Boycott Die Hard 5 IF PG-13

[DeadXMan]

Well I'll be honest... the 4th Terminator film was actually good...a hell of a lot better than T3 . And T3 was rated R...and it sucked balls.

no 4 sucked and it killed the franchise

[SUPERECWFAN1]

no 4 sucked and it killed the franchise

Really what was good about #3 ? Because it had the same near plot of #2 , except John Conner was older now and the evil Terminator was a woman . It even tried the same chase sequences of T2 in a way and failed at that. Terminator 4 at least relaunched the concept and had an entirely new direction.

[DeadXMan]

Really what was good about #3 ? Because it had the same near plot of #2 , except John Conner was older now and the evil Terminator was a woman . It even tried the same chase sequences of T2 in a way and failed at that. Terminator 4 at least relaunched the concept and had an entirely new direction.

and that direction lead to bankruptcy court.....

[SUPERECWFAN1]

and that direction lead to bankruptcy court.....

This will explain how that company went into bankruptcy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Halcyon_Company

Despite making a healthy profit on the movie, Halcyon filed for bankruptcy in 2009 as a response to a lawsuit from their financier due to payment problems.[1]

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug...t-terminator20

They owed the company that loaned them money to buy the rights of the film and franchise basically. It wasn't that the film didn't go good box office or lead to a bankrupcty.

[DarthCyclopsRLZ]

They owed the company that loaned them money to buy the rights of the film and franchise basically. It wasn't that the film didn't go good box office or lead to a bankrupcty.

For a movie that cost over 200 millions to produce and promote, it didn't do good box office.

[SephirothDZX]

no 4 sucked and it killed the franchise

Nah, I disagree. I think Terminator 4 was better than Terminator 3 by a pretty healthy margin.

Terminator 3's almost entire purpose is simply to take a massive crap all over Terminator 2, Terminator 4 at least tried to do something interesting.

For a movie that cost over 200 millions to produce and promote, it didn't do good box office.

The movie made $371 million total (plus home media revenue). It was far from any kind of bust. Isn't the normal rule for Hollywood that a movie needs to make 1.5x its budget to be considered a success?

[kalorama]

The movie with the biggest budget, biggest promotional push and least restrictive rating sold fewer tickets. At a time when yearly ticket sales were higher than in the late 80s and early 90s.

It is kinda funny.

No, it's really not.

Movies are more expensive to make now then they were 20 years ago , thus the higher budget. Conversely, the theater-going movie audience has been shrinking for years, thus the fewer tickets sold. And both of those things together account for the corresponding rise in ticket prices. It's got nothing to do with Die Hard specifically, it's just an economic reality of the film business in general. Fewer people go to the movies now than they did 20 years ago. There's nothing funny or unfunny about it. It simply is what it is.

And the bottom line of it all is that Hollywood only cares about the bottom line. And the bottom line is that Live Free earned more in total at the box office than any of the previous films in the franchise.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

For a movie that cost over 200 millions to produce and promote, it didn't do good box office.

The movie made $371 million total (plus home media revenue). It was far from any kind of bust. Isn't the normal rule for Hollywood that a movie needs to make 1.5x its budget to be considered a success?

Well to be fair the producers signed a lot of money deals to recoup that budget...distribution wise. In fact Warner Bros and Sony paid $160 million for distribution rights for the film pretty much. The company that made the film was ran by bad business men . I mean who else gets sued by a "life coach" in a suit case ?

And according to this that Terminator film also made another $29+ million in home video sales.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/TERM4.php

[DarthCyclopsRLZ]

Conversely, the theater-going movie audience has been shrinking for years, thus the fewer tickets sold. And both of those things together account for the corresponding rise in ticket prices. It's got nothing to do with Die Hard specifically, it's just an economic reality of the film business in general. Fewer people go to the movies now than they did 20 years ago.

Here's the kicker: there were more ticket buyers in 2007 than there were in 1988, 1990 and 1995.

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

Admittedly, a lot of those additional sold tickets come from oversea markets, but there's no way they account for all of them.

[kalorama]

Here's the kicker: there were more ticket buyers in 2007 than there were in 1988, 1990 and 1995.

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

Admittedly, a lot of those additional sold tickets come from oversea markets, but there's no way they account for all of them.

Okay.(I'm assuming those ticket numbers are supposed to be in millions.) Still don't see how that has anything to say about Live Free. The goal is to make money. It made more money than any of the previous movies in the franchise. Like I said, the bottom line is the bottom line.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

The overseas box office is one that has grew and grew pretty big now. In fact the movies that have bombed here in the USA have achieved bigger success across the world. Like for instance...


2012- It bombed here and only made $166+ million here. But overseas it made $600+ million to make it a box office hit.

Troy - The Brad Pitt filmed bombed in the US where it only did $133+ million. But overseas did $340+ million to make it a hit.

[DarthCyclopsRLZ]

Okay.(I'm assuming those ticket numbers are supposed to be in millions.) Still don't see how that has anything to say about Live Free. The goal is to make money. It made more money than any of the previous movies in the franchise. Like I said, the bottom line is the bottom line.

Look at the numbers again.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchi...id=diehard.htm

Live Free made 17-ish additional millions and yet cost 20 more millions than Die hard 3. Not to mention those budgets figures never include marketing campaigns.

Nobody's saying Live Free was anywhere near being a flop. Hell, considering Willis' string of flops and the delay, the final gross was pretty good. Still, it sold less tickets and was actually a slight setback profit-wise.

[kalorama]

The overseas box office is one that has grew and grew pretty big now. In fact the movies that have bombed here in the USA have achieved bigger success across the world. Like for instance...


2012- It bombed here and only made $166+ million here. But overseas it made $600+ million to make it a box office hit.

Troy - The Brad Pitt filmed bombed in the US where it only did $133+ million. But overseas did $340+ million to make it a hit.

Most, if not all, of the Resident Evil movies have done blah box office in the U.S., but they do big business overseas, so they keep making them.

[kalorama]

Look at the numbers again.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchi...id=diehard.htm

Live Free made 17-ish additional millions and yet cost 20 more millions than Die hard 3. Not to mention those budgets figures never include marketing campaigns.

Nobody's saying Live Free was anywhere near being a flop. Hell, considering Willis' string of flops and the delay, the final gross was pretty good. Still, it sold less tickets and was actually a slight setback profit-wise.

And, again, so what? What's your point?

[Phil Clark]

I say instead of boycotting Die Hard 5 we instead Boycott this thread, and TomServoFan. Because everyone knows that John McClain makes EVERYTHING better.

Yippie Kaiaye Mutha SHUT YOUR MOUTH I'm just talkin' bout John McClain.