Posted on 09/08/2016 12:45:52 PM PDT by simpson96
Ben-Hur? More like Ben-Horrendous.
The ancient tale directed by Timur Bekmambetov is officially the biggest bust of summer 2016 and is on track to lose an epic $120 million or more, according to sources close to the film and multiple box-office analysts consulted by The Hollywood Reporter. The Paramount/MGM release has grossed just $54.1 million to date at the global box office since its mid-August debut, including a dismal $25 million domestically. While it has several major foreign markets yet to open, the film is fading fast and will have a hard time getting past $75 million globally, say knowledgeable sources.
Ben-Hur cost nearly $100 million to make before a major marketing spend. The loss is calculated when comparing box office and marketing costs against box-office film rental and revenue from ancillary revenue (home entertainment and television).
MGM will take the majority of the financial hit, since it put up more than 80 percent of Ben-Hur's budget and much of the marketing spend (it did minimize some of its exposure by selling off rights in select foreign markets). Paramount's loss is pegged by sources at a relatively modest $13 million.
An MGM rep declined comment on the exact amount of its loss on the film.
(Excerpt) Read more at hollywoodreporter.com ...
The movie cost "nearly 100 Million to make" plus marketing. It had grossed 54 Million so far and they claim a $120 million loss.
My brother-in-law worked as an accountant for a major studio. His comment to me once was: If the box office receipts equal production costs, then everyone has "made money". He also gave me many examples of how they bury 'costs' so as to put money into the right pockets.
The star lookedlike he had zero charisma. The producers were Burnet and his wife.
Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 28% rating, which is abysmal.
Yes, more PC garbage.
I went to see it. The Christian symbolism is more notable in this version then the original. I enjoyed it.
Incredibly so!
A movie that truly did not need a remake. I still remember the first time I saw it.
Did you see it?
Because I did, and I did not feel any PC component at all, and the Christian element was heavier then the original.
Not wise at all to try to remake Classic Movies.
What will he try next Gone with the Wind?
The era of special effects and surround sound for movies, particularly for viewing on home "theaters", has added to the death spiral of Hollywood movies.
I’m glad they didn’t do an all-female remake.
I suppose this happens when you have a great original and then do a remake. Lacking in ideas or simply lazy, Hollywood has made numerous remakes that have not lived up to the original, and thus many people are not eager to so see another one.
Should have titled the movie “Ben-Ghazi” It would have gotten more play!
Never remake a movie that doesn’t need remade. Remake a movie that hardly anyone has heard of or was only moderately successful or even a flop.
“I’m glad they didn’t do an all-female remake.”
Ben-Her?
Ben-Her?
Or maybe an all-transgender remake. Been-Her?
I bet if the original was digitized and released on the big screen, it would have grossed almost as much...
Something as powerful and well made as the original is hard to beat..
I haven’t. It’s more an assumption I made, knowing how typically hostile Hollywood is to Christianity and how the PC forces want to remove anything meaningful from our society.
If it indeed gave respect to Christianity, I might through the studio a bone and buy the Blu-ray.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.