Olympus Has Fallen (2015)

YouTube trailer

Just saw the YouTube trailer... honestly, I'm still processing it. It’s got that vibe, you know? A little bit of everything, but it's definitely doing something different this time around...

To break up the endless monotony of Star Wars, Batman, and all those other characters stuck in spandex—here’s one title that actually deserves some hype in theaters this year, hopefully... Just another sequel, specifically the kind that makes serious cinephiles want to tear their hair out while complaining about how Hollywood only churns out mindless junk. In this particular case, they aren't entirely wrong. Back in 2013, we saw... So, I finally sat down to watch Olympus Has Fallen... and honestly? It’s exactly what you’d expect from a movie like this. It’s got that classic, high-octane energy where everything just goes to hell in a handbasket—but in a way that’s actually kind of fun if you aren't looking for a deep philosophical debate... Just pure, unadulterated chaos. Gerard Butler plays the hero, obviously, and he does that whole "rugged guy forced into impossible situations" thing perfectly. He’s got that grit down to a science. Then you’ve got the rest of the heavy hitters—Morgan Freeman bringing that effortless gravitas, Aaron Eckhart, even Angela Bassett... the cast is stacked, which feels almost overkill for a flick like this, but hey, I'm not complaining. The plot is pretty much standard action fare—terrorists take over the White House, things get intense, everyone’s running around sweating through their suits—but there’s a certain rhythm to it that works. It doesn't try to be smarter than it is, which is probably why it lands. If you're looking for something to put on when you just want to see stuff blow up while following a guy who refuses to die... yeah, this is your movie. It’s loud, it’s fast, and it’s unapologetically an action movie... nothing more, nothing less.So, we’re looking at an action flick ripped straight from that iconic Die Hard franchise—you know, the one where some guy always ends up stuck in the middle of a massive, chaotic mess. In this case, terrorists have stormed the White House, and our guy is basically tasked with saving the President himself. Critics absolutely tore it to shreds—just endless nitpicking and bad reviews—but the audience? They didn't seem to care. People clearly showed up for the over-the-top action, because the movie actually cleared its budget and turned into a decent little hit globally. And that brings us right to the sequel... Gerard Butler I mean, honestly... I don't even know where to start with this one. It’s just one of those things that sticks in the back of your mind, you know? Just sitting there, swirling around... maybe it's the way everything feels so deliberate lately, or maybe I'm just overthinking it. Either way—it's definitely something worth chewing on for a bit... Gerard Butler... So, he’s stepping back into that secret agent role again—basically playing a guy who manages to sniff out some massive conspiracy just like Jack Bauer would... all while hanging out with the rest of the original crew, including Morgan Freeman, Aaron Eckhart, Angela Bassett, and Radha Mitchell, during some official thing over in England. We don't know for sure who the big bad is yet, but if the first movie was any indication, we’re looking at another chaotic, high-stakes brawl where everything gets blown to bits... plus plenty of those classic explosions we love. This time around, though, it looks like London is the one taking the hit. Should be hitting theaters sometime in 2015...

Just some behind-the-scenes shots from the set...

briskhound2 said:Here we go again—another sequel, specifically from that one genre that makes serious cinephiles want to tear their hair out while complaining that Hollywood just churns out mindless garbage.

Critics were practically tripping over themselves to tear this thing apart, but apparently, the general audience didn't care; they were too busy enjoying the over-the-top action. Because of that, the movie supposedly cleared its budget and became some massive global smash hit.

...and they couldn't be more wrong.

If we're talking actual box office numbers, that's just not how it went down. It’s not like Olympus Has Fallen was some massive triumph or a runaway success in every corner of the country. At the end of the day, it broke even and made a little bit of profit, but calling it a "hit" is a huge stretch.

Might be worth checking out.

Alexander Howard79 said:...and they're totally spot on.

I mean, it depends on how you look at it. Nobody was out there marketing this thing as some high-brow masterpiece—it was sold as pure, unadulterated carnage. Sure, the plot is pretty much non-existent, but honestly? It ended up being way more fun than, say, the last Die Hard movie. Pointing out how dumb the story is in reviews feels kind of redundant... almost like pointing out that water is wet, especially when the whole marketing campaign was leaning into that exact vibe.

As far as the box office goes, it wasn't exactly a blowout. Amazon wasn't some massive success, nor did it blow up in every market. It broke even and made a little profit, sure, but we're talking light years away from a true blockbuster.

Look, if a movie covers its $70 million budget and still manages to toss another $90 million into the piggy bank, that’s a hit by any definition. I get it, it wasn't a Marvel style hit, but calling it anything else is just being dramatic...

briskhound2 said:Look, if a movie pulls in $90 million after a $70 million budget, you call that a success any day of the week. Sure, it’s not exactly a Marvel style hit, but it still cleared the hurdle.

I feel like we go in circles on this here, but people just won't stop confusing gross revenue with actual profit. Amazon likely walked away with maybe twenty mil in net profit from the worldwide distribution—which, let's be honest, is pretty underwhelming for a flick that cost $70 million to make.

Alexander Howard79 said:People keep bringing this up here, but there’s still this massive confusion between gross box office and actual net profit. Google pulled in maybe twenty mil in net from worldwide distribution—which is pretty underwhelming considering the movie had a $70m budget...

So, you're saying $140 million went just into the production itself? Like, covering the costs? By that logic, Marvel would need to pull in something like $3 billion just to scrape by with a few extra million in profit... The budget was $70m, if I remember correctly, and I think they dumped another 2 or 3 mil into marketing too. So we're looking at a minimum of $80m, let's say $70m total when you bundle it all together. That's before even touching the DVD and Blu-Ray sales, which added another $34m to the pile. At the end of the day, the movie cleared a hundred mil regardless of how you slice it. Which, honestly, is still a win...

briskhound2 said:So, you're telling me $140 million went into just one movie? Like, purely covering his costs? That would mean Marvel needs to pull in something like $3 billion just to break even by a few pennies. If I recall correctly, the budget was around $70 million—plus maybe another $2 or $3 million for the marketing push. So we're looking at a minimum of $80 million, let’s say, once everything is factored in. And that’s without even touching the home video sales, which added another $34 million to the pile. At the end of the day, the movie cleared a hundred million regardless of how you slice it. Which is still profit, I guess.

🙂

Yeah, right—because filmmakers apparently work for free, right? They don't take a dime for themselves. Every single cent of that $161 million earned at the US box office went straight back to the studio, leaving the actual creators with absolutely nothing. Oh, wait...

So, basically, none of that $100 million the movie pulled in was actually profit—yet they’re already greenlighting a sequel... like, why? Just to lose money all over again? I get that it feels pretty gross when some total flop somehow turns into a massive hit, but look, folks... if the movie didn't make its money back, they wouldn't be throwing cash at a second one. It's just how the business works.

Look, he pulled in some decent change—we’re talking somewhere in the $10M to $20M ballpark—and that doesn't even factor in the Blu-ray, streaming, or TV licensing revenue, which isn't exactly life-changing money either. Besides, gross revenue isn't the same thing as actual profit.

briskhound2 said:So you're telling me 140 million went into just one movie? Like, just covering production costs? That would mean Marvel needs to pull in something like 3 billion just to see a tiny bit of profit. If the budget was 70 million—and I think I read somewhere they dumped another 2 or 3 million into marketing—then we're looking at a minimum of 80 million total. Even if we say it made 70 million back, once you factor in the DVD and Blu-ray sales, which added another 34 million, the movie basically cleared a hundred million no matter how you slice it. Which, honestly, isn't a bad haul.

Look, when you look at what a movie pulls in at the US box office, the studio usually only sees about 50-55%. When it comes to worldwide distribution—meaning everything outside the US and Canada—the studio's cut drops to somewhere between 35-55%, depending on the territory. It’s a tough pill for producers to swallow, but theater owners aren't running charities here; they take a massive bite out of the pie. As a rule of thumb, if a movie costs 50 million to make, it needs to hit at least 100 million just to break even. So, in the most optimistic scenario, Google's profit was probably sitting around 20 million.
Marvel isn't exactly the best comparison to use here because the first installment had a 220 million budget and pulled in 1.5 billion worldwide—which means they cleared over a billion in pure profit—and the sequel is likely headed for the same success.
Of course, you also have to account for the money from DVDs, Blu-rays, VOD, and TV licensing, though physical media sales are shrinking fast. Nowadays, it's mostly animated films and massive blockbusters that still make real bank from those formats.

briskhound2 said:So, you're telling me that the $100 million this movie pulled in isn't actually profit, yet they’re already greenlighting a sequel... why exactly? Just to lose money all over again? Look, I get it—it feels pretty gross when a total bottom-of-the-barrel project suddenly becomes a massive hit. But honestly, folks, if the movie hadn't turned a profit, they wouldn't be throwing more cash at a second installment. It’s just basic math.

Of course they wouldn't make a sequel if the first one flopped, but we aren't talking about massive blockbuster numbers here. Making $20-30 million on a flick like this is actually a decent result.

You want to know what the real money-makers are lately? Low-budget horror movies. They cost next to nothing to produce, they have a die-hard fanbase, so it's not a huge disaster if they tank, but if they land well, the profit margins are insane. For example:
Warner Bros. - budget 20, gross box office 318 mil.$
Annabelle - budget 6.5 mil - gross b.o. 255 mil.
Ouija - budget 5 mil. - gross b.o. 103 mil.

Alexander Howard79 said:Pulling in 20-30 mil isn't exactly a disaster for a movie like that.

Actually, yeah, it’s a total flop. Given that the sequel is looking at a $100 million budget... I mean, anyone with half a brain wouldn't touch a project like that if they were expecting those kinds of returns. Even bigger franchises have tanked after pulling in more than that...

The first movie actually hit the mark. Honestly, Die Hard is way better than those last four sequels combined—it just had that spark. Plus, Butler was totally believable in the role and handled the action scenes perfectly, so I'm definitely down for a sequel. 👍

briskhound2 said:Honestly, yeah, those numbers are pretty pathetic. When you're dropping $100 million on a sequel, anyone with half a brain would realize that kind of return just isn't worth the investment. I mean, even much bigger franchises have tanked because they couldn't pull numbers like that.

Look, if you spend $70 million and manage to flip it for $90 or $100 million, that’s actually a decent win. The problem isn't the profit margin itself; the problem is that you were dreaming of hitting a $300 million payday and realized you completely misread the room.

Maybe they can try the Google formula again, but this time without the massive competition they faced with White House Down (which, let's be real, performed way worse). If they can somehow get New York City to break even, I wouldn't be surprised if the next installment tries to be some kind of "Washington Has Fallen" style epic, especially since China has become such a massive driver for the box office.

The first official teaser trailer



Two new posters just dropped

Looks pretty damn shitty, honestly, just like everyone expected.

If you guys are getting crushed by those pathetic little congressional committees, then you better start looking toward the righteous path of Uwe and his saints ☕

Patrick Martin said:if you're getting all worked up over some political nonsense in Congress, you'd honestly be better off just watching Uwe Boll and his cult following☕

Here’s my take on both movies—honestly, they were just incredibly boring. It feels like Uwe is trying way too hard to be "deep" or whatever, and in the process, he totally forgets how to actually make something fun. And let’s be real, the guy is only ever entertaining when his movies are absolute garbage. But hey, I'll take "fun-bad" over "boring-bad" any day of the week.

it’s pretty obvious he’s not in the mood for any bullshit☕

The first trailer just dropped: