Big Budget Movie "Flop" Fallout - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 07:05 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer are supposedly discussing restructuring his deal for Pirates 5 as a result of the adverse financial impact from lackluster results from The Lone Ranger.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/lone-ranger-fallout-jerry-bruckheimer-may-lose-final-233322465.html

I found the above article interesting because it makes me wonder what the overall impact will be on the film industry. What I really find interesting is that the $250M budget for the Lone Ranger was the negotiated down "more palatable" figure for Disney. WHAT?! What was the original budget for cryin out loud?! I'm not one to go around quoting Mark Wahlberg but I'm with him when he said "$250M? Where's the money going?". It makes me wonder if when Disney wanted to tighten the purse strings did Jerry Bruckheimer walk around the office screaming "I'm a peacock! You gotta let me fly on this one"! Ok, so that's two Wahlberg quotes, so it's getting worse but I couldn't resist.

I haven't seen The Lone Ranger so I can't speak to what's actually involved in the movie but it doesn't "look" like more would have gone into it than Pirates of the Caribbean, which had a $150M'ish budget I think. Heck, for all the technical CGI explosiveness of any of the Transformers movies, I don't think the budget went beyond $200M. So Disney is apparently discussing restructuring the budget for Pirates 5 AND wants final cut control, which I'm sure will be an easy conversation with Bruckheimer. wink.gif But obviously, Disney will start scrutinizing all of their films going forward (not suggesting they shouldn't) and likely (if they're worth their brass) other studios will be doing the same. Big budget money will be hard to come by so what does this mean? Will we no longer get as many of these big tentpole movies? Or does it mean we will get better ones (because more focus will be placed on concept and scripting)? Is the so called "flop" of the Lone Ranger (again, I haven't seen it) just another blip on an "off' movie year or is there a trend brewing among moviegoers who's interest in these types of movies is fading?

Just some things to ponder.
Closet Geek is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 07:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Osirus23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 180
Budget Bloat is their biggest problem. There's no reason why it should cost a QUARTER OF A BILLION DOLLARS to make a movie like that.
Osirus23 is offline  
post #3 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 07:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pittsoccer33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pittsburgh (East Liberty)
Posts: 1,856
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 200
I made this list during my lunch break the other day.

The first part of the list is the budget for some newer films.

In the second part I took the original budgets for some major films of the last 20 years and adjusted them for 2013 dollars. They were very popular, expensive, the start of franchises, technologically ground breaking, or were just ones I really like.

It was kind of hard to format it cleanly for the forum.


Deathly Hallows Pt 2........250,000,000
POTC On Stranger Tides...250,000,000
The Avengers....................220,000,000
Pacific Rim........................190,000,000
Man of Steel..........................225,000,000
After Earth..............................130,000,000
Hobbit Pt ...............................300,000,000
Skyfall.....................................200,000,000
Amazing Spiderman............230,000,000
Brave.......................................200,000,000

Jurassic Park.......................101,800,000
Forrest Gump........................66,660,000
The Lion King........................70,900,000
GoldenEye..............................88,870,000
Independence Day.............111,620,000
Twister..................................136,920,000
Titanic....................................290,000,000
The Lost World....................106,200,000
Saving Private Ryan............100,280,000
Armageddon........................200,560,000
Star Wars Ep 1.....................161,180,000
The Matrix...............................88,300,000
X-Men....................................101,700,000
Gladiator..............................139,670,000
Harry Potter 1......................164,810,000
LOTR Fellowship...............122,620,000
Shrek......................................79,110,000
Treasure Planet..................184,000,000
Spiderman...........................181,720,000
POTC Black Pearl...............177,670,000
Troy ........................................216,320,000
War of the Worlds................157,820,000
King Kong.............................247,000,000
Superman Returns.............236,280,000

The takeaway is that the budgets are far outpacing inflation. Pacific Rim was given more money than Spider-Man. Brave cost nearly three times as much as Shrek.

My HTPC front end set up
Integration for whole home ATSC, CableCARD, FM radio, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, DVD, VHS control & capture, video games, and archived & streaming media playback
Mironto's Panasonic plasma black level restoration guide
Restore the initial MLL on a 2009 Panasonic plasma
pittsoccer33 is offline  
post #4 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 07:48 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 116
This is something I think we all knew but seeing it on "paper", bad formatting aside wink.gif , it's very telling. And you've managed to pull in a decent mix of movies in terms of sfx requirements. Wow.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #5 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 07:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pittsoccer33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pittsburgh (East Liberty)
Posts: 1,856
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 200
How were Jurassic Park and The Lost World able to be made for what it cost Peter Jackson to make King Kong?

GCI is one place where budgets are crazy. On Jurassic Park so little of the dinosaurs were computer generated. I imagine now that if someone was going to try recreating the sick triceratops scene that they would make a "breathing" robot covered in blue or green material that the actors to could lay on/interact with, and then they'd have an effects house turn it into a dinosaur.

I know through the 90s that actor salaries skyrocketed staring with Jim Carey being the first $20,000,000 man. I get the sense too (though I don't have data to back me up on this) that writers are being paid a lot more money for scripts now.

My HTPC front end set up
Integration for whole home ATSC, CableCARD, FM radio, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, DVD, VHS control & capture, video games, and archived & streaming media playback
Mironto's Panasonic plasma black level restoration guide
Restore the initial MLL on a 2009 Panasonic plasma
pittsoccer33 is offline  
post #6 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 08:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Osirus23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 180
Funny, I remember when CGI was first coming into popular use I heard how it would be so much cheaper because they wouldn't have to build expensive sets and props or have to do practical effects.
Osirus23 is offline  
post #7 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 08:30 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osirus23 View Post

Funny, I remember when CGI was first coming into popular use I heard how it would be so much cheaper because they wouldn't have to build expensive sets and props or have to do practical effects.

Yeah, and computers are getting faster and cheaper all the time not to mention arguably easier to use. Not saying a designer or design company shouldn't make their money but here's definitely a premium being built in somewhere. But even at that along with a big name $20M actor, there still seems to be a whole lot of fluff going on. I wouldn't be surprised if the budget excesses for many of these movies approached 50%.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #8 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 08:54 AM
Moderator
 
PooperScooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 19,791
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 73
If producers didn't pay the requested amounts prices wouldn't be going up. Maybe the CGI companies are "price fixing"? smile.gif

Even though computer hardware keeps getting cheaper and faster they may be using more data to render the "cooler", newer CGI. And they could be using more computers to render the data faster. This is just a guess and it sort of reminds me of weather forecasting. As computers get faster and cheaper weather people just throw more data at it so the simulations always finish in some set amount of time. More data, more accuracy. In CGI, with more data you get more detail and authenticity.

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Alva Edison
PooperScooper is offline  
post #9 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 08:58 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,026
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

Will we no longer get as many of these big tentpole movies?

And they'll probably stay in theaters longer (delaying home releases), with higher ticket sales. They'll be marketed more as an "event," kind of the way Broadway does.
Quote:
Or does it mean we will get better ones (because more focus will be placed on concept and scripting)?

Heh, not likely. They'll be focus grouped to hell and back. Not that they aren't already, but studios have moved to what they feel is "safe," which will make them more and more bland.

It used to be bankable actors that drove filmmaking on the blockbuster level. Now it is properties with built-in audiences. That's why comic book movies have exploded in the last decade or so.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #10 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 09:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pittsoccer33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pittsburgh (East Liberty)
Posts: 1,856
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 200
If you followed the Ang Lee/Life of Pi flap at the Oscars you'd see that computer generated graphics are actually going BELOW market rate. More like the opposite of price fixing.

The Canadian government has budgeted for several hundred million in subsidies to American companies to move post production into Canada - hiring Canadian artists. A post production house bidding for the sfx work on a blockbuster can effectively then bid way lower than their cost if they're willing to fire their own employees and move the work up north. Any company trying to match the bid for work is going to lose money.

That's why these companies - Digital Domain and Rhythm and Hues - are going bankrupt.

My HTPC front end set up
Integration for whole home ATSC, CableCARD, FM radio, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, DVD, VHS control & capture, video games, and archived & streaming media playback
Mironto's Panasonic plasma black level restoration guide
Restore the initial MLL on a 2009 Panasonic plasma
pittsoccer33 is offline  
post #11 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 09:13 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

And they'll probably stay in theaters longer (delaying home releases), with higher ticket sales. They'll be marketed more as an "event," kind of the way Broadway does.
Heh, not likely. They'll be focus grouped to hell and back. Not that they aren't already, but studios have moved to what they feel is "safe," which will make them more and more bland.

It used to be bankable actors that drove filmmaking on the blockbuster level. Now it is properties with built-in audiences. That's why comic book movies have exploded in the last decade or so.

Don't disagree with any of it. But I would like to think, or at least I wonder if studios will get to a point where they say, okay, we just can't keep thowing more and more "premium priced" cgi at an inferior script (even inferior by action movie standards) and decide to pay a premium for better writing. And at that, it brings up another question....is the writing the problem? I wonder how many solid scripts get chopped up by directors and possibly actors during shoots and also in the editing room? I guess where I'm going with that is using Lone Ranger as an example, why is it even considered a flop? Is it the storyline in general? Is it a good storyline but the scripting is lousy? Is it the acting? Or is it the production? Bottom line to that questioning is, is it a flop because of what it is? Who was in it? Or how it was made? Where does "blame" lie? Are big budget movies placed in the right hands? Just throwing it out as an example, would Lone Ranger have fared better if Speilberg had done it?
Closet Geek is offline  
post #12 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 09:26 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,026
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

Don't disagree with any of it. But I would like to think, or at least I wonder if studios will get to a point where they say, okay, we just can't keep thowing more and more "premium priced" cgi at an inferior script (even inferior by action movie standards) and decide to pay a premium for better writing. And at that, it brings up another question....is the writing the problem?

They already are paying a premium on writing. Disney used Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio for The Lone Ranger, and they're the team behind a lot of the hits they produced (and admittedly, a few of their flops.) The guys pretty much know screenwriting for blockbusters as anyone else.

The problem with writing is that what is "good" is so subjective, especially early on in the development. Even if no one tampers with the script, you could have things that seemed great early on turn out to be not such a good idea. Especially when you're trying to do something for a mass audience.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #13 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 09:31 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

They already are paying a premium on writing. Disney used Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio for The Lone Ranger, and they're the team behind a lot of the hits they produced (and admittedly, a few of their flops.) The guys pretty much know screenwriting for blockbusters as anyone else.

The problem with writing is that what is "good" is so subjective, especially early on in the development. Even if no one tampers with the script, you could have things that seemed great early on turn out to be not such a good idea. Especially when you're trying to do something for a mass audience.

Agreed. Again, I'm just speculating on what you get for a big budget production (meaning what a production team gets). I'm sure it's a combination of things most of the time.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #14 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 09:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pittsoccer33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pittsburgh (East Liberty)
Posts: 1,856
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 200
I didn't see Lone Ranger so I can't comment on why it didn't work, but its a flop because of the astronomical expense thrown at making it. It needed to gross a billion to cover all the bases. It would've been a success at $300,000,000 domestic, $300,000,000 world wide.

Even in the film sense, even if it only broke even and wasn't a hit Disney could've had legs from merchandise sales, theme park attractions, etc. Cars and Cars 2 were pretty much the least successful Pixar films and Disney brings in $2,000,000,000 annually in related merchandising.

So many movies in general lack the little details early in the film that set up a fun pay off later. The Back to the Future films are probably the absolute best at doing this. You can tell a lot of care went into those things.

Look at the enduring films we got out of the 80s and 90s - Indiana Jones, Back to the Future, Ghostbusters, Top Gun, T2, The Lion King, Twister, Independence Day, Titanic - all ideas originally conceived as movies.

Over the last few years what original big budget hits were there? Avatar and Inception. This year after Oblivion, After Earth, White House Down, Pacific Rim, [and likely] Elysium, no executive is going to greenlight an original story with a large budget.

My HTPC front end set up
Integration for whole home ATSC, CableCARD, FM radio, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, DVD, VHS control & capture, video games, and archived & streaming media playback
Mironto's Panasonic plasma black level restoration guide
Restore the initial MLL on a 2009 Panasonic plasma
pittsoccer33 is offline  
post #15 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 09:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Osirus23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsoccer33 View Post

Over the last few years what original big budget hits were there? Avatar and Inception. This year after Oblivion, After Earth, White House Down, Pacific Rim, [and likely] Elysium, no executive is going to greenlight an original story with a large budget.

Hope you all like superhero reboots/sequels and animated family films. You're going to be SOL otherwise.
Osirus23 is offline  
post #16 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 10:41 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Matt_Stevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 13,818
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
VFX houses are going bankrupt left and right. The studios, producers, directors, stars take all the cash and the actual vfx employees get paid very little and in some cases not at all, as we saw with Life Of Pi. Hollywood only knows how to do things BIG and any time you don't they get scared. Even worse is how the unions are structured so mid-grade budget films are no longer feasible. There is a reason why Adam Sandler comedies cost 100 million. It's insane. Once you go past 30 million you are pretty much forced to be a union shoot and then the costs skyrocket.

By the way, SUPERMAN RETURNS cost less than 150 million to make. All that extra money was the development costs that were tacked on over the year, including a 20 million pay check for Nic Cage. It was a pay or play deal and so when they canceled at the last minute, they had to pay him.

Vimeo is the home of the Super8 Shooter...
http://vimeo.com/super8shooter
Matt_Stevens is offline  
post #17 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 12:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pittsoccer33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pittsburgh (East Liberty)
Posts: 1,856
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Regarding Elysium:

http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/07/31/sonys-elysium-release-could-be-strike-three-for-embattled-execs
Quote:
two days ago rebel stockholder Daniel Loeb of Third Point investors issued another one of his veiled threats against Pascal and Lynton. He wrote: “We find it perplexing that [Sony CEO] Mr. Hirai does not worry about a division that has just released 2013’s versions of Waterworld and Ishtar back to back, instead giving free passes to Sony Pictures Entertainment Co CEO’s Michael Lynton and Amy Pascal, the executives responsible for these debacles…”

Given that it "only" cost $90 million this one could be alright. I think it will depend on good word of mouth (like Avatar and District 9) given the obvious politics in play.

My HTPC front end set up
Integration for whole home ATSC, CableCARD, FM radio, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, DVD, VHS control & capture, video games, and archived & streaming media playback
Mironto's Panasonic plasma black level restoration guide
Restore the initial MLL on a 2009 Panasonic plasma
pittsoccer33 is offline  
post #18 of 26 Old 08-08-2013, 12:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 3,994
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Studio heads live in a completely different world than the rest of us. They seem unaware of the economy and the fact that folks don't have the discretionary like they used to. They expect the world to work same as it did 10 or 20 years ago. They also think we're a lot dumber than them and only want mindless action flics. Then they also don't seem to want to gamble on much of anything really new or novel. Let them did their own grave. I prefer much smaller budget indie films anyway. They're rich with story.

If you want a good commentary on the movie industry listen to Uwe Boll's commentary on "Assault on Wall Street."
Brian Conrad is offline  
post #19 of 26 Old 08-09-2013, 02:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dbuudo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 110
Interesting thread. Sure seems like there's going to be a shift in big budget films, but it may not be what many want. Hollywood is not as concerned with North American box office as it used to be. International numbers are much more important now. Just look at how many huge films are being released a week or more before we get it here. The trend is to satisfy the International market first. Looking at the box office numbers, it's clear why.
Morpheo likes this.

David Budo
Dbuudo07 is offline  
post #20 of 26 Old 08-09-2013, 04:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Morpheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal by day, Paris by night...
Posts: 6,536
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

Interesting thread. Sure seems like there's going to be a shift in big budget films, but it may not be what many want. Hollywood is not as concerned with North American box office as it used to be. International numbers are much more important now.

Besides, the United States is the only country (I think) to have such a strong presence overseas, whether it's a good thing or not for the local film industry is not my point, but it might as well capitalize on it. Having said that the domestic market is still the most important catalyst to determine the success of a film, after all it's still the biggest source of profit: The Golden Compass made 300 millions overseas, that's a huge number but it's poor 70 millions in North America canceled any chance of sequel it once had. John Carter made 210 millions overseas, that's not bad either, had the film made the same amount in North America (still below its production budget) I'm fairly certain a John Carter 2 would have been greenlit with a 400 million total.

200+ million on a film is a big bet, well-installed franchises can afford it but I think that's about it. Come to think of it, I'm not sure Avatar 2 is gonna be as successful as the first one, in fact I seriously doubt it, or Pirates 5... So even James Cameron has to be careful. As for Disney, well they've had their share of duds lately wink.gif, let's just say I wish them the best for Pirates 5 (I really do! I love the franchise) I think whether you're doing an artsy film or a gigantic blockbuster, it all comes down to the story and how it's told. Even when it comes to Transformers, the films themselves are silly, the Michael Bay detractors are everywhere, but the man simply knows how shoot action and make it exciting for the audience, which is, I guess, the main reason the Transformers franchise has been this successful.
Morpheo is offline  
post #21 of 26 Old 08-09-2013, 08:33 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Matt_Stevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 13,818
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsoccer33 View Post

Regarding Elysium:

http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/07/31/sonys-elysium-release-could-be-strike-three-for-embattled-execs
Given that it "only" cost $90 million this one could be alright. I think it will depend on good word of mouth (like Avatar and District 9) given the obvious politics in play.
I see this thing topping out at 90 million at best and possibly fizzing out at less than 75, which would be a disaster for the studio. They were expecting 40+ million opening considering District 9 opened at 37 million, but the tracking has it less than 35. Right now the buzz about the obvious politics is bad and lots of people are talking about it. That's not what the studio wants. Visually it looks terrific. Too bad the script is apparently less than.

Vimeo is the home of the Super8 Shooter...
http://vimeo.com/super8shooter
Matt_Stevens is offline  
post #22 of 26 Old 08-09-2013, 08:39 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,026
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

The trend is to satisfy the International market first. Looking at the box office numbers, it's clear why.

Yep, China has a big influence on the international market. That's why films like World War Z and Red Dawn were changed in regards to putting China in a potentially bad light. Of course if a foreign movie disrespected the US, I'd doubt it would get a warm welcome here, too. wink.gif

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #23 of 26 Old 08-09-2013, 09:14 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

I see this thing topping out at 90 million at best and possibly fizzing out at less than 75, which would be a disaster for the studio. They were expecting 40+ million opening considering District 9 opened at 37 million, but the tracking has it less than 35. Right now the buzz about the obvious politics is bad and lots of people are talking about it. That's not what the studio wants. Visually it looks terrific. Too bad the script is apparently less than.

I'm personally expecting Elysium to do reasonably well but not necessarily at it's opening. While I think there is anticipation to see it, I think there is more anticipation of "is it another so so movie for 2013"; therefore, people may take the wait and see approach.

Regardless, I think Elysium is in the unique position of being the determining factor in the outlook going forward. If it doesn't do well, then I think most will just call this an "off" movie year (or at least summer) and move on. However, if it does do well, then I think it will be part of an even larger discussion about redefining "big budget" movies and how they get made. Further, IMO, Thor: The Dark World, which I have the feeling will be a huge success, will also generate greater focus on budget constraints. By "constraints" I mean looking at a $200M figure for your top end built in audience spectacles (like the Marvel movies for example). The one exception that comes to mind is the upcoming Star Wars movies only because of the merchandising that will go along with it.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #24 of 26 Old 08-09-2013, 01:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,043
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

I wonder if studios will get to a point where they say, okay, we just can't keep thowing more and more "premium priced" cgi at an inferior script (even inferior by action movie standards) and decide to pay a premium for better writing. And at that, it brings up another question....is the writing the problem? I wonder how many solid scripts get chopped up by directors and possibly actors during shoots and also in the editing room? I guess where I'm going with that is using Lone Ranger as an example, why is it even considered a flop? Is it the storyline in general? Is it a good storyline but the scripting is lousy? Is it the acting? Or is it the production? Bottom line to that questioning is, is it a flop because of what it is? Who was in it? Or how it was made? Where does "blame" lie? Are big budget movies placed in the right hands? Just throwing it out as an example, would Lone Ranger have fared better if Speilberg had done it?

It has been proven time and again that the quality of the script is irrelevant to whether big budget movies like this are successful. The teenage audience that buys movie tickets doesn't take that into consideration in the slightest. In fact, a complex story that requires them to pay attention to the movie (rather than the phone they're texting their friends with) is a big turn-off. The decision to buy a ticket or not is based entirely on hype, brand recognition, and whether it looks "cool."

Movie with giant robots based on toys they used to play with = Cool.
Movie based on a corny old Western their grandfather used to like = Not cool.

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  
post #25 of 26 Old 08-09-2013, 04:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsoccer33 View Post

Regarding Elysium:

http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/07/31/sonys-elysium-release-could-be-strike-three-for-embattled-execs
Quote:
two days ago rebel stockholder Daniel Loeb of Third Point investors issued another one of his veiled threats against Pascal and Lynton. He wrote: “We find it perplexing that [Sony CEO] Mr. Hirai does not worry about a division that has just released 2013’s versions of Waterworld and Ishtar back to back, instead giving free passes to Sony Pictures Entertainment Co CEO’s Michael Lynton and Amy Pascal, the executives responsible for these debacles…”

Given that it "only" cost $90 million this one could be alright. I think it will depend on good word of mouth (like Avatar and District 9) given the obvious politics in play.

Right there is a interesting battle starting.

Then George Clooney weighted in an interview on what he saw as a Hedge Fund manager that tried to film makers how to make movies.

Quote:
George Clooney To Hedge Fund Honcho Daniel Loeb: Stop Spreading Fear At Sony


The discussion turned toward recent critical comments made by Third Point LLC hedge fund head Daniel Loeb and the pressure he is placing on Sony Pictures chiefs Michael Lynton and Amy Pascal, centered around the under-performing back to back summer films After Earth and White House Down. Loeb, whose fund controls 7% of Sony stock, is pressing for Sony to spin off its entertainment assets and likened those misfires to historic flops Waterworld and Ishtar.
Though Clooney and Heslov base their Smokehouse Pictures banner at Sony, and Loeb’s influence is growing there, Clooney has never been shy about standing up to what he feels is wrong. So, buckle up.

Said Clooney: “I’ve been reading a lot about Daniel Loeb, a hedge fund guy who describes himself as an activist but who knows nothing about our business, and he is looking to take scalps at Sony because two movies in a row underperformed? When does the clock stop and start for him at Sony? Why didn’t he include Skyfall, the 007 movie that grossed a billion dollars, or Zero Dark Thirty or Django Unchained?
And what about the rest of a year that includes Elysium, Captain Phillips, American Hustle and The Monuments Men?
You can’t cherry pick a small time period and point to two films that didn’t do great. It makes me crazy.
Fortunately, this business is run by people who understand that the movie business ebbs and flows and the good news is they are ignoring his calls to spin off the entertainment assets.

How any hedge fund guy can call for responsibility is beyond me, because if you look at those guys, there is no conscience at work. It is a business that is only about creating wealth, where when they fail, they get bailed out and where nobody gets fired. A guy from a hedge fund entity is the single least qualified person to be making these kinds of judgments, and he is dangerous to our industry.”

Why is he dangerous?

Clooney; “[Loeb] calls himself an activist investor, and I would call him a carpet bagger, and one who is trying to spread a climate of fear that pushes studios to want to make only tent poles”.

“Films like Michael Clayton, Out of Sight, Good Night, And Good Luck, The Descendants and O, Brother Where Art Though?, none of these are movies studios are inclined to make.
What he’s doing is scaring studios and pushing them to make decisions from a place of fear. Why is he buying stock like crazy if he’s so down on things? He’s trying to manipulate the market.

I am no apologist for the studios, but these people know what they are doing. If you look at the industry track record, this business has made a lot of money. It creates a lot of jobs and is still one of the largest exporters in the world. To have this guy portraying it that Sony management is the bad stepchild and doesn’t know what it is doing and he’s going to fix it?
That is like Walmart saying, let me fix your town, putting in their store, strangling all the small shops and getting everyone who worked in them to work for minimum wage with no health insurance.

“It’s crazy he has weight in this conversation at all,” Clooney continued. “If guys like this are given any weight because they’ve bought stock and suddenly feel they can tell us how to do our business — one he knows nothing about — this does great damage then trickles down.
The board of directors starts saying, ‘Wait a minute. What guarantee do you have that this movie makes money?’ Well, there are no guarantees, but if you average out the films Will Smith and Channing Tatum have made, you will take that bet every time, even if sometimes it just doesn’t work out.”

Clooney also said he believes that down the line both films have a chance to be a wash. Clooney was particularly sensitive on the subject of job creation.
“Hedge fund guys do not create jobs, and we do,” he said. “On the movie we just made, we put 300 people to work every day. I’m talking about nice, regular people, and when we shot in a town, we’d put another 300 people to work.

This is an industry that thrives; there are thousands of workers who make films. You want to see what happens if outside forces start to scare the industry and studios just make tent poles out of fear? You will see a lot of crap coming out.”
PS; Waterworld was not an economic flop.

And the response from Loeb;
Quote:
Variety; Daniel Loeb Vows to End Sony Spinoff Quest, At Least For Now

Surprisingly, Loeb also said that he found some commonality with George Clooney, even though the actor last week told Variety’s sister publication Deadline that Loeb “knows nothing about our business.” In an investor letter, Loeb had criticized the performance of Sony Pictures Entertainment chairman and CEO Michael Lynton and co-chair Amy Pascal.

“Notwithstanding the fact that the media likes to create a stir, I admire Mr. Clooney’s passion for Sony and his loyalty to Sony and his friends there,” said Loeb, suggesting that he and Clooney share a “common goal” in that “a more disciplined company with better allocation of capital means less money spent on bureaucracy and more investment in motion pictures. We are all for intelligent investment in creative content. I believe our interests are aligned in a way he probably doesn’t realize.”

Some wonder what next steps, if any, Loeb might take with Sony given that Third Point was initially rebuffed by Yahoo management only to press his case to the point where the CEO was replaced and the company went through a major overhaul.

By contrast, in the case of Sony, Loeb indicated that he would be watching to see how things play out, rather than pursue such a structural overhaul.

“What we would expect is more disclosure and a more detailed plan for how they will improve profitability in their entertainment division, including specific profitability targets,” he said. “We will monitor their performance in coming quarters and revisit Sony’s progress around the time of next year’s annual meeting.” He said that Third Point will “continue to be highly engaged, maintain a dialogue with management, and expect to offer further suggestions to increase shareholder value.”

Last week, in a letter to investors, Loeb cited Sony’s box office misfires of “After Earth” and “White House Down” as indicative of dysfunction at the company.

So when we in the past have been complaining about movies and that one of the faults are that there are too many money men that makes decisions on what movies will be made and what they shall contain, there now seems like there are some "Über Money Men" that wants to Lord over the Hollywood money men.

And when we are touching on big budget tentpole, and many of us would rather like that Hollywood spent more money on originality than remakes and sequels.
The only problem is that we that want more originality stands against the desire of the "unwashed masses" tongue.gif who rather pay money for sequels and and live versions of action heroe cartoons than anything original.

In this interesting article,
USA Today has made a breakdown of movie earnings from 1993 till today; Original films falling flat with summer moviegoers.
Quote:
And as much as moviegoers claim they want fresh stories, they are plunking down less money on them than ever and embracing sequels, remakes and spinoffs instead.

A Gannett/USA TODAY analysis of more than two decades of summer box-office receipts finds that Hollywood has never been more derivative. Among the top 20 summer films dating to 1993:

• Original films accounted for just 39% of box office from 2003-12, down from 65% in the prior 10 years.

• So far this summer, original stories account for just 30% of ticket sales.

• Original movies accounted for less than half (47%) of the top summer releases from 2003-12, down from 70% the decade prior.
coolscan is offline  
post #26 of 26 Old 08-09-2013, 05:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pittsoccer33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pittsburgh (East Liberty)
Posts: 1,856
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 200
I don't feel like many of the original movies from the last few years were that memorable. For a movie to be a big hit you need great characters, a great adventure, a little bit of humor, and a lot of heart. Thats the reason older films that people love endure.

You don't need the world ending or aliens to do it. Inception had great buzz in 2010 when it came out. It had a great mix of interesting characters, an awesome story concept, and some effects that you've never seen before.

Pacific Rim was kind of cool but it was dumb. The characters, outside of maybe Idris Elba's, just werent very strong. Oblivion, After Earth, and Elysium all look like the same movie. The original After Earth premise - taking place in modern day Alaska - would have been infinitely more interesting. White House Down just seemed to have the wrong tone for the type of movie it tried to be. The lower budget Olympus has Fallen had (in my opinion) better characters to carry its Die Hard plot rehash.

I really think its the character angle - what movie character from the last few years will really go down in pop culture history? Superheros are already there so they won't count. Even including films based on lesser known properties. All I can come up with is Jack Sparrow - which turned that into a massive hit. Very few like Harry Callahan, Indiana Jones, Marty McFly, Axel Foley, Pete "Maverick" Mitchell, Riggs and Murtaugh, Hanibal Lector, Forrest Gump, T-800, Kevin McAllister, DeLoris Van Carter, Mrs Doubtfire, Jack Dawson, Austin Powers, Maximus Decimus Meredius, or Jack Byrnes.

My HTPC front end set up
Integration for whole home ATSC, CableCARD, FM radio, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, DVD, VHS control & capture, video games, and archived & streaming media playback
Mironto's Panasonic plasma black level restoration guide
Restore the initial MLL on a 2009 Panasonic plasma
pittsoccer33 is offline  
Reply Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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