Yeah, pretty sure. Established franchises. His Mission Impossible was the lowest box office of the series. Lost did well but he's had a lot of misses: Fringe, Alcatraz, Person of Interest. I think he's over-rated. Not worth $500 million. I'd love to see Apple entice someone like Luc Besson instead.
You mean the two Mission Impossibles that netted half a billion dollars each? Yeah, real flops.
I only see a single indie loser in here, and not even sure how much of a role they had in that one. Doesn't take a mathematician to see that one could recoup $500 million from this investment:
Plus: Alias, Lost, Person of Interest, Fringe, Westworld, 11.22.63, Castle Rock... not exactly lightweights here. Give me a break.
Yep, Apple needs to make 3 or 4 deals like this so that they have some content to air and more creators creating content. I'm not sure if there are any movie collections that they could buy now that Disney has bought Marvel and Star Wars. Apple definitely can't be another Disney in terms of the content. Unfortunately I think Apple TV+ will take time to build an audience and it will probably look week compared to Disney+ for a long time (Disney+ is almost as close to a guarenteed hiit as you can get).
Yeah, pretty sure. Established franchises. His Mission Impossible was the lowest box office of the series. Lost did well but he's had a lot of misses: Fringe, Alcatraz, Person of Interest. I think he's over-rated. Not worth $500 million. I'd love to see Apple entice someone like Luc Besson instead.
Luc Besson's work on The Professional is a masterpiece. And Fifth Element has a classic cult following. Besson's The Messenger: Story of Joan of Arc was okay but not perfect. Not all of his movies were huge hits so both Abrams and Besson equally have their flaws. Abrams usually goes overboard with his cinematography in some of his films especially Super 8 which is attempt at pulling a " Steven Spielberg " that didn't quite work. As you'll see that Super 8 has lifted some of the scenes and inspirations from Spielberg's work if you look very carefully ( Goonies, Close Encounters, ET, etc ). It's almost as if Abrams is showing off rather than telling a story.
If you look at George Miller who's famous for his Mad Max films especially Fury Road which he directed at the age of 70 which turned out to be one of his finest works. Miller was known for 'center framing' and tells a story visually very well. Similar with Kubrick. For a man his age to be able to pull of Fury Road, I have more respect for him than I do to Abrams. JJ can try hard as all he can but he will never, EVER be one of the titans of cinema.
So really Apple and Bad Robot aren't a great fit which ironically Abrams was featured talking about the Apple + product in the video presentation at last fall's keynote.
The oblique reference to "For All Mankind" reminds me just how uncomfortable the teaser trailer at WWDC made me. While yes, art in general should have an element of uncomfortableness to motivate a viewer, I found the premise completely unbelievable. I think the idea is that while the USA lost the race to the moon, it sparked a continuing competition of space exploration. I find that completely and utterly unbelievable. Apollo and the "space race" was born and depended completely on political forces, and the US, even in that point of history, is a society completely incapable of anything more. And I say this because I can watch shows with dragons and people back from the dead; and lifelike robots that act out a fantasy land for wealthy visitors. I find that all comparatively believable. The US going into space for anything other than stroking its ego, then discovering it costs money? Humpf. Skippit.
Yes, sorry for the manifesto.
There are 6 people in space now and humans have been continuously in space for the last 18 years, 7 months and 17 days. We have explored from the Sun to Pluto and beyond.
We lost 1st satellite in space. We lost 1st animal in space. We lost 1st man in space We lost 1st EVA We lost 1st successful manned docking.
And you think we would have stopped if we lost 1st man on the moon? No, we'd have kept going until we kicked their asses.
Today we have SpaceX and Blue Origin in addition to the national space programs.
The oblique reference to "For All Mankind" reminds me just how uncomfortable the teaser trailer at WWDC made me. While yes, art in general should have an element of uncomfortableness to motivate a viewer, I found the premise completely unbelievable. I think the idea is that while the USA lost the race to the moon, it sparked a continuing competition of space exploration. I find that completely and utterly unbelievable. Apollo and the "space race" was born and depended completely on political forces, and the US, even in that point of history, is a society completely incapable of anything more. And I say this because I can watch shows with dragons and people back from the dead; and lifelike robots that act out a fantasy land for wealthy visitors. I find that all comparatively believable. The US going into space for anything other than stroking its ego, then discovering it costs money? Humpf. Skippit.
