Movies You've Seen Recently

[Orogun01]

Not a movie but Futurama Final Season it's coming along quite nicely.

[Walsingham]

 

 

The thing is, the loss of returns is rather important; several recent films actually made money but didn't make ENOUGH money to cover the other losses.  As it was put, the studioes don't want to invest 50 mil to make 100 mil, they want to invest 50 mil to make 300 mil.  And that's just crazy; but if you think about it, they think like this because they have to balance to cost of all the 50 mil films that made 50 mil or less.

 

As to what I've seen, I saw THE CONJURING a nice classic haunted house/demon monster story.  James Wan has turned out to be a pretty good creepy horror film director.

 

 

I think we're agreeing now. But just to be sure:

 

Studios don't want to invest 10 million with a 60% probability of returning 50 million.

 

Studios want to invest 50 million with a 5% probability of returning  500 million.

[Amentep]

I think we're agreeing now. But just to be sure:

 

Studios don't want to invest 10 million with a 60% probability of returning 50 million.

 

Studios want to invest 50 million with a 5% probability of returning  500 million.

Yes, the studios have (more or less) said as much.

 

I don't think its good for the industry.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I think we're agreeing now. But just to be sure: Studios don't want to invest 10 million with a 60% probability of returning 50 million. Studios want to invest 50 million with a 5% probability of returning  500 million.

Yes, the studios have (more or less) said as much.I don't think its good for the industry.

It depends on what you mean by "good for the industry". If you mean "provides a large amount of diverse entertainment without constantly recasting the usual suspects, and is comfortable with several successful films instead of having few wildly successful films" then I would definitely agree.

[Amentep]

 

 

I think we're agreeing now. But just to be sure: Studios don't want to invest 10 million with a 60% probability of returning 50 million. Studios want to invest 50 million with a 5% probability of returning  500 million.

Yes, the studios have (more or less) said as much.I don't think its good for the industry.

It depends on what you mean by "good for the industry". If you mean "provides a large amount of diverse entertainment without constantly recasting the usual suspects, and is comfortable with several successful films instead of having few wildly successful films" then I would definitely agree.

 

 

I don't think its good because I don't think it is a sustainable practice.

 

Lets say Universal has 14 films coming out; if they totally cost 700 million to make and none of them hit the 500 million in returns they run a really big risk (even with Hollywood accounting) of not having enough money to make further productions. 

 

Enough of the majors have this happen and its pretty much the collapse of the film industry, IMO.

[Walsingham]

I don't believe it would collapse the film industry. It would collapse a player. But there's clearly a niche for that type of investment. So long as people want those investment profiles then someone else will give it to them.

 

I seee the thing (as you've probably guessed) as an evolutionary/ecological thing. It doesn't matter how much I like the duck billed platypus, they just aren't as successful as hyenas.

[Amentep]

I don't believe it would collapse the film industry. It would collapse a player. But there's clearly a niche for that type of investment. So long as people want those investment profiles then someone else will give it to them.

 

I seee the thing (as you've probably guessed) as an evolutionary/ecological thing. It doesn't matter how much I like the duck billed platypus, they just aren't as successful as hyenas.

 

Well I did say if "enough of the majors".  MGM faltering (pretty much dead in the water until the Eon's Skyfall production injected some money into them (through a co-distribution plan with Sony) didn't kill the industry.

 

Take out any three from Warners, Universal, Sony, Disney or Paramount and it may very well be a different story.  Them going under means not enough product driving people into theaters, which means cinemas aren't selling tickets (and more importantly to their bottom line - concessions), which means they go under which then means that the remaining players have no viable mainstream place to distribute cinema films to.

 

I'd imagine even in this scenario that some smaller, lower overhead independent theaters would still exist as they have a bottom line built differently than the multiplexes. 

 

That said, I don't think its going to happen this way; to me what we're seeing right now isn't that dissimilar to the period in the late 60s and 70s where Hollywood couldn't figure out what the audience wanted, Warners almost failed (well technically did fail and was sold off) and economics began forcing out drive-in theaters in the US because they couldn't get enough patrons to keep running.  Eventually the blockbusters of the early-mid 70s (culminating in Star Wars) and the multiplex (allowing more showings for more movies distributing risk better) kept the industry going. 

 

Eventually they'll find some way to give the audience what they want or it'll die off.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Amentep

[Volourn]

Except, the fil;m studios aren't dying. They make tons of money. Even if mutliple films fail,  one successful film could cover it.

[Amentep]

Except, the fil;m studios aren't dying. They make tons of money. Even if mutliple films fail,  one successful film could cover it.

 

Yes, I pretty much said that with my illustration of how the system is currently working.

 

My illustration would be that betting that much money only requires one really bad year to leave the studio without any cash.

[Walsingham]

I think you also have to factor in the McD effect. That inexplicable urge which 'normal' people feel to flock towards anything togged out as big budget. What's the term? 'Aspirational'.

[Amentep]

Perhaps.  Like I said I don't think its guaranteed to collapse, only that its risky behavior. 

[Walsingham]

Perhaps.  Like I said I don't think its guaranteed to collapse, only that its risky behavior. 

 

And perhaps I went too far in defending them. I don't think it's even a moot point to assert that industries are showing rather worrying tendencies to pursue high risk strategies. My own experience is seeing this in insurance and banking. The problem is that firms can make huge profits in the short term by doing single high risk punts.  Not charging enough because the market refuses to pay the right price.

 

The markets, whether consumers or investors, can collectively hammer an industry into a hole through this sort of idiocy. But to do them credit, they just move on. No more films? Sod it, games. No more games, sod it, live performances or wired entertaino-casts.

[Hurlshort]

I think movie studios need to start instituting a hard cap on a lot of these films.  Quite a few decent films have simply been the victims of bloated budgets.  John Carter was very good, but it was set up to fail from the start.  The Lone Ranger is dealing with that as well, it's a western, there is no reason it should cost so much to make.  

[LadyCrimson]

I re-watched Margin Call, largely because of the awesome cast it has. Which makes me wonder a bit about Zachary Quinto. I hear he doesn't want to be Spock for very much longer (maybe a 3rd time). Understandable .... a lot of Star Trek folk get so typecast it's hard to find "popular" work after that. Would they just find a new Spock or reboot the film series once more, I wonder.

 

Also...I saw The Captains - William Shatner's film where he interviews/talks to all the actors who played Captains in the ST franchise (it's recent enough that it includes Chris Pine). Shatner manages to keep his self-absorbed ego at least somewhat in check and it's cool to see/hear from those actors. Altho, I think what I mostly came away with was a feeling of "time is marching on/most look so much older" and learning who Chris Pine's father was ... (CHiPS actor Robert Pine) ... I didn't know that before. Bizarro.

[Volourn]

" John Carter was very good, but it was set up to fail from the start. "

 

Boring dreck is boring dreck. I quit half way through  that garbage.

 

Hard caps are a bad idea. they just need to use more common sense. Sometiems it makes sense to get risky.

 

Movies like Titanic, Avatar, and probably multipel others wouldn't have seen the lgiht of day if there was a 'hard cap' and the studios would ahve lost a lot of money if they weren't made. Better risk management should be asked.

 

 It was known well before release that Carter and, Lone Ranegr were asked a near impossible task.

 

Heck, Superman Returns made 100s of millions of dolalrs and it wans't enough to please the bosses to okay a sequel.

[Tale]

I've decided to see The Wolverine tonight.

[Blarghagh]

The problem is that firms can make huge profits in the short term by doing single high risk punts.

 

Where was the risk in the billion dollar earning Pirates of the Carribean 4?

 

Not disagreeing, but just getting to the root of the problem - the sequels make the big cash* and the original or new properties are expected to do the same. Budgets and expectations for big blockbusters rise, the original properties have to follow along to be able to compete yet they stand no chance at making the same amount of money. Due to this "budget inflation" by franchises everything other than a sequel becomes a giant risk.

 

*See Pacific Rim losing to both Despicable Me 2 and Growns Ups 2.

[Walsingham]

This is 90% me just going off on one. But the problem with franchises and remakes sits squarely with the gatekeepers. The people who screen ideas. The sheer scale of the industry, and the narrowness of the bottleneck to funding means that the people who are screening for genius are about as far from genius as it's possible to get.

 

So, if someone walks in and says "I have this script fora film where we explore the issues X and Y, in the context of Z, and there's a talking gun." That's rarely going to get past as opposed to "I have a script here for a remake of The Dark Crystal. You remember that one with all the animatronic vultures."

 

Because it takes imagination and vision to make the former statement come alive as a winning combination, and a great director to actually deliver. Whereas the latter is already a proven concept.

[Blarghagh]

I have to disagree there. The gatekeepers have a part, but I blame the consumers for the most part. The gatekeepers make decisions based on what the audience says, not with their mouths, but with their wallets. They will keep making sequels because that's what the consumer will pay for.

Edited July 26, 2013 by TrueNeutral

[kimojohn258]

I saw last iron man 2 movie and awesome movie it was.

[Walsingham]

I have to disagree there. The gatekeepers have a part, but I blame the consumers for the most part. The gatekeepers make decisions based on what the audience says, not with their mouths, but with their wallets. They will keep making sequels because that's what the consumer will pay for.

 

That's their excuse. But the ever dwindling consumer interest in film releases just shows how fethed their reasoning is.

 

They make films which reassure film goers enough to get them through the door, but erode their interest in seeing any after that. It's like any firm suffering weak demand that lowers quality to cut overheads, and just accelerates the rate they are losing customers.

[Tale]

Saw The Wolverine. Fox definitely is taking the X-Men franchise seriously compared to when Origins and Last Stand came out. I guess the competition from the other Marvel properties has gotten them to take notice.

 

It's a really good film. It's fairly close to your typical bodyguard film with some superhero undertones. But the combination does it well. This is a vulnerable Wolverine developing as a character.

 

The plot wasn't particularly clever, but I thought it worked.

 

And stay for the mid-credits scene.

[Gfted1]

Spoil me:

 

 

How does he regain his healing factor?

 

[Tale]

Spoil me:

 

 

How does he regain his healing factor?

 

It's suppressed technologically. They implant something next to his heart. He reaches into his own chest and rips it out after he figures that out.

 

[Gfted1]

Awesome. Thanks.