home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!apple!goofy!mumbo.apple.com!gallant.apple.com!mcmelmon.apple.com!user
- From: mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon)
- Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
- Subject: Re: TOP TEN MOVIES, as of 23 December 1993
- Message-ID: <mattm-301292191224@mcmelmon.apple.com>
- Date: 31 Dec 92 03:19:28 GMT
- References: <1992Dec23.220802.25817@microsoft.com> <37150024@hpopd.pwd.hp.com>
- Sender: news@gallant.apple.com
- Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
- Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
- Lines: 26
-
- In article <37150024@hpopd.pwd.hp.com>, danielw@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Daniel
- Wink) wrote:
- >
- >
- > >> DRACULA is off the list.
- >
- > Is Dracula being considered a success? How much has
- > it made to date? How much is it expected to make?
- > How much did it cost to make? How much does it
- > need to make to break even? Where do babies come from?
-
- Dracula stands around a 90 million gross and cost 40 million to
- make. Which means the domestic release has broken even. Studios
- are reporting overseas revenues run about 45% of their total
- take, now. If that holds, another 90 million should be generated
- by releases overseas.
-
- Malcom X, on the other hand grossed forty million. Halve that for
- return to the studio. Subtract another ten for promotional
- expenses. The movie's twenty million in the hole. And while
- Dracula is a story that will sell overseas, do Europeans and
- Japanese really care to sit for 3 and a half hours on the life of
- a radical American black activist? I doubt it.
-
- One might call the film a "White Elephant" if one were a particularly
- masochistic pundit.
-