Yes, sorry for the manifesto.
What on earth....are you trying to say? You find flying undead dragons (completely impossible) more believable than the other major super power at the time having won the space race? (entirely possible) You do realize Russia was first to 1) create a space orbiter 2) put creatures into space 3) land a ship on the moon... right?
Yep. I find the flying undead dragons far more believable than the US actually having a coherent, long term space policy. Farcical.
If others wish to watch, fine. There is a lotta stuff Apple seems to be trying to make that looks interesting to me (eg Azimov Foundation.) This just looks...bad...to me. YMMV.
The subject matter is completely grounded in the realm of the possible (Russia landing a crewed mission first). I have no idea what you’re trying to say, other than, “It doesn’t interest me.”
It is common knowledge that the only reason the Soviets WEREN’T first to land a man on the moon was that their rocket system exploded on the launch pad during testing. Presuming that everything else had gone as planned, they would have been first.
The point I think he’s making is that the US only has a stringent space program when it is politically opportune to have one, so the chances of them keeping it up over a prolonged time — the premise of the show — are pretty unrealistic.
Not it sure if I entirely agree, but it’s certainly not a bad point to make.
Its an incredibly stupid point to make because if we had lost then politically we'd have kept going.
I only see a single indie loser in here, and not even sure how much of a role they had in that one. Doesn't take a mathematician to see that one could recoup $500 million from this investment:
Plus: Alias, Lost, Person of Interest, Fringe, Westworld, 11.22.63, Castle Rock... not exactly lightweights here. Give me a break.
I'm not sure that that table tells the story that you think it does.
First, the difference between Budget and Gross doesn't go straight to the studio. Second, and more importantly, with a couple of exceptions all the big money makers on that list are major IPs (Star Wars, Star Trek, Mission Impossible) that plenty of other production companies could have executed. Therefore you can't attribute all (or even most) of the success of those movies to JJA. Third, if Apple owned Bad Robot, do you think Disney would use Bad Robot for Star Wars and other projects they are involved in?
The fact that Apple was involved in the bidding is a good sign. The fact that they are approaching this rationally and not spending as much as it takes to win high-profile deals is also a good sign.
The oblique reference to "For All Mankind" reminds me just how uncomfortable the teaser trailer at WWDC made me. While yes, art in general should have an element of uncomfortableness to motivate a viewer, I found the premise completely unbelievable. I think the idea is that while the USA lost the race to the moon, it sparked a continuing competition of space exploration. I find that completely and utterly unbelievable. Apollo and the "space race" was born and depended completely on political forces, and the US, even in that point of history, is a society completely incapable of anything more. And I say this because I can watch shows with dragons and people back from the dead; and lifelike robots that act out a fantasy land for wealthy visitors. I find that all comparatively believable. The US going into space for anything other than stroking its ego, then discovering it costs money? Humpf. Skippit.
Yes, sorry for the manifesto.
What on earth....are you trying to say? You find flying undead dragons (completely impossible) more believable than the other major super power at the time having won the space race? (entirely possible) You do realize Russia was first to 1) create a space orbiter 2) put creatures into space 3) land a ship on the moon... right?
Yep. I find the flying undead dragons far more believable than the US actually having a coherent, long term space policy. Farcical.
If others wish to watch, fine. There is a lotta stuff Apple seems to be trying to make that looks interesting to me (eg Azimov Foundation.) This just looks...bad...to me. YMMV.
The subject matter is completely grounded in the realm of the possible (Russia landing a crewed mission first). I have no idea what you’re trying to say, other than, “It doesn’t interest me.”
It is common knowledge that the only reason the Soviets WEREN’T first to land a man on the moon was that their rocket system exploded on the launch pad during testing. Presuming that everything else had gone as planned, they would have been first.
The point I think he’s making is that the US only has a stringent space program when it is politically opportune to have one, so the chances of them keeping it up over a prolonged time — the premise of the show — are pretty unrealistic.
Not it sure if I entirely agree, but it’s certainly not a bad point to make.
Its an incredibly stupid point to make because if we had lost then politically we'd have kept going.
Even if you disagree, calling it "incredibly stupid" discounts the volatile nature of US space program decision-making.
The oblique reference to "For All Mankind" reminds me just how uncomfortable the teaser trailer at WWDC made me. While yes, art in general should have an element of uncomfortableness to motivate a viewer, I found the premise completely unbelievable. I think the idea is that while the USA lost the race to the moon, it sparked a continuing competition of space exploration. I find that completely and utterly unbelievable. Apollo and the "space race" was born and depended completely on political forces, and the US, even in that point of history, is a society completely incapable of anything more. And I say this because I can watch shows with dragons and people back from the dead; and lifelike robots that act out a fantasy land for wealthy visitors. I find that all comparatively believable. The US going into space for anything other than stroking its ego, then discovering it costs money? Humpf. Skippit.
Yes, sorry for the manifesto.
What on earth....are you trying to say? You find flying undead dragons (completely impossible) more believable than the other major super power at the time having won the space race? (entirely possible) You do realize Russia was first to 1) create a space orbiter 2) put creatures into space 3) land a ship on the moon... right?
Yep. I find the flying undead dragons far more believable than the US actually having a coherent, long term space policy. Farcical.
If others wish to watch, fine. There is a lotta stuff Apple seems to be trying to make that looks interesting to me (eg Azimov Foundation.) This just looks...bad...to me. YMMV.
The subject matter is completely grounded in the realm of the possible (Russia landing a crewed mission first). I have no idea what you’re trying to say, other than, “It doesn’t interest me.”
It is common knowledge that the only reason the Soviets WEREN’T first to land a man on the moon was that their rocket system exploded on the launch pad during testing. Presuming that everything else had gone as planned, they would have been first.
The point I think he’s making is that the US only has a stringent space program when it is politically opportune to have one, so the chances of them keeping it up over a prolonged time — the premise of the show — are pretty unrealistic.
Not it sure if I entirely agree, but it’s certainly not a bad point to make.
So if the Soviets hadn't failed they wouldn't have failed? The only reason the Warriors didn't repeat as NBA champs is because they failed to outscore the Raptors in game 6 (and then game 7).
The race was closer than Americans care to remember. Rah-rah #1 and all that.
If the Apollo 1b disaster hadn't happened until Apollo 9 or 10, all bets would have been off.
Warner = AT&T Considering Bad Robot started out working with Disney’s Touchstone and ABC on Alias and Lost, it is kind of surprising they went with AT&T.
AT&T is larded with debt and apparently will be adding more.
One wonders if Apple lost by underbidding or if it was something else.
The oblique reference to "For All Mankind" reminds me just how uncomfortable the teaser trailer at WWDC made me. While yes, art in general should have an element of uncomfortableness to motivate a viewer, I found the premise completely unbelievable. I think the idea is that while the USA lost the race to the moon, it sparked a continuing competition of space exploration. I find that completely and utterly unbelievable. Apollo and the "space race" was born and depended completely on political forces, and the US, even in that point of history, is a society completely incapable of anything more. And I say this because I can watch shows with dragons and people back from the dead; and lifelike robots that act out a fantasy land for wealthy visitors. I find that all comparatively believable. The US going into space for anything other than stroking its ego, then discovering it costs money? Humpf. Skippit.
Yes, sorry for the manifesto.
What on earth....are you trying to say? You find flying undead dragons (completely impossible) more believable than the other major super power at the time having won the space race? (entirely possible) You do realize Russia was first to 1) create a space orbiter 2) put creatures into space 3) land a ship on the moon... right?
Yep. I find the flying undead dragons far more believable than the US actually having a coherent, long term space policy. Farcical.
If others wish to watch, fine. There is a lotta stuff Apple seems to be trying to make that looks interesting to me (eg Azimov Foundation.) This just looks...bad...to me. YMMV.
The subject matter is completely grounded in the realm of the possible (Russia landing a crewed mission first). I have no idea what you’re trying to say, other than, “It doesn’t interest me.”
It is common knowledge that the only reason the Soviets WEREN’T first to land a man on the moon was that their rocket system exploded on the launch pad during testing. Presuming that everything else had gone as planned, they would have been first.
The point I think he’s making is that the US only has a stringent space program when it is politically opportune to have one, so the chances of them keeping it up over a prolonged time — the premise of the show — are pretty unrealistic.
Not it sure if I entirely agree, but it’s certainly not a bad point to make.
So if the Soviets hadn't failed they wouldn't have failed? The only reason the Warriors didn't repeat as NBA champs is because they failed to outscore the Raptors in game 6 (and then game 7).
The race was closer than Americans care to remember. Rah-rah #1 and all that.
