this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
320 points (99.1% liked)

movies

3661 readers
1293 users here now

A community about movies and cinema.

Related communities:

Rules

  1. Be civil
  2. No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
  3. Do not spam
  4. Stay on topic
  5. These rules will evolve as this community grows

No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 31 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Ah yes, losing $100,000,000 seems very low-risk.

[–] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 hours ago

If they thought they had a good chance of losing that much money, they wouldn't have made the movie. The news here is more about how their risk calculations were off.

[–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world -5 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

No, no it's not.

They can absorb the loss, but it's by no means small

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 6 hours ago

Low risk is still risk

The movie's made nearly 100 mill worldwide. With brand new IP there's no guarantee to even get that much. Plus you'd need more marketing, etc.

They lost, but the risk was smaller than it could've been.

Think about two different scenarios:

  1. Brand new IP, movie costs 250 mill to make, it could be the next Avatar and make well over a billion, or it could make 10 mill because nobody cares

  2. Existing IP, almost certainly going to make under a billion, but there's essentially no way it'll make significantly under 100 million against the same budget of 250 mill.

Which one is low risk and which one is high risk?