257
Borderlands' theatrical run grinds to a halt with just $31 million worldwide, which is barely enough to cover the marketing costs (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M] to c/movies@lemm.ee
110 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

So that's bad, yeah, but just how bad is it? With help from Google and The Numbers' movie comparison feature, I can tell you this: It's really bad.

I present to you...

An Incomplete List of Shitty Videogame Movies That Made More Money Than Borderlands

(in no particular order)

  • Warcraft ($439 million)
  • Max Payne ($88 million) Doom ($59 million)
  • Street Fighter ($99 million)
  • Assassin's Creed ($241 million)
  • Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time ($336 million)
  • Hitman ($99 million)
  • Mortal Kombat (but Mortal Kombat is actually good) ($122 million)
  • Need for Speed ($194 million)
  • Five Nights at Freddy's ($297 million)
  • Uncharted ($401 million)

One big-budget, big(ish)-cast Hollywood film Borderlands managed to beat, which I bring up only because I paid good money to see it in theaters and I'm still sore about the whole thing, is Wing Commander, an utterly execrable celluloid waste of time and effort that bumbled to $11.5 million globally. Frankly I'm surprised it did that well.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago

The way I see it, SMB93 is just mental enough that it slipped into cult movie territory. It’s obviously not a cash grab rammed full of fan service, so there’s an authenticity to it that makes it endure.

Is it a great movie? Fucking right it is.

Is it a Super Mario Bros. movie? Weeelllll…

But I come it from the perspective of someone who was 12 when it came out, so didn’t really give a shit about it being faithful to whatever story the games had. It was just a stupid, fun movie for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent