Movies You've Seen Recently

[Hiro Protagonist]

Sharknado. Didn't realise it was from The Asylum until it started. Huge fan of their movies. I've seen quite a few of their movies. Mega Shark versus Giant Octopus, Mega Shark versus Crocosaurus, Nazi's at the centre of the Earth, etc 

 

Another good B Grade movie studio is Full Moon Studios who did the movie The Creeps (1997) which is one of my favourites.

 

If you're really into B Grade movies, then these two studios have a great assortment of movies.

[Blarghagh]

The Croods and Dark Shadows.

 

The Croods was fun and quirky, the storytelling was a bit heavy handed but it sufficed and the movie was easily carried by its odd sense of humor and the fun creature designs. Also, hearing Nicholas Cage overact is every bit as entertaining as seeing him.

 

Dark Shadows was not so good. The pacing was completely off, had a serious case of mood whiplash between the serious bits and the parody bits, was bogged down by completely unneccesary subplots that went nowhere, had a major case of deus ex machina (that it even insulted the audience for by literally saying "psh, don't make a big deal out of it" and Johnny Depp was unusually horrid as yet another role where he plays Johnny Depp the white-faced weirdo instead of actually playing a character.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Why is everything in cinemas today borderline un-watchable. Every time I go I feel like I paid someone to kick me in the nuts.

[Amentep]

Dark Shadows was not so good. The pacing was completely off, had a serious case of mood whiplash between the serious bits and the parody bits, was bogged down by completely unneccesary subplots that went nowhere, had a major case of deus ex machina (that it even insulted the audience for by literally saying "psh, don't make a big deal out of it" and Johnny Depp was unusually horrid as yet another role where he plays Johnny Depp the white-faced weirdo instead of actually playing a character.

 

I liked Dark Shadows - its a mess of a film, but I though it was fun.  I think the subplots were a nod to the fact the original show was a soap opera (so always had subplots going on).

 

Having said that, I don't remember was the deus ex machina at the end was (at least anything that hadn't been somewhat set up earlier in the story).

[Blarghagh]

 

The teenage rebellious daughter was suddenly a werewolf. At least, I didn't see any set up. She literally goes "Yeah, I'm a werewolf. Don't make a big deal out of it."

 

[Volourn]

Sharknadow - Defintitely better than your typical B Movie. Kinda helps that the stars were above average though some of the lesser actors were , well, lesser, lol. I'd give it a 6/10

[LadyCrimson]

Why is everything in cinemas today borderline un-watchable. Every time I go I feel like I paid someone to kick me in the nuts.

I feel more like that all the time, but I usually figure it's because I've become that grumpy old fart that I made fun of as a kid.

[Woldan]

Why is everything in cinemas today borderline un-watchable. Every time I go I feel like I paid someone to kick me in the nuts.

I hear you, I couldn't properly sit for 5 weeks after watching Prometheus.

[Raithe]

What's annoying is how many films feel like the cameraman is Michael J Fox. The shaky cam is beginning to really bug the hell out of me.

[Blarghagh]

 

Why is everything in cinemas today borderline un-watchable. Every time I go I feel like I paid someone to kick me in the nuts.

I hear you, I couldn't properly sit for 5 weeks after watching Prometheus.

 

 

Oh lord how this movie made me rage. I'm usually not that critical of movies but everything in that was insulting, from it's hints at space jesus to the creature always described as the perfect killing machine having been spawned by sheer coincidence. Why distance yourself from the Alien vs Predator bull if you start using the exact same plot points? Why have a random zombie attack in your movie if you're never going to bring it up again? Why does every character in this film make slasher horror characters look smart? Why? WHY?

Edited July 17, 2013 by TrueNeutral

[Oerwinde]

Why is everything in cinemas today borderline un-watchable. Every time I go I feel like I paid someone to kick me in the nuts.

Because every time someone makes a smart, well thought out, original enttertaining film, it bombs, while all the garbage sequels or dumb films packed with big stars doing what they're known for makes millions. If you're in the film business to make money, which makes more sense to make?

[Gorth]

 

Why is everything in cinemas today borderline un-watchable. Every time I go I feel like I paid someone to kick me in the nuts.

Because every time someone makes a smart, well thought out, original enttertaining film, it bombs, while all the garbage sequels or dumb films packed with big stars doing what they're known for makes millions. If you're in the film business to make money, which makes more sense to make?

 

I was about to write something slightly similar. Entertainment today seems very heavily influenced by what investors expects their target audience to be rather than something made by people with visions and ideas. The latter still exist, but seem to drown in the noise (hype) of the bulk entertainment industry, industry being a rather apt description. Individual movies mostly have all the charm of car #87523402 that just got off the assembly line.

 

Hmm... maybe that's why my only movie purchases the last 5 years have mostly been stuff released pre-1980 (with a few rare exceptions which can be counted on one hands fingers).

[LadyCrimson]

Isn't that basically what most entertainment/mass products become, tho? I mean, at one time you could hardly turn around but stumble on the big splashy musical/dance film, with the same stars (when stars were under restrictive studio-exclusive contracts), until audiences finally grew tired of them and they stopped being profitable. Or the gangster movie. Or the Western movie. Or the WWII movie. And if you didn't like those things or those actors, too bad, you had to hunt around for the few things that weren't that.

 

I suppose it's a bit different in terms of who the main pusher is (investors, studio owners/partners, whatever) but movies go in cycles - I don't really see a big difference. They're just not in a cycle that I like at the moment.

 

Altho, the issue of the changing way many like to consume movies (audience has many choices) vs. traditional methods (audience had only one choice - the theater) had and still is having a large impact. I don't think studios have figured out how to deal with/work with that effectively yet, so they just keep on looking for the "theater blockbusters."

[Amentep]

 

The teenage rebellious daughter was suddenly a werewolf. At least, I didn't see any set up. She literally goes "Yeah, I'm a werewolf. Don't make a big deal out of it."

 

 

 

They telegraph it through the film very subtly. She disappears to her room at night, refusing to come out which you initially think "okay, she's a sullen teenager".  Then strange sounds are heard coming from her room and you think "she's got a boyfriend sneaking in there or something".  And then at the end its, "nope she's a werewolf".

 

 

Worked for me. YMMV I guess.

[Walsingham]

Be fair. New things are being tried all the time. But big money goes for formula that work. It's about making 'hamburgers'. Cheap ingredients, well known formula, given good packaging. Hamburgers sell.

 

I'm going to go off on one and suggest that piracy has played a big part.

 

If any of you remember Football Factory, it was an independent film, sweat blood (literally) and tears went into making it. Result very positive. Millions of copies sold. Unfortunately almost all of those copies was a bootleg.

 

Blockbuster crowd pleasers can still get big returns by theatrical releases. Successful 'grower' films just get pirated.

[Volourn]

Except Hollywood blockbusters are pirated  an extreme amount too. nice try, though.

[Blarghagh]

That's neither here nor there. Blockbusters play in every cinema and DVDs go to every retailer. Who is going to through the trouble of locating a rarer indie flick if you can just type in the words online and copies practically throw themselves at you?

 

Not as big a problem as it used to be with services like Netflix to pick up the slack, however.

[Volourn]

That is here and there. It blows your silly point out of the water. You make it sound like blockbusters don't get pirated when they do - at a larger rate.

 

 With rarer indie flicks most people aren't even aware of them so they don't bother watching them - either by purchasing them or by stealing them. They just don't care. If you never heard of something why would you bother to steal it? L0L

 

Like your example, I never HEard of that movie until you just mentioned and I'm an internet geek who hears about all sorts of weird indie flicks... so why would I have bothered to steal it 9I don't steal movies but it's a point)?

 

Your logic is illogical.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

Why is everything in cinemas today borderline un-watchable. Every time I go I feel like I paid someone to kick me in the nuts.

I hear you, I couldn't properly sit for 5 weeks after watching Prometheus.

 

 

Prometheus is so bad I was actually compelled to go to Amazon and write an angry review of it. And I never do that.

 

I was surprised that a multi-millionaire like Ridley Scott would stoop so low to make a movie in which someone gets rolled over by a spinning space ship. And that is one of the more sensible scenes in it. I mean, why? Just why? He could have let someone else eat that garbage script and take the flak instead of making a fool of himself.

 

 

Now I really love and appreciate the films that are usually deemed "art house" (a pointless label IMO), but I can occasionally enjoy a good blockbuster. As a kid I loved Jurassic Park. That's as blockbusterish as you can get. And that movie is watchable today. Of course I can now see how much of a kid's movie it is but its still okay.

Hell, I still watch The Fifth Element on occasion.

 

On the other hand I watched Star Trek 2 a few weeks ago. A bombastic mess of screeching metal, explosions that tear your ears apart, Unlikable characters, pointless action scenes - everything done to overwhelm the viewer and beat him into submission. Literally, two hours of screaming to stop you thinking about what you see on screen because if you do you'll see the sad sad lack of everything a good movie should include. What sort of people do they make these movies for?

Edited July 18, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[Blarghagh]

That is here and there. It blows your silly point out of the water. You make it sound like blockbusters don't get pirated when they do - at a larger rate.

 

 With rarer indie flicks most people aren't even aware of them so they don't bother watching them - either by purchasing them or by stealing them. They just don't care. If you never heard of something why would you bother to steal it? L0L

 

Like your example, I never HEard of that movie until you just mentioned and I'm an internet geek who hears about all sorts of weird indie flicks... so why would I have bothered to steal it 9I don't steal movies but it's a point)?

 

Your logic is illogical.

 

Anyone else entertained by what just happened here?

 

Anyway, I've never heard of that movie either. Doesn't matter. Let's posit, hypothetically, that 90% of all films is pirated. Now I'm going to painfully exaggerate this, but let's say: If 90% of a blockbuster's views are pirated, that still gives them a couple million. If 90% of an indie flicks' views are pirated, that means only about ten people actually paid for it. Obviously this is the most hyperbole version of events there is, but indie films have a much smaller viewer base in the first place. Piracy, even at the same rate, hurts indie filmmakers far more than big studios.

[Volourn]

No.

 

Not when a blockbuster can make 200mil and still be cosnidered a bomb. While an indy film can make maybe a mil and actually still turn a profit.

 

So, your numbers, yet again, are foolishly inept.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Volourn

[Amentep]

 

That is here and there. It blows your silly point out of the water. You make it sound like blockbusters don't get pirated when they do - at a larger rate.

 

 With rarer indie flicks most people aren't even aware of them so they don't bother watching them - either by purchasing them or by stealing them. They just don't care. If you never heard of something why would you bother to steal it? L0L

 

Like your example, I never HEard of that movie until you just mentioned and I'm an internet geek who hears about all sorts of weird indie flicks... so why would I have bothered to steal it 9I don't steal movies but it's a point)?

 

Your logic is illogical.

 

Anyone else entertained by what just happened here?

 

Anyway, I've never heard of that movie either. Doesn't matter. Let's posit, hypothetically, that 90% of all films is pirated. Now I'm going to painfully exaggerate this, but let's say: If 90% of a blockbuster's views are pirated, that still gives them a couple million. If 90% of an indie flicks' views are pirated, that means only about ten people actually paid for it. Obviously this is the most hyperbole version of events there is, but indie films have a much smaller viewer base in the first place. Piracy, even at the same rate, hurts indie filmmakers far more than big studios.

 

 

 

Okay lets say a blockbuster cost $150 million.

 

Lets say a indie film cost $150,000.

 

Lets say that based on movie ticket prices, it can be shown that the "people" behind the films get $10 a ticket.

 

Lets follow the common wisdom that a blockbuster has to make 2.5 times the money it cost to make to make a profit (because of advertising, prints, shipping).  Lets say the indie film has to make 1.5 its cost to cover advertising, prints, festivals.

 

So Blockbuster needs $375,000,000 and indie needs $225,000.  Blockbuster must sell 37,500,000 tickets worldwide; indie needs 22,500.

 

Lets say 1 million people see the Blockbuster and 1 hundred thousand see the indie.

 

90% are pirates.  So there are 100,000 paying Blockbuster customers and 10,000 Indie customers.

 

The "people" behind the blockbuster are $374,000,000 in the red.  "People" behind the indies are $125,000 in the red.

 

I don't think either "win".

[Labadal]

Amazing Spiderman.

 

Cheesy superhero flick. Just what I needed to take my mind of my damn shoulder.

[Blarghagh]

 

 

That is here and there. It blows your silly point out of the water. You make it sound like blockbusters don't get pirated when they do - at a larger rate.

 

 With rarer indie flicks most people aren't even aware of them so they don't bother watching them - either by purchasing them or by stealing them. They just don't care. If you never heard of something why would you bother to steal it? L0L

 

Like your example, I never HEard of that movie until you just mentioned and I'm an internet geek who hears about all sorts of weird indie flicks... so why would I have bothered to steal it 9I don't steal movies but it's a point)?

 

Your logic is illogical.

 

Anyone else entertained by what just happened here?

 

Anyway, I've never heard of that movie either. Doesn't matter. Let's posit, hypothetically, that 90% of all films is pirated. Now I'm going to painfully exaggerate this, but let's say: If 90% of a blockbuster's views are pirated, that still gives them a couple million. If 90% of an indie flicks' views are pirated, that means only about ten people actually paid for it. Obviously this is the most hyperbole version of events there is, but indie films have a much smaller viewer base in the first place. Piracy, even at the same rate, hurts indie filmmakers far more than big studios.

 

 

 

Okay lets say a blockbuster cost $150 million.

 

Lets say a indie film cost $150,000.

 

Lets say that based on movie ticket prices, it can be shown that the "people" behind the films get $10 a ticket.

 

Lets follow the common wisdom that a blockbuster has to make 2.5 times the money it cost to make to make a profit (because of advertising, prints, shipping).  Lets say the indie film has to make 1.5 its cost to cover advertising, prints, festivals.

 

So Blockbuster needs $375,000,000 and indie needs $225,000.  Blockbuster must sell 37,500,000 tickets worldwide; indie needs 22,500.

 

Lets say 1 million people see the Blockbuster and 1 hundred thousand see the indie.

 

90% are pirates.  So there are 100,000 paying Blockbuster customers and 10,000 Indie customers.

 

The "people" behind the blockbuster are $374,000,000 in the red.  "People" behind the indies are $125,000 in the red.

 

I don't think either "win".

 

 

Except that number of people to see a blockbuster is painfully ridiculous to describe the number of people who see blockbusters yet accurate when describing independent films. Even terrible bombs don't reach those numbers, whereas indie films do often fail in the manner described. Even Dredd, the most recent true bomb, did not do that awfully and that wasn't even close to true blockbuster status.

 

As stated before, blockbusters will find an audience simply by availability. People will go to theaters, find DVDs at their local target. People who are not internet savvy will see it in some other way. Yet the availability of independent films is far less, taking far more effort to locate than it does to download. Leading to Wals' point: People will pay for blockbusters, whereas indie films just get pirated. It's why After Earth is already turning a profit whereas even the best reviewed independent films of the year hemmorage cash by making back an eight of their budgets i.e. Disconnect.

[Amentep]

Except that number of people to see a blockbuster is painfully ridiculous to describe the number of people who see blockbusters yet accurate when describing independent films.

My point was to say if both films are losing money why are the indies seen as "worse" to lose money?

 

Even still, lets say that the blockbuster does $50 million and is number one on a slow week.  That's (by the above scenario) 5 million tickets.

 

That's 45 million pirated views under the 90% scenario described and $450 million in lost revenue.

 

The thing about availability is that it holds through in piracy.  Do you think, honestly, that a film that barely squeaked into 2 theaters is even going to be made available to pirate, and if it is who would know about it to download it.

 

The stuff that gets pirated are the big budget blockbusters and the Oscar bait art films that have buzz.  Could there be an audience to pirate a film like, say, The Ghastly Love of Johnny X that only showed a handful of festivals?

Edited July 18, 2013 by Amentep