Cheers. The article's on VF's site and very interesting indeed. Seems as chaotic as rumoured, but with so much footage not being used, it makes you wonder if an alternate version will be in the offing later on.
Desperate indeed if they wanted some clarity brought to the script.
Nice to hear something good about it, but yes, that is an enormous budget it's got to get back.
Looking at the US release schedule, I see it opens on the same weekend as Monsters University and only a week after Man of Steel (which they seem to have cleared the decks for - nothing much opens with it and only soft-ish openers the week before). A week later and White House Down hits the screens.
It'll be interesting to see how WWZ fairs among all these. Paramount - who already may have problems with Into Darkness - are going to have to ramp up the advertising quite considerably.
It could become problematic for Paramount, they could find themselves relying on next years' Transformers 4 to make a profit or they may be screwed. Tough it's in their interests for Iron Man 3 to do well, since they get roughly 8% of it's box office...
Into Darkness opened below expectations, but it's not doing badly. It needs to make another $30m for it's production budget with presumably at least another $30m for marketing, I think it will do it, perhaps not by a lot. We might not even get a sequel, especially since predictions are now suggesting it won't even match the box office of the first (in the US)...
this re-write was done after they finished shooting , they had an assembly and it wasn't working . They've dumped a whole sequence and done re-shoots .
not unique , its happened on other movies, but ... not a good sign .
Another problem is that they want a PG rating which seems a bit silly for a zombie film .
I see what you mean now. To rewrite it after it's been shot is a bit different from a script going through several rewrites so it's ready to start production.
$400million, oh dear. It's things like that getting out that can sink a film. I enjoyed John Carter but the money wasn't exactly visible on screen, same with Waterworld. Of course Titanic got the same treatment and Cameron hit the jackpot with that.
Even if it is a popular movie, it could take years to recoup the cost.
In this day and age, it's nearly impossible to lose money - even when a film bombs at the box office. With future profits coming in worldwide from pay-per-view sales, DVD/Bluray, rentals, Digital copies (iTunes, PSN, XBOX Live, etc) Cable TV and network TV, the film will easily make back its money and then some - quickly. It certainly won't take years.
But obviously the film studios want to see immediate profit within the first few days of its theatrical release which is rather sad and unrealistic at times.
I'm reading the book at the moment and it has a good format to it, with accounts from worldwide personnel detailing their thoughts and accounts of the zombie war.
The film definitely doesn't look like it is going down that route, unless it turns out Brad Pitt is the journalist detailing and collecting all the accounts?
In this day and age, it's nearly impossible to lose money - even when a film bombs at the box office. With future profits coming in worldwide from pay-per-view sales, DVD/Bluray, rentals, Digital copies (iTunes, PSN, XBOX Live, etc) Cable TV and network TV, the film will easily make back its money and then some - quickly. It certainly won't take years.
Not true. The whole point of Hollywood accounting is to show on paper that movies make a loss. Usually some fiddling is required to do this but with a budget as bloated (and associated marketing/advertising costs) as WWZ they will not have to try too hard in this case.
Not true. The whole point of Hollywood accounting is to show on paper that movies make a loss. Usually some fiddling is required to do this but with a budget as bloated (and associated marketing/advertising costs) as WWZ they will not have to try too hard in this case.
Its not hard to show a film as making a loss. Just stick the film in a shell company and let the main company charge the shell company a ridiculous impossibly high distribution charge. Then on paper the film always makes a loss and you don't have to give anyone a share of the backend. (Unless the film is very successful)
the final 40 minutes were rewritten and reshot at a cost of $200million. It’s hard to know where the money went. The long, would-be climactic sequence inside a Welsh research laboratory looks about as lavish as the average episode of Doctor Who.
Comments
Into Darkness opened below expectations, but it's not doing badly. It needs to make another $30m for it's production budget with presumably at least another $30m for marketing, I think it will do it, perhaps not by a lot. We might not even get a sequel, especially since predictions are now suggesting it won't even match the box office of the first (in the US)...
I see what you mean now. To rewrite it after it's been shot is a bit different from a script going through several rewrites so it's ready to start production.
The cut they showed him when he first came on board was 72 minutes long!!!
This could well make John Carter look like a low-budget masterpeice by comparison.
Im glad that it doesn't seem to be a bad movie despite the production problems i look forward to seeing this:)
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/glasgow-beats-the-world-to-brad-pitt-zombie-film-125286n.21156768
If it was a regular zombie move then fair enough but in using the World War Z name it will lead to disappointment from fans of the book
You can see bits of Glasgow in the trailer.... made to look like Philadelphia (or somewhere!)
One of my friends was employed as an extra, but I doubt I'll spot a six foot tall baldy dressed in a US army uniform
It cost at least $250m,you really expect them to accept an R?
Of the past decade there haven't been that many R-rated sci-fi successes. I can name three - Prometheus, Looper, District 9...
Having said that I can only name two failures - Dredd, Watchmen
Even if it is a popular movie, it could take years to recoup the cost.
In this day and age, it's nearly impossible to lose money - even when a film bombs at the box office. With future profits coming in worldwide from pay-per-view sales, DVD/Bluray, rentals, Digital copies (iTunes, PSN, XBOX Live, etc) Cable TV and network TV, the film will easily make back its money and then some - quickly. It certainly won't take years.
But obviously the film studios want to see immediate profit within the first few days of its theatrical release which is rather sad and unrealistic at times.
The film definitely doesn't look like it is going down that route, unless it turns out Brad Pitt is the journalist detailing and collecting all the accounts?
(Don't think this merited a spoiler tag )
Not true. The whole point of Hollywood accounting is to show on paper that movies make a loss. Usually some fiddling is required to do this but with a budget as bloated (and associated marketing/advertising costs) as WWZ they will not have to try too hard in this case.
They liked Outcasts. Those snowblind fanboys tend to like most things.
It already got rated in America- "Rated PG-13 for intense frightening zombie sequences, violence and disturbing images."
I would expect if it gets a 15 at it's first go at the bbfc it'll be cut for 12A, for cinema at least. They need the money.
Ouch.
I'd stay away from the Digital Spy one also, more of a plot synopsis than a review.
I enjoyed the trailer so still willing to give this a go.
Looks too much like the dinosaur bit from King Kong, very messy.