Hugo's Scorsese Raves about 3D in Best Picture Academy Nominated 3D Film - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-27-2012, 11:50 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
NorthTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Nominated for Best Picture


Can't say that I was surprised to see The Academy Awards nominees going crazy over this flick that is about their own craft. Any chance that the Blu-ray 3D is going to be delayed now so that the producers can milk out some more money at the box office before allowing it to get out on disk?

Scorsese was on the Today Show this morning raving about how 3D made the movie. The feature was titled "Making Movie Magic" and he went on at length to point out how 3D allowed one to enter an "enchanted world." In discussing the child actors he emphasized how 3D was able to get the audience so much closer to their characters. (Like Cameron did with Avatar, he had to preface his remarks with the obligatory commentary that this wasn't your father's 3D (my term, not his) and how 3D was being used to enhance the film and not to wow with special effects.)
NorthTV is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-27-2012, 04:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cinema13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 161 Post(s)
Liked: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthTV View Post

Nominated for Best Picture

Scorsese was on the Today Show this morning raving about how 3D made the movie. The feature was titled "Making Movie Magic" and he went on at length to point out how 3D allowed one to enter an "enchanted world." In discussing the child actors he emphasized how 3D was able to get the audience so much closer to their characters. (Like Cameron did with Avatar, he had to preface his remarks with the obligatory commentary that this wasn't your father's 3D (my term, not his) and how 3D was being used to enhance the film and not to wow with special effects.)

HUGO used 3D to better effect than 99% of other films, so far. There were a small handful of "in-your-face" moments...but it was how the depth of field was utilized, from tracking shots to production design. Leave it to a Master to show how it's done. A must-buy when the disc is released. (already announced in the trades)

cinema13 is offline  
Old 01-27-2012, 05:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
David_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: delete me
Posts: 989
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Which proves that 3D isn't a gimick, quality in a 3D movie depends on who makes it.

I'd expect steven spielberg WILL shoot a live action movie in 3d once he's thought about it some more.

How can a great director NOT see 3D as another tool to expand immersion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cinema13 View Post

HUGO used 3D to better effect than 99% of other films, so far. There were a small handful of "in-your-face" moments...but it was how the depth of field was utilized, from tracking shots to production design. Leave it to a Master to show how it's done. A must-buy when the disc is released. (already announced in the trades)


buytme
David_B is offline  
Old 02-27-2012, 10:04 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
NorthTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthTV View Post

Nominated for Best Picture


Can't say that I was surprised to see The Academy Awards nominees going crazy over this flick that is about their own craft.

Scorsese was on the Today Show this morning raving about how 3D made the movie. The feature was titled "Making Movie Magic" and he went on at length to point out how 3D allowed one to enter an "enchanted world." In discussing the child actors he emphasized how 3D was able to get the audience so much closer to their characters. (Like Cameron did with Avatar, he had to preface his remarks with the obligatory commentary that this wasn't your father's 3D (my term, not his) and how 3D was being used to enhance the film and not to wow with special effects.)



NOT BAD! Hugo takes 5 Statues tying the number given to The Artist. Did much better at the box office than The Artist so a winner all around. Tomorrow it comes out on Blu-ray 3D with a promo price at BBuy equaling what Amaz-n has been offering, and Targ-t is promoting the 3D version for only $2 more which they would probably price match.
NorthTV is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 11:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,331
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 495 Post(s)
Liked: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthTV View Post

NOT BAD! Hugo takes 5 Statues tying the number given to The Artist. Did much better at the box office than The Artist so a winner all around.

Well, it also cost a lot more than The Artist.

Hugo
Budget: $170 million
Current worldwide box office gross: $115.7 million

The Artist
Budget: $15 million
Current worldwide box office gross: $76.4 million

This says nothing about one movie being better than the other, of course. But strictly in terms of profitability, The Artist is well in the black while Hugo is still in the red. Considering that a movie needs to make approximately 2.5 times its production budget just to break even, Hugo is going to have to be a write-off for the studio, despite its Oscars.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 12:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,556
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Liked: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Hugo is going to have to be a write-off for the studio, despite its Oscars.

Isn't that comment a little premature? We don't know how it is going to do world wide just yet since it may go back to the theatres after the Oscars or how the DVD, BD and 3D BD will do. I suspect that at the end of the day it will at least break even.

And when all the 3D haters finally jump on board there will be another big surge in sales and profits.
Deja Vu is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 01:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
adpayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Camp Lake,WI
Posts: 1,511
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Considering that a movie needs to make approximately 2.5 times its production budget just to break even, Hugo is going to have to be a write-off for the studio, despite its Oscars.

Please explain this.

I understand the promotion of a film can be expensive, but why the '2.5' figure? You would think that be more of a static amount. Why would they spend over 200 million to advertise a film? This seems like the shady accounting practices that have been used to keep others from getting their share.
adpayne is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 09:57 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
NorthTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post

Isn't that comment a little premature? We don't know how it is going to do world wide just yet since it may go back to the theatres after the Oscars or how the DVD, BD and 3D BD will do. I suspect that at the end of the day it will at least break even.

And when all the 3D haters finally jump on board there will be another big surge in sales and profits.

Agreed regarding box office receipts. A better comparison would be U.S. receipts for both which if I recall correctly was only about 20 million for The Artist and as you note Hugo's world wide revenue is just beginning.
NorthTV is offline  
Old 02-29-2012, 09:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,331
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 495 Post(s)
Liked: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayne View Post

Please explain this.

I understand the promotion of a film can be expensive, but why the '2.5' figure? You would think that be more of a static amount. Why would they spend over 200 million to advertise a film? This seems like the shady accounting practices that have been used to keep others from getting their share.

The 2.5x number is a commonly stated rule of thumb in Hollywood. The production budget doesn't account for marketing and distribution costs, the cut of the profits that theaters take, Mob payoffs and labor union bribes, or the countless shady back-end profit participation deals that inflate the cost of making any movie today.

The production budget also may not account for development costs that the studio burns through trying to get a film off the ground. For example, the official budget for Superman Returns was $204 million, but Warner Bros. spent at least another $60 million on several previous aborted Superman projects, such as Tim Burton's "Superman Lives." Those expenses were absorbed into the box office grosses for Superman Returns.

And yes, there's also the studios' dubious accounting practices, which have claimed that a movie that grossed 7.5x its production budget (Coming to America) was allegedly not profitable.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
Old 02-29-2012, 08:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
nickoakdl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post


The 2.5x number is a commonly stated rule of thumb in Hollywood. The production budget doesn't account for marketing and distribution costs, the cut of the profits that theaters take, Mob payoffs and labor union bribes, or the countless shady back-end profit participation deals that inflate the cost of making any movie today.

The production budget also may not account for development costs that the studio burns through trying to get a film off the ground. For example, the official budget for Superman Returns was $204 million, but Warner Bros. spent at least another $60 million on several previous aborted Superman projects, such as Tim Burton's "Superman Lives." Those expenses were absorbed into the box office grosses for Superman Returns.

And yes, there's also the studios' dubious accounting practices, which have claimed that a movie that grossed 7.5x its production budget (Coming to America) was allegedly not profitable.

So you're pretty much saying it's a hypothetical number.
nickoakdl is offline  
Old 03-01-2012, 03:41 AM
Gae
Member
 
Gae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I remember a time 30-40 years ago when the only profit to be made on a movie was mainly from cinema ticket sales and TV rights. Nowadays, we have the Blu-ray 3D, 2D Blu-ray, DVDs, video games, TV screenings, books, soundtracks and all the other merchandise thats attached to any film that is released. Surely that counts for something too?

I didn't see Hugo in the cinema but as a 3D fan and 3D TV owner, I will be buying the Blu-ray 3D blind. I wouldn't do that with many other films. I think this is going to be a real winner on Blu-ray 3D. Those future sales no doubt are going to effect the overall profit in a big way. Personally, I won't be losing any sleep over any supposed losses made by the film. That film will probably be around for many years and still making a profit from Blu-ray sales, based solely on its 3D reputation and 5 oscar status.

Gae
Gae is offline  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off