This is topic Are there too many "tentpoles?" in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002698
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-19-2013, 07:00 PM:
This is supposedly from
The Hollywood Reporter but I couldn't find the actual story on their website. It came in my email from NATO.
Anyway, just read the very last paragraph for a slight glimpse into how much the average studio suit does NOT know about the movie theater business.
Here's the take-away, studio suits: THERE ARE 12 MONTHS in the year. Use them all for Pete's sake.
Too Many Tentpoles: Hollywood's Homegrown Summer Movie Crisis
"Pacific Rim," "The Lone Ranger" and "White House Down" flops are leading studios to re-evaluate their plans as an overcrowded summer schedule leads to millions in losses; one analyst tells THR, "It's not worth the pain."
At CineEurope, June's convention of European theater owners in Barcelona, Spain, a top studio executive asked a colleague to snap a photo of him with a costumed Despicable Me 2 minion in the lobby. The executive doesn't work at Universal, and he's not the only one envious of that studio's global blockbuster, one of the season's few successes as Hollywood endures the most crowded summer in history for tentpoles. The pileup has resulted in an unprecedented string of expensive bombs
that collectively will lose hundreds of millions of dollars.
It's a crisis of Hollywood's own making: Studios are releasing double the number of pricey movies they usually do during the summer, pushing the boundaries of how much the marketplace can expand. Amid the carnage, insiders question why studios are greenlighting so many films that cost more than $150 million to produce when so few have risen above the clutter.
"There was abnormally bad scheduling this summer by everybody. I don't think you will see this again for a while -- it's not worth the pain," says Wall Street analyst Doug Creutz of Cowen and Co. "While studios will still be willing to spend on a good concept, I think they might be a little more circumspect about when they are going to launch that movie."
Guillermo del Toro's Pacific Rim, the latest disappointment, is the third straight high-profile miss after Gore Verbinski's The Lone Ranger and Roland Emmerich's White House Down. The three megabudget films opened during a two-week period, leaving no wiggle room. Worse, they debuted in the wake of Warner Bros.' Man of Steel and Paramount's World War Z, both of which caught on at the global box office and appeal to the same audience. Those films have grossed $619.1 million and $423 million worldwide, respectively.
"The biggest issue is dating," says one studio head. "You had too many $100 million-plus movies, not to mention $200 million-plus movies, jammed on top of each other. There isn't enough play time, and the result has been more movies that wipe out."
Pacific Rim, which cost as much as $200 million to produce -- plus a global marketing spend in the $175 million range -- could lose $50 million to $100 million for Legendary and Warners, according to rival studio insiders. The pic opened to a soft $37.3 million domestically and $53.1 million from its first 38 foreign markets. While poised to do big business in Asia, Russia and Latin America, its chances are dicey in Europe and Australia. Legendary, which produced the fanboy-friendly film and footed most of the bill, will take the biggest hit.
Lone Ranger, with a production budget of $250 million, is falling off even faster than expected, grossing $71.5 million domestically and $48 million internationally to date for a total of $119.5 million. At those numbers, some Wall Street analysts say Disney could face a write-down of nearly $200 million. Analysts also say, though, that the studio is well insulated by profits from Iron Man 3, the summer's top earner with $1.21 billion in worldwide grosses, and Monsters University, which
has earned $474.2 million worldwide.
Sony has had two high-profile flops and likely will lose tens of millions from White House Down and Will Smith's sci-fi epic After Earth. White House Down, which cost $150 million to produce, has earned a paltry $82.7 million worldwide, and After Earth, which cost $130 million to make, has nearly finished its run with a tepid worldwide gross of $214.8 million (though it is off to a good start in China).
And the carnage might not be over. Universal's R.I.P.D., starring Jeff Bridges and Ryan Reynolds as otherworldly cops, could fall flat based on prerelease tracking. The movie cost about $130 million to produce.
Ironically, summer box-office revenue in North America is running 13.8 percent ahead of 2012, nearly closing the gap in year-over-year revenue. Several more modestly budgeted movies are helping to fuel the surge, including Summit's magician heist pic Now You See Me and Fox's female comedy The Heat, which have earned $185.8 million and $128.4 million worldwide, respectively. Sony's offbeat comedy This Is the End
also has succeeded in serving as counterprogramming to tentpoles, taking in $91.6 million domestically.
May was far less crowded in terms of tentpoles, and it showed. Even in Iron Man 3's wake, Warners' The Great Gatsby and Paramount's Star Trek Into Darkness did good business, grossing $326.9 million and $446.9 million worldwide, respectively.
The deluge began Memorial Day weekend when Universal's Fast & Furious 6 and The Hangover Part III opened opposite each other. Rivals were surprised at the double billing, considering both films needed males to succeed. Fast 6 was the big winner, taking in $704.2 million worldwide. Hangover III, from Warners and Legendary, earned $347 million, far less than the previous films in the trilogy.
"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."
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-19-2013, 08:06 PM:
One of the problems with Hollywood is they are too prone to letting the pendulum swing all the way the other direction when something goes wrong.
In 2012, the market was starved for kids pictures most of the summer. We really only had three from the start of May until the end of July. The answer this year is to stack them up. Starting with Monsters University, we have a new one every 2 weeks. This is great for the consumers who like choice, but bad for each individual picture because it forces us to move things off screen sooner than necessary. There should have been at least 3-4 weeks between Monsters and Despicable.
Furthermore, there are just too many movies coming out in many of the weeks from hear to the end of summer. Four new titles the week of July 17-19, four on August 7/9, four on August 16, 3 on August 21/23, four for August 28/30. This may be ok for the megaplexes, but it means any theatre with less than 8-10 screens is either passing on pictures, or moving them off screen too soon. Of course this log jam comes right on the heals of one of the most barren January-April periods in the last 10+ years.
From my years of experience, there are some valid arguments for not releasing certain movies certain times of the year. Kids and family movies are not usually going to do very well in August and September as families refocus on back-to-school. And teens tend to be distracted by high school football. And the first couple weeks of December can be rough as people focus on their Christmas shopping. But it's always a matter of releasing the product to the demographic that is going to the movies that time of the year.
Maybe studios are just too afraid of the conventional wisdom to risk at big budget production at a traditionally slow period. But every time something like The Hunger Games is a hit outside the traditional periods, the studios seem to dismiss it as an anomaly, rather than a lesson that every time of the year is viable for the right movies.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-19-2013, 09:45 PM:
Looks like a lot of desparate company survival kicking in knowing that the other nine months of the year they're in the red with filler movies that have to be released.
Course, this is just the first half of the story being the second half with video sales (hopefully) filling in the gaps that weren't filled in on the initial releases.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-19-2013, 10:39 PM:
There have always been summer flops, it is not a new concept. However, the gamble now is greater because the reward is so much bigger.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-19-2013, 11:28 PM:
I propose an analogy...
I am a traditional photographer. I don't use digital. Film only.
When I go out shooting, I choose my subjects carefully. I think about my shots. I decide what I want the picture to be and I shoot accordingly to produce the image I want.
Too many times, I go out and see people shooting digicams like machine guns. They snap away 100 pictures and only end up keeping one.
I may incur greater expense with film although it's not so much if I buy in bulk instead of pre-loaded film. However, my greatest expense is time. I have to develop and print my images. That takes time. I'm not going to waste time machine gunning 100 pictures only to keep one or two.
I take more time to make good pictures because I shoot film.
Now that Hollywood has gone digital, I think that "they" might be falling prey to the "machine gunner" instinct. Because they feel like they don't have to deal with all that film, they feel free to shoot any movie, to do it quick and not care about the final quality of the movies they produce.
I also agree with Monte. They are hoping to make up their losses in the home video aftermarket. Again, I think this could be caused by making movies digitally. They can afford to "throw away" a lot more movies by letting them lose money at the box office if they might make money on the home video market.
Digital movies might be killing Hollywood, not by the technology itself, but by the attitudes toward movie making caused by (improper) use of technology.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-20-2013, 11:19 AM:
quote: Randy Stankey
Now that Hollywood has gone digital, I think that "they" might be falling prey to the "machine gunner" instinct. Because they feel like they don't have to deal with all that film, they feel free to shoot any movie, to do it quick and not care about the final quality of the movies they produce.
Do you really think that when you're spending $100M+ on a movie, the cost of film v.s. digital is really anything near relevant in the decision making process?
Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 07-20-2013, 12:22 PM:
Perhaps if Hollywood would concentrate on telling good stories rather than trying to feed the appetites of specific groups they've created more people would come to the theatres and both the studios and the theatres would benefit.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-20-2013, 12:25 PM:
I don't know Randy...when I shoot film, I have a motor drive on the camera so I can click em off too! A lot of my pictures never make it to print and stay as negatives. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
In truth, I only did that while shooting sports or other fast action stuff and didn't want to miss "the" shot. Naturally, I bulk loaded my film too.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-20-2013, 12:37 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
I take more time to make good pictures because I shoot film.
Seriously? What a bad analogy. The format you use has nothing to do with whether your photographs or photography is good or not, good photography has everything to do with skill level, risk and then luck as being in the right place at the right time. Last and least important is the format or camera you use.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Do you really think that when you're spending $100M+ on a movie, the cost of film v.s. digital is really anything near relevant in the decision making process?
It sure does.
Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 07-20-2013, 12:51 PM:
I get the analogy and agree. It's not the actual cost of the media, but the attitude with which it's used. Making a calculated investment to a few places, few shots, versus the producing product at the cost of deliberated result.
I don't have the words to put it to, rightly, of course. Darnit. And my kid is screaming right there for me to "listen to her!!" while I'm trying so that's doesn't help either... geesh.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-20-2013, 01:16 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
It sure does.
I'm sure as hell that the rise in numbers of "tent-pole" movies produced has NOTHING to do with the digital shooting process making movies cheaper, because it doesn't...
Even if you correct for inflation, Hollywood movies (and especially the big tent-pole productions) haven't become cheaper since the widespread adoption of digital shooting processes.
Also, the analogy with digital leisure/hobby photography is totally wrong. When I take my DSLR with me, I also tend to shoot a lot more pictures than I did before with film. I don't see this as a disadvantage, because some of the lucky shots turn out to be not bad at all. Also, you can now easier (or rather cheaper) take multiple shots of the same thing and you practically never have to reload.
But this situation is ENTIRELY different from making a movie... Why? Because those things require a crew, actors, a script, sets, etc. etc. Those things don't magically appear out of the blue and are far more expensive for practically any Hollywood production than the film or digital storage media will ever be.
The situation is different if you're making an indie production with a minimum amount of budget, but we're talking about Hollywood here.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 07-20-2013, 01:41 PM:
What about the difference between, "We're here so lets ad-lib this scene 27 different ways and pick the best one", versus actually taking the time to compose a scene, plan the camerawork and polish and rehearse all of the dialogue and action beforehand?
In most cases I suggest that the second approach would result in a better movie.
Perhaps this is how many of the filmmakers do it anyway, but some of the stuff in certain movies these days seems pretty slapdash.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-20-2013, 05:01 PM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
From my years of experience, there are some valid arguments for not releasing certain movies certain times of the year. Kids and family movies are not usually going to do very well in August and September as families refocus on back-to-school. And teens tend to be distracted by high school football. And the first couple weeks of December can be rough as people focus on their Christmas shopping. But it's always a matter of releasing the product to the demographic that is going to the movies that time of the year.
There are lots of good times of year besides just June and July for kids' movies. The Ice Age series first came out in March (around Eastertime) and of course was massive. I don't really understand why studios figure kids only go to movies when school is out...we've had plenty of instances over the years when we didn't play a kids movie on the break but instead played it after school had resumed, and still kicked butt.
The problem is the studio mentality (fueled by the short video window) that movies are no good after two or three weeks. Time was when a movie had a chance to build an actual audience.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-20-2013, 06:04 PM:
quote: Frank Cox
What about the difference between, "We're here so lets ad-lib this scene 27 different ways and pick the best one", versus actually taking the time to compose a scene, plan the camerawork and polish and rehearse all of the dialogue and action beforehand?
This is were Digital has an "advantage", because you can now retake almost as much as you want, without running out of film. Although there are other things involved too: With digital you can have almost instant playback of the material you acquired, so if it is good, there is no reason to do five different retakes.
But anyway, this doesn't really impact the studios decision how much movies get made.
The real reason is probably much simpler and has already been given: It's a gamble, the potential is gigantic and up until now, the odds seemed to be rather good. All that potential money is quite capable to bend the perception of reality a bit for the people involved in the decision making process.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-20-2013, 10:13 PM:
Elise gets the point.
With digital, images become transitory. With film they are more real. Because film imagery is more real, filmmakers will take the time to tell a story. Because digital movies are transitory, movie makers do not feel the need to invest time in storytelling.
Robert says that Hollywood needs to invest in storytelling. I believe that is true. I believe the switch to digital movies has caused people to shift away from storytelling.
It's not because film is more expensive. Digital movies are just as expensive to make, if not more expensive. It's because of a change in attitude.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-20-2013, 10:20 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
This is were Digital has an "advantage", because you can now retake almost as much as you want, without running out of film. Although there are other things involved too: With digital you can have almost instant playback of the material you acquired, so if it is good, there is no reason to do five different retakes.
But anyway, this doesn't really impact the studios decision how much movies get made.
Well, I beg to differ. While film vs digital has no affect on whether a tentpole gets made or whether more tentpole movies get made, it certainly will have a affect on the studios or the person who is financing the movies decision when it comes to budgeting.
There is a substantial cost of film, dailies, converting the film to DI etc when shooting on film.
Marcel, do you happen to know how much it will cost for an average movie to be filmed in 35mm?
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-21-2013, 03:31 AM:
No matter if film or digital is presented, for the public really doesn't notice the difference.
We got a big signage on the building with the words: "All Digital Cinema".
Nobody notices it.
Sadly, these 'tentpole' films are geared for the young people since they're the ones with the money to burn and "Hollyrock" doesn't really care on stories, just the explosions and CGI "eye candy" - being related to the video games these kids play.
And we all know that digital makes the "eye candy" comes to life quite easily since all of it is created on the computer.
But, in a nutshell... : quote: Robert E. Allen
Perhaps if Hollywood would concentrate on telling good stories rather than trying to feed the appetites of specific groups they've created more people would come to the theatres and both the studios and the theatres would benefit
This says it all.
Posted by Jock Blakley (Member # 6552) on 07-21-2013, 03:57 AM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
There is a substantial cost of film, dailies, converting the film to DI etc when shooting on film.
While that is indisputably true, there can be just as big a cost to shooting digital. All of that data has to go somewhere, especially as >4K acquisition becomes more common, and somebody has to manage all of that data. Not even an hour of shooting compressed REDCODE RAW can fill a 128 GB SSD, and so unless you want to keep three dozen of them handy, somebody has to be on set ingesting the data and making sure its ending up in the right place without being corrupted on the way.
With film, even though the DI process will also create a lot of bits and bytes that need to have homes found, that's happening further down the road in the post-production environment where its easier to do (plus, depending on the on-line process being used, only the actual good takes might end up being scanned at full resolution and colour depth).
And given the cost of archiving on digital, it can swiftly become a false economy (I recall an SMPTE study from a few years back that found archiving a finished picture digitally cost around ten times as much as making preservation masters and sticking them in a vault).
I'm by no means saying that shooting film isn't an expensive process, but it is a relatively fixed cost in that per minute of shooting it doesn't really cost much more or less in a hundred-million-dollar budget picture than it does in a ten-thousand-dollar budget picture.
I can see an argument though the perceived cheapness of digital acquisition has changed has changed how film-makers view the craft and how they act on set - after all, knowing that every minute that film is rolling through the camera is costing more than $100 does tend to make one very conscious of a) how much shooting one is doing and b) how ready they are to commit to shooting in the first place.
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 07-21-2013, 06:26 AM:
quote: Jock Blakley
(I recall an SMPTE study from a few years back that found archiving a finished picture digitally cost around ten times as much as making preservation masters and sticking them in a vault).
It wasn't an SMPTE study, it was a study commissioned by the Motion Picture Academy, and it was a case of making the numbers do what you want them to do. Basically, the author of the study based the cost of storing digital on the absolute most expensive scenarios he could dream up. For instance, he priced the cost of keeping every single take of a film shot, every single frame photographed, storing it onto an expensive hard drive, and THEN added in the projected cost of transferring all of it onto a successor format whenever it materialized (arguing that such a thing would have to occur every five years or so, for every piece of digital material in the vault), and THEN, after that, tried to break down these projected future costs as current charges. In other words, the study tried to say that if it would cost $250,000 to migrate and store a digital film over 50 years, then it amounts to $50,000 a year of storage costs. It was with such accounting practices that Enron nearly sank California. As I pointed out at the time, no-one in their right minds would actually do such a thing, there are much less expensive digital storage formats than hard drives. Most studio digital archiving is to LTO drives, 3TB for about $30.00. He also said in the study that "digital material has already been lost!", but when pressed, he couldn't actually name any of it.
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 07-21-2013, 10:10 AM:
Of course, that line should be "it amounts to $5,000 a year in storage costs".
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-21-2013, 12:10 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Time was when a movie had a chance to build an actual audience.
I think you are making the mistake of thinking all movies need to build an audience for a good run. There is nothing wrong with a successful three week run of a movie. Man of Steel had a decent 3-4 week run that was heavily front loaded, nothing wrong with that, to me that is a successful picture.
Movies or tentpole movie for the summer generally have a built in audience and will be front loaded. There is nothing wrong with this.
However, a very good movie will generally build an audience over time and spread world of mouth. This is not always the case but it does still happen.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-21-2013, 12:36 PM:
I'm amazed that there is even a discussion going on here about the "COST" of film versus digital in a HOLLYWOOD picture. The cost of the film in the camera is near the bottom of the list of things that cost money on a live set. All of those people on the set, from the actors to the crew are where the money is on a live set/location. It isn't the medium. Adding takes, digital or film, FAR out paces the cost of the film. The longer it takes a feature to complete, the more expensive it is, irrespective of medium.
Now on a low-budget non-hollywood movie where people wear many hats and are not paid scale...and so forth...digital provides a means to make movies where film would be too prohibitive due to costs and the time it takes to go from shooting to knowing that you have the shot. The reason you have a Director of Photography and why they are paid well in a Hollywood movie is because they KNOW what the shot is going to look like...it isn't a surprise in dailies. Now out-of-focus shots or other human mishaps can be caught then.
I think you'll find a lot of directors like being able to have instant dailies and you can't get that with film.
As for archiving...there is no digital archive means at this time that compares to film. And those that are archiving Hollywood motion pictures, are doing so on film.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-21-2013, 08:01 PM:
I agree 100% with Steve on this one...
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Marcel, do you happen to know how much it will cost for an average movie to be filmed in 35mm?
No, because the costs will be different for each and every movie... Last time I've checked, 35mm film was about USD 500 per 10 minutes*. Obviously, this tells you NOTHING about the actual cost of shooting on 35mm. But as you can see, even if you're Stanley Kubrick's nephew the cost of raw film will always just be a bottom line to the whole story.
But this thing has been taken from a discussion about the increase in tent-pole productions this year to a general discussion about how crappy many movies are nowadays and how the digital shooting process is being part of it.
Let's be clear here: I'm not claiming in any way that the whole digital shooting process didn't impact movie making process as a whole, because it obviously did. But I'm not convinced that it had any impact on story or movie quality in general. It might have had a negative impact on image quality in certain cases...
Now let's go back about 15 years or so, just before George Lucas made shooting with video cameras "acceptable". Was the quality of the movies being released really so much better back then?
Furthermore, I also happen to agree with Mike in his first post:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Here's the take-away, studio suits: THERE ARE 12 MONTHS in the year. Use them all for Pete's sake.
I'm pretty sure that simple advice could save some of those suits from explaining to their shareholders where those few hundred million bucks went.
* Disclaimer: Kodak amongst others have stopped or are in the process of stopping mass production of 35mm film, so prices might actually skyrocket in the foreseeable future.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-21-2013, 09:04 PM:
The number of tent-pole releases this year is just a continued evolution which is seeing far more releases every year. When I first started in the industry in 1996, it was normal to see only one, or maybe two, new movies in a given week. But now it's not uncommon to see three to four in any given week.
I think there are a number of factors contributing to this - primarily being the shortening of the home video window and the ever increasing emphasis on seeing it opening weekend. This results in front loading and prevents a movie from having legs. This is exacerbated by a crowded release schedule which forces us to turn over screens sooner than would otherwise be necessary. And shorter legs can be linked back to the the shorter home video window, which minimizes the drive to see movies in theatres.
With productions costs continuing to increase, I don't think the cost of making a movie is much of a factor in the equation. And the overall lack of quality of many movies would appear to be tied to Hollywood's perception that there is greater demand. They are green lighting too many movies which would have never been made 15-20 years ago.
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-21-2013, 09:06 PM:
I got this list from Reddit, so I don't know how accurate it is, but this is supposedly what's coming out in 2015
2015: Man of Steel 2, Avengers 2, Star Wars 7, Avatar 2, Pirates 5, Terminator 5, Die Hard 6, Jurassic Park 4, Independence Day 2, Finding Nemo 2, Mission: Impossible 5, Hunger Games 4, Ant-Man, Fantastic Four, Tintin 2, Bond 24, Bourne 5, Snow White 2, Tron 2...
If these are all released around summer time, I suspect this'll be the year of Spielberg's "implosion" prediction.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-21-2013, 10:04 PM:
quote: Mike Heenan
I got this list from Reddit, so I don't know how accurate it is, but this is supposedly what's coming out in 2015
2015: Man of Steel 2, Avengers 2, Star Wars 7, Avatar 2, Pirates 5, Terminator 5, Die Hard 6, Jurassic Park 4, Independence Day 2, Finding Nemo 2, Mission: Impossible 5, Hunger Games 4, Ant-Man, Fantastic Four, Tintin 2, Bond 24, Bourne 5, Snow White 2, Tron 2...
If these are all released around summer time, I suspect this'll be the year of Spielberg's "implosion" prediction.
Looks like a record breaking year to me.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-22-2013, 02:33 AM:
Record breaking in what way? Boredom and lack of originality?
If this trend of sequels upon sequels upon reboots continues, I can only hope Steven Spielberg's predicted implosion comes early...
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-22-2013, 03:03 AM:
Too many tentpoles? Is there such a thing as too many?
Innuendo aside, I agree with Mike H. -- This may indeed be what Steven Spielberg was referring to when he predicted that Hollywood is headed toward implosion :
"There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm."
quote: Monte L Fullmer
"Hollyrock" doesn't really care on stories
Hollyrock? Really?
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-22-2013, 04:24 AM:
You might remember that other discussion that you started yourself.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 07-22-2013, 12:02 PM:
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/07/hollywood_and_blake_snyder_s_screenwriting_book_save_the_cat.sin gle.html quote:
Save the Movie!
The 2005 screenwriting book that’s taken over Hollywood—and made every movie feel the same
If you’ve gone to the movies recently, you may have felt a strangely familiar feeling: You’ve seen this movie before. Not this exact movie, but some of these exact story beats: the hero dressed down by his mentor in the first 15 minutes (Star Trek Into Darkness, Battleship); the villain who gets caught on purpose (The Dark Knight, The Avengers, Skyfall, Star Trek Into Darkness); the moment of hopelessness and disarray a half-hour before the movie ends (Olympus Has Fallen, Oblivion, 21 Jump Street, Fast & Furious 6).
It’s not déjà vu. Summer movies are often described as formulaic. But what few people know is that there is actually a formula—one that lays out, on a page-by-page basis, exactly what should happen when in a screenplay. It’s as if a mad scientist has discovered a secret process for making a perfect, or at least perfectly conventional, summer blockbuster.
The formula didn’t come from a mad scientist. Instead it came from a screenplay guidebook, Save the Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You’ll Ever Need. In the book, author Blake Snyder, a successful spec screenwriter who became an influential screenplay guru, preaches a variant on the basic three-act structure that has dominated blockbuster filmmaking since the late 1970s.
When Snyder published his book in 2005, it was as if an explosion ripped through Hollywood. The book offered something previous screenplay guru tomes didn’t. Instead of a broad overview of how a screen story fits together, his book broke down the three-act structure into a detailed “beat sheet”: 15 key story “beats”—pivotal events that have to happen—and then gave each of those beats a name and a screenplay page number. Given that each page of a screenplay is expected to equal a minute of film, this makes Snyder’s guide essentially a minute-to-minute movie formula.
Snyder, who died in 2009, would almost certainly dispute this characterization. In Save the Cat!, he stresses that his beat sheet is a structure, not a formula, one based in time-tested screen-story principles. It’s a way of making a product that’s likely to work—not a fill-in-the-blanks method of screenwriting.
Maybe that’s what Snyder intended. But that’s not how it turned out. In practice, Snyder’s beat sheet has taken over Hollywood screenwriting. Movies big and small stick closely to his beats and page counts. Intentionally or not, it’s become a formula—a formula that threatens the world of original screenwriting as we know it.
---
Screenplay gurus like Syd Field and Robert McKee touted the essential virtues of three-act structure for decades. For Field and McKee, three-act structure is more of an organizing principle—a way of understanding the shape of a story. Field’s Story Paradigm, for example, has just a handful of general elements attached to broad page ranges.
Field and McKee offered the screenwriter’s equivalent of cooking tips from your grandmother—general tips and tricks to guide your process. Snyder, on the other hand, offers a detailed recipe with step-by-step instructions.
Each of the 15 beats is attached to a specific page number or set of pages. And Snyder makes it clear that each of these moments is a must-have in a well-structured screenplay. The page counts don’t need to be followed strictly, Snyder says, but it’s important to get the proportions fairly close. You can see the complete beat sheet, with page numbers and a summary of each beat, in a sidebar here.
Let’s take a journey through this year’s blockbusters and blockbuster wannabes and see the big trailer-ready ways in which Snyder’s beat sheet pops up over and over again. Look at January’s Gangster Squad. After an opening image that sets up the conflict between Josh Brolin’s hard-charging cop, Sgt. John O’Mara, and the criminal forces of mob boss Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn), O’Mara is called in to see his gruff police superior. “We got rules around here, smartass,” the chief growls. “Do yourself a favor. Learn ’em.” That’s Snyder’s second beat, theme stated. And it’s right at the seven-minute mark, almost exactly when it’s supposed to happen in a 110-minute movie. The rest of the Snyder playbook is there, too: a story-starting catalyst midway through the first act, a shootout at the midpoint that ups the ante, an all-is-lost moment—including a death—between the 75- and 80-minute mark, and a concluding final act in which the baddies are dispatched in ranking order, just as Snyder instructs.
Or look at March’s Jack the Giant Slayer. There’s an opening image that sets up each of the young protagonists’ problems and states the theme at the five-minute mark, a catalyst at the 12-minute mark, an act break between the 25- and 30-minute mark when Jack climbs the beanstalk, and a false victory 90 minutes in, when it looks as if the evil giants have been definitively defeated.
Oz the Great and Powerful is a fun riff on director Sam Raimi’s quirky early horror films. But check your watch a quarter of the way through and you’ll find a tornado that whisks Oz, and the movie, into its first act. Once Oz has landed, he meets Theodora, the love interest—and the B-plot. Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby adaptation was reorganized to fit the formula, with a party-filled fun and games second quarter that leads to the decline of the third, in which tragedy looms as the bad guys close in.
Field and McKee were obsessed with the theoretical underpinnings of storytelling. But Snyder’s book is far more straightforward. And that’s why it’s conquered the big screen so thoroughly. Indeed, if you’re on the lookout, you can find Snyder’s beats, in the order he prescribes, executed more or less as Snyder instructs, in virtually every major release in theaters today. Even the master storytellers at Pixar stick quite close to Snyder’s playbook: Watching Monsters University this summer, I loved the way it toyed with underdog sports and college movie conventions. Yet the story hits every one of Snyder’s beats, including an opening image that’s mirrored in the final scene, an act break when Mike and Sully reluctantly join forces to compete in the Scare Games, a false victory about three-quarters of the way through when (spoiler!) they “win” the final Scare Games challenge, and an all-is-lost moment followed by an emotionally charged dark night of the soul next to a moonlit lake afterward.
Yet once you know the formula, the seams begin to show. Movies all start to seem the same, and many scenes start to feel forced and arbitrary, like screenplay Mad Libs. Why does Kirk get dressed down for irresponsibility by Admiral Pike early in Star Trek Into Darkness? Because someone had to deliver the theme to the main character. Why does Gina Carano’s sidekick character defect to the villain’s team for no reason whatsoever almost exactly three-quarters of the way through Fast & Furious 6? Because it’s the all-is-lost moment, so everything needs to be in shambles for the heroes. Why does Gerard Butler’s character in Olympus Has Fallen suddenly call his wife after a climactic failed White House assault three-quarters of the way through? Because the second act always ends with a quiet moment of reflection—the dark night of the soul.
And if the villain of the past few years of movies is the adolescent male for whom it seems all big-Hollywood product is engineered, Snyder’s guidelines have helped that bad guy close the door to other potential audiences. Save the Cat! doesn’t go so far as to require that protagonists be men. But the book does tell aspiring screenwriters to stick to stories about the young, because that’s “the crowd that shows up for movies.” Following this advice to its logical conclusion means far more stories about young men—since that’s who shows up at the multiplex the most. It’s not an accident that the chapter on creating a hero is called “It’s About A Guy Who … ” not “It’s About A Person Who … ” And with a young male protagonist, women are literally relegated to the B-plot—the love interest, or “helper,” who assists the male protagonist in overcoming his personal problems. It’s not an accident that Raimi’s megabudget Oz movie featured not Dorothy but a male protagonist.
Watching poorly executed movies with Snyder’s formula in mind can become a tiresome and repetitive slog. How many times can you watch a young man struggle with his problems, gain new power, then save the world? It’s enough to make you wonder: Is overreliance on Snyder’s story formula killing movies?
If so, then all is lost. The major studios increasingly rely on a small number of megabudget blockbusters for their profits. But big budgets mean big risks. And the only way to mitigate those risks is to stick with what’s been known to work before. In other words, formula—and the more precise the formula, the better. America’s greatest art form is headed straight, as the Snyderized Star Trek sequel notes, Into Darkness.
---
It’s not that the formula can’t produce good, fun movies: Monsters University is very enjoyable. Star Wars, Die Hard, The Matrix, and The Avengers all follow something like the story path that Snyder laid out. But it does mean that Hollywood produces way too many movies about adolescent men coming to grips with who they are (think John Carter, Battleship, The Bourne Legacy, Tron: Legacy, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, virtually every superhero movie, and the entirety of the J.J. Abrams canon).
It also means that there’s far less wiggle room for even minor experimentation. Think of a classic popcorn flick like Jurassic Park. It’s a pretty classic three-act story, and it includes virtually all of the elements found in Snyder’s beat sheet. But they are out of order and out of proportion. Now compare that to a modern megablockbuster like The Amazing Spider-Man, which follows the Snyder structure beat by beat. There’s a reason that even Steven Spielberg is complaining that Hollywood is too reliant on formulaic blockbusters.
We can appeal to screenwriters to buck the trend. But why would they? The formula is incredibly useful. Indeed, I relied on Snyder’s beat sheet to write this piece, using every beat, in the order he lists. (Try reading this piece from the beginning and see if you can spot all the beats. Or click here to see a version of the essay in which they are all labeled.)
I could see the advantages of the beat sheet. It helped me order my thoughts and figure out what I should say next. But I also found myself writing to fit the needs of the formula rather than the good of the essay—some sections were cut short, others deleted entirely, and other bits included mostly to hit the beat sheet’s marks. It made writing easier, in other words, but it also made me less creative.
That’s why you’ve got that strangely familiar feeling at the movies. Hollywood needs to learn a screenplay style life-lesson of its own: Sure, sometimes you can let the formula guide you. But that shouldn’t be the only thing you know how to do.
quote:
The Save the Cat! Beat Sheet
Opening image (p. 1): Sets the tone for the story and suggests the protagonist’s primary problem.
Theme is stated (p. 5): A question or statement, usually made to the protagonist, indicating the story’s main thematic idea.
Set-up (p. 1-10): An introduction to the main characters and setting—the background.
Catalyst (p. 12): A major event that changes the protagonist’s world and sets the story in motion.
Debate (p. 12-25): A question is raised about the choice now before the protagonist. Often this section lays out the stakes for the journey ahead.
Break into Act II (p. 25-30): The hero definitively leaves his old world or situation and enters a strange new one.
B-story (p. 30): A secondary plotline that often fleshes out side characters—frequently a mentor or a love interest—who assist the hero on his journey.
Fun and games (p. 30-55): Snyder says this section offers “the promise of the premise.” It’s an exploration of the story’s core concept that gives the story its “trailer-friendly moments.” It’s usually lighter in tone, and it typically builds to a big victory at the midpoint.
Midpoint (p. 55): The A and B stories cross. The story builds to either a false victory or (less often) false defeat. New information is revealed that raises the stakes.
Bad guys close in (p. 55-75): After the victory at the midpoint, things grow steadily worse as the villains regroup and push forward.
All is lost (p. 75): Mirroring the midpoint, it’s usually a false defeat. The hero’s life is in shambles. Often there’s a major death or at least the sense of death—a reference to dying or mortality somehow.
Dark night of the soul (p. 75-85): A moment of contemplation in which the hero considers how far he’s come and all he’s learned. It’s the moment in which the hero asks, “Why is all this happening?”
Break into Act III (p. 85) A “Eureka!” moment that gives the hero the strength to keep going—and provides the key to success in Act III.
Finale (p. 85-110) Relying on all he has learned throughout the story, the hero solves his problems, defeats the villains, and changes the world for the better.
Final image (p. 110). A mirror of the opening image that underlines the lessons learned and illustrates how the world has changed.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-22-2013, 02:10 PM:
Ironically, Snyder's book has sequels!
Save the Cat Goes to the Movies -- basically Snyder analyzes/deconstructs a movie in each chapter.
Save the Cat Strikes Back -- have not read this one
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-22-2013, 03:11 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I can only hope Steven Spielberg's predicted implosion comes early...
I doubt this will happen, Avatar 2 will push HFR into a lot of 3D venues. JP4 will be huge. Superman and Batman will be big as well. Star Wars will also be massive.
A record breaking summer at the Box Office.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-22-2013, 03:24 PM:
What could possibly go wrong?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-22-2013, 03:39 PM:
Bobby, that E.T. idea is too original. They'd never go for it.
I have no plans to see Superman/Batman -- Why would they fight each other? -- that's rhetorical, coz I don't care.
I think you're absolutely right about people becoming picky about which movies they buy (expensive) tickets for. With so many movies competing in a short time-frame, it could get ugly.
HFR - Sigh. No words.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-22-2013, 03:41 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
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.
Don't forget The Hunger Games making $408 million with a March 23 release, Fast & Furious (the 4th movie) making $155 million with an April 3 release, The Lorax making $214 million with a March 2 release. Or how about The First Wives Club which made $105 million with a September 20 release in 1996. At the time, that was supposed to have completely blown apart the conventional wisdom about movies not being able to perform outside the traditional holiday/summer periods.
One of the problems that seems to happen in the first quarter of the year (Jan-Mar) is the studios are simply trying to keep big name movies out of the way of the Oscar contenders. However, this creates a different problem where exhibitors are trying to get their hands on movies the customers want, but the studios are holding back to take advantage of buzz from the awards season.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-22-2013, 10:25 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Right now I think the odds are stacked against it catching on.
When you have a sequel to a movie that grossed $2 billion in ticket sales outside of North America, you bet your ass that Avatar 2 will put HFR into a lot of theatres.
I never said it will catch on, however, what it will do is expose a lot of ticket buyers to HFR.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-22-2013, 11:43 PM:
A "#2" sequel of a big hit is absolutely no guarantee for success.
Ghostbusters was a hit. The sequel sucked.
Robocop was great. Its sequels sucked.
Speed was great. Its cruise ship sequel sank.
Airplane! was hilarious. Its sequel was horrible.
It's easy to keep adding to that list, but I won't since I've made my point. Further, with Avatar being the non-inflation adjusted box office earnings champion the expectations will be incredibly high for what people expect James Cameron to deliver. I could be wrong, but it looked to me like the first Avatar movie mined just about all the material available for that story. What else is going to be new? I can tell you right now another humans versus giant blue kitteh beings story isn't going to work so well. We've been there and done that already. We also had the be good to the environment message beaten over our heads already too. If Cameron re-hashes that territory (and I would expect the bean counters to push him into doing so) the movie certainly won't do so well. If I'm going to get excited at all about Avatar 2 the movie had better show me something very different from the first one.
As to HFR, I kind of wonder if the people who really like it are among the group of people who can't tell the difference between film and video footage. I recognize the benefits of HFR, but it does a hell of a lot to make a movie look like a live video telecast rather than a movie. For people who like the "film look" HFR is irritating like fingernails scratching along a chalkboard.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-22-2013, 11:48 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I could be wrong
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.
quote: Bobby Henderson
For people who like the "film look"
Bobby, the "film look" is done. End of story.
quote: Bobby Henderson
show me something very different from the first one.
Part 2 apparently is going to be motion capture under water. I am excited to see this.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-23-2013, 01:31 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
For people who like the "film look" HFR is irritating like fingernails scratching along a chalkboard.
I have mixed feelings about this issue. Having only seen the 10 minute Hobbit demo at CinemaCon in 2012, I can agree HFR has a completely different look than we are used to seeing at the cinema. As a viewer, something different can take some adjusting. But different does not equal bad.
When you step back and look at it from a broader perspective, why should any filmmaker feel constrained by what audiences are used to? As long as what is being put on the screen isn't inferior to what audiences are used to seeing, I don't see why the "film look" should necessarily be the goal.
Based on that one test of HFR I saw, the main issue needing to be resolved is making sets and make-up look real, and not like sets and make-up.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 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.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 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
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 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.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-23-2013, 01:03 PM:
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.
News flash, Terry: Avatar 2 has not been released yet. Declaring it as a sure fire hit years before anyone sees it is crazy. Do you enjoy gambling?
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
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.
I'll return that ignorant assumption by saying you never met a sequel you didn't like. Are you on pins and needles, hoping and praying for the release of Ishtar 2?
No director alive is immune from a success streak coming to an end. Not even James Cameron is immune to it. Even though Avatar made a lot of money, there are quite a few people out there that hated it. Let's also remember The Abyss didn't do very well in it original theatrical release.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, the "film look" is done. End of story.
BULLSHIT. If the "film look" was done every single movie shot with a video camera would keep the video looking like video, with its soap opera, 6 o'clock news wide RGB gamma "warts and all" present for everyone to see. No one would be pulling all the color grading tricks in post production to try to make video look like film. The only "end of story" moment that's going to occur is when they finally succeed with the technology in the cameras and post production tools.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Part 2 apparently is going to be motion capture under water. I am excited to see this.
WTF? I'm talking about the story line for Avatar 2, not the cake-icing technology to render giant blue kitteh beings.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The Silence of the Lambs was a bad example.
You say that's a bad example of unconventional release timing (outside of the normal convention of cramming as many would-be hits into the May-July period). Please PROVE why The Silence of the Lambs is a bad example of this with specifics. Merely calling it a "bad example" isn't really saying anything.
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-23-2013, 02:36 PM:
Don't feed the trolls...
