Nothing happening with the Predator franchise?

[dude]

Be as thrilling as Seagal reoccuring in General Hospital.

That would be awesome.

[dude]

Well, it's not good news. If Fox wanted a sequel, they'd be the ones doing the phoning.

Financially, it's not good news either. It cost the same, and made the same, as AVP2. It's not what you'd normally call a financial success, more of a 'well, we're just out of the red now.' Not a great deal of profit.

Was it really critically successful? Most of the reviews I read were pretty average about it.

Could you maybe explain to me how movie studios deal with this sort of thing? It just seems so inconsistent.

For example (Because he's someone whose career I follow so I have the numbers handy) Jason Statham's films always do roughly $30 to #35 million U.S, $60 to $70 million worldwide on budgets of $20 million to $40 million. Studios and producers love him for this, because even though the film barely beak even, they do huge money on home video. Yet a Predator film with a similar budget does $50 million U.S, $130 million worldwide and I can only assume really good home video (I imagine the fanbase alone would account for very hefty sales, given the constant re-releases of all the films on DVD and Blu Ray) and it's not good enough?

[Company Man]

Maybe each genre gets followers. Some of the people like Alieny shit, and some like high flying wire attached martial arts and cartoonie action.

I dunno.

I'll get my coat.

[Hudson]

If the next Predator movie was DTV, I think I'd be able to actually set my expectations realistically as opposed to Predators.

[dude]

If the next Predator movie was DTV, I think I'd be able to actually set my expectations realistically as opposed to Predators.

Have you seen any DTV action films? Many of them can be better than 90% of what comes out from May to August in theatres.

[Company Man]

He is a Marine. He is brain dead by default.

[Hudson]

Have you seen any DTV action films? Many of them can be better than 90% of what comes out from May to August in theatres.

Good point.

[deezelboy]

Could you maybe explain to me how movie studios deal with this sort of thing? It just seems so inconsistent.

A studio wants to make as much profit as it can with the least risk possible and in the shortest time. Filmmakers make films for the fun of it. Studios have to develop that into a business model.

I can well see studios and producers loving Statham. They have a film they want to produce. Who knows how well this film will do? If they cast Statham then they at least have reasonable expectations that his pulling power will generate around $30m domestically, and they budget accordingly. The best indication as to how a film will do at the box office is who it's got in it.

Most films will turn a profit eventually, through tv, rentals and home sales. A studio would obviously like to shorten that time to as little as possible. To some extent it doesn't matter if any given film does badly, as long as the rest can cover its losses and generate some profit overall. Hence we have tentpole movies, big-budget extravaganzas which are conceived to be as popular as possible (A-list stars, big special effects, visible budget, big marketing) in order to generate revenue quickly to cover the costs of all the slow-burners. If the tentpole movies fail big, the back-catalogue of slow burners covers the studio so that they're reasonably insulated against Heaven's Gate-style studio killing fuck ups.

But they still want each of their films to be as profitable as they can as quickly as they can.

So, back to Statham. Studios and producers would love Statham a lot less if his pulling power was less predictable or in decline. As it is now, every film that Statham makes could be more popular than his last, it might even entail its own franchise, and so forth. They have a reasonable indication of the risk, so can plan accordingly. If it's a slow-burner, so be it, they haven't lost any money.

Sequels don't have the pulling power of stars. In general, the law of diminishing returns applies. People tire of stories far quicker than they tire of actors. Every sequel is far more risky than casting a given actor.  You can of course reboot, and start the cycle again to see what happens - AVP did this, and then Predators.

If you look at the adjusted domestic box office for the Predator franchise (at boxofficemojo) how much of a gamble would you take as a studio? The two most recent films are the lowest earning.

[Thedus]

Honestly, I can't say I'm terribly surprised by this.  The film wasn't that great, and it felt half-baked.  ...It kind of felt like the AVP of the PREDATOR franchise.

I see this as a good thing.

[Hudson]

Honestly, I can't say I'm terribly surprised by this.  The film wasn't that great, and it felt half-baked.  ...It kind of felt like the AVP of the PREDATOR franchise.

I see this as a good thing.

It's a good thing if the only way we'll get another one is Troublemaker Studios.

[Hubbs]

They might see better results if they made the new Pred films correctly in the first place, get Hopkins back to direct Predator 3, see how that goes.

I wonder why Statham is so popular, can't see it myself.

[Hudson]

I think if they need to get anyone back to direct they need to wait for McTiernan to get out of prison.

[deezelboy]

He's not in prison, is he? 

[Hudson]

He's not in prison, is he? 

Oh...I thought he was. Well, he's on bail, close enough.

[severen76]

I wouldn't mind seeing Neil Marshall take on a predator film. Can't believe he didn't get the jOb in the first place.