Beef Jerky Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 (edited) Like the Fast & Furious, and Transporter series? Kind of but I think just need to watch it once. Just experience the story telling and action in that point of view. The movie isn't that long which helps the enjoyment, b.c it is quickly over before you get bored or annoyed. Edited April 16, 2016 by Beef Jerky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 You still don't know the difference between a movie intended for entertainment vs an "artsy" movie pushing for oscars? I do, quite well considering what I do for a living is selling genre stories. You don't seem to understand that a film's entertainment value is entirely subjective. Nor do you really have a grasp on how the industry works. All of these movies that garner attention at film festivals rarely make any real money. False. Like I said: No one cares. Clearly false considering the price tag doled out by Fox, the rave reviews by virtually everyone who has seen the film, and every other metric out there. What was the last best picture movie that people paid money to see... gladiator? Overly simplistic analysis of the current state of the film industry. You're making the assumption that the business model changed based on the audience's demands. It did not. It changed based on the corporate structure of the studios undergoing a massive change post WGA writer's strike in 2007 / the economic collapse of 2008-2009. There's a massive difference between the position you're putting forth and reality. And you're way off on Gladiator... Argo (2012) made 136 million domestic, The King's Speech (2010) made over 135 million domestic, Slumdog (2008) made over 141 million, The Departed (2006) made over 132 million, Million Dollar Baby (2004) made over 100 million, Return of the King (2003) made well over 377 million... So again, you're way off base with your analysis. Didn't Chris Rock make a joke about all the oscar movies essentially being box office bombs? Which, again, is a symptom of a larger issue within the industry and the Academy, not a statement on the quality of the films themselves nor their appeal. Also, it was a joke. I actually like watching historical movies... on Netflix. Which is perfectly fine, but also completely irrelevant to the larger point you're trying to make. Wow, that's an astounding amount that it went for. This is not the kind of movie you will see attached to any Summer movie. Add in that it's FOX Searchlight, the independent movie branch. It really is. It's not really the traditional trailer attached to big tent pole flicks, but when you pay that much money, even from your indie arm, you better believe the studio is going to want to give it as much exposure as possible. I don't think it'll be attached to Apocalypse, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted April 16, 2016 Author Share Posted April 16, 2016 (edited) And you're way off on Gladiator... Argo (2012) made 136 million domestic, The King's Speech (2010) made over 135 million domestic, Slumdog (2008) made over 141 million, The Departed (2006) made over 132 million, Million Dollar Baby (2004) made over 100 million, Return of the King (2003) made well over 377 million... So again, you're way off base with your analysis. It's not really the traditional trailer attached to big tent pole flicks, but when you pay that much money, even from your indie arm, you better believe the studio is going to want to give it as much exposure as possible. I don't think it'll be attached to Apocalypse, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it either. Excellent points on the grosses of Best Picture winners. Now if you want to make an argument as to whether those movies should have won Best Picture, then that's a different subject. Personally I thought "Lincoln" was a better movie than "Argo", and as much as I enjoyed "The King's Speech", there was no better movie that year than "Toy Story 3". Yes, "Toy Story 3" was THAT good. As for "Birth of a Nation", 20th Century Fox, will find a way to get it out there this summer. Maybe not with tent pole films, but the other films that are somewhat big budgeted. There was a trailer for "Free State of Jones" attached with "Batman V. Superman", not the kind of trailer I expected with that movie, but it helps when McConaughey is your lead. Then again I saw a trailer for "Central Intelligence" with BvS too. Edited April 16, 2016 by Mark Vader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 Batman v Superman doesn't hit the 1 billion mark and it worries studios. Your best examples of oscar worthy movies hover around 150 million and you think they're successful. You're in too deep to see the big picture. No one goes to see Oscar movies anymore. In fact, no one even knows who won outside movie critics. There's a reason many in the industry (Spielberg) are pushing for mid-budget movies towards on-demand services instead of theatrical release. You might care about these things because you're stuck in middle, but on one else cares. And the box office receipts prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 17, 2016 Share Posted April 17, 2016 Batman v Superman doesn't hit the 1 billion mark and it worries studios. Your best examples of oscar worthy movies hover around 150 million and you think they're successful. They are successful. Each one offered much bigger return on the original studio investment. Batman v Superman cost over 500 million to make. None of those movies, with the exception of Return of the King, cost over 50 million to make. Argo was the most expense at 44, King's Speech and Slumdog both were made for under 15. So, it's not me saying they're successful. They're the literal definition of the term. You're in too deep to see the big picture. No one goes to see Oscar movies anymore. In fact, no one even knows who won outside movie critics. Again, the first part of this statement is false. The second part is true but irrelevant to the larger discussion about the industry. No one is arguing they need to be making more Oscar winning movies. Just that they need to be making more movies. There's a reason many in the industry (Spielberg) are pushing for mid-budget movies towards on-demand services instead of theatrical release. Yes, because they realize the current model the studios are using, the very one I'm arguing against and you're supporting, is broken and dying. It's broken and dying because they're making less movies and taking less risks. There are also many more prominent filmmakers against this idea, by the way. ...but on one else cares. And the box office receipts prove it. Again, as proven above, this just is not true. You're arguing the effect is the cause, which is just not accurate in any way. Excellent points on the grosses of Best Picture winners. Now if you want to make an argument as to whether those movies should have won Best Picture, then that's a different subject. Personally I thought "Lincoln" was a better movie than "Argo", and as much as I enjoyed "The King's Speech", there was no better movie that year than "Toy Story 3". Yes, "Toy Story 3" was THAT good. As for "Birth of a Nation", 20th Century Fox, will find a way to get it out there this summer. Maybe not with tent pole films, but the other films that are somewhat big budgeted. There was a trailer for "Free State of Jones" attached with "Batman V. Superman", not the kind of trailer I expected with that movie, but it helps when McConaughey is your lead. Then again I saw a trailer for "Central Intelligence" with BvS too. Oh, I agree that there are a lot of undeserving winners on that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted April 23, 2016 Author Share Posted April 23, 2016 Saw "The Jungle Book". Very good adaptation from the classic animated film. Impressive visuals, and you get to hear Christopher Walken sing "I wanna be like you". The end credits is a fun moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted April 23, 2016 Share Posted April 23, 2016 Saw "The Jungle Book". Very good adaptation from the classic animated film. Impressive visuals, and you get to hear Christopher Walken sing "I wanna be like you". The end credits is a fun moment. The song is on official YouTube video (song only) Decent song but not one I'd listen to repeatedly like some of the Disney songs. Another one with Bill Murray as voice of Baloo the Bear, definitely a keeper. No idea Bill Murray was in movie so now will probably catch it on matinee tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted April 23, 2016 Author Share Posted April 23, 2016 The song is on official YouTube video (song only) Decent song but not one I'd listen to repeatedly like some of the Disney songs. Another one with Bill Murray as voice of Baloo the Bear, definitely a keeper. No idea Bill Murray was in movie so now will probably catch it on matinee tomorrow. Listening to Christopher Walken sing it is one thing. Watching an ape that sounds like Christopher Walken singing that song, is another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 Saw Keanu last night -- laughed my ass off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts