 Originally Posted by MinionZombie
1) That's a good comparison to draw - it's all getting more perilous. The risk part of the risk/reward ratio is becoming too large. In the movie biz hundreds of millions used to be astonishing as profit. Now these tentpoles must make over a billion or, as you say, they're considered kinda duff. What absolute rot. There's all these wild figures swirling around for "Suicide Squad" - it was $500m then it was $700m and now it's feckin' $800m in order for it to break even - what absolute guff from the mainstream clickbait media and their perpetual cycle of horseshit. With a budget of $175m, and then add another $175m for marketing (these costs are ridiculous - but it's that 'the film budget over again' theory for marketing costs), and even considering that they don't get back all of the Box Office (as a cut goes to the cinemas), with a total gross of about $466m thus far they've probably broken even by now, or are very close to doing so ... but that doesn't gain clicks, does it? I don't know whether 'nu-GB' will lose as much as $100m, but it'll certainly lose money.
Regarding marketing, I have to ask where does that money go? Because, from mere observation I don't really see that much different marketing techniques than I did years ago. There's trailers, TV spots, posters around town, etc. Coupled with that you also have a huge online situation that does a large amount of that work for you without you having to lift a finger. $175 mil is WTF territory simply to sell a film. Think of all the films that could be made with that money? There are directors out there that could turn in, at least, three gems for that. It's, frankly, sickening.
Originally Posted by MinionZombie
2) Yeah, the 'indie' films of today are the realm of interesting stories ... although sometimes they can just be terribly forgettable and only out to seek Oscars for the studios ... but there's some really interesting ones out there. I just saw "Sicario" (budget of $30m - three big name actors attached, well-respected new director in the chair, great script) and that was a really good flick - picked up by Lionsgate for distribution. What Benicio Del Toro's character does near the end would never make it into a Hollywood flick - but it stands out and is true to the character and story world. Interestingly they're working on a sequel with BDT and Josh Brolin (no Blunt, though - scheduling conflicts).
Haven't seen that yet, but it's on the "to do" list. But yes, like any film, some indie stuff can be completely meh. Most entertainment is largely made up of meh, with the class shining through every so often. However, there's SO much content out there these days, the amount of meh seems overwhelming at times.
Originally Posted by MinionZombie
It's funny, though, isn't it? All these Oscar winning films and how much are Hollywood really involved in making them? Studios distribute them, but how many are actually made within the Hollywood system? And yet they're the darlings on Oscar night. Not particularly profitable many of them, perhaps, but many will live on far longer than a box office clunker (who gives a shit about Battleship, or John Carter, for example?) ... there's room for all kinds - micro budget, mid-budget, and big budget - but these execs, who only see things (as you say) on charts and graphs rather than caring about staying true to the source material (WWZ!!!, the obsession with PG-13 - the MPAA needs to adopt the 12/15/18 mix that the BBFC has) or taking a few risks. The New Hollywood era is revered, yet all too often the lessons of that time are ignored completely.
I actually liked 'John carter...ahem...of Mars' LOL  It's another film that I think will find its audience eventually. It's also another film that is consigned to the "flop" bin, without it actually having been a flop. 'John Carter' made a profit. 'Ishtar' or 'Hudson Hawk', now theywere flops.
But yes, the Hollywood system is like the games industry. You have the likes of EA making stupid money and the software houses that build the bloody games going under. Where's the logic there? We need a system that eliminates "producers" (or turns them into patrons of a sort), because they are largely leeches, TBH. They do a lot to constrain talent and hold artistry to ransom, because they have their hands on the purse strings.
The lessons of the "New Hollywood" era are ignored because the "Newer Hollywood" only remembers the money made by 'Star Wars' and 'Jaws'.
Originally Posted by MinionZombie
Anyway - the main thing is: BvS and Suicide Squad may be flawed, but they don't deserve the sheer kicking they've received from critics in the slightest.
I've yet to see a film without some flaws, but it brings me back to what I said earlier. I really am at a loss as to what people are expecting from these films.
|
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks