Covenant made only for 111 millions.

Started by Ingwar, May 07, 2017, 09:46:21 AM

Author
Covenant made only for 111 millions. (Read 24,535 times)

Cheeseburgers

Cheeseburgers

#30
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 04:36:50 PM
Quote from: Gigeresque on May 07, 2017, 02:08:55 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 12:55:39 PM
yet avp is reminded as shit and avp:r as shit that you just stepped on,

and covenant will vastly be remembered as ridley's breakthrough return to the original movie and highly memorable, being right up there with the original and the sequel.
I always felt sorry for strauss brothers. I mean they worked hard on that film despite studio restrictions, and to have someone screw up the lighting must have been terrible for them. I always wondered if they could have corrected that would it have been somewhat better??

lol, as if the problem with the movie was due to lighting. come on, for real.

Of course not, but that was part of the issue.

szkoki

Thats a lot considering there is no Elba, Sheron, Rapace, Spaiths....Fassy must have asked for a double pay check

NickisSmart

From what I hear, he acts his little android heart out.

BishopShouldGo

Rapace and Spaihts wouldn't have cost a lot.

I could see Fassbender getting $8mm for Covenant.

cliffhanger

Quote from: Gigeresque on May 07, 2017, 04:46:31 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 04:36:50 PM
Quote from: Gigeresque on May 07, 2017, 02:08:55 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 12:55:39 PM
yet avp is reminded as shit and avp:r as shit that you just stepped on,

and covenant will vastly be remembered as ridley's breakthrough return to the original movie and highly memorable, being right up there with the original and the sequel.
I always felt sorry for strauss brothers. I mean they worked hard on that film despite studio restrictions, and to have someone screw up the lighting must have been terrible for them. I always wondered if they could have corrected that would it have been somewhat better??

lol, as if the problem with the movie was due to lighting. come on, for real.

Of course not, but that was part of the issue.

lighting wasn't really an issue, lighting was only something visually noticeable for a select group that was bothered by it. Everything was an issue, from start to finish. The biggest concern was lack of vision, lack of creativity and thinking 'gorey' stuff or supposedly 'shocking' stuff made it 'interesting'.  just like that other idiot film of the strauss creeps, 'skyline' aka 'shitline'.

Visually, they do a good job. but by dear god don't let then near any producer or directors chair. and offcourse, the writers for the AVP movies deserve to be banned from hollywood forever likewise.

it's a shame really because there could have been so much good with the ideas. here's hoping that at some point, intelligently done and executed, the predators still are able to 'return' or 'enter' the alien universe.

kwisatz

Lol Ridley, congratulations for making this film cheap as ++++.

Ragonk_Force

Ragonk_Force

#36
Only 100 mil huh.

Ingwar

Quote from: kwisatz on May 07, 2017, 07:25:58 PM
Lol Ridley, congratulations for making this film cheap as ++++.

I don't think that Ridley Scott will read that. Besides, have you seen the movie yet?

Ragonk_Force

Ragonk_Force

#38
Quote from: Ingwar on May 07, 2017, 07:28:46 PM
Quote from: kwisatz on May 07, 2017, 07:25:58 PM
Lol Ridley, congratulations for making this film cheap as ++++.

I don't think that Ridley Scott will read that. Besides, have you seen the movie yet?
also shouldnt he be thanking fox?

Ingwar

Quote from: Ragonk_Force on May 07, 2017, 07:29:50 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on May 07, 2017, 07:28:46 PM
Quote from: kwisatz on May 07, 2017, 07:25:58 PM
Lol Ridley, congratulations for making this film cheap as ++++.

I don't think that Ridley Scott will read that. Besides, have you seen the movie yet?
also shouldnt he be thanking fox?

Yeah.

kwisatz

Wasnt that serious. No doubt Ridley is reading avpg.net though.

Ingwar

Quote from: kwisatz on May 07, 2017, 07:37:13 PM
Wasnt that serious. No doubt Ridley is reading avpg.net though.

Ridley doesn't read press and don't think he surfs the Internet to find out what people write about his movies :)

Anthony

Anthony

#42
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 04:36:50 PM
Quote from: Gigeresque on May 07, 2017, 02:08:55 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 12:55:39 PM
yet avp is reminded as shit and avp:r as shit that you just stepped on,

and covenant will vastly be remembered as ridley's breakthrough return to the original movie and highly memorable, being right up there with the original and the sequel.
I always felt sorry for strauss brothers. I mean they worked hard on that film despite studio restrictions, and to have someone screw up the lighting must have been terrible for them. I always wondered if they could have corrected that would it have been somewhat better??

lol, as if the problem with the movie was due to lighting. come on, for real.

"Hey people are dying. We need guns!"


Also don't forget about marketing costs. They spent a decent chunk to advertise it, so I imagine the total cost was $200 Million. And with sharing the revenue with theaters, I'd estimate the break even point is $400 Million.

Robopadna

Quote from: Anthony on May 07, 2017, 08:05:44 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 04:36:50 PM
Quote from: Gigeresque on May 07, 2017, 02:08:55 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 12:55:39 PM
yet avp is reminded as shit and avp:r as shit that you just stepped on,

and covenant will vastly be remembered as ridley's breakthrough return to the original movie and highly memorable, being right up there with the original and the sequel.
I always felt sorry for strauss brothers. I mean they worked hard on that film despite studio restrictions, and to have someone screw up the lighting must have been terrible for them. I always wondered if they could have corrected that would it have been somewhat better??

lol, as if the problem with the movie was due to lighting. come on, for real.

"Hey people are dying. We need guns!"


Also don't forget about marketing costs. They spent a decent chunk to advertise it, so I imagine the total cost was $200 Million. And with sharing the revenue with theaters, I'd estimate the break even point is $400 Million.

Depending on which market the money is coming from its probably closer to 500 to break even. At least from the box office.

Predaker

Quote from: Robopadna on May 07, 2017, 08:10:09 PM
Quote from: Anthony on May 07, 2017, 08:05:44 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 04:36:50 PM
Quote from: Gigeresque on May 07, 2017, 02:08:55 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 12:55:39 PM
yet avp is reminded as shit and avp:r as shit that you just stepped on,

and covenant will vastly be remembered as ridley's breakthrough return to the original movie and highly memorable, being right up there with the original and the sequel.
I always felt sorry for strauss brothers. I mean they worked hard on that film despite studio restrictions, and to have someone screw up the lighting must have been terrible for them. I always wondered if they could have corrected that would it have been somewhat better??

lol, as if the problem with the movie was due to lighting. come on, for real.

"Hey people are dying. We need guns!"


Also don't forget about marketing costs. They spent a decent chunk to advertise it, so I imagine the total cost was $200 Million. And with sharing the revenue with theaters, I'd estimate the break even point is $400 Million.

Depending on which market the money is coming from its probably closer to 500 to break even. At least from the box office.

Half a billion just to break even? That doesn't sound right at all.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News