or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Pacific Rim - Guillermo del Toro
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pacific Rim - Guillermo del Toro - Page 3

post #61 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

No need to wonder about Oscar nominations.
I don't remember any movies with robots fighting monsters that got Oscar nomination so that pretty much takes the pressure off on this one.

When I say monsters, I don't mean blue skinned tall humanoids... smile.gif
post #62 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

They already did this... eek.giffrown.gif


lol, I remember that 90's flick!

I am looking forward to seeing Pacific Rim.
post #63 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

Hopefully there won't be time for much acting. Just kicking some alien butt! smile.gif Like somebody else already said, expectations for "critical acclaim" is low. No need to wonder about Oscar nominations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

I don't remember any movies with robots fighting monsters that got Oscar nomination so that pretty much takes the pressure off on this one.
........

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornSlippyZ View Post

.......I am looking forward to seeing Pacific Rim.

I've said it before, but they had me at
Quote:
Today we cancel the apocalypse

As a famous villain once said,

That's what "I'm" talking about - Gru
post #64 of 321
Im looking forward to this. I was a big fan of Giant Robot at one time.

Giant Robot...Power Punch NOW

LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

*
post #65 of 321
If reviews are decent I'll check this out via real IMAX. But it does look like audience awareness is low and the studio is in a panic over it.
post #66 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

If reviews are decent I'll check this out via real IMAX. But it does look like audience awareness is low and the studio is in a panic over it.
I saw a new trailer last night on the boob tube that featured HUMOR, rather than Transformerish stuff.
post #67 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

If reviews are decent I'll check this out via real IMAX. But it does look like audience awareness is low and the studio is in a panic over it.

Understandably...180 millions budget + advertising this thing probably needs 250 millions to at least break even...or maybe more. WB and Legendary still have Man Of Steel to celebrate... Even if the movie is good, I don't see it as a huge success either - people don't seem to care about it. Each time I saw the trailer in theaters, they went "mmmyeah..."
post #68 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

180 millions budget + advertising this thing probably needs 250 millions to at least break even...or maybe more.
That's 250 million just to the studio. Since theatres keep about half of the receipts, the movie has to gross much more for the studio to cover budget + advertising (not to mention potential interest that all those millions would have earned).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

WB and Legendary still have Man Of Steel to celebrate...
Yup, just crossed half billion dollars worldwide.
post #69 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Since theatres keep about half of the receipts,

Theaters get a much smaller percentage of the take during the first few weeks, sometimes as little as 10%. The percentage to the theater goes up the more weeks the movie runs. That's why theater owners are so upset about shrinking home video release windows. It used to be that a successful movie would play for months before the studio pulled it. Nowadays, even blockbusters are gone from the theater within six weeks and hit Blu-ray at 90 days.
post #70 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

That's 250 million just to the studio. Since theatres keep about half of the receipts, the movie has to gross much more for the studio to cover budget + advertising (not to mention potential interest that all those millions would have earned).
Don't forget the merchandising profits. Movie like this can start a new line of toys.
post #71 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Since theatres keep about half of the receipts,
Theaters get a much smaller percentage of the take during the first few weeks, sometimes as little as 10%.
Did you follow the dispute between Disney and the major theatre chains earlier this summer?

"The theaters are claiming that Disney is demanding a huge take of the box office receipts, almost 65 percent, up from its typical 50-55 percent."

http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2013/04/25/regal-pulls-iron-man-marketing.html?page=all
post #72 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Did you follow the dispute between Disney and the major theatre chains earlier this summer?

"The theaters are claiming that Disney is demanding a huge take of the box office receipts, almost 65 percent, up from its typical 50-55 percent."

http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2013/04/25/regal-pulls-iron-man-marketing.html?page=all

The article doesn't say in what week of release those percentages apply. Here's an article from 2007 that explains how movie theater revenue usually works:

http://themovieblog.com/2007/economics-of-the-movie-theater-where-the-money-goes-and-why-it-costs-us-so-much/
Quote:
A lot of people assume (as did I at one point) that the movie theater keeps 50% of it, and the rest goes off to the studios. That’s not really true.

Most of the money that a theatre takes in from ticket sales goes back to the movie studio. The studio leases a movie to your local theater for a set period of time. In the first couple of weeks the film shows in the theatre, the theatre itself only gets to keep about 20% – 25% of the green. That means, if you showed up to watch Bridget Jones’ Diary on opening night, then of the $12 you put out for a ticket, the movie theatre only got to keep between $2.40 and $3.00 of it.

That’s not a lot of money, especially when you think about how much bigger and elaborate theatres are these days. It’s not cheap running one of these places. It can get even worse. This percentage will vary from movie to movie depending on the specifics of the individual leasing deal. For instance, 2 movie theatre managers told me that for Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, the studio took 100% of the box office take for the first week of release. Can you imagine that? They had to over staff and have above normal capacity flood into their theatres… and they got to keep $0.00 from the ticket sales. That almost seems criminal.

Now, as you move into the second and third weeks of release, the percentage starts to swing to anywhere from 45% – 55% that the theatre gets to keep. It gets better after the fourth week when theatres generally can keep up to 80% or better of the ticket sales.

Here's another one:
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-distribution2.htm
post #73 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The article doesn't say in what week of release those percentages apply.
Nor did I in the post you repled to, because I was talking about how much the movie would have to gross in order for the studio to break even. To that end, it isn't important whether the studio initially gets most of the money and that percentage eventually gets flipped for the duration of the run. What's important is the studio's overall take of the gross receipts, which is closer to half than 90%.

Theatre chains balked at Disney getting 2/3rds of the gross for Iron Man, which is understandable if they were used to Disney taking half, but doesn't make sense if Disney had previously been taking 90%. Why would they be upset with Disney lowering that to 65%.

It's asthough I was mentioning how fast a runner averaged to complete a mile and you want to point that he was running faster during the initial 30 seconds.
post #74 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Nor did I in the post you repled to, because I was talking about how much the movie would have to gross in order for the studio to break even. To that end, it isn't important whether the studio initially gets most of the money and that percentage eventually gets flipped for the duration of the run. What's important is the studio's overall take of the gross receipts, which is closer to half than 90%.

Theatre chains balked at Disney getting 2/3rds of the gross for Iron Man, which is understandable if they were used to Disney taking half, but doesn't make sense if Disney had previously been taking 90%. Why would they be upset with Disney lowering that to 65%.

It's asthough I was mentioning how fast a runner averaged to complete a mile and you want to point that he was running faster during the initial 30 seconds.

The thing is that movie theatrical release windows are getting smaller and smaller. Even blockbuster movies are only in theaters for 5-6 weeks and hit Blu-ray within 90 days. And these days, most movies earn the vast majority of their income during opening weekend, when the studio gets most of the money. Attendance will drop 60-75% in the second week, and will drop to virtually nil in the third and fourth weeks.

So, no, movies just don't hang around in theaters long enough for the theater to accumulate half the income anymore. Which is why theater owners are so upset.

To your analogy, you're talking about how fast runners average to complete a mile when most runners never get that far.
post #75 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

So, no, movies just don't hang around in theaters long enough for the theater to accumulate half the income anymore. Which is why theater owners are so upset.
Then they wouldn't have been upset with Disney wanting 2/3rds of Iron Man if that was already the norm.
post #76 of 321
Interesting article in this month's issue of Wired magazine where they apply real life physics to the robots and creatures in this film. Bottom line they are way, way to big to do simple things like take a step or throw a punch normally. Sorry, can't find a link but will try. Still looks like a lot of fun.
post #77 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by subavision212 View Post

Interesting article in this month's issue of Wired magazine where they apply real life physics to the robots and creatures in this film. Bottom line they are way, way to big to do simple things like take a step or throw a punch normally. Sorry, can't find a link but will try. Still looks like a lot of fun.
smile.gif The same problem goes for gigantic creatures such as King Kong and Godzilla. They simply couldn't exist.

http://movieline.com/2013/01/09/pacific-rim-vs-real-world-physics-giant-robots-guillermo-del-toro/
Edited by RobertR - 7/2/13 at 5:08pm
post #78 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Then they wouldn't have been upset with Disney wanting 2/3rds of Iron Man if that was already the norm.

I can't speak to the specifics of Disney's contracts, but I suspect that article simplified the details of the dispute.
post #79 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I can't speak to the specifics of Disney's contracts, but I suspect that article simplified the details of the dispute.
Even in simplified form, it makes my point: theatre chains wouldn't have balked at a studio wanting to take 2/3rds if that wasn't a significant increase from what it used to take. It's not like all three theatre chains suddenly started protesting business as usual.
post #80 of 321
Pacific Rim is getting some terrific write-ups (hovering right now ~ 77%@Rottentomatoes) and word of mouth on the net is really good. Originally I was going to pass on this but now I think I'm going to see it.
post #81 of 321
Such conflicting reviews. The NY Post writer says,
Quote:
the Jaegers make the Transformers look like ... well, children’s toys.

On the other hand, the NY Daily News writer says the movie is
Quote:
As gripping as watching a Transformer toy battle in a bathtub with a rubber dinosaur.

So which is it? Sounds like it depends on how much meaning a robots vs. monsters battle has for the observer.
post #82 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Such conflicting reviews.
I would say those are agreeing reviews.
post #83 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

So which is it? Sounds like it depends on how much meaning a robots vs. monsters battle has for the observer.
Yup. If you reflexively roll your eyes at the very thought of giant robots fighting giant monsters, then the most photorealistic CG is not going to change your mind. By comparison, if you grew up watch such movies, then it doesn't really matter how good this movie is because its very premise is going to push your nostalgia buttons. And that's what it looks like is happening based on the conflicting reviews.
post #84 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Yup. If you reflexively roll your eyes at the very thought of giant robots fighting giant monsters, then the most photorealistic CG is not going to change your mind. By comparison, if you grew up watch such movies, then it doesn't really matter how good this movie is because its very premise is going to push your nostalgia buttons. And that's what it looks like is happening based on the conflicting reviews.

Yep. Last night we saw a commercial for Pacific Rim, and after it was over my wife said it looked like transformers vs Godzilla. I said I know! Isn't it awesome! She didn't think so, oddly enough?
post #85 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Yup. If you reflexively roll your eyes at the very thought of giant robots fighting giant monsters, then the most photorealistic CG is not going to change your mind. By comparison, if you grew up watch such movies, then it doesn't really matter how good this movie is because its very premise is going to push your nostalgia buttons. And that's what it looks like is happening based on the conflicting reviews.
So what you're saying is that those who like it are thinking "I always wanted to see Godzilla vs. MechaGodzilla wih updated CGI and sound effects"? smile.gif
post #86 of 321
theater previews are not helping this movie.


myeh..............


interesting to see which s.f. flick does better this summer, this or elysium.
post #87 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

..By comparison, if you grew up watch such movies, then it doesn't really matter how good this movie is because its very premise is going to push your nostalgia buttons.
Is this why I yearn for TV shows involving hand puppets and ventriloquists?
post #88 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post



interesting to see which s.f. flick does better this summer, this or elysium.

I know which one is getting my hard-earned disposable cash. That would be the one that looks like a science fiction movie.
post #89 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

Yep. Last night we saw a commercial for Pacific Rim, and after it was over my wife said it looked like transformers vs Godzilla. I said I know! Isn't it awesome! She didn't think so, oddly enough?
LOL, exactly what my wife and I think....except the opinions are reversed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I know which one is getting my hard-earned disposable cash. That would be the one that looks like a science fiction movie.
You..."hard-earned?"rolleyes.gif


Ho ho ho.....tongue.gif
post #90 of 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

So what you're saying is that those who like it are thinking "I always wanted to see Godzilla vs. MechaGodzilla wih updated CGI and sound effects"? smile.gif
Oh I think there are those who like it without even having seen it. Part of that built-in audience is going to see it because it reminds them of movies they enjoyed as kids.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Pacific Rim - Guillermo del Toro