Box office...your thoughts?

*Facepalm* and Thank you.

Some of my thoughts are subjective, but I'm trying to be objective as possible. Take a look at that same list, adjusted for inflation. [url=http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm?page=R&adjust_yr=2012&p=.htm]Rated R, adjusted for 2012[/url] Out of the top 100 highest grossing rated R movies, which ones are considered "sci-fi" movies? I've picked those below (the subjective part of the process). First of all, there are [b]only[/b] 8 in the top 100. Secondly, all are heavy on the action except Alien. Blade Runner isn't even on the top 200. And I would argue that Terminator 3 and both The Matrix sequels are up there due to the incredible success of the prior/first installments. The only "stand-alone" ones are The Matrix, Total Recall and Alien. Terminator 2 - 10 The Matrix Reloaded - 11 The Matrix - 35 Alien - 39 Total Recall - 61 Terminator 3 - 74 The Matrix Revolutions - 88 Aliens - 94 Prometheus - 198 What does this mean? Slow-burn, thought-provoking, R-rated, intelligent sci-fi just isn't going to be a cash cow for studios. So the fact that Prometheus is even on this list is cool by me.

[u]Membrane[/u]: Good on ya for going through that list and picking out the sci-fi films. You wrote:"What does this mean? Slow-burn, thought-provoking, R-rated, intelligent sci-fi just isn't going to be a cash cow for studios. So the fact that Prometheus is even on this list is cool by me." Another question that is related to your post is this: "Are thought-provoking, intelligent movies of any type simply not cash-cows for the studios?" Almost anyone in or outside of Hollywood is going to answer "No" to that question. In truth, I can't stand talking about box office figures in regards to "Prometheus". Doing so just feels like a necessary evil to counter the myopia of those who are hating on the film and claiming that the fact that it did not match the box office totals for lesser and/or highly different films is a sign that the film was a failure. It's that type of online mindset that for me has detracted from my overall experience of the film and that fact has reinforced why it is that until now I've stayed away from many corners of the internet: it's a ready platform for bullies and oafs of all persuassions. I've seen it on other sites and I've seen here. It's a crap way for people to act but people know that they can get away with it because its the internet.

Nice one membrane. Prometheus is doing very well for an r rated sci fi movie. When will it be released in china ?

My original guesstimate before seeing the film was $350~400 million global revenue from big and small screens. It seems on track to do that, which makes me happy. I think that will get it its trip to [i]Paradise[/i], but there will probably only be one more film that is concretely in this arc unless they can be super creative and re-use-y about pulling two films out of 120~150 million for the next production budget. In some ways I think they really "overbuilt" for this project. They didn't need all of those corridors that Arthur built in the pyramid, and the ship (Prometheus) probably didn't need to cost as much as it likely did either. I LOVE when they build real sets. I can absolutely tell the difference, but there ARE cheaper ways to do a lot of what they did and on the digital side things will just get cheaper and cheaper. I think Sky raises an interesting point. They could take [i]Paradise[/i] in either of two directions. They might actually let Ridley make the film he wants to make and just gamble that if they leave it (=him) alone that it will be a big hit. They might also go in exactly the opposite direction and Transformerize it. [Blech.] I personally would prefer that they only spend $80~90 million on it and let him make something that is ÜBER-Ridley. At least that would get fantastic reviews (AND word-of-mouth buzz) and not tamper with his legacy. He only has so many films left in him at his current age. 3D-shmeedee. Let the man make the best film and the best CUT of that film that he is capable of making out of the gate. And! And, market it in a way that is TRUE to the film that is made in the end and then watch the money roll in. Edit: Make that ~$100 million for the new budget. Fassy is now in a new tax bracket post [i]Prometheus[/i]. ;)

[u]sukkal[/u]: I have to differ with you about the use of real versus CGI sets in "Prometheus". For me, and I think that a lot people feel the same way, it was the physical sets that gave the film its distinct look. The ongoing progress in the quality of CGI is not lost on me. However, films like "Prometheus" or "Inception" stand out to me visually because of their reliance on the real over CGI in terms of sets. To me CGI is best used to augment actual sets, not to create entire new worlds. I know that it's an older film but some of the backgrounds in "The Phantom Menace" were laughable. When watching a film such "The Avengers" I never forget for a moment that I'm watching a CGI-fest. However, when I watch "Prometheus" I get lost in the sets every time. Even though I know that the exterior shots that take place on LV-223 during the dust storm are composite shots involving on location content and CGI I still feel in the moment because the CGI is part as opposed to almost all of what I'm watching on the screen. And as far as over building goes, whose to know if many of the sets that were built in England doubled for scenes in "Prometheus" Part 2. In the "Art of Prometheus" there's a quote from one of the production members about Scott is a master of readjusting on set lighting elements in order to get a new look from a particular set in order to use it for more than just the scene for which it was built.