Just like "The Room", people will see it, especially on DVD, because of how "horrible" it is.
I'm sure many people are running out right now to see it.
The producers are laughing all the way to the bank.
--
^Signature is below here
<-- I'm the first to ever use this icon
No? Yeah, I'm gonna go with no.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Doubtful. "So-bad-it's-good" type movies with this genre don't really get much of a following. Usually horror does, as well as the odd drama, like the Room.
shareNot to mention that "The Room" cost about four dollars to make, while this superdud cost $90 million. All the so-bad-it's-good in the world won't dig them out of that hole.
share[deleted]
300 Million to break even?!!??!?!?!!? Where'd you get that number from? The film isn't doing well financially, and no, the 'so bad it's good' guys out there (me included, who saw it based on reviews) will not be enough to keep this thing even theoretically afloat.
shareProbably factoring in advertising, but that's overdoing it still. It'd probably need ~$160 milll to break even.
shareThe Room took over a decade to break even. But even so, it had a loyal cult following (myself included), and that was on a budget of 6 million with minimal advertising.
This 90 million dollar dumpster-fire that I found out about through a nostalgia critic reference (not even a full episode). I do agree that its funny and fasinating, but it'll take a century to break even.