In limbo is how it has always been. It is really impressive/amazing that Disney dropped 180 mlll into this “franchise’. Both previous movies were flops.

What made them think this would be any different?

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't know what made you think that, but you're wrong. Both Tron 1 and Tron 2 were moderate successes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron:_Legacy

[–] IWW4@lemmy.zip -1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

2.5 the budget is a financial success.

Tron 82 cost 17 mill to make and made 32 mill.

Tron Legacy cost 170 mill to make and made 400 mill.

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 9 points 4 months ago

The Wikipedia articles literally say "moderate success"

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago

I think generally twice the budget to break even. Anything past that is a success. However, it varies depending on marketing and expectations. Some sleeper hits make multiple times their budget on minimal marketing, just from word of mouth. Some huge blockbusters spend lots on marketing and barely make a profit without going over 2.5 times budget.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago

That's assuming today's standards for a film's financial success are the same as in the early 80s. Were they?