I never thought I'd see the day where a new M. Shamaladingdong movie got a fresh rating.
The thing is, with the exception of Lady in the Water even his movies that did not receive a good critical or audience reception tended to do well financially. Just consider:
The Village
Budget: $60M
Worldwide Gross: $256M
The Happening
Budget: $48M
Worldwide Gross: $163M
The Last Airbender
Budget: $150M
Worldwide Gross: $319M
After Earth
Budget: $130M
Worldwide Gross: $243M
So fuck it, if they're going to keep giving Michael Bay money, why not give M. Night money too?
Bayhem's profit margins are actually way better than N. Knight's. Movies need to make 2.5 - 3.5 times its budget to consider it worthwhile because of marketing cost, theatre revenue sharing, etc.
Almost no movies make that and I think most industry professionals would tell you that it's a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be. I think if you research it you'll find that, in general, most studios would be quite happy to take in double the production budget in domestic revenue.
Don't forget the power of home video sales, TV rights, merchandising, novelizations, etc.
If anything that article just shows how complicated the subject is. But while we're trading links:
http://www.quora.com/How-much-shoul...e-considered-to-be-a-likely-financial-success
I'm not arguing how complicating it is. My point is that a movie that makes double its budget isn't a true success when factoring in all the variables mentioned in the link I gave you.
It's good this time.
So it's really not as simple as "a movie needs to make THIS many times its budget to be a success."
What's the twist?
It's good this time.
Hence 2.5 - 3.5 times the budget.
With reviews that poor? FUCK no. I was just joking.
Or . . . it's different for every movie and based on a variety of factors?