Box office lottery

tmnt

tmnt

King of Australia
You can never really pick it, can you? Jonah Hex, Knight & Day and the A-Team have all flopped to varying degrees.

I thought A-Team would be a big hit and Jonah Hex should have done a great deal more than the $8 mil it's at as of now. Probably would have thought at the minimum 35 mil for Jonah or so.

I'd hate to be a producer.
 
Look at some of the worst films in existence...Gymkata anyone? I love that movie because every line in it is funny except for the actual jokes. Someone thought, "This movie will do great, lets invest millions in it." Then he was probably never heard from again.
 
Yea, it's harder than people think, wait tell Carl Icon get's his studio(s). Just wait...

Now, all these new guys (studio execs) have no idea what they are doing and are paying all the former (studio exec) guys who went out on their own 10x the money for all the good projects because they need a slate and can't make a decision.

Icon just needs to sit back, his greed / ego is making him pay way more than needs to be.

Hey, how did the new tom cruise movie do? Anyone?
 
ChipG said:
Yea, it's harder than people think, wait tell Carl Icon get's his studio(s). Just wait...

Now, all these new guys (studio execs) have no idea what they are doing and are paying all the former (studio exec) guys who went out on their own 10x the money for all the good projects because they need a slate and can't make a decision.

Icon just needs to sit back, his greed / ego is making him pay way more than needs to be.

Hey, how did the new tom cruise movie do? Anyone?
Click to expand...

It may be harder than people think, but I think they'd be slightly better off if they just trusted writers and directors more with original material and not let their films be made by committee. They'd probably do just as well at the box office at the end of the day, and might get a few great films out of it. As is, they are almost guaranteeing mediocrity, and alienating audiences with recycled crap if this year's box office is any indication. No risk, no reward, and executives don't seem to want to risk anything these days. But you have to in a creative business like moviemaking.
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
It may be harder than people think, but I think they'd be slightly better off if they just trusted writers and directors more with original material and not let their films be made by committee. They'd probably do just as well at the box office at the end of the day, and might get a few great films out of it. As is, they are almost guaranteeing mediocrity, and alienating audiences with recycled crap if this year's box office is any indication. No risk, no reward, and executives don't seem to want to risk anything these days. But you have to in a creative business like moviemaking.
Click to expand...

See 'probably do just as well' doesn't sit well with a producer. They want 'an almost certainty' if not 'a certainty' that it will do well. Which is why they go with re-makes and sequal galore. They're branded films, as in they already ave an existing audience that they can build upon, rather than start build a new audience. The line up for next summer has me sick to the stomach. Next summer is the summer of the sequels with 2s, 3s, and 4,s flying around everywhere...

The problem is producers are producers. They have to stop thinking like producers... which they can't, because they're producers...
 
Jon Starr said:
See 'probably do just as well' doesn't sit well with a producer. They want 'an almost certainty' if not 'a certainty' that it will do well. Which is why they go with re-makes and sequal galore. They're branded films, as in they already ave an existing audience that they can build upon, rather than start build a new audience. The line up for next summer has me sick to the stomach. Next summer is the summer of the sequels with 2s, 3s, and 4,s flying around everywhere...

The problem is producers are producers. They have to stop thinking like producers... which they can't, because they're producers...
Click to expand...

I understand they want certainty, but my point is that there is no real certainty, especially when you spread things out over multiple films. They'd probably do just as well or better in the long run by making riskier bets. Some might tank, but some might make outrageous Avatar business. Say what you will about the quality of Avatar as a film, but it was a fairly risky bet in Hollywood terms -- not a sequel or pre-existing property, no stars, a preachy theme, a director known for spending money like there's no tomorrow and going over budget. They're taking the middle road and this year seem to be suffering for it...And the studios are not producers. They are financial middle men and distributors who really don't know much about making movies.
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
I understand they want certainty, but my point is that there is no real certainty, especially when you spread things out over multiple films. They'd probably do just as well or better in the long run by making riskier bets. Some might tank, but some might make outrageous Avatar business.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head. It's as if they never heard of some of the past hit films based upon original ideas that had no pre-audience awareness, some of which also spawned sequels or franchises. Films like: Star Wars, The Sixth Sense, Alien, Aliens, The Matrix, Die Hard, Terminator, Legally Blonde, Ace Ventura, District 9, Lethal Weapon, Star Trek, Saw, The Transporter, Back to the Future, Indiana Jones, Stargate, Independence Day, 2012, etc.

Sure Star Wars and Star Trek seem like brands now, but both started out as only ideas in George Lucas and Gene Roddenberry's heads. And even something like The Ring, well it was based on the Japanese horror film Ringu, but who was even aware of Ringu when they saw the trailer for The Ring? Maybe some hard core horror fans, but for the average moviegoer it might as well have been an original idea. Same with a lot of films adapted from others sources. Did that many people really know what Minority Report was about, other than it was written by Philip K. Dick? This seems to be the case for a decent amount of these so called branded films.

Even successful adaptations like Transformers, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Twilight all started out as an original idea in their creator's minds. Just because these properties were initially produced in another medium than film is not that big of a difference when you really get down to it.

They're taking the middle road and this year seem to be suffering for it...And the studios are not producers. They are financial middle men and distributors who really don't know much about making movies.
Click to expand...

As for Avatar, how many Twilights, Harry Potters, Transformers, and Beginning Batmans do you have to combine to equal or surpass what Avatar made? Then there's Titanic, which wasn't based on an existing brand or IP, at least not in the way that Twilight or Spiderman or most big films are these days. I will admit, there was historical awareness, plus Celine Dion wouldn't shut up, and the Discovery Channel became The Titanic Channel for a few months, but still, it was based on boring old history for the majority of the audience. If not for the original aspect of the story, the DiCaprio/Winslet romance that was the main plot of the film, it wouldn't have been the box office juggernaut it was, and still is. Both Titanic and Avatar being the top grossing movies EVER should really be an eye opener to the people who decide what projects get the green light and which ones die in development.

I understand the desire to have built in audience awareness, but at the same time it shouldn't become the priority over story, character, and just wanting to make a damn good film. Sure it's nice to have an advantage, but unless you have a super iconic brand like Batman, Superman, Lord of the Rings, or Twilight then it just doesn't seem like enough of an advantage to throw all the eggs into the cart labeled "branded films".

It seems to me that the studios did okay up until the late 90's by producing a healthy mix of original films and remakes or sequels. The cinematic ecosystem seemed pretty balanced up until the last six or seven years. Compare that to the current state of things where we have the death of the mid-budget film, the dwindling indies, and the uber-mega-budget tentpole, with a few artsy fartsy Oscar chasers hiding in there somewhere.
 
I suspect that the lesson to be taken from Titanic and Avatar is that audiences respond well to what are essentially fairy-tale simple stories with clear moral and emotional messages, told in a sweeping, epic fashion by a director who manages to be both an effective storyteller and technical master of the media with which he's working.

The kitchen-filled-with-cooks approach favored by the studios for the last several years operates in direct opposition to this model.
 
Joe Calabrese said:
Look at some of the worst films in existence...Gymkata anyone? I love that movie because every line in it is funny except for the actual jokes. Someone thought, "This movie will do great, lets invest millions in it." Then he was probably never heard from again.
Click to expand...

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE


This is actually a cult classic. I remember it being advertised as a kid and thinking, "This has got to be the shizznit!" I remember eventually seeing it (as an adult, which I think overflows into another thread I'm posting on) and going, "What the hell?" I mean the level of nonsense in this movie is beyond that of many films of it's nature. There's actually gym equipment just in random places. I'll give the actor credit though, his moves were pretty cool.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE

I wasn't surprised by Jonah Hex. He's a B character people get happy to see pop up in the comic every once and awhile. He's had several series and all have failed. Also the studio knew it was a dud, hence the low key advertising. The high-tech western, is really hard sci-fi not to mention the mix of supernatural. It's usually hard to push, especially on a country that likes every thing to fit into a box, Sci-Fi over here, Supernatural Horror over here and cowboy waaaay over there. Only certain people will like the mix. I'd go for it. A tough talking cowboy who may or may not have some supernatural stuff happening, his sidekick, a black gadget guy who makes dynamite guns and Megan Fox looking hot and dropping "sexy" one liners. Sounds like a winner, but also sounds very common in some ways.

There's also a bit of a Megan Fox blacklash. But what will probably happen is this will get massive on video. People are seeing it and thinking "not worth $10" but I bet you won't be able to rent this at the Redbox.

I am suprised by the A-Team remake not doing so well. Not surprised by the Karate Kid doing so well though. I knew it would be big with so many people hatin' on it because of their mommy smothered childhood being violated. But just like them, a martial art film aimed at kids will probably always be a hit. (Power Ranger = Kid Show w/ martial arts = 17 years on the air. Do the math).

Also no one wants to see Tom Cruise do another spy film. If he wants to do this film rename his character Ethan Hunt and call it Mission Impossible 4: Knight and Day, and it may get some pop.

-Nate
IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE
 
Last edited:
I know those two words don't sound like they should go together, but yeah, there's some Megan-haters out there.

-Nate
 
She really isn't that good of an actress, so I can understand haters if they are angered that her success is due primarily to her looks, because it is. But I'm a man, so I don't care.
 
Yea, I mean we all know she's there for the eye candy in films mainly aimed at guys so I don't see the issue. She gets the job done. But like Bey and others I prefer the original, more meat on the bone.

-Nate
 
Watching that Gymkata trailer...is it just me or is he being attacked by Devo at :46 seconds?
devo.jpg

0.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top