The Business of Movies: Case 2012

Well, as you all know: I "think" aloud, "hmmm, I wonder..." about every 2.7 seconds; just a little more than my usual "thinking about sex" every 6 seconds, I got curious:

Is the movie 2012, really good, or bad with such B-list cast? What does "entertaining" really mean to future of such movies (enough $$ to make them mutational-able)?

In an MBA sense:

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=2012.htm


$200 million to make,
Domestic crowd likes it enough in 10 days, but guess what the rest of the world think?

$341 Million already!!!

That's $141 million profit, 70% return! Outside the U.S. alone!


Shows you when they make movies that truly affects everyone, touching our soul, and every fabric of our lives, it resonates! Plus it's based on a true story--only names of characters have been changed to protect, uh, the Chinese soldiers! Who even speak like Hong Kong actors to conceal their Chinese-ness.


Secret sauce: kill as many people as you can, in as many places (or the vast ocean) as you can, leave few survivors, with simple names to pronounce. The last thing you want audience to do, is to mentally pronounce Dr. Satnam Tsurutani 90 minutes into your movie.

Titanic did it ! ($1.8 billion, cost the same $200 million to make as 2012)
Even the Bible did it! (Its all-time classic: Adventures of Noah's Lost Ark)
Any monkey can do it!


In a somewhat related story: Mamma Mia made 76% ($466M) of its money overseas, all for a low low price of $52 million to take Streep and friends, to some stupid over baked Greek Island that forgot to take down its Christmas lights, dangling on malnutrition olive trees. And we had to listen to ex-007 sing karaoke (pause for vomit); what a bargain!