LMI Is a Box Office Flop

For discussion of Matt Reeve's Film Let Me In

Moderator: LMI Moderator

Post Reply
ColBlair
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:05 pm

Re: LMI Is a Box Office Flop

Post by ColBlair » Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:13 pm

God of Vampires wrote:
ColBlair wrote:I'm wondering also cause they thought it was a Twilight knockoff. I wonder also, what movie came first in Sweden? Let the Right One In or Twilight?
Let The Right One In, 24 of October. Twilight, 21 of November.
Thanks.

User avatar
foxfire
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 7:19 pm

Re: LMI Is a Box Office Flop

Post by foxfire » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:34 pm

abner_mohl wrote:... nowhere near its $20 million production costs.
I'm surprised LMI cost that much to produce. There must have been a lot of wasteful spending. I don't remember seeing any obvious special effects in it, but maybe I've just forgotten them.

User avatar
abner_mohl
Posts: 3102
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:30 am

Re: LMI Is a Box Office Flop

Post by abner_mohl » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:21 pm

they went to new mexico because of tax credits and cheaper production costs, if they filmed in california it have easily cost twice as much. but by way of american films these days, they got off pretty cheap, and to cast chloe moretz now would be more expensive as well.

ColBlair
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:05 pm

Re: LMI Is a Box Office Flop

Post by ColBlair » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:16 pm

abner_mohl wrote:they went to new mexico because of tax credits and cheaper production costs, if they filmed in california it have easily cost twice as much. but by way of american films these days, they got off pretty cheap, and to cast chloe moretz now would be more expensive as well.
I don't understand.

User avatar
abner_mohl
Posts: 3102
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:30 am

Re: LMI Is a Box Office Flop

Post by abner_mohl » Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:10 am

ColBlair wrote:
abner_mohl wrote:they went to new mexico because of tax credits and cheaper production costs, if they filmed in california it have easily cost twice as much. but by way of american films these days, they got off pretty cheap, and to cast chloe moretz now would be more expensive as well.
I don't understand.
LMI received tax credits to film in New Mexico, which had areas that snowed in the Los Alamos area, to film in CA would have been more expensive iwth the higher labor costs. And since the release of Kick-Ass, Chloe is now one of the most in demand child actresses, so obviously her salary has gone up. Of course I imagine like so many actors like Nicholas Cage or Bruce Willis, if they really like a project they would take a pay cut.

User avatar
intrige
Posts: 4236
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:20 pm
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re: LMI Is a Box Office Flop

Post by intrige » Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:40 am

DMt. wrote:Awww... I wish I could be cruelly happy about this, but I just can't. Maybe it'll recoup something more on DVD? Hey, Matt! I didn't mean it! I'm sorry it didn't work out!
Sorry Matt. It's not you, it's me. x)
Bulleri bulleri buck, hur många horn står upp

ColBlair
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:05 pm

Re: LMI Is a Box Office Flop

Post by ColBlair » Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:08 am

abner_mohl wrote:
ColBlair wrote:
abner_mohl wrote:they went to new mexico because of tax credits and cheaper production costs, if they filmed in california it have easily cost twice as much. but by way of american films these days, they got off pretty cheap, and to cast chloe moretz now would be more expensive as well.
I don't understand.
LMI received tax credits to film in New Mexico, which had areas that snowed in the Los Alamos area, to film in CA would have been more expensive iwth the higher labor costs. And since the release of Kick-Ass, Chloe is now one of the most in demand child actresses, so obviously her salary has gone up. Of course I imagine like so many actors like Nicholas Cage or Bruce Willis, if they really like a project they would take a pay cut.
Now I understand. Thanks very much.

Post Reply

Return to “Let Me In”