The Predator Rating

Started by Tetsujin, Aug 21, 2018, 09:17:47 AM

Author
The Predator Rating (Read 10,977 times)

Mr.Turok

Mr.Turok

#45
After seeing that one soldier's throat being snached via shuriken, had no doubt it would go R.

Highland

Highland

#46
Quote from: Huggs on Aug 26, 2018, 03:26:08 AM
Quote from: Vermillion on Aug 26, 2018, 01:02:40 AM
The Meg has done over 350$ million worldwide!! Wow

Gonna need around 400mil to break even, if I remember correctly. And it's really starting to level out. I don't see it going any higher than 400.

$400 to break even? How does that even work? It's got Jason Statham and a big CGI shark.

Huggs

Huggs

#47
Quote from: Highland on Aug 27, 2018, 02:07:47 AM
Quote from: Huggs on Aug 26, 2018, 03:26:08 AM
Quote from: Vermillion on Aug 26, 2018, 01:02:40 AM
The Meg has done over 350$ million worldwide!! Wow

Gonna need around 400mil to break even, if I remember correctly. And it's really starting to level out. I don't see it going any higher than 400.

$400 to break even? How does that even work? It's got Jason Statham and a big CGI shark.

From what's being said, it has now reached 400 million. So even has been broke I'd say. Glad to see it succeed. But it's a shame it wasn't made as a more serious movie on a smaller budget. such a high return might have lead the studio to do a sequel. But, per your question, I submit the following from Wikipedia:

"With a production budget between $130–178 million, and another $140 million spent on advertisement, the film needed to gross at least $400 million in order to break-even."

And another:

"The studio spent $140 million on global prints and advertisement for the film"

This was not a low budget movie, and advertising for it was through the roof.

Highland

Highland

#48
Seems like a crazy risk to spend $300 mil on a shark movie. I guess somebody nailed it somewhere.

Huggs

Huggs

#49
Quote from: Highland on Aug 27, 2018, 04:48:43 AM
Seems like a crazy risk to spend $300 mil on a shark movie. I guess somebody nailed it somewhere.

After what happened to Guy's King Arthur, I had a hard time believing Warner Bros. invested such money in a shark movie starring J.S.

Highland

Highland

#50
Quote from: Huggs on Aug 27, 2018, 04:55:55 AM
Quote from: Highland on Aug 27, 2018, 04:48:43 AM
Seems like a crazy risk to spend $300 mil on a shark movie. I guess somebody nailed it somewhere.

After what happened to Guy's King Arthur, I had a hard time believing Warner Bros. invested such money in a shark movie starring J.S.

I actually liked that movie....

Huggs

Huggs

#51
Quote from: Highland on Aug 27, 2018, 07:43:23 AM
Quote from: Huggs on Aug 27, 2018, 04:55:55 AM
Quote from: Highland on Aug 27, 2018, 04:48:43 AM
Seems like a crazy risk to spend $300 mil on a shark movie. I guess somebody nailed it somewhere.

After what happened to Guy's King Arthur, I had a hard time believing Warner Bros. invested such money in a shark movie starring J.S.

I actually liked that movie....

Me too. If it had been a more reasonable budget though, I think it would've turned out more like the scorpion king. All that extra money very likely saved the film.

Wysps

Wysps

#52
Quote from: Huggs on Aug 27, 2018, 04:28:36 AM
Quote from: Highland on Aug 27, 2018, 02:07:47 AM
Quote from: Huggs on Aug 26, 2018, 03:26:08 AM
Quote from: Vermillion on Aug 26, 2018, 01:02:40 AM
The Meg has done over 350$ million worldwide!! Wow

Gonna need around 400mil to break even, if I remember correctly. And it's really starting to level out. I don't see it going any higher than 400.

$400 to break even? How does that even work? It's got Jason Statham and a big CGI shark.

From what's being said, it has now reached 400 million. So even has been broke I'd say. Glad to see it succeed. But it's a shame it wasn't made as a more serious movie on a smaller budget. such a high return might have lead the studio to do a sequel. But, per your question, I submit the following from Wikipedia:

"With a production budget between $130–178 million, and another $140 million spent on advertisement, the film needed to gross at least $400 million in order to break-even."

And another:

"The studio spent $140 million on global prints and advertisement for the film"

This was not a low budget movie, and advertising for it was through the roof.

It's easy to forget, imo anyway, that the total budget includes advertising and marketing for the film. Makes it so much more costly  :-\ Now I can see why people get worried when films don't use a lot of advertising - could be that the studio is anticipating diminished returns and doesn't want to spend anymore on it. Thankfully, I don't see it in this case.

Firestorm

Firestorm

#53
Rated 15 here in the U.K, going by Cineworlds current listings.

Danversity

Danversity

#54
According to IMDb it got 18 here in Brazil, which is shocking me. Without any drugs or nudity, this thing has to be REALLY violent to have gone up to 18. Predators itself was a 14.

Could be wrong tho, we'll see about that.

Wobblyboddle77


Hi Everyone,
              Long time lurker here again, the UK ratings body, the bbfc have rated The Predator 15 for strong bloody violence, gory images, language, which isn't too surprising considering that's the rating most studios target nowadays, there doesn't appear to be any pre-cuts either and the website has the film run time at 107 minutes. The film is also available in 3D and there is a break down, but spoiler warning, it may be best to avoid that, below is the direct link to the rating.
                                               
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/predator-2018

                                                                       Kind Regards
                                                                      Wobblyboddle

Ramjet311

It still hasnt been classified in Australia, and tickets still aren't available. Very strange 🤔🤔

Corporal Hicks

Quote from: Wobblyboddle77 on Sep 03, 2018, 11:15:27 PM

Hi Everyone,
              Long time lurker here again, the UK ratings body, the bbfc have rated The Predator 15 for strong bloody violence, gory images, language, which isn't too surprising considering that's the rating most studios target nowadays, there doesn't appear to be any pre-cuts either and the website has the film run time at 107 minutes. The film is also available in 3D and there is a break down, but spoiler warning, it may be best to avoid that, below is the direct link to the rating.
                                               
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/predator-2018

                                                                       Kind Regards
                                                                      Wobblyboddle

Thanks Wobbly. I've merged this with the existing rating thread. A 15 was pretty much what I was expecting.

Ramjet311

Ramjet311

#58
MA15+ in Australia, for Strong Violence. 107 minutes

Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube RSS Feed