look to the second part of your SN, OP.

MAybe my thread title whould have been, "why are studios so willing to sink craploads of money into projects that have a slim chance of making back their money"

I guess I just have trouble seeing the justification for the big bucks they sink into certain projects. I could see how Van Helsing might cost about $80 million, but $150 million? I don't think WB has even let the official budget for Troy become public knowledge yet.

Because those "slim chances" don't seem so slim most of the time. For instance, Van Helsing very much had the chance to be a 200+ million dollar smash hit, considering the Sommers' history with The Mummy movies and what to me was a very cool concept.

Go check those numbers again, please.

I may be wrong about this, but hasn't every movie that Tom Cruise headlined made $100+ million except for Legend? If he's not a box office draw then I don't know who is. Only other guy that comes close is probably Tom Hanks.

Because those "slim" chances are far from being slim.

Now with this year, universal sunk some big cash into a couple of flops...Van Helsing and Riddick.

But the funny thing is that Universal will probably never lose any money on either film. We see an enormous budget and say how can they spend so much, but we have to realize it'll be profitable unless it grosses catwoman numbers.

Then you have Troy, which again was not budgeted at nearly 200 million on the idea that the US market would pay for it. WB knows very well that Brad Pitt is a bigger draw overseas, as are these types of films. So then the movies is released, disapoints here but makes triple that overseas for a total of half a billion dollars. Was WB hoping for more? Sure probably. Did this film make a profit? No doubt. Did it outgroos Gladiator? Yes it did. So, from a financial perspective, these massive budgets are not bad investments, and surely do bring in the profits. I haven't even mentioned the ancillary benefits from DVD. I think, in this day and age, films are seen as more of a long term investment. Yes they want as much money upfront, but the studios seem very aware of the revenue potential from other sources.

Lastly, Tom Cruise is perhaps the biggest box office star walking the planet. He's as reliable as they get. Sure he doesn't open every movie to 50 million dollars, but he can open ANY movie, whereas Will Smith cannot. Not to mention, Cruise movies on average are not as expensive as your average Smith blockbuster.

So... both Troy and Van Helsing were profitable ventures.


FWIW, I didn't think Van Helsing was that bad.