Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> it was bad enough not to justify one.

Hollywood doesn't greenlight sequels based on how good or bad a film actually is. It's all about the numbers.

The budget for Tron Legacy was $170 million, and it made $400 million at the box office.

That sounds quite good - it doubled its money! - except film budgets don't include marketing costs, which for a blockbuster can be as much as the budget itself. I doubt that Tron Legacy broke even. If a blockbuster isn't making at least three times its budget it's going to be seen as something of a disappointment at the studio.




> That sounds quite good - it doubled its money! - except film budgets don't include marketing costs, which for a blockbuster can be as much as the budget itself.

I thought it was the opposite? Hollywood accounting, I thought, meant that if the movie even breaks even then it is financially good because they include all costs even the movie theater costs as expenses. What am I missing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting


This source [0], which is from a company selling analysis services of movies financials (so probably accurate) say total costs $200m, which likely includes marketing.

Note also that the movie had a sizeable merchandising output, so the $400m box-office doesn't tell the full story; total revenue was probably several millions higher.

[0] https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Tron-Legacy#tab=summary


Double its money seemed to be enough to greenlight a sequel. Disney started work on a sequel almost immediately, it just got stuck in Development Hell. That's the other reason sequels do or do not get made: they still need to be developed as projects with all the pieces of writer/director/script/plan and Hollywood is just as notorious for how much of a hellscape that can be sometimes as they are for their weird, harsh accounting.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: