87
Tom Cruise’s ‘Digger’ Now Stands to Lose $245 Million After Dropping 60% in Second Weekend (variety.com)
submitted 1 week ago by [M] to c/movies@piefed.social
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 38 points 1 week ago* (15 children)

That's too bad. I respect how Tom Cruise swung for the fence on this character.

That said. This movie should have had a budget of about $50MM, max

EDIT: (for context)

Warner Bros. greenlit the film for $125 million, but the budget soared to $160 million to $180 million after production went over schedule.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    What is MM

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (4 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Oh, roman numeral bullshit. They can't even do it correct MM is 2000

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Impressive accounting to spend $180 mil, make some amount of profit, and still claim it costed you $245 mil.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    That's common. The $180MM is the production cost to which you need to add marketing etc.. I watched Matt Damon and Bem Affleck talk about this when explaining why big studios are so risk averse when making movies. Basically the rule of thumb is that a movie needs to gross double it's production cost just to break even, and that's still considered a relative failure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    For most movies that tracks but where was the marketing on this one? Who pocketed all that money?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I saw a lot of ads fot it, including in theatres. Also marketing goes beyond ads. The trailers cost money, the press tour/junkets, etc.

    I won't pretend to know all the ins and outs, which is why I deferred to Matt Damon and Ben Affleck who have been in that business for a long time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Nobody went to see the movie. So, again, where was the marketing on this one?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    The marketing existed, but the trailers didn't do much past showcase Tom Cruise being zany, and the plot did not seem very appealing. My guess is that, just like The Bride, they made an art house movie witha very niche audience, for way too much money. The budget for both movies should have been miniscule.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent