Why does everyone think Edge of Tomorrow bombed?

[MartyMcFly]

Marketing for the film was 178 million?!

That studio needs a new marketing team, the movie wasn't that complicated. Plus you have Tom cruise as the star.

but was edge of tomorrow even heavily promoted?

then again, say its 100. It's not about needing a new marketing team breh, it's about the costs of the marketing you DO use. billboards, tv spots, internet spots, radio spots, etc. The movie was heavily promoted but no one knew what it was that's the difference. You can throw money at anything and market the hell out of it but if you're marketing doesn't get across WHAT the product is that you're marketing, it's wasting money. So again, let's say they spent 100 million on the marketing, which is par the course for a big movie with a big star and big effects and action during the summer time, so that's a total of 278 meaning they didn't recoup their investment which equals a flop

Tom Cruise, outside of the mission impossible movies, doesn't pack them in like he used to so just saying "it's a tom cruise movie" doesn't work like it did in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s.

 

[Birnin Zana]

then again, say its 100. It's not about needing a new marketing team breh, it's about the costs of the marketing you DO use. billboards, tv spots, internet spots, radio spots, etc. The movie was heavily promoted but no one knew what it was that's the difference. You can throw money at anything and market the hell out of it but if you're marketing doesn't get across WHAT the product is that you're marketing, it's wasting money. So again, let's say they spent 100 million on the marketing, which is par the course for a big movie with a big star and big effects and action during the summer time, so that's a total of 278 meaning they didn't recoup their investment which equals a flop

Tom Cruise, outside of the mission impossible movies, doesn't pack them in like he used to so just saying "it's a tom cruise movie" doesn't work like it did in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s.

That's my point. As you said, the movie was heavily marketed but they tell the public what the product is all about. That's a failure on the marketing team. They dtopped the ball. Hence me saying they should get a new one.

 

[MartyMcFly]

That's my point. As you said, the movie was heavily marketed but they tell the public what the product is all about. That's a failure on the marketing team. They dtopped the ball. Hence me saying they should get a new one.

That's fair. But as someone who works in that arena, it's not always easy trying to sell a product especially one that's as unconventional as that movie. You kinda gotta go with the way they did the matrix. The key tagline for that was "What is the matrix" and that works because you can't sell that movie conventionally and you can't sell the premise of it. You have to speak to a curiosity of it and knowing that the question and the the cast and the bits of effects you saw would sell it to the audience and it worked.

 

[Birnin Zana]

That's fair. But as someone who works in that arena, it's not always easy trying to sell a product especially one that's as unconventional as that movie. You kinda gotta go with the way they did the matrix. The key tagline for that was "What is the matrix" and that works because you can't sell that movie conventionally and you can't sell the premise of it. You have to speak to a curiosity of it and knowing that the question and the the cast and the bits of effects you saw would sell it to the audience and it worked.

Most def, marketing a movie can be very difficult, especially the complex ones, or those who don't necessarily have a defined genre, and so on.

But far more complex films ended up having great marketing that worked in the movie's favor. Which is why I'm kinda harsh on the marketing of this one.

 

[Birnin Zana]

Speaking of difficulty marketing a movie, could you imagine the face of the marketing guy who watched 2001 A Space Oddysey, and the studios task him to market the film.

Breh must've been like

 

[Optimus Prime]

They say it under performed because Tom Cruise is a one of the few remaining legit "movie stars" and they believe all his movies should open at #1. "EoT" opened at #3 losing to "The Fault in Our Stars" and "Malificent" which was on its 2nd week. Some believe that Tom shouldn't be losing to those type of movies

 

[Clark Wayne]

You basically have to make 2 or 2.5 times the budget for the film to be profitable. So just because a movie cost $150 million and it makes $200 million doesn't mean the film is profitable. It actually lost money.

You have to remember studios have to spend marketing money, not only that the theaters take a cut and overseas the theaters take even a bigger cut.

Look at fantastic four. It cost $120 million but has made over $150 million so far. Fox is still going to take about a $40 to $60 million loss.

Looking at the budget and box office for Edge of Tomorrow, it wasn't a bomb or flop but it definitely underperformed and the studio more than likely barely broke even.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Speaking of difficulty marketing a movie, could you imagine the face of the marketing guy who watched 2001 A Space Oddysey, and the studios task him to market the film.

Breh must've been like

Yeah I think about that shyt. Like that movie or even Star Wars initially which is hard to think about now but when you see the old trailers for that and here the stories of how people responded to the trailer, it makes me feel for those cats. Mark Hamil said he was in a theater when the trailer showed and it said "coming this december" or christmas or whatever it said and someone shouted "yeah and it'll be gone within a week"

 

[TheDarceKnight]

They say it under performed because Tom Cruise is a one of the few remaining legit "movie stars" and they believe all his movies should open at #1. "EoT" opened at #3 losing to "The Fault in Our Stars" and "Malificent" which was on its 2nd week. Some believe that Tom shouldn't be losing to those type of movies

Yeah. On the other hand I am actually glad this thread taught me that the film made more than its budget, which I assumed wasn't true. They need to make more flicks like this. They marketed it as a straight up action flick way too close in time to Oblivion. I think they could've done a way better job and Cruise and Blunt are still annoyed at how it was promoted.

 

[Rekkapryde]

Adam SandGawd Haters

 

[BXKingPin82]

cause the news is funny.. they pick and choose who they want to promote

if they want it to be a flop, they'll give american numbers... oh it cost 100 mil and made 98


if they want to act like it's a god send, they'll give you worldwide.... oh it made a billion worldwide



most movies make the MAJORITY of their money worldwide.... i mean it's only the entire fukking world vs one country... so they just pick and choose what to call a flop or not... depending on who's dikk they wanna suck

this whole post is hilarious

and true

 

[Khalil's_Black_Excellence]

Didn't really know, nor care less what it was thought to have made or did make. Movie was surprisingly flames though. I went in with whatever level of expectation and was practically blown away.

 

[Brandeezy]

Same ppl who call MOS a flop just because it's Superman

 

[TheGodling]

I thought most people knew it didn't really flop. I mean, it did flop out of the gates because of the terrible marketing but word-of-mouth was incredibly strong and that's what pushed the movie to a very acceptable gross by summer's end. Nothing massive but in the long run it did alright looking at how it started off.

 

[puggle]

Bad marketing... Americans also still think Cruise is a crazy person. I loved it, my favorite summer movie from last year.

I don't think he'll ever get his shine back stateside, he's still popular abroad though.