That's common. The $180MM is the production cost to which you need to add marketing etc.. I watched Matt Damon and Bem Affleck talk about this when explaining why big studios are so risk averse when making movies. Basically the rule of thumb is that a movie needs to gross double it's production cost just to break even, and that's still considered a relative failure.

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

For most movies that tracks but where was the marketing on this one? Who pocketed all that money?

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I saw a lot of ads fot it, including in theatres. Also marketing goes beyond ads. The trailers cost money, the press tour/junkets, etc.

I won't pretend to know all the ins and outs, which is why I deferred to Matt Damon and Ben Affleck who have been in that business for a long time.

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Nobody went to see the movie. So, again, where was the marketing on this one?

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 days ago

The marketing existed, but the trailers didn't do much past showcase Tom Cruise being zany, and the plot did not seem very appealing. My guess is that, just like The Bride, they made an art house movie witha very niche audience, for way too much money. The budget for both movies should have been miniscule.