Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Please, please tell me that you really didn't just imply that because it was a fabulous book or series of books that it would automatically make a fabulous film/hit or series of films/hits, did you? 362651[/snapback] You'd have to be a retarded chimpanzee to screw up the box office success of that line of movies. ESPECIALLY with today's special effects. What I'd be interested in seeing is a screen adaptation of "1984" or "Walden Two" or "Fahrenheit 451" or any other classic of SF. Get on it, Dog. And, oh... BTW, I read Mike Davis' two books on SoCal. Really put a damper on my image of the land of sun and fake teets. Guess I'll have to see it with my own two eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 I enjoyed Batman Returns at the drive in this weekend. It's 6 bucks for adults and 2 bucks for 11 and under. Cost us 18 to get in and we bring our own food. Great fun. Plus, they play two movies. So we get there at 7 to get great parking, movies start at 9 don't get done until 2. We lay in the back of the truck with our sleeping bags under the stars. So, we usually spend about 30-40 bucks for 7 hours of fun under the stars. Going to the theater? I only went once in the last 12 months and that was to see Star Wars. They had one special at the concession stand. 3 sodas, large popcorn and three candy bars for a wonderful price of 34.99. Unfreakingreal. 362533[/snapback] 6 bucks for Batman Returns? What a rip off! I cannot believe they are charging so much for movies made in the early 90s. I would think more people would want to see Batman Begins, a new movie, instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 thats because the general public doesnt want to think about a movie or anything with good writing...they dont know it when they see it, because it "wasnt filled with enough special effects"...but put some computer generated effects in, and the public will warm their hot pockets and come in droves... 362360[/snapback] I disagree with you not in your judgement of the public's assessment of what they want from a movie, but disagree with you in that I think the public does think and the market has made it quite clear what movies are more likely to develop a generate a market return and what films (and I use this word specifically because the movie market and film market are different markets) are less likely to deliver a market return. A larger segment of the public has thought this out (mostly relfexively and will only give you a concious thought process with insistence) and wants movies because they are looking for mere entertainment and not be challenged with a film. Most people (the market) seems to feel they get enough hassle working two (or more) paid jobs. raising their kids, dealing with bills, watching their political leaders implode or what have you. If a movie does not simply distract them form life they are not interested and I can't sat I blame them. Some (of us actually) are more entertained by a challenging film and seek them out (girls actually seem to get entertainment often out of "chick flicks" which present some slice of life which get enough of in real life. However, if it makes her happy (or gets us into their pants in some cases) then I am happy to go see this feeling movie or film though I quite frankly do not find "slice of life" films challenging at all (if you got cancer or some disease then deal with it the best way you can be it some grinding medical travail or some fruit-loopy alternative treatment that happens to work wonders for you). At any rate, I think folks make far more real choices which correctly meet their needs than you seem to give them credit for. If it floats someones boat to go see special effects then I am all for it because that means there will be fewer people distracting me at the film I went to see with subtitles because they would rather hear the lines than read them and not focus on the actor's face and special effects around in the scene. I find no fault whatsoever with people making different market choices than I do because I'd much rather the folks who come to the same film I do be a smaller more intimate crowd anyway. It is not because my choice to see a film is better than their choice to see a movie, but i simply find medium size crowds more enjoyable for me (usually- I love being in a huge Deahead crowd as I have enjoyed several times at the Ralph) than massive crowds. The problem is actually change in the market right now. It actually is so easy to make a ton of money even with a bad movie right now because of DVDS, the internet and the increased ease of watching porn in your own home, that Hollywood seems to be producing a disproportionate number of what my tastes find to be bad movies. They also seem to be getting quite good at duping my lovely wife into being interested in dedicating her (thus my time with her) precious time to films which turn out to be promoted as good films but they turn out to be not very good or at least different than advertised. This actually works out for me because she is sometimes fooled into seeing a film she hate but I liked since I knew nothing about them (Lost in Translation for example) or even when I do not like the film (Million