CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread - Page 623

post #31101 of 35253
It's my favorite topless reading scene.
post #31102 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

I think its also an ego thing. Billy Bob Thornton wanted to make All The Pretty Horses for $15M, but the studio wanted him to spend $50M even though BBT calculated it would be the exact same movie at $15M. The studio didn't care, they wanted it to be $50M. This tells me they are addicted to big numbers, big spending...it makes them seem more glamorous and powerful if they spend big. That explains a lot.


It actually makes them feel more secure but for the most dumbest, simplest reason - if you invest more, you get more.

post #31103 of 35253
You have to imagine the studio looking at the dailies for "Suicide Squad" and wondering where all the money went. Albert Pyun gave "Cyborg" more production value on a $500K budget.
post #31104 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post


I actually don't think it has a lot to do with wall to wall blockbusters, but the fact that people have a lot more options for their entertainment/time wasting now (not to mention the talking/texting and expensive tickets/concessions forcing people to wait for the home version), so unless a movie is TRULY special, its not going to have the legs to make it profitable. Wall to wall blockbusters have been a thing for a very long time, but declining profits has only been a fairly recent thing. Which is why I don't see this going away, since Hollywood won't allow anything to be special...bland, generic and hitting all four quadrants is the only way they can justify the huge budgets. Its a built in problem with the movie business in the internet age.

Even slashing budgets my not be enough since you still need to spend a ton to market globally...those budgets can't be slashed.

 

Maybe not. Ad spend on Facebook and Mobile is not nearly as costly as spend on TV ads. Radio ad time is getting cheaper too. 

 

And if nothing else, Donald Trump has proved that you can get massive media attention with little spending. 

 

Also, how much does it cost to conduct those stupid Press tours? Do they serve any real purpose other than doing favors to print media that no one pays attention to, or Digital "Entertainment reporters" who have no pull with audiences? 

post #31105 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

 

Also, how much does it cost to conduct those stupid Press tours? 

 

The actors get paid for that shit. And they get handsomely paid for that shit as well. No actor is going to go out of his way to buy his own plane ticket, room and food just to promote the film for free. 

post #31106 of 35253
Hollywood advertising is notoriously wasteful. Those advertising budgets could come down if there was someone willing to break away from what has historically been done and try some new strategies.
post #31107 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

You have to imagine the studio looking at the dailies for "Suicide Squad" and wondering where all the money went. Albert Pyun gave "Cyborg" more production value on a $500K budget.

 

I think there are clues as to where the money went in this video.

 

 

Drugs, alcohol, strip shows, sex, ramen noodles and the world's longest line of coke.

post #31108 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

You have to imagine the studio looking at the dailies for "Suicide Squad" and wondering where all the money went. Albert Pyun gave "Cyborg" more production value on a $500K budget.
!!!!??
post #31109 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
 

The very best Random Roles interviews are with the people who don't care about their careers anymore. Teri Garr's is great too.

 

Yes, that was definitely one of the other ones I was thinking of. Bronson Pinchot, Teri Garr, Margot Kidder and then there's Udo Kier.

post #31110 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

Hollywood advertising is notoriously wasteful. Those advertising budgets could come down if there was someone willing to break away from what has historically been done and try some new strategies.

 

Agreed. It's habitual and set in its ways kind of deal here. 

post #31111 of 35253

...or just analyze spend vs results. 


There was some Comedian who said that he was so excited to get on David Letterman back in the day..expecting it would put him on the map in terms of recognition. And that appearance did NOTHING!

 

But then he went on the Howard Stern show (this was pre Sirius) and was booked solid in NY venues for months afterwards. 

 

I bet you could create a spreadsheet with FM/AM Radio shows, Podcasts, Talk shows etc and find out pretty quickly who has real pull with audiences. 


Edited by Cylon Baby - 8/12/16 at 4:55pm
post #31112 of 35253
Yeah, Hollywood marketing strategies are very sloppy, very imprecise. Just look at the slopptly campaigns that emerge, even for high-profile releases.
post #31113 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

Yeah, Hollywood marketing strategies are very sloppy, very imprecise. Just look at the slopptly campaigns that emerge, even for high-profile releases.

 

While on the other hand, The Blair Witch Project deserves all the gold medals.

post #31114 of 35253

Hollywood doesn't really NEED runaway hits if they learnt to stop spending so much, but the prospects of Billion Dollar World Wide Acclaim is just too ca-ching in their eyes.

post #31115 of 35253
It's cultural ennui that contributes to it too. We're spoiled rotten....in a way. Look at the original Star Wars. It opened in like 37 theaters. But WOM took over and look where it ended up (after it expanded to more theaters of course). Halloween was the same way. There was no internet. But the WOM got around anyway and made an impact. Now it's MUCH easier for word to get around about films. People just don't care as much. There are movies with extraordinary sights the likes of which they could only have dreamed of in the 70s bumper to bumper nowadays. So it's become ho-hum to a lot of people. Maybe slashing budgets is the answer. It certainly is with SOME movies. Maybe they should just make far fewer "tent poles"...make people yearn for them again. One or two BIG ones a year (excluding Marvel....because what else are they gonna make?). Back in the day, there wasn't a T2 every weekend. That was an EVENT.

