It's at ~$160M now... but it cost $110M to make, so if it doesn't do at least $220M (2x cost) it'll be considered a box office flop.

It will make double, but not in the cinemas. DVDs and other apparel for sure. The odds of a sequel is slim to none. Sad since it had so much potential.

Surely the Asian markets will push this over 220.

Nope, Asian markets didn't care for this, somewhat surprisingly. I wasn't sure about China, but I thought at least Japan could give it a bit of a boost. Something about this movie did not click with audiences. I think the reason for its poor performance is it didn't have a solid proposition for moviegoers beyond "Ooh, Pretty Moving Pictures". It was very empty apart from that.

I think the movie was hard to market. The name makes no sense unless you are familiar with the story. It had a sort of 'arty' feel to it, not your regular blockbuster look. And then there is the feeling that it looked like Lucy part II. Perhaps a different lead would have helped with the last part.

i think the lucy part 2 vibe is underestimated... or rather that it seemed like a movie that was trying to be that... i dont know if it was necessarily a casting issue, or if it was the marketing materials that focused almoat exclusively on Johansson... seemed to lack the proper context...

I honestly dont think the casting hurt the film in anyway. The lack of a original story and the lack of any real character development on the other hand definitely did. Sad considering the crazy amount of material they had to work with. Currently made $169,801,921 worldwide. DVD sales will help but still considered a financial failure unfortunately.

I still enjoyed it. Sometimes I like that a movie isn't widely liked because it means it's less likely to have been a paint by numbers/explain everything affair.

@OddRob said:

I honestly dont think the casting hurt the film in anyway. The lack of a original story and the lack of any real character development on the other hand definitely did. Sad considering the crazy amount of material they had to work with. Currently made $169,801,921 worldwide. DVD sales will help but still considered a financial failure unfortunately.

Exactly, and the shitty CGI don't help either.

And it was supposed to be director Rupert Sanders's big come back to big budget movies, but I doubt he'll get more big gigs anytime soon after this.

@intothenightalone said:

I still enjoyed it. Sometimes I like that a movie isn't widely liked because it means it's less likely to have been a paint by numbers/explain everything affair.

...what?

He's referring to mass market anodyne nonsense like comic book movies.

@OddRob said:

Sad since it had so much potential.

Potential. That's a tough word, carrying baggage of expectation that is difficult to meet. Case in point - Prometheus. What was it supposed to be? What should it/could it have been? For most, the idea of going back to the beginning of things (xenomorphs, humans, life itself) promised to be a philosophical feast and visual/effects banquet...but what was served was popcorn, junk, empty calories.

Same thing with Terminator Salvation. And any host of other examples.

Alas.

At any rate, potential aside, if the movie only makes 2x its budget at the box office and video, only the greatest sense of passion will drive any sequels or reboots. Not impossible - lots of movies paid rather low returns, yet were critical successes.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

It's at ~$160M now... but it cost $110M to make, so if it doesn't do at least $220M (2x cost) it'll be considered a box office flop.

The $110 million is only the production costs, you have to add the P&A costs as well, and it can be up to 50% of the production cost, so analysts and experts in the business estimates a big budget movie like this, has to do between 2,5 to 3 times its production cost, just to break even.

@Bananaghost said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

It's at ~$160M now... but it cost $110M to make, so if it doesn't do at least $220M (2x cost) it'll be considered a box office flop.

The $110 million is only the production costs, you have to add the P&A costs as well, and it can be up to 50% of the production cost, so analysts and experts in the business estimates a big budget movie like this, has to do between 2,5 to 3 times its production cost, just to break even.

Yep, I offered a mere 2x as an overture. In reality, it will likely not do 2.5x - 3x production, won't break even, won't avoid going down as a box office flop.

Having said that, a lot of the greatest movies of all time did not do stellar box office - I built my own small database tracking box office performance of movies that have generally been on my radar in one way or another, and there are plenty of great movies in the 3x - 5x bucket; AND, then there are the movies that made 15x, 20x, 30x, 40x, and up, but were by no means great movies (they just followed a formula - no big names, really low budget, etc.)

So, this movie could still be critically good...it's just not making money.