3 ms·
> “Thunderbolts” was slightly cheaper, costing $180 million to make and closer to $100 million to market. > Still, “Thunderbolts*” needed to make $425 million
by ceejayoz 1y ago
> “Thunderbolts” was slightly cheaper, costing $180 million to make and closer to $100 million to market.
> Still, “Thunderbolts*” needed to make $425 million worldwide to break even, a figure that seems unachievable.
Where does the other $145 million go?
- magicalhippo 1y agoThe movie theaters might want some to show it?
- ceejayoz 1y agoOther way around. They rent the films from the distributor.
- magicalhippo 1y agoI worded that exceptionally poorly. What I meant was, when I pay some money for a ticket, not all of that goes back up the chain. The movie theater keeps some of it, yet box office numbers are before that as I understand it[1][2]. [1]: https://stephenfollows.com/i/150400340/what-share-of-box-office-income-do-cinemas-keep https://stephenfollows.com/i/150400340/what-share-of-box-off... [2]: https://newsletter.oscars.org/news/post/bond-and-broccoli-all-in-the-family https://newsletter.oscars.org/news/post/bond-and-broccoli-al...