And...you don't have to tell me how foolish this is....because I know it would never happen but...best case scenario? They don't need to stop making so many of these if they'd just take the care to make all of them GREAT....script, story, premise, everything...don't roll a camera until you got a movie to make.

Purely hypothetically...if every one of these movies was as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark would we complain about the amount of them? Would ennui set in? Would people stop caring? I think not. Maybe that's how they should be looking at it. I know...who am I to make that argument, considering some of the trash I like. But seriously, it seems like such a simple concept..
post #31116 of 35253
yes we would still complain

because we would get spoiled/numbed to it

used to a certain lifestyle

because we're people

Ideally, what would actually happen is that we would see that standard of quality and simply demand better things... but in variety.
post #31117 of 35253
Not everybody is gonna like everything. But a genuine effort to make quality every time...EVERY time...no matter the film....would not go unnoticed and nobody would ever complain about that. They might complain about an individual film that didn't please them but not the fact that care was taken. And it would pay off in dividends.

But this is neither here nor there. It's a thing that'll never happen..
post #31118 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post
 But a genuine effort to make quality every time...EVERY time...no matter the film...

That's the tricky part.

 

What constitutes 'genuine effort to make quality'?  Because to say that implies that people aren't making genuine effort en masse.

 

Because yeah, not everyone is gonna like everything.  But not everyone is gonna hate everything either.  There's always a fan of something.

 

If you truly believe that a genuine effort to 'make quality' is a thing, then you have to believe in a standard of craft.  And that's nice as a vague term everybody can get onboard with, but the moment you get more specific, you're gonna split people who suddenly start going 'eeeehhhh I don't know about that... I still liked this!'

 

Sure, there is a level of craft that has declined heavily in the big expensive stuff... but I'd chalk a lot of that up to the systemic problem with the machinery that is not really interested in making movies.  Just a collection of content for a catalog or a brand.  And we're partly to blame as the audience who gives this stuff a pass by purchasing tickets and chattering about it online.

 

Because we're people.  Real human people.

post #31119 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

That's the tricky part.

What constitutes 'genuine effort to make quality'?  Because to say that implies that people aren't making genuine effort en masse.

Because yeah, not everyone is gonna like everything.  But not everyone is gonna hate everything either.  There's always a fan of something.
Not starting to film without a script. REALLY working on the script....for good or ill. I don't know how to quantify it.

Basically, the opposite of what we hear about the behind the scenes on stuff like Suicide Squad. A bunch of bean counters second guessing the "talent" they've hired and distorting the final product to please every possible demographic all while trying to meet a certain release date..
post #31120 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post




Basically, the opposite of what we hear about the behind the scenes on stuff like Suicide Squad. A bunch of bean counters second guessing the "talent" they've hired and distorting the final product to please every possible demographic all while trying to meet a certain release date.

The people on Suicide Squad were trying so so so hard!  GENUINE EFFORT to make it work!

 

The end result was a mess, but I'll bet you that Ayer's original intent wasn't gonna be a particularly 'genuinely good' movie either.  It would've simply been a more 'honest' representation of his intent and a more 'interesting' piece of art.  But the very fact that it's a part of this WB/DC machine already puts it on the bad path.  It didn't stand a chance from its conception.

 

You should read some of the link that FatherDude posted on the Screenwriting thread.  It's DEPRESSING.  There are people putting in GENUINE EFFORT.  The current studio system just POUNDS IT INTO SUBMISSION to the point everyone just kinda throws up their hands and compromises all over the place.

 

http://www.chud.com/community/t/153284/the-screenwriters-guide-to-not-sucking/150#post_4116184

post #31121 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

The people on Suicide Squad were trying so so so hard!  GENUINE EFFORT to make it work!

The end result was a mess, but I'll bet you that Ayer's original intent wasn't gonna be a particularly 'genuinely good' movie either.  It would've simply been a more 'honest' representation of his intent and a more 'interesting' piece of art.  But the very fact that it's a part of this WB/DC machine already puts it on the bad path.  It didn't stand a chance from its conception.

You should read some of the link that FatherDude posted on the Screenwriting thread.  It's DEPRESSING.  There are people putting in GENUINE EFFORT.  The current studio system just POUNDS IT INTO SUBMISSION to the point everyone just kinda throws up their hands and compromises all over the place.

http://www.chud.com/community/t/153284/the-screenwriters-guide-to-not-sucking/150#post_4116184
Some people were. But what would it have been in the absence of a ton of notes on what the studio wants and then taking what Ayer had shot and warping it into something else?When something goes bad, that doesn't mean EVERYONE wasn't trying to do good work. Every single person, ideally, should be on the same page. But....when that much $$$ is involved....that notion is just a pipe dream. At best.

And it is depressing. I'd throw my hands up in defeat and just get it over with too..
post #31122 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post


Not starting to film without a script. REALLY working on the script....for good or ill. I don't know how to quantify it.

Basically, the opposite of what we hear about the behind the scenes on stuff like Suicide Squad. A bunch of bean counters second guessing the "talent" they've hired and distorting the final product to please every possible demographic all while trying to meet a certain release date..

 

There may not be anything to quantify but I think your point on allowing the creatives to be free to create is a huge start. MY radical idea would be to ditch demographics all together. Films are mystical, irrational dreams brought to life, to constrain it to a score card or statistics based thinking man's game defeats the purpose of storytelling period. Okay, maybe there is a way to make money off of that. But just because you painted the replication of the Mona Lisa does not give you clearance for yours to be placed in that very museum. To be loved to cherished. And the back of everybody's mind is a little Blair who says, "That's not dog. It's imitation."

post #31123 of 35253
Thank you Carnotaur for saying what I couldn't find the words to.

Just make what you're gonna make...without any thought of who you're making it for or who'll like it or not and then just let people make up their own minds..
post #31124 of 35253

we're all just agreeing with different words!!!

 

But the hoity-toity ideal of "JUST MAKE WHAT YOU'RE GONNA MAKE" is childish when it comes to the amount of hands that are on these big projects.  There's just too much money invested in this to simply say "make what you're gonna make".  There are some special instances in which that results in truly great stuff... but I think those are outliers.

 

Because we're really just talking about the BIG stuff, right?

 

The main problem is just TOO much money.  And that studios don't want to make anything without TOO much money.

post #31125 of 35253
Well at least we're agreeing for once.

We need more Zardoz like movies! Does everybody like it? Nope. But nobody can say it's uninteresting!
post #31126 of 35253
Maybe just having seen Suicide Squad is what's prompting all of this bitching. It has some fun stuff in it but, to sorta quote Nooj...that is one of the most broken movies I've ever seen. Its held together with duct tape..
post #31127 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

Thank you Carnotaur for saying what I couldn't find the words to.

Just make what you're gonna make...without any thought of who you're making it for or who'll like it or not and then just let people make up their own minds..

 

Think of all the walls and road blocks a fearful exec creates in his notes to the director but how that constraint carries to other people through production. That's the real Trickledown Reaganomics right there. 

 

Nooj is right about the money.

 

That's why there shouldn't be that much money flying around. So as Picard would say on TNG, "Make it so!"

post #31128 of 35253
Oh believe me...Nooj wasn't enlightening me about the money aspect.

Suicide Squad should've been a $50 million Alex Proyas type thing. There's no reason that that movie (shitpile) should have cost what it did.

But how do you make some of these WITHOUT that much? Some truly don't need it though..
post #31129 of 35253

And let's think about fraid's personal favorite:  RESURGENCE.

 

Perhaps it's because the movie had so little excitement behind it before and after release... but that's not a film that has a bunch of 'studio interference' narratives surrounding it.  I'm sure there was plenty, but the perception isn't there.  So, did Emmerich make the movie he wanted?  Was he allowed to make his art?  Either answer is depressing in light of how the final result turned out.

 

It's neither passable entertainment... nor is it interesting in any way.

post #31130 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

Oh believe me...Nooj wasn't enlightening me about the money aspect.
 

:(

post #31131 of 35253
It's ok buddy! You've enlightened me on a great many other things!

Cool points taken away for bringing up Resurgence though *angry face*

But on the subject of whether Emmerich was allowed to make his art or not...I don't think that's even a factor. I don't think he's ever had any desire to make art. Some directors just wanna make entertainment/product and get rich doing it. Others DO have artistic aspirations.

But if you're gonna just make entertainment that's fine. As long as it functions as such. It can still be good in that way..
post #31132 of 35253

you'll pay!

 

Emmerich doesn't have artistic aspirations?

 

THEN HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS???

 

Anonymous_2011_film_poster.jpg 

 

Colorlines%20Screenshot%20Stonewall%20Poster%20082815.png?itok=O18_I9f9

post #31133 of 35253
I know it's not totally box office related, but reviews for PETE'S DRAGON are through the roof. I'm talking higher than JUNGLE BOOK. It's the year's best for a lot of folks, and "what everybody wished SUPER 8 was, and then some."

