He was fired because of corporate stuff:
A source close to the situation said that the decision to ask for Moore’s resignation was made by the board of Viacom, Paramount’s corporate parent. Moore had been one of the major proponents of former Viacom Chairman Philippe Dauman’s push for Paramount to sell a minority stake in the company to Dalian Wanda. But after Viacom Board Vice-Chair Shari Redstone successfully orchestrated Dauman’s ouster last summer, the decision was made to abandon the sale process over Moore’s objections.
(The rest of that article is here:
http://variety.com/2016/film/news/rob-moore-out-at-paramount-pictures-exclusive-1201869165/)
The movie doubled it's production budget now, but I don't really know the answer to that. The studio may also factor in other budget stuff. The production budget (sets, lighting, crew, location filming, etc.) was 25 but it costs more for the entire thing (i.e. Rings' stateside marketing and print delivery alone cost 25-35 million, and then also not included in that 25 above is the money that goes to the director, editors, actors, the composer, the visual effects house, and the screenwriters). Paramount will have people do research to calculate if it's a good financial decision to make a sequel.
The general rule of thumb is that if a movie makes double its production budget globally then it has sequel potential. This means that
Rings has sequel potential, and now the research will probably begin to see if they should make another one. The problem is that Rings was such a critical failure which they do take into account sometimes. It's basically that saying "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.". If the majority of people didn't like the movie, they might not watch another one which means the studio may not want to make one if there's a chance they'll lose money on it.
reply
share