• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Emma Watson's New Movie Made Just $61 in the U.K.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Beauty and the Beast gonna wreck the box office, so whats it matter?

I bet she's happy to star in a movie where she's actually challenged as actor instead of standing infront of a green screen while some underpaid CGI guy does all the work.
 

Ridley327

Member
All solid movies he was very good in.

He's been very adventurous, which I appreciate in an actor that has no financial need for big paydays with the kind of money he got from Harry Potter. I don't think he's quite the same "oh shit, he/she really was super talented all along" level as Robert Pattinson or Kristen Stewart have been, but he's got the desire to do stuff his way.
 
I love how the article is written. It goes "Does this mean Watson’s film career is in peril? Hardly!", mentions how it made $2m in Germany but seemingly suggests Colonia made money there only because the director and one of the leads are German. Then goes on to list more details about how poorly the movie is faring.



He's not exactly swimming in good roles with Woman in Black, Horns and Victor Frankenstein on his filmography.

I liked horns and I want to see swiss army man
 

Ridley327

Member
Yeah, less than $30 a screen is nothing to worry about.

She isn't a draw. Neither is Daniel. Idk what happened to the dude that played Ron. If they replaced Emma three movies in the Harry Potter films still would have been huge hits.

Rupert has mostly stayed away from acting, though he's had a couple of roles here and there.
 
D

Deleted member 465307

Unconfirmed Member
It made $61 and British movie tickets can cost up to $20...so does that mean 3-5 people saw this movie?

EDIT: Opened in 3 theaters...so 1-2 people per theater for the entire opening? Must have been nice and quiet.
 

rrc1594

Member
He's been very adventurous, which I appreciate in an actor that has no financial need for big paydays with the kind of money he got from Harry Potter. I don't think he's quite the same "oh shit, he/she really was super talented all along" level as Robert Pattinson or Kristen Stewart have been, but he's got the desire to do stuff his way.

Huh?
 

keffri

Member
I thought it was a typo and you meant $61k.

That's pretty bad, but still...

iBLrG.gif
 

SalvaPot

Member
The simultaneous digital release pretty much killed, it doesn't seem like the kind of movie I'll go out of my way to watch.
 

Figboy79

Aftershock LA
Looks like she's going to have to borrow the Time Turner again...


Anyway, this is a VOD movie. I don't expect those to make much in the theater. Watson is talented, and she's already made bank from the Potter films (she has a $70 million net worth) At this point, I imagine she's still making movies because she loves to make movies. It's certainly not for financial stability.
 

The Argus

Member
Rupert has mostly stayed away from acting, though he's had a couple of roles here and there.

Acting? He's been big in the theatre scene. Different animals sure, but he's been routinely on stage/screen since HP.


With a simultaneous streaming release? So you'd write the headline that this streaming only movie made 0$ if it didn't open in theaters at all?

But that's not the headline. PFV is pennies. A couple dozen bucks per projector is abysmal.

Edit: whoops SAM made over two grand a screen a day over the weekend. Limited release. Still an indie film, but on the three HP kids he's the top draw.
 

Tyaren

Member
So, I guess nobody in here has watched it? XD I have and...well, it's not really something you'd like to watch with family or friends in the cinema, munching popcorn. It's very slow, dark, unnerving and quite disturbing at times. Seeing her as Belle in the live action adaptation of the Beauty and Beast next year will be like a difference of night and day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom