Comments on: Kevin Smith Talks ‘Batman v. Superman’ Rumors, Says ‘Clerks 3’ Will Still Happen & Reveals ‘Tusk’ Poster

By: Charlie

Charlie — Fri, 13 May 2016 07:09:39 +0000

I think it's more likely that Smith isn't the clean and easy money-maker that he's sometimes made out to be, where it's often repeated that he makes back his budget and a profit, like in the comment below. It took five years or something for him to find funding for Red State and while he's made suggestions of putting money into his own films (even saying recently that that's what he'll do with Clerks 3) he never actually does it. I think there's likely something in that. I'm not saying he loses money for everyone, but it's probably not the easy return it's been made out to be.

By: Dryer

Dryer — Fri, 13 May 2016 07:09:39 +0000

Yea I came to that conclusion as well because Smith is known to elaborate things to fit his own delusions. The Weinsteins are notorious for financing anything that would seemingly make a quick buck. What probably occurred is they didn't like the script and saw very little return on their own back room investment during Clerks II.

By: The Kevster

The Kevster — Fri, 13 May 2016 07:09:39 +0000

With apologies to Mr. Smith, the Weinsteins-passing-on-'Clerks 3' story doesn't make sense. If the movie did cost $5M, then it not only made back its entire budget opening weekend ($10M), but at a worldwide gross of $26M it also likely covered its entire marketing budget. Which means every other ancillary market – DVD, SVOD, foreign and domestic syndication for TV/cable – was pure profit. If they're not financing 'Clerks 3' it could be less the budget and more about the script.