Kick Ass
| Distributed by | Universal Pictures (UK) Lionsgate (US) |
|---|---|
| Release date(s) |
|
| Running time | 117 minutes[1] |
| Country | United Kingdom United States[2] |
| Language | English |
| Budget | $30 million[3][4] |
| Box office | $96,188,903[4] |
Scott Pilgrim
| Distributed by | Universal Pictures |
|---|---|
| Release date(s) |
|
| Running time | 112 minutes[1] |
| Country | United States[2] |
| Language | English |
| Budget | $85–90 million[3][4][5] $60 million after tax rebates[6] |
| Box office | $47,664,559[3][6] |
'Kick Ass' is another comic book film that was released in 2010, it can be compared to scott pilgrim as a fairly similar film in the respects that they were both distributed by Universal Pictures, both have a similar running time and were both marketed as comic book films. However, Kick Ass' budget was way under half of scott pilgrims, but made around double the amount scott pilgrim did in the box office. Was this due to advertising? Scott pilgrim had two trailers while kick ass only had one major trailer. There are other possible reasons to why kick ass was more successful such as the trailer being more action packed for example, the film just looked better. Another possible reason for Kick Ass' success could have been due to the buzz from the trailer, but according to the amount of views on the trailers on youtube (kick ass-506,803) (scott pilgrim-703,534) scott pilgrim's box office taking should have been higher than Kick Ass'. the only other reason that why the advertising didn't get people into the cinema was that people watched the trailers, and just didn't want to go see the movie. There are a few reasons why this might be the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.