|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Are there too many "tentpoles?"
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-22-2013 02:42 PM
Here's the simple math on the situation:
1. Customers have only so much money they can spend on going to the movies. They're certainly not going to see every self-proclaimed blockbuster, much less even bother to go to the movies at least once a week.
2. Some of these movies were shitty and deserved to tank at the box office.
quote: Hollywood Reporter Article
"I'll say one thing: This summer has got to be an exhibitor's delight," quips another studio executive. "Imagine being a theater owner and having all these tentpoles in a row. Face it: A theater owner couldn't care less if the movie drops off a ton."
That's all fine and good unless too many movies in a row bomb at the box office. The stinkers can accumulate and take up too many movie screens, causing audiences to stay away in droves.
quote: Justin Hamaker
Maybe studios are just too afraid of the conventional wisdom to risk at big budget production at a traditionally slow period.
IMHO, it shouldn't make much difference what time of year a movie is released. This syndrome of studios putting so much of their hopes into the May-July period has only ingrained itself in the past couple decades.
They're allowing Oscar hopefuls to play themselves out in winter months and releasing other content hardly worth a damn during that period. April is often a crummy month where studios seem to be clearing shelves in preparation for May and the beginning of the so-called summer movie season. By early to mid August on into September we're back in the dregs again. Perhaps the studios want customers to be spending money on DVDs & Blu-rays of summer movies fixing to hit store shelves and don't want a strong late summer or early fall movie competing with that. Anyway, the studios are not making full use of the 12 month calendar.
If the movie is good enough the crowds will show up for it regardless of what time of year the show is released. Big hits have been released in seemingly slow periods. The Silence of the Lambs was released on Valentine's Day in 1991; it not only did well at the box office but it also cleaned up at the Oscars nearly a year later. The Matrix was released in March of 1999 rather than the summer. Long ago it was common for a great movie to be released at any time of the year. MASH world premiered in late January, 1970. Patton premiered just a couple weeks later. If those two classics had been released today, the studios would have either held onto them for a warmer weather release or pushed an earlier December release to compete for Oscars faster (Patton won the Best Picture Oscar anyway, more than a year after its premiere).
quote: Randy Stankey
Digital movies might be killing Hollywood, not by the technology itself, but by the attitudes toward movie making caused by (improper) use of technology.
I think it's more of the parent global media company league of bean counters attitude that's doing the worst damage. These guys are pushing to make movies play well in more markets. But in trying to make a movie translate to all cultures it ends up being pretty safe, bland, lame or whatever in the end. They throw in more explosions to cover up that fact. The level of derivative been there, seen that sameness in so many movies has taken a lot of enthusiasm out of movie-going. Audiences are still showing up, but they're only getting pre-chewed chewing gum for the eyeballs. There's not enough content that's really new.
In my line of work, definitely "digital" has arguably done at least as much damage as it has done good. Amateur hour, self taught graphics people have ruined the wage scales of this field formerly known as a profession. When the tools were analog all projects required careful planning. Now any amateur lacking in talent but able to click buttons can quickly scatter a bunch of shit on a page and call it a day.
I suppose the growing prevalence of video-sourced movie production has given producers and bean counters the notion they can cut corners in production and force a more rushed schedule. But even when most movies were shot on film the film stock was jokingly called the cheapest thing in a movie production.
One benefit I can see with video-based production: improv work on comedies. An ensemble can have the luxury of experimenting more without the worry of burning through a finite supply of film stock. Likewise, comedies have been one of the early adopters to move toward video-based work flow.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-22-2013 03:31 PM
I'm not so sure about either of those. Avatar seemed fairly cool at the time of its release, but at least to me, the movie has not endured so well. It doesn't play well for me on repeat viewing. While I'm pining away hoping for new Blu-ray versions of The Abyss and True Lies I have no plans of buying a copy of Avatar.
The jury is still out on that HFR thing. Right now I think the odds are stacked against it catching on. Rather than do HFR, I'd rather see the color gamma range get deeper, both in video production and exhibition. That's going to be needed anyway if laser-based projection goes anywhere. Let's not forget about the need for 4K to supplant 2K. I think 3D and HFR have been taking away from those more fundamental needs in d-cinema improvement.
Jurassic Park was an innovative, entertaining movie -at least from the standpoint of spectacle. The Lost World: Jurassic Park II had its moments, but wasn't quite as good as the original. Jurassic Park III kind of sucked. I see a trend here. And it isn't helping matters that more than a decade has passed since the release of JPIII.