If the Apollo 1b disaster hadn't happened until Apollo 9 or 10, all bets would have been off.
I'm sorry, what are we arguing about?
Does anyone disagree that the "space race" was a race and it could have turned out differently? And if the Russians had landed a man on the moon instead of the US it would have changed the course of the US space program. Seems like a well done TV show about that could be interesting and popular; and a poorly done show will be a flop (like most shows produced).
The oblique reference to "For All Mankind" reminds me just how uncomfortable the teaser trailer at WWDC made me. While yes, art in general should have an element of uncomfortableness to motivate a viewer, I found the premise completely unbelievable. I think the idea is that while the USA lost the race to the moon, it sparked a continuing competition of space exploration. I find that completely and utterly unbelievable. Apollo and the "space race" was born and depended completely on political forces, and the US, even in that point of history, is a society completely incapable of anything more. And I say this because I can watch shows with dragons and people back from the dead; and lifelike robots that act out a fantasy land for wealthy visitors. I find that all comparatively believable. The US going into space for anything other than stroking its ego, then discovering it costs money? Humpf. Skippit.
Yes, sorry for the manifesto.
What on earth....are you trying to say? You find flying undead dragons (completely impossible) more believable than the other major super power at the time having won the space race? (entirely possible) You do realize Russia was first to 1) create a space orbiter 2) put creatures into space 3) land a ship on the moon... right?
Yep. I find the flying undead dragons far more believable than the US actually having a coherent, long term space policy. Farcical.
If others wish to watch, fine. There is a lotta stuff Apple seems to be trying to make that looks interesting to me (eg Azimov Foundation.) This just looks...bad...to me. YMMV.
The subject matter is completely grounded in the realm of the possible (Russia landing a crewed mission first). I have no idea what you’re trying to say, other than, “It doesn’t interest me.”
It is common knowledge that the only reason the Soviets WEREN’T first to land a man on the moon was that their rocket system exploded on the launch pad during testing. Presuming that everything else had gone as planned, they would have been first.
The point I think he’s making is that the US only has a stringent space program when it is politically opportune to have one, so the chances of them keeping it up over a prolonged time — the premise of the show — are pretty unrealistic.
Not it sure if I entirely agree, but it’s certainly not a bad point to make.
So if the Soviets hadn't failed they wouldn't have failed? The only reason the Warriors didn't repeat as NBA champs is because they failed to outscore the Raptors in game 6 (and then game 7).
The race was closer than Americans care to remember. Rah-rah #1 and all that.
If the Apollo 1b disaster hadn't happened until Apollo 9 or 10, all bets would have been off.
Which ignores that the original point is completely stupid. If the Russians had beat us we wouldn't have given up which is the entire premise of the show. We wouldn't have stopped and we'd have pushed for 1st man on mars or 1st moon colony or something because space was (and is) considered the strategic high ground. To quit and let the Soviets control the space and moon would have been unthinkable. The Soviets gave up because the N1 was unreliable with 4 launch failures not one and frankly they couldn't sustain Apollo level investment over the long term and unexpectedly lost Korolev, the chief proponent for manned space.
The fact is that in Gemini we caught up and passed the Soviets and we were on track to beat them to the moon.
We beat them and they gave up. Had they kept going and landed on the moon so would we have continued and established a moon base or whatever.
I only see a single indie loser in here, and not even sure how much of a role they had in that one. Doesn't take a mathematician to see that one could recoup $500 million from this investment:
Plus: Alias, Lost, Person of Interest, Fringe, Westworld, 11.22.63, Castle Rock... not exactly lightweights here. Give me a break.
I'm not sure that that table tells the story that you think it does.
First, the difference between Budget and Gross doesn't go straight to the studio. Second, and more importantly, with a couple of exceptions all the big money makers on that list are major IPs (Star Wars, Star Trek, Mission Impossible) that plenty of other production companies could have executed. Therefore you can't attribute all (or even most) of the success of those movies to JJA. Third, if Apple owned Bad Robot, do you think Disney would use Bad Robot for Star Wars and other projects they are involved in?
The fact that Apple was involved in the bidding is a good sign. The fact that they are approaching this rationally and not spending as much as it takes to win high-profile deals is also a good sign.
Are you implying these properties weren’t profitable? If you have better numbers, then why don’t you share them.
The big name examples you give that other studios could’ve executed and therefore shouldn’t be attributed to JJA were all directed by JJA! What kind of backasswards logic is that?
Warner = AT&T Considering Bad Robot started out working with Disney’s Touchstone and ABC on Alias and Lost, it is kind of surprising they went with AT&T.
AT&T is larded with debt and apparently will be adding more.
One wonders if Apple lost by underbidding or if it was something else.
This has nothing to do with ATT. Abrams has been exclusive to Warner Bros. TV for over a decade now. There was a pre-existing relationship. WB stepped up to the plate and felt it was profitable enough to renew it -- something Abrams likely had every intention of doing, except he wanted to see if he could drive the price up and get a better deal.
ATT is carrying a lot of debt, but WBTV is a very profitable unit, and ATT has mostly been hands off. Apple still gets the benefit of JJ Abrams and Bad Robot through proctions they license from WBTV. Most likely Apple realized they had no reason to buy the cow when they could license the milk for less and still make money without the expensive overhead.
The oblique reference to "For All Mankind" reminds me just how uncomfortable the teaser trailer at WWDC made me. While yes, art in general should have an element of uncomfortableness to motivate a viewer, I found the premise completely unbelievable. I think the idea is that while the USA lost the race to the moon, it sparked a continuing competition of space exploration. I find that completely and utterly unbelievable. Apollo and the "space race" was born and depended completely on political forces, and the US, even in that point of history, is a society completely incapable of anything more. And I say this because I can watch shows with dragons and people back from the dead; and lifelike robots that act out a fantasy land for wealthy visitors. I find that all comparatively believable. The US going into space for anything other than stroking its ego, then discovering it costs money? Humpf. Skippit.
Yes, sorry for the manifesto.
What on earth....are you trying to say? You find flying undead dragons (completely impossible) more believable than the other major super power at the time having won the space race? (entirely possible) You do realize Russia was first to 1) create a space orbiter 2) put creatures into space 3) land a ship on the moon... right?
Yep. I find the flying undead dragons far more believable than the US actually having a coherent, long term space policy. Farcical.
If others wish to watch, fine. There is a lotta stuff Apple seems to be trying to make that looks interesting to me (eg Azimov Foundation.) This just looks...bad...to me. YMMV.
The subject matter is completely grounded in the realm of the possible (Russia landing a crewed mission first). I have no idea what you’re trying to say, other than, “It doesn’t interest me.”
It is common knowledge that the only reason the Soviets WEREN’T first to land a man on the moon was that their rocket system exploded on the launch pad during testing. Presuming that everything else had gone as planned, they would have been first.
The point I think he’s making is that the US only has a stringent space program when it is politically opportune to have one, so the chances of them keeping it up over a prolonged time — the premise of the show — are pretty unrealistic.
Not it sure if I entirely agree, but it’s certainly not a bad point to make.
So if the Soviets hadn't failed they wouldn't have failed? The only reason the Warriors didn't repeat as NBA champs is because they failed to outscore the Raptors in game 6 (and then game 7).
The race was closer than Americans care to remember. Rah-rah #1 and all that.
If the Apollo 1b disaster hadn't happened until Apollo 9 or 10, all bets would have been off.
I'm sorry, what are we arguing about?
Does anyone disagree that the "space race" was a race and it could have turned out differently? And if the Russians had landed a man on the moon instead of the US it would have changed the course of the US space program. Seems like a well done TV show about that could be interesting and popular; and a poorly done show will be a flop (like most shows produced).
The actual "argument" was that the decision-making about long-term engagement in space projects in the United States is so tied to political opportunism and the whim of whoever is in power that it is unlikely that the space race for human spaceflight would have continued for much longer in any case, once the moon had been reached.
I think it's worth considering, and can certainly understand why somebody would find a show based on the contrary premise unbelievable.
The fact that some here feel the need to call somebody "stupid" for thinking so seems a little stupid to me. But hey, not my point, not my argument. I can entertain the thought and am still looking forward to the series. It's all hypothetical, and it's all just a show. Suspension of disbelief and all.
500 million doesn’t seem like all that much really, considering just one blockbuster movie can make that much in profit. So I don’t think this deal will be for that many years going forward.
500 million doesn’t seem like all that much really, considering just one blockbuster movie can make that much in profit. So I don’t think this deal will be for that many years going forward.
There's a lot of cost and risk that goes into making that one blockbuster. The revenue we see from weekly theaters sales are not what the movie studios get. And note that I said studios; when was the last time you saw a film that only had one major name attached to its funding? I like Abrams but I also think $500M for Bad Robot won't generate enough profits to make a slam dunk purchase.
Here's an article from 1987…
"So, of the $10 plunked down on one sultry night last August, $5 went into the coffers of the Eastgate Theater, and $1.50 paid Fox's distribution fee. About $1 was applied to prints and advertising. And the remaining $2.50 began the task of paying for Mr. Goldblum, the laboratory in which he met his fate and his horrifying metamorphosis into a hairy insect."
Has Avengers: Endgame even made $500 million in PROFIT (not earnings) for a single studio at this point in its non-video or post theater distribution cycle?
Comments
If you look at George Miller who's famous for his Mad Max films especially Fury Road which he directed at the age of 70 which turned out to be one of his finest works. Miller was known for 'center framing' and tells a story visually very well. Similar with Kubrick. For a man his age to be able to pull of Fury Road, I have more respect for him than I do to Abrams. JJ can try hard as all he can but he will never, EVER be one of the titans of cinema.
So really Apple and Bad Robot aren't a great fit which ironically Abrams was featured talking about the Apple + product in the video presentation at last fall's keynote.
We lost 1st satellite in space.
We lost 1st animal in space.
We lost 1st man in space
We lost 1st EVA
We lost 1st successful manned docking.
And you think we would have stopped if we lost 1st man on the moon? No, we'd have kept going until we kicked their asses.
Today we have SpaceX and Blue Origin in addition to the national space programs.
First, the difference between Budget and Gross doesn't go straight to the studio.
Second, and more importantly, with a couple of exceptions all the big money makers on that list are major IPs (Star Wars, Star Trek, Mission Impossible) that plenty of other production companies could have executed. Therefore you can't attribute all (or even most) of the success of those movies to JJA.
Third, if Apple owned Bad Robot, do you think Disney would use Bad Robot for Star Wars and other projects they are involved in?
The fact that Apple was involved in the bidding is a good sign. The fact that they are approaching this rationally and not spending as much as it takes to win high-profile deals is also a good sign.
Beats was a hardware company that provided instant revenue even before they turned the streaming service into Apple Music and it took off.
If the Apollo 1b disaster hadn't happened until Apollo 9 or 10, all bets would have been off.
Considering Bad Robot started out working with Disney’s Touchstone and ABC on Alias and Lost, it is kind of surprising they went with AT&T.
AT&T is larded with debt and apparently will be adding more.
One wonders if Apple lost by underbidding or if it was something else.
Does anyone disagree that the "space race" was a race and it could have turned out differently? And if the Russians had landed a man on the moon instead of the US it would have changed the course of the US space program. Seems like a well done TV show about that could be interesting and popular; and a poorly done show will be a flop (like most shows produced).
The fact is that in Gemini we caught up and passed the Soviets and we were on track to beat them to the moon.
We beat them and they gave up. Had they kept going and landed on the moon so would we have continued and established a moon base or whatever.
The big name examples you give that other studios could’ve executed and therefore shouldn’t be attributed to JJA were all directed by JJA! What kind of backasswards logic is that?
ATT is carrying a lot of debt, but WBTV is a very profitable unit, and ATT has mostly been hands off. Apple still gets the benefit of JJ Abrams and Bad Robot through proctions they license from WBTV. Most likely Apple realized they had no reason to buy the cow when they could license the milk for less and still make money without the expensive overhead.
I think it's worth considering, and can certainly understand why somebody would find a show based on the contrary premise unbelievable.
The fact that some here feel the need to call somebody "stupid" for thinking so seems a little stupid to me. But hey, not my point, not my argument. I can entertain the thought and am still looking forward to the series. It's all hypothetical, and it's all just a show. Suspension of disbelief and all.
Here's an article from 1987…
"So, of the $10 plunked down on one sultry night last August, $5 went into the coffers of the Eastgate Theater, and $1.50 paid Fox's distribution fee. About $1 was applied to prints and advertising. And the remaining $2.50 began the task of paying for Mr. Goldblum, the laboratory in which he met his fate and his horrifying metamorphosis into a hairy insect."
Has Avengers: Endgame even made $500 million in PROFIT (not earnings) for a single studio at this point in its non-video or post theater distribution cycle?