View Full Version : Either you're making the movie or not!
laracroftswest
30-04-09, 03:45
I am sick of these rumors going around saying maybe "Megan Fox will play Lara." and "maybe it's animated." It has been almost 7 years! Just please Eidos/ Square Enix/ Warner Brothers/ Whoever. Us fans have waited patiently (except for those who don't want a movie) and we would just like an answer. Please can we have a statement if we are going to get a movie or not?
It won't happen - they'll either say they are making it, or say "not yet" - they won't rule it out, because it's a potential cash cow. Remember, Hollywood is all about $$$, and although TR2 was a flop, they could still cash in on it later down the track.
laracroftswest
30-04-09, 03:54
Well if money is what they want, then they should make the movie!
Jedd Fletcher
30-04-09, 03:55
I think I'm more or less resigned to fantasising or imagining what a third movie might be like - right now it seems like the actual production of a film would be nothing more than a pipe dream. I can understand the feeling of being fed up, because at least with movie projects that were stuck in development hell (Superman Returns or Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) you could see that something had started and that it was stuck. However, we can't tell anything about the status of a third TR film, and the rumours have been just that - rumours. So yes, I would like to see a solid yes or no about where this movie - if there is going to be one anyway - is headed.
Well if money is what they want, then they should make the movie!
Well that's where they have to be careful - TR:CoL was a financial flop after all.
They'll have to have a smaller budget, and that means a less-expensive actress.
Tonyrobinson
01-05-09, 10:04
I think it's delayed because they need to find a good script writer after the first 2 movies horrible scripts they need somebody who works on a movie like Dark Knight or Pirates of the Caribbean both great films and did great at the box office :D
Well that's where they have to be careful - TR:CoL was a financial flop after all.
I get so tired of hearing about the movies being financial flops... FYI, both movies made more than what it cost to make them, neither one was a financial flop. :smk:
The second one was considered a flop because it barely made more than what it cost.
disneyprincess20
01-05-09, 14:36
I get so tired of hearing about the movies being financial flops... FYI, both movies made more than what it cost to make them, neither one was a financial flop. :smk:
That depends. it can be considered a finaincial flop even if it makes money. If it makes money, but less money than the studios projected it would make, it couls still be considered a flop. Look what happened with Wallace and Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit: a well received, great film. It made some money, yet not enough for Dreamworks who had funded it for 5 years. They pulled out of their contrat with Aardman Animation (or didn't renew it, I forget which one) because they considered it a flop for not making what they wanted it to make.
As TR:CoL only just covered its cost and made little actual profit for the studio, it's unlikely they'll revisit the series until somone with lots of talent gets behind it.
*agrees with Disney and Admles* If I were in the market to make a profit and only ended up breaking even, then I'd consider the film a failure as well. The idea is for a film to make a good chunk of change, not just enough to cover costs. The studios won't get behind it until they know they have something that can generate profits on the order of what they want, not what they need. The film industry doesn't make movies for the hell of it, they make them for the profit.
Yes but how many times do movie companies "think" they will make lots of profit and the movie flops and they end up losing money? The TR movies have shown they can make a profit, even if it is not the "projected" profit so why not keep making them until they actually do lose money?
disneyprincess20
07-05-09, 14:53
Yes but how many times do movie companies "think" they will make lots of profit and the movie flops and they end up losing money? The TR movies have shown they can make a profit, even if it is not the "projected" profit so why not keep making them until they actually do lose money?
Lots. I refer you to the movie Waterworld (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114898/) as the most famous example.
Let me put it this way: imagine you have a job that pays you £5 an hour, but it costs you £10 to get there on the bus. If they asked you to work 4 hours, you'll earn £10 (5 pounds x 4 hours = 20 pounds, minus 10 for the bus leaves you with 10 pounds).
Now imagine if they asked you to come in to work for 3 hours, you'll only earn £5. It starts to hardly seem worth it. If they offered you 2 hours work you wouldn't make any money at all, as it would cost you just as much to get there as you would earn. If they offered you 1 hours work, you'd actually lose money, so you'd definately not go in!
This is the situation the studio found itself in. The cost of making the Tomb Raider movie was getting to the point where it hardly seemed worth it. They wouldn't keep on going until they actually lost money, because that's bad financial planning and someone would lose their job for spending the money on something that past evidence has shown might not make enough money.
If you were walking through a doorway and accidentally banged your head on a door, would you keep on walking through the doorway until your head started bleeding? The studio has "banged it's head", and most likely won't walk through the door again, until it sees someone with talent making the door wider. :D
Yes, I know my analogies are stupid, and my bus fare estimates ridiculous, but it works for the purposes of this explanation! :p
Yes but how many times do movie companies "think" they will make lots of profit and the movie flops and they end up losing money? The TR movies have shown they can make a profit, even if it is not the "projected" profit so why not keep making them until they actually do lose money?
You're thinking with your heart, not your head. Basically saying that Tomb Raider 3 movie should be made, and there's no excuses for it.
Just because a movie made some profit, doesn't mean they'll keep churning them out for minimal return. They want movies profit to exceed the cost of making it, in essence doubling it's income, or it's not worth it. As disneyprincess20 said, look at Waterworld. Studios are going to be much more cautious.
Plus, paying AJ $12million for TR2? Her performance wasn't worth half that......
CaptinCroft
07-05-09, 21:41
CaptinCroft's Movie Rule #43: When it comes to series, generally speaking, part 4 < part 3 < part 2 < part 1 in awesomeness.
Ok lets tell tlr_online to close the movie forum and go about our merry ways. :p
Why, because no one agrees with your sentiment? Na, this is probably the most relaxed section on the forum. :p
I don't think there is another film in the making. Two TR films are quite enough.
AmericanAssassin
09-05-09, 20:20
I'm sure there will be one someday. Anytime soon? No. The rumors are only going to get worse, so it would be best to ignore them. :(
yeaah ima getting sick of these rumours too what is it going to be based on ?
Jedd Fletcher
10-05-09, 08:36
^^I think I'm more or less resigned to fantasising or imagining what a third movie might be like - right now it seems like the actual production of a film would be nothing more than a pipe dream and an actual film is unlikely. Don't take the rumours too seriously. What might happen though is that this new film might completely mess up the Tomb Raider mythos and go the route of a misguided "reboot".
tranniversary119
10-05-09, 16:08
It's probably taking the Jurassic Park IV route..I hope not.
Well that's where they have to be careful - TR:CoL was a financial flop after all.
They'll have to have a smaller budget, and that means a less-expensive actress.
COL was not a flop. Unfortunatelly USA thinks any film that does not do well there a flop. It made 160 millions worldwide from a 90 million budget. The problem is that an Unknown Actress wont bring people to theatre. While Angie may cost them 20 million but she will Bring more. Right now she is the hottest thing in Hollywood. Films are rewritten for her to star in them. She is the female Tom Cruise (at least what he was back in 1995-2005)
The producers of the film had said at the time that even if the film did underperform the studio expectetions the DVD sales were more than what they expected and they would want to make another one. and the truth is that it made about 60 millions on sales the first four months of it DVD/VHS release in USA alone. while the first movie had done 40 millions on DVD sales for the first 3 months... Eventually although it is not clear or not, if they produced the second film the way they did the first:
Lara Croft was financed through Tele-München Gruppe (TMG), a German tax shelter. The tax law of Germany allowed investors to take an instant tax deduction even on non-German productions and even if the film has not gone into production. By selling them the copyright for $94 million and then buying it back for $83.8 million, Paramount Pictures made $10.2 million. The copyright was then sold again Lombard Bank, a British investment group and a further $12 million was made. However, to qualify for Section 48 tax relief, the production must include some UK filming and British actors, which was acceptable for a film partially set in the United Kingdom. Presales to distributors in Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain made a further $65 million. Showtime payed $6.8 million for premium cable TV rights. In total, $94 million put together.
It didn't cost them a thing. (and yes they did the second film that way again I just checked that on imdb.com)
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.