It amazes me how many people don't understand that rotten tomatoes is not actually rating the movies themselves, lol.

Btron said:

---

Are we entering "Oscar, give it to'em" territory?

---

is this a glitch in the Texags Matrix? I just said this several pages ago......

Bot. Flag it

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Bot. Flag it

---

done
Thanks. I was like, this sounds like something I would say

"One Battle After Another" needs roughly $300 million to break even in theaters. The film's current $140 million gross is impressive for an original movie that's R rated and nearly three hours long, but the film is still tracking to lose $100 million.

Warner Bros. spent more… pic.twitter.com/NXQRsE3tWw

— Variety (@Variety) October 15, 2025

Quote:

---

"Warner Bros. refutes Variety's anonymous sources and their uninformed estimates," a studio spokesperson says.

---

^ Seems this would be worth mentioning as well.

Also...

Quote:

---

"Though the global haul of $140 million is impressive for a film that's original, R rated and nearly three hours long, "One Battle" requires roughly $300 million to break even. That's because Warner Bros. spent more than $130 million on production and $70 million on promotional efforts, and ticket sales are typically split 50-50 between studios and theater operators."

---

In other words, Logos Stick's "$250 million to make including advertising" claim above was way off (surprise, surprise). But more importantly, multiple box office projections now have the movie doing around $200M worldwide, if not $215M, when all is said and done.

Never mind the fact that theatrical box office isn't a movie's only source of income. And this movie, in particular, will have crazy good legs on digital, all throughout the holidays and the Oscar race, into the spring, never mind its eventual cable run, hotel run, airline run, etc, etc, etc.

This is all, of course, in addition to the numerous Oscars it'll be nominated for and will likely win.

Will it ultimately break even? Probably not. But it's going to come way closer than that clickbait headline suggests, while going on to be valuable for Warner Bros in myriad other ways, in terms of awards, endless replay-ability for years to come based on those awards, and attracting future talent, by proving to be a filmmaker friendly studio that takes big swings like this.

It also doesn't hurt that Warner Bros was the first studio this year to cross $4B in worldwide sales, so they'll be just fine regardless. To that end, these kinds of chances are exactly what the Minecrafts of the world are for.

It's not cope, it's math.

Some of you are going above and beyond to **** all over this movie every chance you get - as if it's your God-given mission - and in the process all kinds of misleading numbers/info are being thrown around. So I'm simply saying, "It's not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be," both financially and, of course, earlier in the thread, narratively.

I'm agreeing that it's probably not going to break even.

But I'm also saying that it's not nearly the disaster being painting here. To say otherwise isn't me making excuses, it's me presenting pertinent info in light of the highly biased smear campaign going on in this thread (which is at least, if not far more, biased than people will inevitably claim I'm being).

Also, again... it's still the lead for Best Picture and numerous other awards at the Oscars, which absolutely counts for something. That kind of recognition matters financially, not just in terms of Hollywood "pats on the back."

But if you guys want to keep cherry-picking misleading info, or quoting intellectual giants/upstanding citizens like Chris Gore and Bret Easton Ellis, go right ahead. I just popped in to speak a bit of truth to nonsense, but I'll let you guys get back to your usual shenanigans now.

All I know is whatever they spent in marketing was wasted. The marketing budget didn't make it to me until maybe 2 weeks out, and even then without generally following PTA projects I wouldn't have known what I was watching when I did see in the quick trailer commercials. I guess it wasn't heavily pushed in Texas but that was a mistake imo.

TCTTS said:

---

It's not cope, it's math.

Some of you are going above and beyond to **** all over this movie every chance you get - as if it's your God-given mission - and in the process all kinds of misleading numbers/info are being thrown around. So I'm simply saying, "It's not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be," both financially and, of course, earlier in the thread, narratively.

I'm agreeing that it's probably not going to break even.

But I'm also saying that it's not nearly the disaster being painting here. To say otherwise isn't me making excuses, it's me presenting pertinent info in light of the highly biased smear campaign going on in this thread (which is at least, if not far more, biased than people will inevitably claim I'm being).

Also, again... it's still the lead for Best Picture and numerous other awards at the Oscars, which absolutely counts for something. That kind of recognition matters financially, not just in terms of Hollywood "pats on the back."

But if you guys want to keep cherry-picking misleading info, or quoting intellectual giants/upstanding citizens like Chris Gore and Bret Easton Ellis, go right ahead. I just popped in to speak a bit of truth to nonsense, but I'll let you guys get back to your usual shenanigans now.

---

Probably?

Quote:

---

But if you guys want to keep cherry-picking misleading info

---

What misleading info is that, exactly?

Quote:

---

I just popped in to speak a bit of truth to nonsense

---

Oh?

Bunk Moreland said:

---

All I know is whatever they spent in marketing was wasted. The marketing budget didn't make it to me until maybe 2 weeks out, and even then without generally following PTA projects I wouldn't have known what I was watching when I did see in the quick trailer commercials. I guess it wasn't heavily pushed in Texas but that was a mistake imo.

---

$70 million