocalypse settings and zombies make up. With low ratings - it was no longer profitable to shoot it. And eventually they cancelled it. After 11 seasons.
‘The Walking Dead’ by the Numbers
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/walking-dead-by-the-numbers-ratings-amc-1235265635/
...about 1.4 million people (save a possible series-ending bump in viewership) will tune into AMC Sunday to watch the last episode.That’s a far cry from where the show was at its peak, as The Walking Dead’s traditional ratings numbers have fallen off steeply in its latter years.
Walking Dead premiered to 5.35 million viewers.
Season 2 grew to 6.91 million same-day viewers.
Season 3 rose to 10.75 million;
Season 4 to 13.33 million.
Season 5 represented the show’s, it averaged 14.38 million viewers.
The 5 five premiere was most watched episode ever, with 17.29 million tuning in on Oct. 12, 2014.
Seasons 6 and 7 of The Walking Dead declined some, but the show was still a juggernaut, averaging 13.15 million and 11.35 million.
Show would decline beginning with season 8. That season averaged 7.82 million same-day viewers
The 9 season fell by 37% more and the 10th by about the same percentage again
The drawn-out final season has only toped 2 million same-day viewers once
Look you can think what ever common thing internet thinks movie must make to be profitable but only studio knows what is profitable for it.
But that movie will make 100+ for Lionsgate. Like maybe even 120-140 when it will finish.
And apart from John Wick franchise - Lionsgate doesn't have movies that can bring them 100 millions at the boxoffice. That's why they ordered it in the first place to everyone's surprise. Just to have something recognizable that can be promoted and bring some money.
Look at the years of Lionsgate box-office grosses when Hunger Games finished
https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/distributor/Lionsgate#tab=year
Don't be surprised if they would announce some Finnick Odair spin-off. For the time when he won his game. I don't even mind watching it. Or when Johanna Mason or Haymitch won their games. They would milk franchise since it is able to bring them 100+ millions. They would give it small budgets to keep it profitable.
Hunger Games isn’t a bomb.
shareCost $100 million to make plus millions for marketing, and it only made $37 million more than that in the first two weeks.
Bomb.
It’s made close to $200 million worldwide, and still has plenty of fuel left in the tank. That’s not a bomb.
shareBomb.
shareIt made $197 million in a very crowded week and we're not even done with its second weekend yet. It'll probably settle around $350 to $400 million. May not be a megahit like the first few films but in a year of bombs, this aint one of em. Sounds like you just don't want the brown girl to succeed.
shareIts not. As of late February 2024, it has made 338 million on a budget of 100 million. I don't think they spent much on marketing either, because it came and went without me even realizing it. So, it wasn't a blockbuster, but it did turn a little profit.
shareIt beat two new big movies in its SECOND weekend but incels still say she's box office poison. Lol, the delusion to think your feelings matter in the real world.
shareThey're calling her box office poison when;
1. West Side Story was her first role. Nobody had a clue who she was going into it. Not to mention it's a 2 and a half hour long musical, a practically dead genre.
2. She was fifth billed in Shazam!. DCEU movies have been flopping for years now.
3. Her third movie, The Hunger Games, is actually doing well.
Bunch of clowns making shit up to support their little belief system that their internet hate circles are representative of society as a whole. These muppets actually think your typical 35 year old everyday man hates Brie Larson, Rachel Zegler, Kathleen Kennedy and co. because they're 'woke'. They live in their own little bubbles and keep twisting facts to align with their worldview that society is against 'woke' media, that they're winning some imaginary cultural conflict.
stiiiiiiillll using that word incel, are you?
Seriously, dude. any of your talks go right out the social justice window when you (constantly) resort to name calling. you don't know who is actually an incel... why are you calling people that? Oh, that's right, as a name calling insult.
all your words after that are ignored. bad way to hold an adult discussion. oops sorry I called you an an adult - at least I didn't mean it as an insult, I simply don't know if you are an adult or not.
on top of that, "incel" isn't even a real thing. its a dumb made up word that describes a normal blue sky.
same as the word CIS-male or whatever. madeup waste of time, no one with a brain acknowledges.
Damn, you got so worked up over a word. Seems like I touched a nerve.
I bet you say wOkE all the time and expect people to take you seriously.
People like you using words improperly, tells me you don't know what the definitions are.
So, I feel like an idiot trying to attempt to converse with morons who don't know where and when to use words.
The internet is full of this.
Maybe don't NAME CALL as your best offense? Just a thought. Grow and learn the language you are misusing.
The Hunger Games prequel has made about twice its production budget in ten days so far. This is not a bomb, yet. That you did not ask for this film does not mean no one else did, duh.
Why are you so eager to pronounce her as a failure? Are you losing money on her films?