Dollar Baby for example) I do not mind wasting 2 hours of my life to see a film that aspires to greateness (and was rewarded by the Oscars for being one) that I found to be a good attempt but in the end a badly flawed attermpt. My sense is that the choosy shopper needs to be choosier than ever in the current market and how Hollywood choose to make a dime off of it. However, there are market opportunities being developed (NetFlix for example allows you to get three films at one time at the same definable cost and makes it easier to simply scrap a bad movie if you choose). One needs to be really careful when you choose to go out to a film due to the cost and many fellow movie patrons being horrible folks to watch a movie with because they are used to talking out loud like they were home. However, if you are a careful shopper (no problem because the selection process allows one to claim you are superior to the crowd seeing the latest shoot 'em up even though one is really the same as other people regardless of different tastes in movies/film). Alternately one need not be careful at all about your choices if it results in one getting into the pants of the person (male or female) you saw the movie with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 You'd have to be a retarded chimpanzee to screw up the box office success of that line of movies. ESPECIALLY with today's special effects. What I'd be interested in seeing is a screen adaptation of "1984" or "Walden Two" or "Fahrenheit 451" or any other classic of SF. Get on it, Dog. And, oh... BTW, I read Mike Davis' two books on SoCal. Really put a damper on my image of the land of sun and fake teets. Guess I'll have to see it with my own two eyes. 362653[/snapback] 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 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] JSP would...but only because he's on line and doesn't have to actually make the decision. Still, it would be nice (and a much better industry, both creatively and, I'd wager, financially) if Hollywood took a flyer on wild-haired directors with no track record more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 And who exactly is the "general" public? Movies today are targeted to the 18-35 year old demographic, period. People older than 45 actually going to the movie theater are becoming rarer than hens teeth: http://www.cinemastudy.iconocast.com/img/zc9.jpg 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. On the other hand, this strategy seems to be working, based on the number of tickets sold (the last 17 weeks aside), so it's doubtful that Hollywood will do anything drastic like making more films targeted to "adults" (and I don't mean NC-17!): http://www.natoonline.org/statisticsadmissions.htm 362561[/snapback] /quote] Hollywood has always strived for the lowest common demominator. They have a vastly larger field these days. There are few multi-talented actors as before, because the overriding criteria these days is to be terminally cute. That you are a blockhead, trip over your own feet, are a generally filthy human being etc. is meaningless but fits in well and sells to today's "reality" crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 So you're telling me that you would have known to greenlight $200 million dollars worth of three films with Peter Jackson directing who had made a couple cool movies, only one of which was good and the Hollywood one a huge flop? And if it didn't work you would likely lose your job for life? 362512[/snapback] If it was my job to find movies that would go on to have a billion-dollar ROI and be wildly successful? Yes, I would expect them to know. It's their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 JSP would...but only because he's on line and doesn't have to actually make the decision. Still, it would be nice (and a much better industry, both creatively and, I'd wager, financially) if Hollywood took a flyer on wild-haired directors with no track record more often. 362692[/snapback] Oh, absolutely. And I think they know it, too. It's just so damn hard to know. But the public is as fickle as these Hollywood stars. Two of the more famous and most true cliches here are, "No one knows nothing" and "If I had to do it all over again, and said yes to all the no's and no to all the yesses, it probably would have come out the same." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Oddly enough, today is the 30th anniversary of Jaws. There was a great article in the paper (Boston Globe) yesterday making a good case that Spielberg and Lucas ruined modern cinema as we know it with the summer blockbuster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 I would have mentioned my feelings to him but he even though i know him well he just talks and talks, he never listens to a thing anyone else says. 362568[/snapback] I'm sorry, did you say something in this thread? Oh look. Boobies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Oddly enough, today is the 30th anniversary of Jaws. There was a great article in the paper (Boston Globe) yesterday making a good case that Spielberg and Lucas ruined modern cinema as we know it with the summer blockbuster. 362729[/snapback] Yeah, people have been making that case for a long time. Personally I don't buy it. The theory goes that the studios lose money on a lot of films, and it is better for them to make one, say, 100 mil budgeted film that potentially make a killing, than ten 10 mil films, eight of which are going to flop and even the hits won't be killer hits. While on the surface that may be true, it is the studios that got themselves into this mess in the first place, ripping off stars and producers and theatre owners and writers, etc. Reminds me of the baseball owners or hockey owners gripes. Now the production costs are astronomical, the stars costs are astronomical, etc., and they cry poverty when they are still making a killing and ripping people off left and right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 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] If you've ever seen "Bad Taste" you would wonder how he got any money to make a movie ever again. Mainstream it ain't. I loved it, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 If you've ever seen "Bad Taste" you would wonder how he got any money to make a movie ever again. Mainstream it ain't. I loved it, of course. 362735[/snapback] Only to be followed by the classic Dead Alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Only to be followed by the classic Dead Alive. 362736[/snapback] Dead Alive was kinda cool. Heavenly Creatures was fantastic, IMO. I tried to like the Frighteners, which looked wild but was just bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigAL Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Here is something i heard at a Hollywood dinner party the other night, from the ex-head of the Academy. Maybe it has been all over the news but not sure, I haven't seen it. It seems that a lot of studios are going to start selling DVDs in China and other places like that at the same time the films open in the US, trying to capitalize on the illegal pirating. An "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em policy". Personally, at first blush, I think this is stupid and will backfire. Maybe I am missing something but it seems to me one of the two big reasons that more kids and others don't download DVD pirates is the crappy quality of them. I would have mentioned my feelings to him but he even though i know him well he just talks and talks, he never listens to a thing anyone else says. 362568[/snapback] Kelly, What's the deal with certain movies coming out on DVD without even going on PPV? I was surprised to see Hitch out already, and Vin Diesel's Dsiney flick (can't remember name) is coming out soon. It seems like they're passing up quite a bit of PPV view money. Any thoughts on this? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 I've never understood why Americans are so infatuated with Hollywood. There are loads and loads of great films made every year from all around the world if one is willing to search them out (and I’m not just talking about foreign films that companies like Miramax decide to distribute). I realize that most people in this country don't live in a place that shows many of these films, which is a shame...however, most films that get any sort of distribution end up on Netfilx at one point or another. Sure seeing a film at home isn't the same experience as going to the theater, but it beats handing of loads of cash for "blockbuster" fair that usually falls flat. Its amazing what one can find if they don’t just allow the Hollywood marketing squad to determine what they go see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Ever see Finding Forrester? As far as I'm concerned a terrific movie. Sean Connery is magnificant. I had never heard of it until it I happened to catch it on cable. Two thumbs up. 362537[/snapback] I liked it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Kelly, What's the deal with certain movies coming out on DVD without even going on PPV? I was surprised to see Hitch out already, and Vin Diesel's Dsiney flick (can't remember name) is coming out soon. It seems like they're passing up quite a bit of PPV view money. Any thoughts on this? Just curious. 362744[/snapback] I really don't know. I thought Hitch was out on PPV. I know it went to PPV in hotels. And it's probably 4-5 months after its original release so that doesn't seem too crazy for DVD. I havent heard of that as a trend but will look around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Please, please tell me that you really didn't just imply that because it was a fabulous series of books that it would automatically make a fabulous series of films/hits. 362651[/snapback] It was actually one book that has been split in three. Yeah and everyone knows that the Hobbit was such a big box office hit when it was made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 It was actually one book that has been split in three. Yeah and everyone knows that the Hobbit was such a big box office hit when it was made. 362769[/snapback] Well, if you want to be technical, it was one book divided into six. But since I believe the first volume of two books was published here in 1954 and the second in 1955, and third just after, it is three "books", sold seperately and together. And three films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts