To all those who say they don't care about box office and budgets, here's why they matter.
Scott Pilgrim Versus The World opened to eleven million dollars and is widely being considered a failure despite being an absolutely fantastic film.
Piranha 3D opened to ten million dollars and has already had a sequel green lit.
Why? Because Piranha 3D cost a reported twenty four million to make - meaning it is comfortably on the path to profitability - while Scott Pilgrim is listed at sixty but reportedly spent significantly more, meaning barring a Christmas miracle when the DVD releases it is on pace to lose a significant amount of coin, far more than any of the villains exploded into when defeated.
Does box office indicate quality? No, not even remotely. But it does indicate the scope of an audience. The scope of Piranha's audience covers the cost of catering to them. The scope of Scott Pilgrim's does not. Guess which director is going to have an easier time setting up their next film?
Sigh.
Scott Pilgrim Versus The World opened to eleven million dollars and is widely being considered a failure despite being an absolutely fantastic film.
Piranha 3D opened to ten million dollars and has already had a sequel green lit.
Why? Because Piranha 3D cost a reported twenty four million to make - meaning it is comfortably on the path to profitability - while Scott Pilgrim is listed at sixty but reportedly spent significantly more, meaning barring a Christmas miracle when the DVD releases it is on pace to lose a significant amount of coin, far more than any of the villains exploded into when defeated.
Does box office indicate quality? No, not even remotely. But it does indicate the scope of an audience. The scope of Piranha's audience covers the cost of catering to them. The scope of Scott Pilgrim's does not. Guess which director is going to have an easier time setting up their next film?
Sigh.
Good grief. Did you really turn a news item about Piranha 2 into a whine fest about Scott Pilgrim?
Todd is illustrating a larger point.
Duh.
And i agree with Todd.
though its a bit funny since currently the ads keeping this site going right now are for Piranha 3D.
At least we'll be getting an Expendables 2 sequel. And hopefully a better overall movie to go with the great action.
My guess is that Piranha, aside from being on a lower budget, is promoting the 3D element which is something that the industry wants to popularise, whilst SP is of a higher budget and doesnt really have a more commercial appeal
Also isnt the ratio of budgets to profitability more in Pirahna's favour or am i missing something?
Save the hate for some Friedberg/Seltzer crap fest. Piranha 3D and Scott Pilgrim have both been received well (currently 83% 6.5avg and 81% 7.5avg at RT respectively) while Piranha is looking to be more financially successful initially and is certainly easier to market so of course it's more likely to have a sequel developed. Success for Piranha has nothing to do with Scott Pilgrim.
By the way, and I'm sure I'll answer for this in September hahaha, but I chose to see Piranha 3D yesterday rather than Scott Pilgrim.
Scott Pilgrim is next though. Honest!
I don't think you can whinge about this. Scott Pilgrim, whilst no doubt being a great film (not seen it yet, but I definately will) was always going to have limited appeal as the majority of people just won't get it. It's not a well known comic book, so even it's existing fan base is going to be restricted. It's a movie buffs movie. If the studio thought and expected more then thats their own fault. Piranha 3D is a bit of tongue in cheek fun which appeals to a muh wider audience because it's easier viewing. It's not rocket science.
My whinge about your whinge is now over.......
I don't think this was a whinge but rather a pre-emptive strike at whinging about this in general.
And I have a feeling that both films will in the long run be counted as extremely succesfull, with "Piranha 3D" being the early bird of the two.
Remember it took "Blade Runner" years to break even but after that it became a classic, an icon and ultimately even a cash-cow. I have a feeling that "Scott Pilgrim" will be a slow starter but pick up speed later on when the home-viewing crowd starts spreading word of mouth about it.
Im guessing its because after 1 weekend P3D has made up almost 50% of its budget where as after 2 weeks SP has made about 35% of its budget back or something like that..........
I agree with this article, and while I enjoyed both P3D AND Scott Pilgrim, I think we are turning a blind eye at fact that "Vampires Suck" not only did it open up at #2, but it has almost made back its budget. To me that's the real downer, and it really puts in question the American entertainment value.
For sake of argument I went to look for a foreign release schedule for Pilgrim and the only other income the film has made is from the New Zealand/Fiji market. No other listings for any foreign release dates. What the what? Does Universal have no plan for further release dates in any foreign markets? A domestic film will tank now and then but a few times they can get out of the red with their foreign box office take.