My friend who works at a theater said that the 7:00 showing tonight in the largest auditorium only had 4 people! This is going down as one of the biggest flops of the year!
shareI was in the theater...it was so lonely. Wanted to touch myself.
Good, I'm glad. This is complete garbage. A movie to pander to the YouTube generation and the most ironic thing is Hollywood doesn't realize these kids aren't/can't go see this movie.
shareA movie to pander to the YouTube generation and the most ironic thing is Hollywood doesn't realize these kids aren't/can't go see this movie.
I would. They're the second easiest demographic to take cash from.
shareI can't imagine the budget being that big, especially with the lack of marketing (saw a TV spot for the first time 2 days ago).
I hesitate to say flop because that word, to me at least, almost always connotates a big budget movie with tons of marketing that falls on its face (i.e. Fant4stic). Under-perform even modest expectations? Sure.
I was at a 12:10 showing (obv not the greatest gauge especially now with kids back in school), but that had only 5 people in it.
moviemanjackson.com
I think the movie under-perform too, but it made in the first day what Warner spent with this, so it's not like a big money loss, I read Max Joseph intend to don’t make a big release so I assume they didn’t spent a lot of money on it
shareThis movie seems like masculine-driven but Zac audience is mostly female, I wouldn't say "Neighbors" was a hit mainly because of Seth Rogen, but I think it was on the interest of Zac and Seth fans, I watched because of Zac, my friend watched because of Seth
Zac isn't in a lot of interesting movies also, movies like these and "Dirty Grandpa" aren't on my list, but I want to see "Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates" for an example, I love Anna Kendrick
In all fairness the dirt stupid millennials (repetitive) were too busy fapping to their hero poopiepie taking a dump and eating it on youtube to see it.
share[deleted]
Don't think budget includes how much actors were paid, behind scenes people, and advertisements.
They didn't make everything back in a day.
Productions budgets don't include marketing (even though this film didn't have much marketing). Budgets do include cast and crew payments.
I thought it took in $2,000,000 so far (its production budget) based on something another poster said (incorrectly). I should have researched it before blindly believing him. It took in $750,000 in 2333 theaters (which is awful considering the number of theaters).
But still, it made about 40% of it's production budget in 1 day, which isn't awful. Still trying to figure out how it got into so many theaters despite little to no marketing for it.
*EDIT: Wikipedia said its budget was $2,000,000 when I wrote this, but is now saying the budget is $6,000,000. This movie is a flop, but seriously, wait until Monday to say that!
The budget of $6M does include everything in producing the movie - including actors' salaries. It doesn't include marketing or distribution costs.
However this was an independent movie and WB did not produce it. WB only spent $2M to get the rights to it, plus whatever they spent on marketing and distributing it.
The producers, StudioCanal and Working Title Films, would have made most of the $6M back when they sold the rights to WB plus the other international distributors. Their losses are probably minimal.
And WB only has to worry about making back the $2M they paid for the rights plus marketing and distributing costs. Since they've already made back the $2M (or will have soon enough). It's just the marketing and distributing costs they lose (so far) and marketing should be very minimal since it wasn't advertised very well.
Financially, not a flop, but the empty seats and total box office definitely look pretty bad.
Why did WB even try to make this into a mainstream film? Its target audience is minimal. A VOD release should have been cheaper and probably could have also made back the $2M.
My film reviews site: www.FilmGateReviews.com
It's hard to make a financial flop if you only spend $2 mil on production, but if you gauge success by butts in seats, this thing is a flop.
shareOne of the problems is that it's geared more towards a 14-16 year old audience and yet it's rated R. I don't remember any nudity or major sex scenes in it, just drug use and heavy drinking and perhaps language? I dunno, but if they had made it PG13 it probably would have done a little bit better at the box office. Poor Zac, not just biggest flop of the year, but of all time. Yikes.
www.selmablairstyle.com For All Things Selma Blair
If they tried to target a male demographic then getting Zac efron was a bad idea. the guy is annoying.
shareThere were some titties in a pool.
The movie is for all audiences in France, with only a warning.
I'm not sure why what WB spent on the movie should be more important than what it cost to make.