I see no guarantees about the Superman-Batman mash-up movie. J.J. Abrams could really screw up Star Wars; he's already shown the lack of fear of pissing off Star Trek fans by making huge alterations of that saga. Why would Star Wars be any different? Maybe he'll do a remake of E.T. after that, altering the story line so E.T. rapes Elliot's face and impregnates him with an Alien-like creature. Nothing is sacred in Hollywood these days. The upshot is they can only push things so far with this kind of crap. The audiences are always free to stay away if they choose. Lately it seems like audiences are beginning to do that. The combination of a shitty, derivative movie paired with a high ticket price will make a lot of people rethink what to do for entertainment for the evening.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 07-23-2013 03:26 AM
Arghh… Save the Cat! Thanks Frank for bringing that back to my attention. ![[Wink]](wink.gif) With that thing lingering in the back of your mind while watching a movie, it is hard not to get infuriated… I’m not convinced it’s all on purpose, some might have adopted a writing style that mimics many of those “beats” by looking too much at each other.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Well, you sure are wrong Bob. Comparing an Avatar sequel to Ghostbusters 2, Robocop 2 and Speed 2 is a bit silly.
I guess you never saw the sequel to Alien or the sequel to Terminator, both are James Cameron films in case you were not sure, both were successful and both were good, but perhaps they were not your thing.
We’re not there yet, let’s withhold final judgment until Judgment Day…
Sequels have sucked in the past and will most likely do in the future. And for me, Avatar 2 needs to bring a whole lot of interesting new stuff to the table to make it worthwhile. I respect Cameron for his endurance, but story-wise, the last interesting thing he has done was Terminator 2...
Let’s not forget: Sucking doesn’t necessarily imply a movie bombs. Right now we’ve got Grown Ups 2, a movie that’s way up on the scale o' suck, but seems to be doing fine at the box office.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, the "film look" is done. End of story.
What defines “film look”? I’m not missing film grain, flicker, scratches, etc., but movies sure need some “cinematic feel”. The Hobbit is a bad example, the video-ish look makes it look cheap and everybody I’ve watched it noticed roughly the same, even in the 24fps version. As I put here before, I’m not convinced it’s all in the HFR, but Avatar 2 needs to do it better to be believable.
quote: Bobby Henderson
That's all fine and good unless too many movies in a row bomb at the box office. The stinkers can accumulate and take up too many movie screens, causing audiences to stay away in droves.
And it’s really a stupid remark to begin with. The movie production and exhibition industry have been going hand-in-hand ever since the first movies came along…
quote: Bobby Henderson
IMHO, it shouldn't make much difference what time of year a movie is released. This syndrome of studios putting so much of their hopes into the May-July period has only ingrained itself in the past couple decades.
The problem is, when someone actually decides to release a “blockbuster” outside of their respective season and the movie tanks, the suits responsible probably get blamed for their decision to put it there, no matter the real reason was probably the movie itself.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 07-23-2013 08:40 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Sequels have sucked in the past and will most likely do in the future. And for me, Avatar 2 needs to bring a whole lot of interesting new stuff to the table to make it worthwhile. I respect Cameron for his endurance, but story-wise, the last interesting thing he has done was Terminator 2...
And why does it need to bring a whole lot of new stuff to the table to be worthwhile? For all we know, the people who actually liked it, they may want to see a replay of what they saw. I get that Bobby does not like it, nor does he think that it is not a good movie for repeat viewing. The Dark Knight Rises was pretty much The Dark Knight all over again in the style and feel of the movie.
quote:
when someone actually decides to release a “blockbuster” outside of their respective season and the movie tanks,
You generally don't release a blockbuster or a popcorn movie outside of the late spring, or the summer season. You generally need the younger crowd for these movies, and in the summer when there is no college you have a lot more time for this younger crowd to go see the movie, also you must remember that there are a lot of people who do not work as much during the summer.
Timing is critical when it comes to releasing a movie. The Summer and Holiday season are most lucrative when it comes to releasing big budgets movies.
The Silence of the Lambs was a bad example.
quote:
What defines “film look”? I’m not missing film grain, flicker, scratches, etc., but movies sure need some “cinematic feel”.
I miss film, I liked the grain, look and overall feel of 35mm. But, the facts are that the people who are paying to go to the movies simply do not care. They are happy with digital
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 07-23-2013 10:04 AM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
And why does it need to bring a whole lot of new stuff to the table to be worthwhile? For all we know, the people who actually liked it, they may want to see a replay of what they saw. I get that Bobby does not like it, nor does he think that it is not a good movie for repeat viewing. The Dark Knight Rises was pretty much The Dark Knight all over again in the style and feel of the movie.
For all we know Avatar 2 will be the new Terminator 2, featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger as the underwater-blue-kitty-elf...
Most people I know (and they’re not all movie buffs) only went to see it, because of the hype surrounding it. For some it was even their first 3D movie. None of them ever bought the DVD or Blu-Ray (at least they didn't admit it ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ). The limited reruns in some cinemas around here were lackluster as best.
I only went to see The Dark Knight Rises, because of the IMAX footage, I didn’t have any expectations for the story. Christopher Nolan usually is capable of delivering something decent, but all signs pointed to the contrary on this one. Although the movie was praised all around, me and those people I know that went to see it, all found the story less than compelling, especially compared to the first movie. Also, that movie didn’t do all that well around here: Even the biggest theater around here didn’t sell out on opening night.
Most theaters here had a real good holiday season, but looking at the situation right now, I see quite the opposite. While some of the following movies might show acceptable International figures, Pacific Rim, After Earth (7 people in a room that fits 450 on opening night), Oblivion and even Iron Man 3 all did far below expectations. Man of Steel? The Digital IMAX theater I’ve seen it in was only 30% full on premiere night... World War Z? I didn’t see it on opening night but on Sunday night during opening weekend in a theater that fits about 650, it was almost empty, I was alone on the balcony... The Lone Ranger still needs to open, but after the failure overseas, it seems Disney has taken their losses, advertising campaigns seem to be on hold.
On the other hand, a week ago (on Tuesday, not in the weekend or opening day) I went to see “This is the End”. Not really a summer blockbuster by design, but the room was packed beyond belief. The other day, it was running in the second biggest house at the same location...
The writing is on the wall, people are starting to get fed up with this barrage of blockbusters.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
You generally don't release a blockbuster or a popcorn movie outside of the late spring, or the summer season. You generally need the younger crowd for these movies, and in the summer when there is no college you have a lot more time for this younger crowd to go see the movie, also you must remember that there are a lot of people who do not work as much during the summer.
And there are people here that prove this exact train of thought as being a generic pile off bullshit. As pointed out before, you’ve all those movies competing for exactly the same moviegoers with their still limited budgets. Maybe there is more room in July than in March or October for blockbusters, but that doesn’t mean that you need to fire all your bullets in June or July.
And, it is not like going to a movie requires you to take a few days off...
In addition to that, the International market, which is as important as the domestic market for Hollywood, tends to operate differently. Releasing big-budget movies at the end of June, July or the beginning of August might not even be smart idea around here. Reasons?
1) A lot of people are actually on vacation. They usually won’t go to a movie theater somewhere abroad. Even if they tried, it is probably dubbed in the wrong language...
2) For many people those are the only months with good or decent weather on average, people tend NOT to go to the movies if the weather is good.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Timing is critical when it comes to releasing a movie. The Summer and Holiday season are most lucrative when it comes to releasing big budgets movies.
Yes, because it was written in stone somewhere, probably in or around Burbank?
The most important part on the timing is, in my humble opinion, not to concurrently release a movie that competes too much with other releases…
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I miss film, I liked the grain, look and overall feel of 35mm. But, the facts are that the people who are paying to go to the movies simply do not care. They are happy with digital
Yeah, I like film too, but it is rather a nostalgic thing when it comes to 35mm.
But I primarily miss it, because the 2K resolution sucks. Once we’ve gone all 4K+, brought back scope as the dominant format and fixed a few remaining issues like color depth and the “blackness of black”, I’m happy to carry 35mm to the grave for generic releases, but it looks like the death of 35mm came early.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-23-2013 12:10 PM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
You generally don't release a blockbuster or a popcorn movie outside of the late spring, or the summer season. You generally need the younger crowd for these movies, and in the summer when there is no college you have a lot more time for this younger crowd to go see the movie, also you must remember that there are a lot of people who do not work as much during the summer.
Naah. People are busy year-round. Just talk to any high school kid. They have summer jobs, they're traveling on vacation with family, they're going to sports camps, they're doing summer activities like swimming, hiking, biking, or whatever. The only people who have "more time" during the summer are slackers. We have 9 high-school employees at the theater and it's harder for us to find workers in the summer than when school is on.
The reason summer has become THE place for blockbusters is the short video window. If a movie was going to be around for a while, you could release it anytime of the year -- and people who wanted to see it would eventually see it. This was better for the theaters too because we would get better crowds later in the run when the film rent is lower.
Now, since a movie is going to be on video in 3 months, the studios (and theaters, quite frankly) focus all their marketing on the opening week. The studios set the rental price the same throughout the run. The media, having moved on to the next big thing, declare the movie dead as soon as it's not Number One. The studio buys into this and stops promoting their movie. No wonder nothing has legs.
If a movie is good, and has time to get noticed, it can do well anytime. Even a blockbuster. Do you seriously think The Dark Knight or Iron Man would have flopped if they'd been released outside of the summer?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic