Ransom
Junior Member
@ransom
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 288
|
Post by Ransom on Oct 16, 2020 17:37:10 GMT
Except we cant, we already get on average 2.5 new movies a week as it is, how are we supposed to get more new movies without films having to be out of the theatres in a month? there are about 120-140 new movies given wide releases theatrically each year, 2/3's or so by major studios, and only 24 films released last year had a budget over $100m, and not all of those $100m were theatrically released, in contrast there was 131 wide release theatrical films last year, so that's less than 20% the bulk of the movie release calendar is made up of under $100m movies. The myth is we don't get variety, we do people just don't actually give a shit enough to watch them, and it's not through lack of trying the studios release like I said 107 movies last year with under $100m in production cost, but still 6 major releases by Disney made up almost 1/3 of the annual box office take, 6 movies made up around 30-31% of the box office, the other 125 movies plus limited release films made up the other 69%, hell the top 20 grossing films of 2019 grossed just shy of $5.8b of the $11.255b that domestic theatres took in last year, it's not about a lack variety that's just a BS excuse people use. When massive blockbuster movies open up in 4000+ screens the other movies don't GET the chance to be seen. I had to HUNT down Dark Waters last year, and because it was seen by so few people, that movie, one of the best of the year, and a movie of importance because of its subject matter, did poorly and was not even considered for awards. You might be right that the average audience member may not seek out a lot of diversity. Then again the average audience member has been "trained" by massive advertising campaigns to only consider big blockbuster movies. But those of us who are actually into movies, and want to see them in the theatre, and actually seek them out, DO want the diversity. And that's not BS. I love big blockbusters too. But the bottom line is that NO movie needs to cost 300 million dollars to make. Its outrageous when you stop to think about it that a movie should cost that much to make. And that's without advertising! Those movies need to make SO much money to make a profit that the whole process of making that money comes at the expense of smaller (and often better) films. That's not BS either. It's not about being "trained" it's their hard earned money to do with what they want if that's watching a blockbuster or an independent film then that's up to them what's best for them not for lenlenlen1 to decide or attempt to be slightly snide at them for their choices. Advertisements and studio henchmen contrary to your belief don't come knocking on people's front doors with guns and a van outside their homes ready to throw unsuspecting cinema goers inside with an hypnotic device strapped to their wallets forcing them to give indies the dodge just to annoy you.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Oct 16, 2020 19:03:48 GMT
Except we cant, we already get on average 2.5 new movies a week as it is, how are we supposed to get more new movies without films having to be out of the theatres in a month? there are about 120-140 new movies given wide releases theatrically each year, 2/3's or so by major studios, and only 24 films released last year had a budget over $100m, and not all of those $100m were theatrically released, in contrast there was 131 wide release theatrical films last year, so that's less than 20% the bulk of the movie release calendar is made up of under $100m movies. The myth is we don't get variety, we do people just don't actually give a shit enough to watch them, and it's not through lack of trying the studios release like I said 107 movies last year with under $100m in production cost, but still 6 major releases by Disney made up almost 1/3 of the annual box office take, 6 movies made up around 30-31% of the box office, the other 125 movies plus limited release films made up the other 69%, hell the top 20 grossing films of 2019 grossed just shy of $5.8b of the $11.255b that domestic theatres took in last year, it's not about a lack variety that's just a BS excuse people use. When massive blockbuster movies open up in 4000+ screens the other movies don't GET the chance to be seen. I had to HUNT down Dark Waters last year, and because it was seen by so few people, that movie, one of the best of the year, and a movie of importance because of its subject matter, did poorly and was not even considered for awards. You might be right that the average audience member may not seek out a lot of diversity. Then again the average audience member has been "trained" by massive advertising campaigns to only consider big blockbuster movies. But those of us who are actually into movies, and want to see them in the theatre, and actually seek them out, DO want the diversity. And that's not BS. I love big blockbusters too. But the bottom line is that NO movie needs to cost 300 million dollars to make. Its outrageous when you stop to think about it that a movie should cost that much to make. And that's without