Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 That is just so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin. It had to make 300 million or more just to break even. In real dollars. Would you bet your career and multi-million dollar salary on a wild-eyed and haired director from New Zealand with no hits, and only one American film which was a huge flop to his credit? 362686[/snapback] It wasn't like he was making his OWN story though. That series had a built-in audience from the get-go. But hey, that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 It wasn't like he was making his OWN story though. That series had a built-in audience from the get-go. But hey, that's just me. 362817[/snapback] Okay, so you go pitch a series of films based on the series of books "The Adventures of Peter Rabbit" which has sold 50 million copies, btw, and say all you need to 200 million dollars or so and you will go away for a few years to New Zealand and come back with three awesome films. You don't have a track record, but this has a built in audience. See how far it gets you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Okay, so you go pitch a series of films based on the series of books "The Adventures of Peter Rabbit" which has sold 50 million copies, btw, and say all you need to 200 million dollars or so and you will go away for a few years to New Zealand and come back with three awesome films. You don't have a track record, but this has a built in audience. See how far it gets you. 362821[/snapback] hey, hey, easy sparky. They MUST have seen something because they let Jackson do it. But even still, it is sometimes those who take the biggest risks that reap the greatest rewards. Think about a movie like Full Metal Jacket. That couldn't have been easy to pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I liked it too. 362751[/snapback] The soundtrack is great too! A must have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 The 18-35 age group doesn't care about good writing...they want action. They also don't want to be challenged, so you get a lot of formula and "pre-sold" premises like "The Longest Yard" and "Dukes of Hazzard" remakes. Oh yes, this is what we all want. So much better to have grown up 30 or 40 years ago when a bad movie was never made. I'd make more of an argument, but my attention span has ceased and I can no longer concentrate on what I'm doing. WHY THE HELL ISN'T MY POP TART DONE YET? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LewPort71 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 The cost of movies is too high IMHO,,But I am a cheap bastid and will generally go to the movies only during the Sat or Sunday matinee discounted rates... Cost of gas is too high too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 There are also adaptations of books that end up being horrible because Hollywood sucks. The Scarlet Letter is a good example. They changed the damn ending of the friggin Scarlet Letter? Ugh. A movie for the mentally inept. Don't get me started. 362471[/snapback] LOTR was the exception, not the rule, unfortunately. I would have loved to see them do Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, but then they made Starship Troopers into "how many giant bugs can we squash?" and hoped they would leave the book alone. Also look at how they ruined Asomov's Robot concept with "I, Robot" and "Centennial Man"! I wanted to run from the theatre screaming. I saw SW: ROTS on the big screen twice. Once at a matinee and once because I know a manager and it was free, , but I wanted the big screen special effects. Most movies I watch are on DVD and most of them are from the public Library for FREE. Here is a recent movie going experience: Wife and I take seats in a stadium style theatre for a low draw film. There are maybe 2 others in the theatre. A VERY tall couple comes into the almost empty theatre and sit directly in front of us. My wife is quite small. We discretely move a couple rows back and over. A group of teens comes in and sits very close to us and they are screwing around, hey that is what they do! So we move again, farther away As the promos start a herd of four obese people with the largest drinks and casks full of snacks, sit in the same row we are in; we have to move to let them in the row. Gross guy (not Dan) looks at me and says "hope this does not suck too bad for $8, but at least the popcorn is double buttered, hyuck,hyuck!" To the sounds of slurping and straw sucking we move again, as a cell phone starts playing the Rocky Theme.... The movie was OK, but PEOPLE are why I do not go to very many movies and I TRY to go at odd times when I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound_n_Fury Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 I just wish that Hollywood would put out a few more movies with intelligent plot twists, lesser known actors, well-crafted plots, and development of characters rather than special effects. I can't think of too many recent movies that fall into that category. 362642[/snapback] Two factors are weighing against this: (1) the average movie costs upwards of $100 million to make linky, and (2) movies have to break big in the first two weeks to have any chance of recovering production costs. If you don't have a good opening, you're basically cooked (look at Star Wars III--it only took in $9.7 million last week and has been out just 5 weeks). "Lesser" films are still being made. You just have to hunt them out. I didn't like all of the following list (and their collective boxoffice revenue probably won't equal Batman Begins), but here are some candidates that fit your description: Now playing: Crash Layer Cake Millions The Upside of Anger Recent video releases: In Good Company Finding Neverland Closer Sideways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 blah...blah...blah...Gross guy (not Dan) looks at me and says "hope this does not suck too bad for $8, but at least the popcorn is double buttered, hyuck,hyuck!" To the sounds of slurping and straw sucking we move again, as a cell phone starts playing the Rocky Theme.... 363292[/snapback] Hey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Hey! 363330[/snapback] I was just making sure people knew the rodent shaped like a man was not our own, very well groomed Danny Boy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Snuggling with your lady in the back of the theatre during a movie about football (not traveling blue jeans): Priceless! I feel that totally. I took my girl to see the longest yard last weekend. 2 tickets 1 large popcorn 2 small sodas 1 candy $38 I mean thats a reasonable price for a date, but for 90 minutes of Adam Sandler.....eh, not quite. 362386[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon in Pasadena Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Special effects movies usually suck. The geeks at Special Effects and Magic (or whatever computer effects lab) are so wrapped up in the effects and the wow factor, they completely forget to add a plot. These pictures bore the living hell out of me, especially after I've already seen one of those "the making of" specials. While I agree with your main premise that EFX movies usually suck, I must point out that you are blaming entirely the wrong people here. As someone who frequently works with the aforementioned geeks, I can assure you that blaming them for the plot (or lack thereof) of the feature is like blaming the Buffalo Bills' waterboy for the team passing 40+ times in a row on 3rd and short. The geeks just create the EFX that their producers request from them. The people you want to be blaming are the studios for refusing to greenlight anything but EFX-heavy formulaic crap, and most of all the sheepish hordes of filmgoers who keep on buying tickets to go see EFX-heavy formulaic crap. Directors who attempt to distract us from their lack of skill by letting their visual EFX supervisors run hog-wild don't help the matter much either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts