Would you pay 60 bucks to see this movie?

I think he just got very successful very young and then got very paranoid, kind of like what happened to Dave Chapelle except Dave had the good sense to quit the business altogether.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
Beverly Hills Cop 3 happened...
Click to expand...

This is kind of like the chicken and the egg...Which came first?...I think his success ruined him really. His best comedy came from observations of his own life experience, and once he got rich and insulated from the outside world he couldn't find the comedy anymore. I think he even acknowledged as much once. So he became a lukewarm version of old persona and eventually became irrelevant.
 
Couldn't agree more...but BHC3 I point to as the turning point with very few exceptions
(the original Nutty Professor being the main one).
That was when I noticed the poor-black-kid-from-NY edginess had vanished.

Of all the comedians to jump the shark, this one pissed me off the mostest.
His stand-up was amongst the top of all time...and I have him at #1 for All-Time SNL cast members
(only looking at SNL, and not at the career that followed.)
 
Last edited:
Eddie Murphy and Ben Stiller? Enough to peek my interest. The movie looks like something I'd watch...but not for $60. Sorry. I actually saw this trailer when I went to see "Captain America". Even though "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" totally overshadowed it, I thought it looked good, but I don't know why any company would think someone would pay $60 for this? Now someone might, but for $60 I could rent about 50 movies from Redbox. Or simply get Netflix streaming. Or pay my light bill and have money left over for a meal.

-Nate
 
am i the only one that actually feels insulted by the $60 price? how stupid do they think people are to propose something like this?
 
I suppose it's cheaper for large families to see it at home, especially with concessions.... But still... 60 bucks???
 
ugafan said:
am i the only one that actually feels insulted by the $60 price? how stupid do they think people are to propose something like this?
Click to expand...

It's not actually that outrageous of a price, it's just outrageous to pay that price for a movie three weeks AFTER theatrical debut. If they released like Harry Potter or something a week before release on VOD for $60, you could bet they'd have a s..t-load of money in their pockets. But for a film that only looks sort of funny, and an availability that's the equivalent of Netflix's delay compared to my local rental store... WTF.
 
Price point is ridiculous. At home price for even a premium early window should be no more than 2 tickets, and even then the delay needs to be tighter, like maybe second weekend.

What the studios don't seem to get is that is that we pay for the act of going OUT to the movies. The max price for watching a movie at home is $5, unless you want to own it, and then for a lot of movies it is still $5.

I can see this strategy maybe working for some big Kids movie, and is just a hassle to take out the whole family, but for that price you better get unlimited views for a month or something, because that's how kids watch movies at home. I just tell my kids they have to wait, Not that big a deal.

Hollywood just needs to get their heads out of their you know where's and stop spending way to much money on crap movies.

I blame James Cameron, How dare he make a movie $100 million over budget and still be profitable. Star Wars and ET had sensible budgets of $10 million. I'm not sure of the economic formulas that equate old money to now, but it is sure not 10x plus.

I think in the early 80's ticket prices were between $3-5, Now it is still not much more than $10, a little more with the 3D tax,
so the average ticket price increase over time does not warrant the astronomical increase in production budgets.

But yeah, $60 pay per view, not gonna happen at my house, not for anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top