It's August 28, 2025, 02:31:16 PM
Clearly those losses are completely wrong because Curtis sold at least a few million and therefore even if Interscope did give it that budget, then they at least recouped I suspect or if they didn't it wasn't as big as what that loss suggests.
Quote from: virtuoso on March 21, 2008, 03:55:49 PMClearly those losses are completely wrong because Curtis sold at least a few million and therefore even if Interscope did give it that budget, then they at least recouped I suspect or if they didn't it wasn't as big as what that loss suggests.nope. In USA its barely over 1 mill..i can't imagine the worldwide #s putting it to a "few million."
Quote from: Lunatic 63 on March 21, 2008, 06:54:32 PMQuote from: virtuoso on March 21, 2008, 03:55:49 PMClearly those losses are completely wrong because Curtis sold at least a few million and therefore even if Interscope did give it that budget, then they at least recouped I suspect or if they didn't it wasn't as big as what that loss suggests.nope. In USA its barely over 1 mill..i can't imagine the worldwide #s putting it to a "few million."No album would have that budget. The features weren't all that spectacular, mostly interscope people. The production didn't have that many huge names. They for sure lost some money, but 50 is worth a few hundred million, so probably doesn't matter.