Was this movie successful enough for a sequel?
I thought this movie was pretty good.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
it was but from what ive seen/heard costner doesnt do sequels...but if he did, the movie would go ahead as hes quite bankable in hollywood
shareit actually said in the commentary that a triology would go ahead depending on profits which very likely meant that costner was in contract to do a trilogy with the studio.In terms of success,the film made roound 28 million in profits which i dont think is enough that would generate them to do a sequel as i read before on message boards[dunno how true this is] that a film has to make around 4 times its budget before a studio starts making its money. As for costner being bankable-are you kidding?Are you in 1992 or 2012? He was at a stage in the 90s but since waterworld in 95 the guys had mostly big flops.
shareI didn't know there was supposed to be a trilogy. Too bad, I liked the movie.
shareWhy 4 times the budget to start to make money? Maybe its true i dunno, but it doesn't makes sense... I mean if the studio invests like say 10millions and get like 10millions + 1$ back, they made 1$, didn't they? Unless i m missing something i'd say as long you get more money than the budget you make money... Maybe not enough to legitimate a sequel but still making money, i don't see why it has to be 4 time its budget...
Am i missing something??
Peace
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs"
i don't know what way it works,i read so much conflicting info on these boards about that but i can't answer your question as i don't know. Personally though i would say most films[big budget and independent films] make their cash back over time 1 way or other,otherwise why would they bother to keep producing them,it' all about making money at the end of the day like everything else in the working world. I study english in uni and we had a film module and once my professor said the arthouse films were not expected to make their cash back in the cinema but rather in other ways.
shareI think it might have to do with the fact that the budget doesn't include the cost of promotion/advertising.
share