advertising! Those movies need to make SO much money to make a profit that the whole process of making that money comes at the expense of smaller (and often better) films. That's not BS either. Sort of but not quite also, yeah it didn't get an Endgame release but it wasn't like it didn't get a national release, it got a 2000+ release after 2 or 3 weeks, but when it did no one came out for it really, I mean it did something like $900 a theatre for the entire weekend when it was in it's second week of wide release, that is what Endgame was making in it's 16th weekend when it was in under 500 theatres. I mean other movies have had the same release treatment as Dark Waters but made huge box office still, look at Shape of Water, got a similar wide release of about 2000 theatres, but when it went wide the audience kept with it, it wasn't a case of a limited number of people wanting to see the movie and making the big effort to see it, it was a case of people wanting to see it and limited chances limited box office, which is the case with a lot of the major Oscar movies also. But those films can succeed they just need to be good enough, you call it one of the best films of last year but how many other people agree with you? it got good reviews, but is also got significantly less than all the other top films people were talking about, so those who saw it liked it but not enough to even encourage their fellow critics to see the film and it didn't get any real award buzz either. I think it also hurts that it follows that oscar bait mentality, release late in the year so it's fresh in people's minds, problem is lots of movies like that come out in that time period, so chasing oscars cannibalises the movie space also, because these films don't and haven't for a long time brought in the big bucks unless they play in LA or NY in 1 or 2 theatres. Maybe they would do better releasing year round not just in the last 6-8 weeks of the year, we now have a near year round "summer" season, blockbusters come out anytime now so then should these types of films, it's not just a blockbuster issue it's the whole business of film which includes the bullshit circle jerking of prestige films and awards contention. But I do think smaller films deserve more awareness even though they aren't my cup of tea, I say studios should take 5% of the marketing and production budgets for all movies that spend over $100m on either and then they use that the next year and split it up between all the $30m movies they release, say if they drop 5 of those movies, and cut say $80m off of the big movies, thats an extra $16m those films can have for marketing, I doubt that 5% would impact a SW films much, but that $16m could really be used to push those smaller wide releases awareness out their to people. But then if they did this for a few years and got not better results then we would need to kind of just admit these films have had their time come and gone at the theatres and just appreciate the studios putting them out at all that way, which lets be honest only reason they do a lot of times is to either appease a big director or to win some awards, when the Oscars accept pure streaming movies and they start properly winning awards regularly we will likely see a big portion of those films no longer getting any theatrical release.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Oct 19, 2020 15:55:01 GMT
When massive blockbuster movies open up in 4000+ screens the other movies don't GET the chance to be seen. I had to HUNT down Dark Waters last year, and because it was seen by so few people, that movie, one of the best of the year, and a movie of importance because of its subject matter, did poorly and was not even considered for awards. You might be right that the average audience member may not seek out a lot of diversity. Then again the average audience member has been "trained" by massive advertising campaigns to only consider big blockbuster movies. But those of us who are actually into movies, and want to see them in the theatre, and actually seek them out, DO want the diversity. And that's not BS. I love big blockbusters too. But the bottom line is that NO movie needs to cost 300 million dollars to make. Its outrageous when you stop to think about it that a movie should cost that much to make. And that's without advertising! Those movies need to make SO much money to make a profit that the whole process of making that money comes at the expense of smaller (and often better) films. That's not BS either. It's not about being "trained" it's their hard earned money to do with what they want if that's watching a blockbuster or an independent film then that's up to them what's best for them not for lenlenlen1 to decide or attempt to be slightly snide at them for their choices. Advertisements and studio henchmen contrary to your belief don't come knocking on people's front doors with guns and a van outside their homes ready to throw unsuspecting cinema goers inside with an hypnotic device strapped to their wallets forcing them to give indies the dodge just to annoy you. Dude, slow your roll. Who the hell said any of that? I certainly didn't. What's the bug up your ass?
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Oct 19, 2020 16:00:01 GMT
When massive blockbuster movies open up in 4000+ screens the other movies don't GET the chance to be seen. I had to HUNT down Dark Waters last year, and because it was seen by so few people, that movie, one of the best of the year, and a movie of importance because of its subject matter, did poorly and was not even considered for awards. You might be right that the average audience member may not seek out a lot of diversity. Then again the average audience member has been "trained" by massive advertising campaigns to only consider big blockbuster movies. But those of us who are actually into movies, and want to see them in the theatre, and actually seek them out, DO want the diversity. And that's not BS. I love big blockbusters too. But the bottom line is that NO movie needs to cost 300 million dollars to make. Its outrageous when you stop to think about it that a movie should cost that much to make. And that's without advertising! Those movies need to make SO much money to make a profit that the whole process of making that money comes at the expense of smaller (and often better) films. That's not BS either. Sort of but not quite also, yeah it didn't get an Endgame release but it wasn't like it didn't get a national release, it got a 2000+ release after 2 or 3 weeks, but when it did no one came out for it really, I mean it did something like $900 a theatre for the entire weekend when it was in it's second week of wide release, that is what Endgame was making in it's 16th weekend when it was in under 500 theatres. I mean other movies have had the same release treatment as Dark Waters but made huge box office still, look at Shape of Water, got a similar wide release of about 2000 theatres, but when it went wide the audience kept with it, it wasn't a case of a limited number of people wanting to see the movie and making the big effort to see it, it was a case of people wanting to see it and limited chances limited box office, which is the case with a lot of the major Oscar movies also. But those films can succeed they just need to be good enough, you call it one of the best films of last year but how many other people agree with you? it got good reviews, but is also got significantly less than all the other top films people were talking about, so those who saw it liked it but not enough to even encourage their fellow critics to see the film and it didn't get any real award buzz either. I think it also hurts that it follows that oscar bait mentality, release late in the year so it's fresh in people's minds, problem is lots of movies like that come out in that time period, so chasing oscars cannibalises the movie space also, because these films don't and haven't for a long time brought in the big bucks unless they play in LA or NY in 1 or 2 theatres. Maybe they would do better releasing year round not just in the last 6-8 weeks of the year, we now have a near year round "summer" season, blockbusters come out anytime now so then should these types of films, it's not just a blockbuster issue it's the whole business of film which includes the bullshit circle jerking of prestige films and awards contention. But I do think smaller films deserve more awareness even though they aren't my cup of tea, I say studios should take 5% of the marketing and production budgets for all movies that spend over $100m on either and then they use that the next year and split it up between all the $30m movies they release, say if they drop 5 of those movies, and cut say $80m off of the big movies, thats an extra $16m those films can have for marketing, I doubt that 5% would impact a SW films much, but that $16m could really be used to push those smaller wide releases awareness out their to people. But then if they did this for a few years and got not better results then we would need to kind of just admit these films have had their time come and gone at the theatres and just appreciate the studios putting them out at all that way, which lets be honest only reason they do a lot of times is to either appease a big director or to win some awards, when the Oscars accept pure streaming movies and they start properly winning awards regularly we will likely see a big portion of those films no longer getting any theatrical release. "...But then if they did this for a few years and got not better results then we would need to kind of just admit these films have had their time come and gone at the theatres..." For me, that would be a sad day. I recently saw a really good movie on Netflix about the trial of the Chicago Seven. I was glad to see it at all because it was good, but it did look and feel like a made for a TV screen movie. And I wonder how much better or at least more epic that movie might have been if it had a theatrical release budget. I want the mid sized theatrical movies and I think a lot of people do.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Oct 19, 2020 16:50:03 GMT
Sort of but not quite also, yeah it didn't get an Endgame release but it wasn't like it didn't get a national release, it got a 2000+ release after 2 or 3 weeks, but when it did no one came out for it really, I mean it did something like $900 a theatre for the entire weekend when it was in it's second week of wide release, that is what Endgame was making in it's 16th weekend when it was in under 500 theatres. I mean other movies have had the same release treatment as Dark Waters but made huge box office still, look at Shape of Water, got a similar wide release of about 2000 theatres, but when it went wide the audience kept with it, it wasn't a case of a limited number of people wanting to see the movie and making the big effort to see it, it was a case of people wanting to see it and limited chances limited box office, which is the case with a lot of the major Oscar movies also. But those films can succeed they just need to be good enough, you call it one of the best films of last year but how many other people agree with you? it got good reviews, but is also got significantly less than all the other top films people were talking about, so those who saw it liked it but not enough to even encourage their fellow critics to see the film and it didn't get any real award buzz either. I think it also hurts that it follows that oscar bait mentality, release late in the year so it's fresh in people's minds, problem is lots of movies like that come out in that time period, so chasing oscars cannibalises the movie space also, because these films don't and haven't for a long time brought in the big bucks unless they play in LA or NY in 1 or 2 theatres. Maybe they would do better releasing year round not just in the last 6-8 weeks of the year, we now have a near year round "summer" season, blockbusters come out anytime now so then should these types of films, it's not just a blockbuster issue it's the whole business of film which includes the bullshit circle jerking of prestige films and awards contention. But I do think smaller films deserve more awareness even though they aren't my cup of tea, I say studios should take 5% of the marketing and production budgets for all movies that spend over $100m on either and then they use that the next year and split it up between all the $30m movies they release, say if they drop 5 of those movies, and cut say $80m off of the big movies, thats an extra $16m those films can have for marketing, I doubt that 5% would impact a SW films much, but that $16m could really be used to push those smaller wide releases awareness out their to people. But then if they did this for a few years and got not better results then we would need to kind of just admit these films have had their time come and gone at the theatres and just appreciate the studios putting them out at all that way, which lets be honest only reason they do a lot of times is to either appease a big director or to win some awards, when the Oscars accept pure streaming movies and they start properly winning awards regularly we will likely see a big portion of those films no longer getting any theatrical release. "...But then if they did this for a few years and got not better results then we would need to kind of just admit these films have had their time come and gone at the theatres..." For me, that would be a sad day. I recently saw a really good movie on Netflix about the trial of the Chicago Seven. I was glad to see it at all because it was good, but it did look and feel like a made for a TV screen movie. And I wonder how much better or at least more epic that movie might have been if it had a theatrical release budget. I want the mid sized theatrical movies and I think a lot of people do. Thats why I think they need to also change how they release these films, because no matter what else they try to do releasing 20 Oscar bait films all fighting for that same niche audience isn't going to end well, and why I think usually we see those half of them that end up in strong Oscar and award contention doing well and the other 10 doing either piss poor or mediocre. But I also think again when the Oscars treat streaming movies better the quality will improve, as it is right now I think those that know they are only going to be streaming movies will cut cost in some ways in production because who cares if they are telling a great story if theres no awards consideration? Thing is there will always be a place for them in the theatres somehow, but it's just the notion you intially put forth of these big movies are hogging the space is just untrue, the big movies filled the gap the smaller films no longer filled, people in general not cinephiles and the like, they pay for an experience, the slight boost you are talking about seeing a court room drama on the big screen vs. small isn't enough to entice them to spend the near $10 for a ticket and another $10 or more on concessions, not when they can see it at home at no extra cost because they already have Netflix and can by a 2 litre pepsi for a couple of bucks and a jumbo bag of popcorn or whatever for another couple and sit at home in their undies enjoying the films in complete comfort. I also wonder if what you feel about that movie you saw is true or in your own mind, it was originally meant to be a theatrical release, Paramount sold it to Netflix after the pandemic outbreak because the theatres were shut, so a part of that could be in your own mind in terms of how it was shot and stuff because it cost $35m to make that movie.
|
|
Ransom
Junior Member
@ransom
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 288
|
Post by Ransom on Oct 19, 2020 17:12:09 GMT
It's not about being "trained" it's their hard earned money to do with what they want if that's watching a blockbuster or an independent film then that's up to them what's best for them not for lenlenlen1 to decide or attempt to be slightly snide at them for their choices. Advertisements and studio henchmen contrary to your belief don't come knocking on people's front doors with guns and a van outside their homes ready to throw unsuspecting cinema goers inside with an hypnotic device strapped to their wallets forcing them to give indies the dodge just to annoy you. Dude, slow your roll. Who the hell said any of that? I certainly didn't. What's the bug up your ass? Oh come the "trained" garbage and the passive aggression regarding people not wanting to see the films you like in your post could be seen from space.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Oct 20, 2020 17:24:23 GMT
It's not about being "trained" it's their hard earned money to do with what they want if that's watching a blockbuster or an independent film then that's up to them what's best for them not for lenlenlen1 to decide or attempt to be slightly snide at them for their choices. Advertisements and studio henchmen contrary to your belief don't come knocking on people's front doors with guns and a van outside their homes ready to throw unsuspecting cinema goers inside with an hypnotic device strapped to their wallets forcing them to give indies the dodge just to annoy you. Dude, slow your roll. Who the hell said any of that? I certainly didn't. What's the bug up your ass? Probably need to reread what you posted. lol You did make it sound like people are being forced to see blockbusters over smaller movies. Most people go to movies to see events and stay home for smaller movies. It's been like that for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Oct 20, 2020 21:10:01 GMT
Dude, slow your roll. Who the hell said any of that? I certainly didn't. What's the bug up your ass? Probably need to reread what you posted. lol You did make it sound like people are being forced to see blockbusters over smaller movies. Most people go to movies to see events and stay home for smaller movies. It's been like that for a long time.
Not forced in the sense that someone is literally forcing you, and not trained as in you're a dog. I thought people were smart enough to know what an analogy or a metaphor was. But when a movie opens to 4000+ screens in its opening weekend, not gradually, but all at once, and you have already been slammed with months, sometimes a YEAR, of ad campaigns on TV and the internet... How is a movie that has little to no ad campaign and opens in a few hundred theatres supposed to compete? Its actually a miracle that a movie like that sometimes gets a wider release as time goes on. When that happens its because of word of mouth that the movie is so good that people then end up wanting to see it. But that doesn't always happen. More often than not the movie only gets a slightly wider release and then falls away. Again, I'll use Dark Waters as an example: (all info easily found on IMDB and BoxOfficeMojo) Opening Weekend USA: $102,606, 24 November 2019 Gross USA: $11,136,084 Cumulative Worldwide Gross: $22,501,298 OPENING release: 91 theatres WIDEST release after 2 months: 2,112 theaters DROPPED to: 451 theatres THEN: 100, then done That's awful for one of the best movies of the year. And more importantly, we're having a discussion here, and we all have our opinions. There's no need for some of us to get so bent out of shape like I was talking about your mother. Lets everybody chill out. What the heck is there to get so excited about? Geez. You'd think no one ever disagreed with you about anything.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Oct 21, 2020 17:31:13 GMT
Probably need to reread what you posted. lol You did make it sound like people are being forced to see blockbusters over smaller movies. Most people go to movies to see events and stay home for smaller movies. It's been like that for a long time.
Not forced in the sense that someone is literally forcing you, and not trained as in you're a dog. I thought people were smart enough to know what an analogy or a metaphor was. But when a movie opens to 4000+ screens in its opening weekend, not gradually, but all at once, and you have already been slammed with months, sometimes a YEAR, of ad campaigns on TV and the internet... How is a movie that has little to no ad campaign and opens in a few hundred theatres supposed to compete? Its actually a miracle that a movie like that sometimes gets a wider release as time goes on. When that happens its because of word of mouth that the movie is so good that people then end up wanting to see it. But that doesn't always happen. More often than not the movie only gets a slightly wider release and then falls away. Again, I'll use Dark Waters as an example: (all info easily found on IMDB and BoxOfficeMojo) Opening Weekend USA: $102,606, 24 November 2019 Gross USA: $11,136,084 Cumulative Worldwide Gross: $22,501,298 OPENING release: 91 theatres WIDEST release after 2 months: 2,112 theaters DROPPED to: 451 theatres THEN: 100, then done That's awful for one of the best movies of the year. And more importantly, we're having a discussion here, and we all have our opinions. There's no need for some of us to get so bent out of shape like I was talking about your mother. Lets everybody chill out. What the heck is there to get so excited about? Geez. You'd think no one ever disagreed with you about anything. Why is it competing? The movies will most likely be different genre.
Also, just watched the trailer for that movie. Not gonna be pulling in crowds even if it had the same amount of showings as a bigger movie... Just saying. They'd be losing money if it had a heavy ad campaign. It looks like a trailer trying to look like a Grisham movie that ends with telling the audience to be quiet during the movie.
And are you telling me to not "get bent out of shape"? You're the one that did research on the screenings and box office of a movie that, of the people here, only you would have seen, just to try and prove a point. lol
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Oct 22, 2020 3:30:50 GMT
Probably need to reread what you posted. lol You did make it sound like people are being forced to see blockbusters over smaller movies. Most people go to movies to see events and stay home for smaller movies. It's been like that for a long time.
Not forced in the sense that someone is literally forcing you, and not trained as in you're a dog. I thought people were smart enough to know what an analogy or a metaphor was. But when a movie opens to 4000+ screens in its opening weekend, not gradually, but all at once, and you have already been slammed with months, sometimes a YEAR, of ad campaigns on TV and the internet... How is a movie that has little to no ad campaign and opens in a few hundred theatres supposed to compete? Its actually a miracle that a movie like that sometimes gets a wider release as time goes on. When that happens its because of word of mouth that the movie is so good that people then end up wanting to see it. But that doesn't always happen. More often than not the movie only gets a slightly wider release and then falls away. Again, I'll use Dark Waters as an example: (all info easily found on IMDB and BoxOfficeMojo) Opening Weekend USA: $102,606, 24 November 2019 Gross USA: $11,136,084 Cumulative Worldwide Gross: $22,501,298 OPENING release: 91 theatres WIDEST release after 2 months: 2,112 theaters DROPPED to: 451 theatres THEN: 100, then done That's awful for one of the best movies of the year. And more importantly, we're having a discussion here, and we all have our opinions. There's no need for some of us to get so bent out of shape like I was talking about your mother. Lets everybody chill out. What the heck is there to get so excited about? Geez. You'd think no one ever disagreed with you about anything. One problem is you are using Dark Waters as if it's a prime example, it really isn't, it got half the reviews on RT as other "best" films of the year got, it's not in really any major top 20's if it's in the top 50's it seems lucky to be there, it's a subjective thing the you feel it is one of the best movies of last year, but no real buzz to get even critics to see it, no awards acclaim, it's not on many major outlets top 50 let alone top 20 of the year, you say it's awful it di so poorly, to me it makes sense, the movie didn't grab people and couldn't create more than a mild level of buzz amongst small niche cinephile circles. And it isn't meant to "compete" with Endgame, nor does it need to or any other blockbusters, it has to compete with those other mid budget films, and it couldn't, has nothing to do with oh this big movie boxed it out or "trained" people to go see it over Dark Waters. If you look 3 or 4 weeks after Dark Waters came out Uncut Gems came out, it opened in 1 more theatre than Dark Waters, but made 5 times the box office, stayed in 5 theatres across 2 weekends made over $1m, Dark Waters expanded to 90+ theatres for it's second weekend and made under $1m for the first 10 days, when they each expanded beyond 2000 theatres Uncut Gems made over $9.5m, Dark Waters didn't even make $4m, so it's not a case of oh well the market boxed it out or anything, simply people did not care about that movie as much as they cared about other peoples movies, but still it didn't make anywhere close to a blockbuster, but then no one should expect it to.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Oct 22, 2020 17:05:46 GMT
Not forced in the sense that someone is literally forcing you, and not trained as in you're a dog. I thought people were smart enough to know what an analogy or a metaphor was. But when a movie opens to 4000+ screens in its opening weekend, not gradually, but all at once, and you have already been slammed with months, sometimes a YEAR, of ad campaigns on TV and the internet... How is a movie that has little to no ad campaign and opens in a few hundred theatres supposed to compete? Its actually a miracle that a movie like that sometimes gets a wider release as time goes on. When that happens its because of word of mouth that the movie is so good that people then end up wanting to see it. But that doesn't always happen. More often than not the movie only gets a slightly wider release and then falls away. Again, I'll use Dark Waters as an example: (all info easily found on IMDB and BoxOfficeMojo) Opening Weekend USA: $102,606, 24 November 2019 Gross USA: $11,136,084 Cumulative Worldwide Gross: $22,501,298 OPENING release: 91 theatres WIDEST release after 2 months: 2,112 theaters DROPPED to: 451 theatres THEN: 100, then done That's awful for one of the best movies of the year. And more importantly, we're having a discussion here, and we all have our opinions. There's no need for some of us to get so bent out of shape like I was talking about your mother. Lets everybody chill out. What the heck is there to get so excited about? Geez. You'd think no one ever disagreed with you about anything. Why is it competing? The movies will most likely be different genre.
Also, just watched the trailer for that movie. Not gonna be pulling in crowds even if it had the same amount of showings as a bigger movie... Just saying. They'd be losing money if it had a heavy ad campaign. It looks like a trailer trying to look like a Grisham movie that ends with telling the audience to be quiet during the movie.
And are you telling me to not "get bent out of shape"? You're the one that did research on the screenings and box office of a movie that, of the people here, only you would have seen, just to try and prove a point. lol
Not competing for the same audience, but for screens. You're probably right about the type of movie that it is, but it certainly could have made more money than what it did. And how is it getting bent out of shape by doing my research to back up my facts? If you don't think the comment refers to you then it doesn't. You're not the only person who's gotten defensive on this thread. All I've done is offer a differing viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Oct 23, 2020 17:37:28 GMT
Why is it competing? The movies will most likely be different genre.
Also, just watched the trailer for that movie. Not gonna be pulling in crowds even if it had the same amount of showings as a bigger movie... Just saying. They'd be losing money if it had a heavy ad campaign. It looks like a trailer trying to look like a Grisham movie that ends with telling the audience to be quiet during the movie.
And are you telling me to not "get bent out of shape"? You're the one that did research on the screenings and box office of a movie that, of the people here, only you would have seen, just to try and prove a point. lol
Not competing for the same audience, but for screens. You're probably right about the type of movie that it is, but it certainly could have made more money than what it did. And how is it getting bent out of shape by doing my research to back up my facts? If you don't think the comment refers to you then it doesn't. You're not the only person who's gotten defensive on this thread. All I've done is offer a differing viewpoint. That's why I asked if you were referring to me. Because it was said in a quote/reply to me.
And like others and myself has said: Even if it had the same marketing and theater space as the big movies, they would have lost money. Most people use Netflix for this type of movie. You think people would have gone out to see it if it had a Super Bowl ad? Nope.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 10, 2022 0:04:38 GMT
His fallings out with DC Comics (among others) are the stuff of industry folklore. “I’m definitely done with comics,” he says. “I haven’t written one for getting on for five years. I will always love and adore the comics medium but the comics industry and all of the stuff attached to it just became unbearable.” And he now looks with dismay on the way the superhero genre in which he once worked has eaten the culture. “Hundreds of thousands of adults [are] lining up to see characters and situations that had been created to entertain the 12-year-old boys – and it was always boys – of 50 years ago. I didn’t really think that superheroes were adult fare. I think that this was a misunderstanding born of what happened in the 1980s – to which I must put my hand up to a considerable share of the blame, though it was not intentional – when things like Watchmen were first appearing. There were an awful lot of headlines saying ‘Comics Have Grown Up’. I tend to think that, no, comics hadn’t grown up. There were a few titles that were more adult than people were used to. But the majority of comics titles were pretty much the same as they’d ever been. It wasn’t comics growing up. I think it was more comics meeting the emotional age of the audience coming the other way.”
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Oct 10, 2022 22:10:05 GMT
He's my favorite grumpy old man!
|
|