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-23-2013, 02:50 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Avatar 2 has not been released yet.
It'll have a huge opening for sure. How it does in week 2 will be the REAL interesting number.
I've never seen the public's enthusiasm on a movie go from "amazing" to "eh" as fast as that one did. People are already buzzing about the next Star Wars movie in 2015 -- but I've never yet heard anyone say they can't wait for "Avatar 2."
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-23-2013, 03:09 PM:
How did AVATAR do on video? Shouldn't that provide some insight regarding whether people REALLY liked what they saw?
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-23-2013, 03:46 PM:
Avatar did "pretty well" on video, at least in the US, Canada and the UK:
Avatar set a first-day launch record in the U.S. for Blu-ray sales at 1.5 million units sold, breaking the record previously held by The Dark Knight (600,000 units sold). First-day DVD and Blu-ray sales combined were over 4 million units sold. In its first four days of release, sales of Avatar on Blu-ray reached 2.7 million in the United States and Canada – overtaking The Dark Knight to become the best ever selling Blu-ray release in the region. The release later broke the Blu-ray sales record in the UK the following week. In its first three weeks of release, the film sold a total of 19.7 million DVD and Blu-ray discs combined, a new record for sales in that period. As of July 18, 2012, DVD sales (not including Blu-ray) totaled over 10.5 million units sold with $190,806,055 million in revenue.
Source: Wikipedia
And I'm sure that the opening of Avatar 2 will be huge, since there are obviously quite some fans of the "franchise". But if it will ever reach the level of the first movie has to be seen.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 07-23-2013, 04:04 PM:
I like Bobby's latest points and the attitude with which they are presented.
But, I'm starting to think this is maybe a pretty well informed troll we've seen here before under a different name.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-23-2013, 04:19 PM:
It's difficult to find a definitive, up to date list. Just from doing some quick searching Avatar isn't in the top 10 in terms of DVDs sold. Finding Nemo is the #1 best seller.
Avatar might rank higher in Blu-ray sales ranking, but I wonder if a couple odd marketing decisions might actually push it down on that list too. The movie hasn't been discounted the way most other movies on Blu-ray are discounted over time. I guess they're trying to keep Disney style pricing applied. And then there was the insanely stupid move to sell the Blu-ray 3D version of Avatar exclusively in a bundled package with Panasonic 3D capable HDTV sets for over 2 years. Now that a BD3D version of Avatar is available openly on store shelves hardly anyone gives a shit about it -much less 3DTV for that matter.
And that brings up another thing that could work against Avatar 2: movie-goer ticket price fatigue. I think there is clear evidence more and more movie-goers have gotten fed up with being dinged an extra $3-$5 for 3D, HDTV resolution fake giant format and surround sound that actually kind of works, but is more loud than it is great. I see more theaters pushing alternative 2D show times when in the past they would show more movies only in a higher priced 3D version. By the time 2015 rolls around and the release date of Avatar 2 draws near I'm certain theaters will have raised standard ticket prices another buck or two, making the surcharge prices even more expensive.
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 07-23-2013, 05:21 PM:
The problem with this entire discussion, in my not so humble opinion, is what defines a "tentpole" and what defines a "blockbuster?"
Pacific Rim is a "bomb" because it "only" opened to $37m. Yet if this had opened in January and done the exact same business, it'd be the second biggest January opening ever.
There really are only four weeks which are box office poison: the weekend before Labor Day, Labor Day weekend, the weekend after Labor Day, and the first weekend in December. The other 48 weekends have shown one can open a big movie, or two, or three, and see audiences go out to the movies. But they have to be movies they want to see. It doesn't matter how good of a movie Pacific Rim is, and it's a pretty good movie, but if the masses do not want to see a movie about giant robots fighting giant monsters, they just are not going to see it. The only reason my wife and I went to see Pacific Rim is because of three actors in the film: Ron Perlman, Charlie Day and Burn Gorman. But we're strange people, who'd see a Kaiju movie because of supporting actors rather than the director or the premise.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-23-2013, 05:30 PM:
Bobby, I am not arguing with you coz basically I agree with what you're saying...
...but have you considered..?
People are stupid.
If you had told me back in 2002 that people were going to pay what we're paying to go to the movies these days, I would've doubted.
Alas, here we are!
These days, I have no doubts that people would line up and pay $30 to see a movie during theatrical release. (This could be what Spielberg was alluding to when he talked about future release models employing a Broadway-style treatment.)
But the stupidity of people isn't limited to consumption of movies. Look at what's happened to our food situation. Look at what's going on with credit card interest. 29%APR is not uncommon.
And look at what's going on with air travel. You can't even "reserve" a ticket anymore. You have to buy it right there and then. And if you want to make changes, it's gonna cost you $150. Checking bags? That'll cost you $100 per bag.
And then there's the TSA.
People are tolerating all of this.
Slippery slopes and lots of bending over. And no end in sight.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-23-2013, 05:52 PM:
quote: Edward Havens
The problem with this entire discussion, in my not so humble opinion, is what defines a "tentpole" and what defines a "blockbuster?"
In this discussion, I think there is very little difference... A tent pole is nothing more than a production that's been planned to be a blockbuster and hence receives "adequate" upfront funding for both production and marketing.
quote: Edward Havens
Pacific Rim is a "bomb" because it "only" opened to $37m. Yet if this had opened in January and done the exact same business, it'd be the second biggest January opening ever.
Obviously it depends on the price that has been paid to make that movie. With a price tag of an estimated $180M excluding marketing costs and the steep competition of other movies in the same league, it will be hard to break even for this movie. Especially because this movie is expected to recoup most of its initial investments in the first weeks, because of the limited theatrical run-time. Hence, this movie has already been declared a bomb and it probably will be.
quote: Manny Knowles
Slippery slopes and lots of bending over. And no end in sight.
At least we've got the Internet now to complain about it, that will probably solve everything, right?
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-23-2013, 08:41 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson was the last to post
a bad example
Bobby, it is a bad example, period. What you conveniently fail to mention is that between the years 1982 and 2002, only five movies had grossed close to what Silence of the Lambs grossed when they were released in the first 12 months of the year, those five surpassed the $100 million mark. It was a fluke what Silence of the Lambs did in 1991. And Silence of the Lambs is not a fucking tentpole movie, so why did you bring it up?
Only in the last ten years have the studios a bit better, but for the most part, $200-$300 grosses are generally unheard of in the Jan-Feb months. $200-$300 are also rare in the month of March.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Obviously it depends on the price that has been paid to make that movie. With a price tag of an estimated $180M excluding marketing costs and the steep competition of other movies in the same league, it will be hard to break even for this movie
Pacific Rim has now grossed back its production budget. It should break even or at least make some profit.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-23-2013, 09:43 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Only in the last ten years have the studios a bit better, but for the most part, $200-$300 grosses are generally unheard of in the Jan-Feb months. $200-$300 are also rare in the month of March.
That's only because the studios never release anything that's actually good in those months -- or they'll release movies that are aimed at small audience segments. They heap all the family and general-audience stuff in the summer and Christmas and "cancel each other out" once the opening weekend is past.
If Iron Man 3 had come out February 1, it would have done just as well as it did in May. Maybe even better, because it would have had no competition and no "Man of Steel" breathing down its neck.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-23-2013, 09:56 PM:
I think this thread is in need of some definition of terms.
A tent-pole release is one the studio sees at holding up their slate of movies over the year. It's one of the few the studio is hoping will be major hits at the box office. Often it's a big budget picture, but not necessarily.
A blockbuster is supposed to be a movie so popular that it has people lining up around the block in hopes of getting a ticket. This has been reduced to a generic term to define any movie which brings in more than $100M(?).
The point is that a tent-pole is a movie the studio hangs it hopes on before it's released, while a blockbuster describes the performance of a movie once it's been released. While the terms often apply to the same movies, they do not mean the same thing and they are not interchangeable.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-23-2013, 10:04 PM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
I think this thread is in need of some definition of terms.
A tent-pole release is one the studio sees at holding up their slate of movies over the year. It's one of the few the studio is hoping will be major hits at the box office. Often it's a big budget picture, but not necessarily.
A blockbuster is supposed to be a movie so popular that it has people lining up around the block in hopes of getting a ticket. This has been reduced to a generic term to define any movie which brings in more than $100M(?).
The point is that a tent-pole is a movie the studio hangs it hopes on before it's released, while a blockbuster describes the performance of a movie once it's been released. While the terms often apply to the same movies, they do not mean the same thing and they are not interchangeable.
Some good points Justin.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-23-2013, 11:14 PM:
Hmm somebody needs to read the FAQ about quoting the post directly above.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-24-2013, 09:11 AM:
quote: Edward Havens
Pacific Rim is a "bomb" because it "only" opened to $37m. Yet if this had opened in January and done the exact same business, it'd be the second biggest January opening ever.
Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures spent nearly $200 million producing Pacific Rim and Lord only knows how much marketing it. A $37 million opening weekend total for that kind of production would be disappointing regardless of what time of year it was released.
quote: Manny Knowles
But the stupidity of people isn't limited to consumption of movies. Look at what's happened to our food situation. Look at what's going on with credit card interest. 29%APR is not uncommon.
Yes, Manny, I have thought about the average level of stupidity present in the general public. Credit card interest is a good example. The mere existence of many "pay day loans" stores is an even better example. They make 29%APR credit card interest seem like a bargain. Stupidity factors into so many topics far outside of our interest in movies and movie theaters.
Unfortunately, it's that same level of stupidity, the willingness to pay more and more for a product that needs serious improvement, that has movie theaters going farther in a direction I really don't like. We're going to have Caesar's Palace in the lobby and a pile of crap on the screen.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, it is a bad example, period. What you conveniently fail to mention is that between the years 1982 and 2002, only five movies had grossed close to what Silence of the Lambs grossed when they were released in the first 12 months of the year, those five surpassed the $100 million mark. It was a fluke what Silence of the Lambs did in 1991. And Silence of the Lambs is not a fucking tentpole movie, so why did you bring it up?
Mike said it best: the other studios weren't doing shit to release good content during that time period. Orion Pictures took a chance on doing something different and it paid off.
Silence of the Lambs spawned two follow-ups, Hannibal and the Red Dragon remake (Manhunter was the first version). Let's not forget there's a TV series now as well. Silence of the Lambs may not have officially started the whole "Hannibal" franchise, but it is the movie that made the franchise make money.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-24-2013, 10:03 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
We're going to have Caesar's Palace in the lobby and a pile of crap on the screen.
To quote one of my favorite lines from JOE VERSUS THE VOLCANO: "I'm not arguing that with you!"
BTW I am stealing your quote.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-24-2013, 11:24 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
We're going to have Caesar's Palace in the lobby and a pile of crap on the screen.
That was pretty much Muvico's model. They spent ridiculous amounts of money on the lobby and the facade. The auditoriums were just OK but some of their locations did tremendous business because "the theatre is awesome!"
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-24-2013, 12:05 PM:
I kind of experienced that at Santiko's new location West of Houston on Grand Parkway. The building exterior and lobby has a lot of ornate decor and columns that mimic 1000 year old Roman and Greek architecture. Customers can visit different restaurants or spend time at the bowling alley or playing video games. I loved the soft drink machines; they had touch screens that would deliver a couple dozen flavors of soda pop.
Alas, the auditorium was kind of "meh" in a appearance. The common width screen made me think of some type of tarp that had been stretched too tight. No curtains or other kinds of masking were used; it seemed to mimic an IMAX screen, but was much smaller. And then there was the kicker: we struggled to hear any dialog once the show started. I think the center channel speaker was blown. This was a brand new theater that had just opened 2 weeks prior to my visit. I suppose I could give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe that driver blew during the previous show, but considering how badly sound systems are maintained this condition might have been going on for days. I may have been the first person to complain about it.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-24-2013, 12:23 PM:
It was probably just a new-equipment glitch. Last fall, we put in all new speakers. (QSC's) They sounded amazing. We ran two or three nights of shows without a hitch.
Then my wife and I went on a previously scheduled, 4-day cruise. We had flown to Florida and were headed out to dinner with friends when I got a phone call: "We can't hear the dialogue." So I had one of our workers checking the wiring on the center speakers, figuring some wire had vibrated loose or something. We exchanged about two dozen photos, texts and phone calls. Nothing seemed wrong.
I finally had to have Mark Gulbrandsen drive back to the theater from another installation job he was doing to look at things. Turned out the problem was inside one of the amplifiers, nothing related to the new speakers at all. Mark had it fixed in short order.
I do agree with the points being made that it's too bad all the "glamour" is being put in the lobby....but I suppose they figure that the lights go out in the auditorium anyway so there's no point in glitzing it up too much. That said, they should make them nice-looking at least.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-24-2013, 12:45 PM:
...or, maybe it's because...
The lobby is where all the money gets made (for the exhibitor).
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-24-2013, 01:01 PM:
Ding ding ding!
As much as I have gone on and on about the old GCC Northpark 1-2 theater, it's pretty interesting to notice how 1970's conservative and plain the theater looked on the inside and outside. Make no mistake, it was a really nice theater, but it was very far from being ornate.
That theater had it going on where it counts: in the speakers and on the screen.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-24-2013, 01:39 PM:
It's common for theaters: Management will always spend money in front of the plaster line but workers have to scream and pound their fists on the table to get them to spend money behind the plaster line.
Movie houses are no different.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-24-2013, 02:36 PM:
quote: Manny Knowles
The lobby is where all the money gets made (for the exhibitor).
If the bean counters had any sense though, they would realize that if it wasn't for the movies on the screen there would be ZERO dollars generated in the lobby. It's in exhibition's interest to make the movie look and sound as great as possible to keep those patrons coming back. I don't understand why this is lost on so many people who should know better.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-24-2013, 03:14 PM:
I've fought this fight before. And here's one reason why I lost: The newest releases were selling out anyway. There were no more seats to sell, so spending more money on presentation wasn't going to sell more tickets.
I always want my theatre to be the best it can be -- so that when I decide to watch a movie, I'm not constantly distracted and frustrated by one imperfection after another. But I realize most people aren't so easily distracted. Most people are probably satisfied with what they're getting out there.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-24-2013, 03:46 PM:
I liken the issue of great sound & projection quality in a movie theater to great food quality in a restaurant. If the venue is really doing a great job with showmanship the theater will gain a following and be the go-to place to see a highly anticipated movie release. Such a theater will also be able to stand up well to new competition (like a new multiplex built a few miles away).
If all the movie theaters in my town are doing a crappy to marginal job, only putting forth enough effort to get by, then they're not going to deserve any kind of fan base. I'm not really going to give two shits about seeing a movie at theaters of that type if I even bother to watch it at the theater at all. I'm pretty busy these days. Going to the show is expensive. And it is extremely easy to wait a three or four months and rent the Blu-ray. I know the sound quality of my home setup is going to be at least pretty decent.
I've been skipping a lot of movie releases lately. If I happen to time it right and be near a reasonably good theater I might buy a pair of tickets for me & my girlfriend.
The only reason why I bothered to see Man of Steel is because we planned on going to Bricktown (in downtown Oklahoma City) and I was curious about the new Dolby Atmos installation in the Harkins Theater there. I didn't really care about seeing the same movie here in Lawton. I was kind of wanting to see Pacific Rim, but couldn't time it right to go back to that theater for a Dolby Atmos presentation. Now I may just wait for the Blu-ray to rent.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-24-2013, 04:09 PM:
Again, I don't personally disagree with you, Bobby...
...but I'm considering what we're up against...
You're assuming that everyone is like you (and me). They're not.
Refer back to the earlier discussion about credit cards, payday loans, etc. And, since you brought up restaurants, look at what has been allowed to happen to food in this country.
And air. And water.
My point remains: If very few Americans are paying attention to important things, what makes you so sure they're scrutinizing the theatrical presentation? Of (probably) a sucky movie, at that. A sucky movie that they think is a great movie.
Nobody seems to know, or care, that they're "being had."
So, to paraphrase an old saying: People get the cinema they deserve.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-24-2013, 04:52 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Orion Pictures took a chance on doing something different and it paid off.
Bobby, there is nothing significant about what Silence of the Lambs did in Feb 1991, Silence of the Lambs was not a tent pole movie.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-24-2013, 05:01 PM:
Dude, hell is going to freeze over before I agree with you on this point. Silence of the Lambs was great example. It's not only a great example of a movie making a lot of money without being released during that May-July "summer movie season." It also happens to be a great example of a movie that won all the top Oscars (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor & Best Actress) without being released in the traditional November-December Oscar campaign season.
I don't remember the entire release slate of Orion Pictures in 1991 if we're going to split hairs on whether SOTL officially tent-poled the studio's other releases. But that's not how "tent pole" has been used in this discussion. The terms "tent pole" and "blockbuster" have been loosely used for big event movies designed to bring in big crowds. Silence of the Lambs did exactly that and did so without needing the crutch of a warm weather summer release.
If you want to keep on arguing about this you're just going to keep making yourself look more and more like a troll -or an ignoramus. Take your pick.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-24-2013, 05:04 PM:
Bobby, there is no need to call me a troll or ignorant. Silence of the Lambs was not a tent pole movie. I don't care how well it did. It was a tent pole movie and this thread is about tent pole movies. I have a good feeling that you do not know what a tent pole movie is.
What Silence of the Lambs was is that it was a sleeper hit that had a moderate sized budget that gained word of mouth. That is totally different that a tent pole movie.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 07-24-2013, 06:32 PM:
Terry,
Being pedantic just for the sake of pedantry is making you look like a troll and a bore.
"Silence" was a big film for a small company like Orion any way you cut it. In effect, all their movies were "tent poles" as they released very few films a year and had to dodge the other bigger players play dates for their own survival.
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 07-24-2013, 08:35 PM:
{quote]Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures spent nearly $200 million producing Pacific Rim and Lord only knows how much marketing it. A $37 million opening weekend total for that kind of production would be disappointing regardless of what time of year it was released.[/quote]
That would be a great rebuttal if this were 1983 and the American theatrical window was such a vital part of a movie's overall bottom line. In 2013, our business might provide but a third of the worldwide box office gross for a movie, which itself is a small portion of the bottom line. Sure, DVD and Blu-Ray sales are continuing to fall, but there are so many more windows of opportunity today than there were even five years ago, and there'll be many more we haven't yet thought about five years from now.
So Pacific Rim cost $180-200m to make and probably another $80-100m to market worldwide. But with $167m in ticket sales worldwide in just ten days, with many important major international markets yet to open the film, and with all those new ancillary markets months and years in the future, the film cannot yet be called a hit or a bomb.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-24-2013, 09:20 PM:
Bullshit!
Bull. Shit.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-24-2013, 10:48 PM:
What a movie does in total is a very small part of the package. It's the "opening weekend" that counts, along with any records it set, such as "biggest opening of a horror movie during a full moon in July." Pacific Rim is already considered a bomb because it didn't have an $80 million opening weekend, and a bomb it will always be, no matter what happens down the road.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-24-2013, 11:40 PM:
quote: Sam D. Chavez
"Silence" was a big film for a small company like Orion any way you cut it.
Sam, Silence of the Lambs was a sleeper hit for a small company, that is what it was. With a $19 million it was certainly not a big budget movie (it had decent-large size budget for the time) and it was sure as hell not a tent pole film.
Lets also not forget that Silence of the Lamps did not have a super huge wide release that is almost always the case with a tent pole movie, it certainly had wide release, but it was not a tent pole release. Silence of the Lambs opened in 1497 theatres and then expanded to 1642. T2 and Robin Hood opened in 2200+ theatres in 1991.
Silence of the Lambs was sleeper hit that did very, very well. It also had a good solid debut, it had excellent word of mouth and second and third weekend held up well. It found and audience and had "legs" for a good run due to work of mouth.
The timing of the release, how well it did, how it swept the Oscars while being released in February, and it being an Orion Pictures was a total fluke.
quote: Edward Havens
the film cannot yet be called a hit or a bomb.
You are 100% correct.
quote:
with many important major international markets yet to open the film,
Japan and China is where Pacific Rim is going to make its real money. It still has yet to be released in these two markets.
quote:
It's the "opening weekend" that counts,
Mike, don't listen to what the media tells you. The media will try and feed off anything.
Back to original topic, the marketplace just has too many big budget movies that nobody wants to see. That's all. The Lone Ranger or R.I.P.D would not do any better if they were released in February or September, they flopped because they sucked and were not compelling. Summer is the time to release your big budget movie.
If people remember, 10 years ago, there were 29 movies that were released that grossed $100 million dollars or more, 16 of them came in the summer. That summer, the box had big/huge openings after huge openings, it was non-stop from May-Aug.
The media wants to feed off a few flops. While R.I.P.D flopped and the media was quick to talk about it, what the media did not talk about was the incredible success the conjuring had on its opening weekend. What the media also did not mention was that there was a $195 million dollars spend at box office between July 19th-21th, that is a pretty fantastic weekend at the box office if you ask me.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 07-25-2013, 01:58 AM:
As I said, pedantic.
FYI, the term "Tentpole" did not even exist in this context in 1991. Yet, here we are ascribing this term retroactively to films from back in the day.
"Silence of the Lambs" was first and foremost a breakthrough film with a compelling plot. Its success could be called any number of things, but probably not a fluke. Every now and then the Academy picks the best story and this was one of those times.
I think this topic is pretty well played out, we are now in the realm of boring statistics.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-25-2013, 07:05 AM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Silence of the Lambs was not a tent pole movie. I don't care how well it did. It was a tent pole movie and this thread is about tent pole movies. I have a good feeling that you do not know what a tent pole movie is.
For the sake of the argument Bobby is trying to make, it doesn't matter if it was a "tent pole" or just a "blockbuster" or if the term "tent pole" even existed back in 1991. So that entire discussion is just splitting hairs about a non-relevant detail.
The point being made is simple: The movie was a great success notwithstanding it was released to the general public in February of 1991.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Back to original topic, the marketplace just has too many big budget movies that nobody wants to see. That's all. The Lone Ranger or R.I.P.D would not do any better if they were released in February or September, they flopped because they sucked and were not compelling.
Practically nobody is denying that some of those big budget movies out now are stinkers.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Summer is the time to release your big budget movie.
You keep repeating this in one way or another, others try to convince you that this statement might be inaccurate. They try to give examples of the contrary, but you just ignore them or call the examples they give you a fluke.
Maybe those others, including me, are wrong, but if you're so sure about it, try to come up with some compelling evidence, at least that would lead to an interesting discussion rather than just to claim that you're right and showing everybody else the middle finger.
And regarding The Conjuring, you might agree with me that this wasn't exactly something we could call a "tent pole" production? Or was it?
quote: Sam D. Chavez
I think this topic is pretty well played out, we are now in the realm of boring statistics.
Although statistics are often quite boring, if correctly applied, they can prove a point .
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-25-2013, 08:44 AM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Practically nobody is denying that some of those big budget movies out now are stinkers.
Did you even read the original post? I think it was Mike who said use the 12 months of the year to release all these tent pole movies. The article chalks it up to scheduling, but that is not the case. The Conjuring was jammed in there between R.I.P.D and Pacific Rim, it opened huge because people just wanted to see it.
Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 07-25-2013, 08:45 AM:
My son (9 years old) and I counted 23 movies we wanted to see this summer starting with Iron Man 3. No way in hell where we going to see all of those. So we have been going to the best of the lot. Here you have a case of the rich get richer. I doubt if many people can afford to go to two movies a week to keep caught up.
The Conjuring has done well as much as it has because it is basically the only horror movie of the summer. Two things that have always been consistent in my 20+ years in the movie business is that people ask what is funny and what is scary.
I would not call Pacific Rim a bomb at all. Very good 7.8 rating on IMDB. This is a good example of releasing it at a poor time.
BTW, do not forget when calculating break-even for a movie that these bigger titles will only get the studios 60% or so of the ticket sales.
Silence of the Lambs became a tent-pole title as is it spawned more movies.
I could care less what gets released as long as people spend money with me. It could be Iron Man 10 or some thought provoking no name movie shot on film played in film. I just want people spending money with me.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-25-2013, 09:02 AM:
Good point, and I would say Hannibal was a better example of a tent pole movie being risked on a Feb release than Silence of the Lambs was as Silence of the Lambs was not a tent pole anyway. MGM bet the year of 2001 on Hannibal with its $87 million budget and ultra wide release. Just the $87 million budget would be reason enough to think the studio would try and play it safe and release Hannibal during the summer.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-25-2013, 09:22 AM:
Jeez, Terry. You still aren't getting (or are deliberately ignoring) the larger point here: the studios DO NOT have to release a big event movie in the May-July period! I have provided numerous examples to prove that (and can provide more). You choose to make excuses and ignore the point.
If you can't see that point, or refuse to acknowledge it, you are indeed either an idiot or a troll.
The studios didn't see the point either and are now losing quite a bit of money over it. It's fucking stupid for the studios to blow their wad in the May-July period. No one is going to go see all of those movies, even if all of them are great. Even a rich guy who can easily afford to do so won't do that because he won't have the free time available either.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-25-2013, 09:41 AM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The Conjuring was jammed in there between R.I.P.D and Pacific Rim, it opened huge because people just wanted to see it.
And that's the whole point of this thread. Whether The Conjuring was released in March, July, or September, this point would still hold. And there is ample evidence to show horror movies can do well any time of the year.
As you go through the list of box office hits by month (see link), there are plenty of examples of movies opening well in every month of the year. Only two months of the year don't have a record opening over $50 million (January and September), and 8 of 12 months have a record over $80 million. Plus, every month multiple openers that went on to gross well over $100 million.
Box Office Records by Month from BoxOfficeMojo.com
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-25-2013, 11:50 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
It's fucking stupid for the studios to blow their wad in the May-July period. No one is going to go see all of those movies, even if all of them are great.
That's for sure...and it's going to continue, with the studios having staked out pretty much every summer weekend from here to 2018 with various sequels and comic book movies.
If I was them I would get out my eraser right now and start moving some of those titles around. We could really use, say, an Iron Man 5 in mid-October.
The biggest problem with THAT idea is, as soon as the media sees a huge title like that in a non-summer date, they immediately begin assuming there's some "problem" with it, otherwise why would the studio dump it at that "slow time of year?"
It's just a vicious circle I guess.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-25-2013, 11:50 AM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Did you even read the original post? I think it was Mike who said use the 12 months of the year to release all these tent pole movies. The article chalks it up to scheduling, but that is not the case. The Conjuring was jammed in there between R.I.P.D and Pacific Rim, it opened huge because people just wanted to see it.
Yes. I did. Actually, I read the whole discussion and the fact that you made this remark makes me wonder if you did... But I know you did, you must have...
I guess I have to agree with Bobby and Sam, you're quite a pedantic prick. You don't have answers and refuse to comment on the questions asked, yet you continue the discussion just for the cause of it. Yes, there are people who would call those people a troll...
quote: Mike Blakesley
The biggest problem with THAT idea is, as soon as the media sees a huge title like that in a non-summer date, they immediately begin assuming there's some "problem" with it, otherwise why would the studio dump it at that "slow time of year?"
But why would a studio worry about that kind of press? Because shareholders are getting worried? I don't think that it will hurt ticket sales in any way, rather the opposite: More attention equals more free advertising. Why would somebody not want to see a particular movie if it had "production problems"?
Edit: I wasn't allowed to reply to myself, so I added a bit to my post. Schizophrenics aren't welcome here
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-25-2013, 12:02 PM:
He seems a little Tom Petrovian to me...hmmm.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 07-25-2013, 03:01 PM:
Exactly, but with better language skills.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-26-2013, 06:39 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I have provided numerous examples to prove that
You have provided one example (and it was not a good one as Silence of the Lambs was not a tent pole movie) that was a fluke. R.I.P.D or Pacific Rim would not of done any better if they were released in Jan or Feb, I guess you are too dumb to realize that. Jan-Feb are not tent pole movie release times and using Silence of the Lambs as an example was downright stupid.
A very good example of tent pole movie would be Star Trek Into Darkness, it was the 2013 tent pole for Paramount. The opening numbers were tent pole numbers and the worldwide gross were very good. I can't imagine how shit the movie would of done if it were released in mid January. Well, maybe some of the older Star Trek losers would of went to see it, but it would never of done as well as it has done without a summer release.
quote: Justin Hamaker
As you go through the list of box office hits by month (see link), there are plenty of examples of movies opening well in every month of the year. Only two months of the year don't have a record opening over $50 million (January and September), and 8 of 12 months have a record over $80 million. Plus, every month multiple openers that went on to gross well over $100 million.
In the last 10 years, yes I will agree. Movies have done better in the Jan-Feb months, but it is rare for a costly $200 million dollar production to gross back $200 million type numbers in Jan-Feb months. I don't think there has even been a movie grossing $200 million movie that was released in Jan-Feb.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 07-26-2013, 09:45 AM:
How about we withhold food and water and turn out the lights?
No doubt this is a troll.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-26-2013, 01:46 PM:
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know of a rule that says a tent pole picture needs to cost over $200 million.
The fact that no $200 million picture has been release in the "off" months, is more of a reflection of the "conventional wisdom" that big budget movies need to be released in the summer and/or holiday time frames. It becomes a self fulfilling mantra. Until a studio is willing to take a chance by putting a big budget production in an "off" period, we'll continue to see no big budget productions with big grosses in these months.
But as has been said over and over and over, there is ample evidence that a good movie will draw audiences in no matter what time of the year.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-26-2013, 02:02 PM:
quote:
R.I.P.D or Pacific Rim would not of done any better if they were released in Jan or Feb,
Well I agree with you about that but it has nothing to do with their "tentpole" status... they didn't gross so well because they were movies that nobody cared about because....wait for it.... they weren't very good.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Star Trek Into Darkness, it was the 2013 tent pole for Paramount. The opening numbers were tent pole numbers and the worldwide gross were very good. I can't imagine how shit the movie would of done if it were released in mid January.
You are obviously off your meds. That was one of the most anticipated movies of the year and it could have been released anytime at all and done just fine.
What needs to happen is, the entertainment media needs to get off its high horse and quit branding any movie that doesn't come out in "blockbuster season" as a "probable dud" just because of its release date. That would help a lot, right there.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-26-2013, 02:11 PM:
Surely I can only give hints. I know, it itches in your fingers, but stop feeding!
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 07-26-2013, 03:23 PM:
This is like the joke about wrestling a pig in the mud.
At some point you realize they are enjoying it.
All the points have been made and good ones from Michel, Mike, Justin, Bobby et al.
It's time to close the thread.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-26-2013, 06:32 PM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
But as has been said over and over and over, there is ample evidence that a good movie will draw audiences in no matter what time of the year.
I totally agree with this. There is no doubt a good movie will draw a good gross at anytime of the year. However, when you have giant $200 million movie such as Pacific Rim, you want to maximize your chances of a huge gross and the summer time has historically been the best time to release one of these pictures.
quote: Justin Hamaker
I don't know of a rule that says a tent pole picture needs to cost over $200 million
It does not, but what a tent pole has that others do not is a somewhat guaranteed audience base that will come and see the movie. And in most cases, the tent pole movie is that one movie that the studio is banking as a sure hit.
The media called Pacific Rim and R.I.P.D tentpoles, they are not really, they were released by the studios that released Man of Steel and Iron Man 3. Those were the tent poles for those studios.
Is Fast 6 a tentpole for Universal, it sure is and it grossed tentpole numbers.
Is the Lone Ranger a tentpole, not really, Lone Ranger was giant gamble that just did not work.
Was World War Z a tent pole, I would think so.
quote: Justin Hamaker
Until a studio is willing to take a chance by putting a big budget production in an "off" period, we'll continue to see no big budget productions with big grosses in these months.
I don't think we are going to see a $200 million budgeted film release in Jan of Feb. Anyone remember Cloud Atlas, it released in October with $200 million price tag and did not do anything.
Was Silence of the Lambs a tent pole? Nope, was the Hannibal, it sure was and it was released in February.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Well I agree with you about that but it has nothing to do with their "tentpole" status... they didn't gross so well because they were movies that nobody cared about because....wait for it.... they weren't very good.
Well, the original article is trying play up the release date and overcrowding as the issue and not the fact that nobody wanted to see it.
quote: Sam D. Chavez
This is like the joke about wrestling a pig in the mud.
At some point you realize they are enjoying it.
All the points have been made and good ones from Michel, Mike, Justin, Bobby et al.
It's time to close the thread.
Samuel, you are the one who is trolling. You have posted nothing important in your last few posts, in fact, I don't think you have posted anything of opinion in this thread except for attacks on me.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 07-26-2013, 07:45 PM:
It's interesting that others apart from me can call you out as an asshole and a troll, but it's my joke about wrestling a pig in the mud that finally gets you to come out to defend yourself.
My comments about "Silence" helped point out this thread is about more than the literal definition of Tent Pole, yet you keep at it.
Now you retort and call me a troll. What's next, "I know you are but what am I, then a scuffle in the schoolyard?
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-26-2013, 08:14 PM:
quote:
Until a studio is willing to take a chance by putting a big budget production in an "off" period,
I totally forgot to add this to my last post before the editing feature timed out. I would say Oz is a good example of a $200 million production being released non summer, it is not Feb but it is early March. Could it of grossed more if it were released in July or woud of gross less? Eventually something North of a $200 million will be released in Feb.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-26-2013, 08:28 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
And in most cases, the tent pole movie is that one movie that the studio is banking as a sure hit.
This is the one key point which everyone has been making.
And tent poles do not necessarily have a built in audience. Of course this would be true if they are a sequel/prequel/spin-off, or if they are based on popular source material. But that's not always the case. I'm sure the people at Fox would consider Turbo to be a tent pole, even though it didn't have a built in audience. And Pacific Rim could hardly be counted as having a built in audience - unless you are basing it on the director who does not have a track record of huge box office success.
It's pointless to keep this argument up. You're trying to argue that studios wouldn't release a $200 million production at an off time of the year. Generally, most people agree with that. But the reason for this is based on flawed "conventional wisdom" that big budget movies can only perform during peak seasons. When it comes to what's on the screen the the audience doesn't care if it cost $50 million or $200 million. They care whether it's a compelling story they find to be interesting. And on that basis alone, you can be sure that a good movie will perform well at the box office whether it's release in January or June. Furthermore, the way it performs at the box office is independent of whether the studio views it as a tent pole, or how much it cost to make and/or market.
Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 07-27-2013, 11:40 AM:
quote:
quote:
R.I.P.D or Pacific Rim would not of done any better if they were released in Jan or Feb,
Well I agree with you about that but it has nothing to do with their "tentpole" status... they didn't gross so well because they were movies that nobody cared about because....wait for it.... they weren't very good.
Mike I believe these are two titles that we can agree on would have been fine for a non-summer/non-holiday release. (Which you and I have agreed on in the past) I am going to add Turbo to that as well. Both Turbo and Pacific Rim are movies that one would consider good based on their IMDB ratings. They did what they did to the overcrowded lineup.
If you are a parent with young kids, rank the following movies your kids want to see out of Despicable Me 2, Monsters University, & Turbo. All three came out within a month of each other.
What if you have a kid that loves the Smurfs? Where would Smurfs 2 fit in that ranking? What about Planes? That is 5 pretty big kid movies releases in 7 week span.
It has been a great summer season (defined as first week of May through now) with sales of 10% greater than last year even with these high-profile duds. Why? There are plenty of other movies that people want to see. Pretty much everyone I know with 3 screens or more are very pleased with their business.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 04-29-2014, 11:56 PM:
Is there anyone on here excited about Godzilla? Its the one tentpole I actually want to see this year.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-30-2014, 01:21 AM:
The trailer looks pretty good for what it is. But all the superhero/monster/action movies look the same to me. The basic plot is: Some big thing gets loose and wrecks a bunch of stuff until it's destroyed by some ridiculously over-the-top method at the end. Seems like they all make a huge thing out of pavement getting crunched by giant footsteps, and vehicles of all kinds getting tossed through the air.
If they really want to do something different, they should put the giant rampaging beast in a location like, say, the Grand Canyon. Then they'd at least be able to do something besides smash cars and buildings.
There's not really any movies this summer that I can truly say I'm pumped to see, and that's a pretty rare thing for me.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 04-30-2014, 01:40 AM:
Agreed, aside from Godzilla there really is nothing that interests me. I am kind of interested to see what Bryan Cranston does with the role. And from what I understand, the director has been given a huge budget for Godzilla where his last movie was budgeted at something like $800k. I am glad the movie is going to be 2hrs
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 04-30-2014, 01:52 AM:
There are a number of movies I'm interested in this summer, but How to Train Your Dragon 2 is probably the only one I would say I'm excited about.
I learned a number of years ago to keep my expectations low for most movies. There have been too many times where I've been left disappointed by something I was really looking forward to.
But I have to disagree with you about Godzilla. It is probably the least interesting to me of all the summer movies.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-30-2014, 08:50 AM:
I hope I'm wrong about it, but I have a sneaking suspicion Godzilla is going to be a bad movie. The family drama style schmaltz sprinkled into the latest trailer seems really hokey, like the forced drama crap seen on all the "reality TV" shows on cable.
Just in terms of large scale movie monsters the quality bar has been raised pretty high. From what I've seen Godzilla looks like a lesser version of the Kraken from Clash of the Titans. It really pales in comparison to a monster like Smaug from the last Hobbit movie. OTOH, trailers don't show too awful much, so maybe Godzilla will seem more impressive and scary in the movie. But if it's just a CGI version of the old rubber Japanese guy in a suit get-up things aren't going to go so well.
I can't say I'm all that enthusiastic about the slate of movies for this Summer. I'm hoping the upcoming X-Men movie will be good, but there's no guarantee of that. It could be just one cheesy star turn after another in that show. Edge of Tomorrow has an interesting premise, but it's also making me think of Oblivion too much. Malificent looks promising, but it's still a live action remake of Sleeping Beauty. I don't know enough yet about How to Train Your Dragon 2 to get amped up about it or not. Same goes for the next Planet of the Apes movie. Expendables 3? I might check out that one on video. Guardians of the Galaxy looks interesting to me. I liked the first trailer. It's not technically a sequel for anything, although it is linked story-wise to the next Avengers movie.
Posted by Michael Putlack (Member # 6523) on 04-30-2014, 07:15 PM:
Edge of Tomorrow just reminds me of Groundhog's Day!
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-30-2014, 07:38 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I hope I'm wrong about it, but I have a sneaking suspicion Godzilla is going to be a bad movie.
Do you mean like the last two Godzilla remakes?
Isn't the definition of "insanity" repeating the same mistakes over and over but expecting different results?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-30-2014, 07:44 PM:
Yeah! So that means a Wile E. Coyote movie is probably somewhere in the pipeline.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-30-2014, 10:27 PM:
:lol: Yeah! But there's probably a Rule 34 in Hollywood, too.
"There's probably a bad movie about it, somewhere in the pipeline."
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 04-30-2014, 11:48 PM:
quote: Randy Stankey
Isn't the definition of "insanity" repeating the same mistakes over and over but expecting different results?
It's not the definition, but I'm sure Warners wouldn't mind at least repeating the last Godzilla remake's numbers (worldwide gross 3x the production cost).
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 05-02-2014, 02:27 AM:
I stunned that Spidey 2 is opening in 4324 locations across N.A. So with multiple screens at many locations, would 15,000 screens be a reasonable estimate?
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2