Or maybe I'm a Disney plant, out to destroy DC.
post #31134 of 35253
Universal fucking Soldier is his best movie.

Easily.


And WTF is that??

Anonymous?
Stonewall??

Do buildings topple in either of those? Am I in some alternate reality?

I
AM
CONFUSE
post #31135 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

And let's think about fraid's personal favorite:  RESURGENCE.

 

Perhaps it's because the movie had so little excitement behind it before and after release... but that's not a film that has a bunch of 'studio interference' narratives surrounding it.  I'm sure there was plenty, but the perception isn't there.  So, did Emmerich make the movie he wanted?  Was he allowed to make his art?  Either answer is depressing in light of how the final result turned out.

 

It's neither passable entertainment... nor is it interesting in any way.

 

Well, Emm loves making trash. I mean, he's his own "studio interference". 

post #31136 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post


And WTF is that??

It's the movie he made about the idea that Shakespeare wasn't the actual author of all his work...

 

and the other is a movie about gay rights.

 

Emmerich has artistic and social ambitions!!!  (despite the fact that he chose to/had to make STONEWALL with a white male lead)

 

 

Also, I saw Pete's Dragon last night.  I thought it was really really nice gentle nice and fine... a lot like THE BFG.  This is highly presumptuous, but I think critics are praising it through the roof because this summer has been so dour.  I found the movie too soft to be compared to ET and The Iron Giant (which are being brought up a bunch in comparison).  

 

But perhaps I'm a cold monster... because it seems like the movie is getting people tearing up.  The kids in the audience were really well-behaved too, so perhaps the movie was working its magic!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post
 

 

Well, Emm loves making trash. I mean, he's his own "studio interference". 

 

I don't think Emmerich thinks he's making trash.  He's making big message movies on a grand scale!  And sometimes smaller.

post #31137 of 35253

Oh yes, a belief that because Shakespeare's plays are viewed so highly now, it couldn't be at all possible that a man as common as he was then could possibly have written them.

 

Never mind the fact that at the time, he was viewed a bit differently back then. Doctor Who's take on Shakespeare would have been much closer to the real thing than whatever the hell that bit of modern day elitist snobbery and Doctor Who wasn't even trying to be historically accurate.

 

 

post #31138 of 35253
Universal Soldier isn't even VAN DAMME'S best movie.

Just thought I'd throw that out there as a counterpoint to all this Emmerich sideways praise (I know it really isn't). He's a hack and always will be!

But you are a cold monster Nooj. You probably like his Godzilla better than the Gareth Edwards one..
post #31139 of 35253

I don't even consider Emmerich's Dumbzilla.

 

At least I consider Dullzilla.

post #31140 of 35253
Ok

You're cool

We can stay friends smile.gif
post #31141 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

 

I don't think Emmerich thinks he's making trash.  He's making big message movies on a grand scale!  And sometimes smaller.

 

Yeah, we call that delusion. lol

post #31142 of 35253

Can we confirm ID:R was a flop? I assume we'll never find out the Talking White Ball was going to show us.

post #31143 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post
 

 

Yeah, we call that delusion. lol

sometimes delusion can result in interesting work!

 

NOT SO HERE

post #31144 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post

Can we confirm ID:R was a flop? I assume we'll never find out the Talking White Ball was going to show us.
I hope they do make a third one. Just so I can have the petty satisfaction of not ever watching it.

Fucking first one is still decent! I wanted to give Emmerich that shot. I was on board and got burned..
post #31145 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post


I hope they do make a third one. Just so I can have the petty satisfaction of not ever watching it.

Fucking first one is still decent! I wanted to give Emmerich that shot. I was on board and got burned..

 

Counterpoint:

 

The first ID4 is also a colossal piece of shit.

post #31146 of 35253
It's silly fluff at best. I don't even care to defend it.

But have you seen that second one? I'm being serious. It's SOOOOO much worse..
post #31147 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

It's silly fluff at best. I don't even care to defend it.

But have you seen that second one? I'm being serious. It's SOOOOO much worse..

 

I'm stupid but not that stupid.

post #31148 of 35253
I WAS that stupid.

It was bad enough to put a dent in even MY optimism.

Real talk...it's worst crime? It doesn't even give the lowest common denominator what they want. It has nothing in it of interest. It has about half the action and destruction (if that) of the first one and it's entirely incoherent. Bad in every way a movie can be..
post #31149 of 35253

First ID4 is solid!

post #31150 of 35253
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

I don't even consider Emmerich's Dumbzilla.

 

At least I consider Dullzilla.

 

It's come to my attention in my going on 8 on and off years here that you might have tastes in film that lie a bit out of the majority viewpoint here.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread