A picture's worth a thousand words
August 16, 2011 10:30 PM Subscribe
'"People say 'It's all about the story,'"' Walt Disney Animation Studios chief technical officer Andy Hendrickson, said in a talk at the recent Siggraph conference. '"When you're making tentpole films, bullshit." Hendrickson showed a chart of the top 12 all-time domestic grossers, and noted every one is a spectacle film. Of his own studio's "Alice in Wonderland," which is on the list, he said: "The story isn't very good, but visual spectacle brought people in droves. And Johnny Depp didn't hurt."'
The bottom line: The average number of viewers per release is falling
MAKE FEWER (and maybe better) MOVIES
posted by Sys Rq at 10:42 PM on August 16, 2011 [9 favorites]
MAKE FEWER (and maybe better) MOVIES
posted by Sys Rq at 10:42 PM on August 16, 2011 [9 favorites]
In past news, farmers from 1920s Oklahoma pretty sure their best strategy is to continue not rotating crops.
posted by fartron at 10:43 PM on August 16, 2011 [22 favorites]
posted by fartron at 10:43 PM on August 16, 2011 [22 favorites]
As a fan of Speed Racer and Sky Captain, I'm okay with minimal story as long as the visuals are strange enough.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 10:53 PM on August 16, 2011 [9 favorites]
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 10:53 PM on August 16, 2011 [9 favorites]
I haven't seen the Disney/depp Alice in Wonderland. How was the story not so good? I mean the source material is pretty good, and i' m sure the story being good wouldn't have hurt revenues
posted by Hoopo at 10:55 PM on August 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Hoopo at 10:55 PM on August 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
"Once you're out of theaters your maximum profit potential is over."
He has a point there. The spectacle of a large shared viewership experience is the one thing that hasn't been pirated yet. Films don't make billions on home video.
posted by infinitewindow at 10:57 PM on August 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
He has a point there. The spectacle of a large shared viewership experience is the one thing that hasn't been pirated yet. Films don't make billions on home video.
posted by infinitewindow at 10:57 PM on August 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
Depp in Wonderland didn't have a bad story necessarily, it's just that they didn't ever let the telling of it get in the way of a truly ostentatious special effect.
posted by Riki tiki at 10:59 PM on August 16, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by Riki tiki at 10:59 PM on August 16, 2011 [5 favorites]
That's cool Andy - unfortunately for you I'm not a fan of camping. So that's another year you don't get my $.
posted by awfurby at 11:00 PM on August 16, 2011
posted by awfurby at 11:00 PM on August 16, 2011
Yeah, I'm not getting this. The most financially successful movies are the ones where you have to spend $100 mil on marketing? Shouldn't the measure be ROI?
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 11:05 PM on August 16, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 11:05 PM on August 16, 2011 [3 favorites]
"I believe in the Devil alright. And you know why? Because the prick keeps doing commercials!"
-Captain Cutshaw
posted by clavdivs at 11:07 PM on August 16, 2011 [2 favorites]
-Captain Cutshaw
posted by clavdivs at 11:07 PM on August 16, 2011 [2 favorites]
Counterpoint: "Quality is the best business plan."
At least until Cars 2.
posted by Rhaomi at 11:07 PM on August 16, 2011 [3 favorites]
At least until Cars 2.
posted by Rhaomi at 11:07 PM on August 16, 2011 [3 favorites]
Hendrickson showed a chart of the top 12 all-time domestic grossers ... Of his own studio's "Alice in Wonderland," which is on the list
That's weird, I see Alice in Wonderland at #22, unless he was just talking about the last five or six years.
"The story isn't very good, but visual spectacle brought people in droves.
Yeah, film at 11 right?
posted by P.o.B. at 11:10 PM on August 16, 2011
That's weird, I see Alice in Wonderland at #22, unless he was just talking about the last five or six years.
"The story isn't very good, but visual spectacle brought people in droves.
Yeah, film at 11 right?
posted by P.o.B. at 11:10 PM on August 16, 2011
I haven't seen the Disney/depp Alice in Wonderland. How was the story not so good?
In this case, "not so good" is an euphemism. The story was terrible. It was presented as a sequel of the books, set after Alice had reached adulthood. It took the book, took a dump on it, then set it alight and buried the smoldering remains under a pile of coke-fueled pathetic Hollywood rubbish. Do you want an inkling of how bad it was? Well, at the end of the film, Alice becomes an opium-running merchant in Asia. No shit.
posted by Skeptic at 11:15 PM on August 16, 2011 [15 favorites]
In this case, "not so good" is an euphemism. The story was terrible. It was presented as a sequel of the books, set after Alice had reached adulthood. It took the book, took a dump on it, then set it alight and buried the smoldering remains under a pile of coke-fueled pathetic Hollywood rubbish. Do you want an inkling of how bad it was? Well, at the end of the film, Alice becomes an opium-running merchant in Asia. No shit.
posted by Skeptic at 11:15 PM on August 16, 2011 [15 favorites]
Even looking at the top twenty or so domestic earners, at least a third of those are really shitty movies with only the special effects propping them up so I can see what he's getting at but what he's saying isn't totaly true. Titanic was hardly based on visual spectacle.
posted by P.o.B. at 11:18 PM on August 16, 2011
posted by P.o.B. at 11:18 PM on August 16, 2011
"Once you're out of theaters your maximum profit potential is over."
--infinitewindow
I don't know about that. Disney has made a few dollars here an there from a cartoon character long after he was no longer in the theaters.
Money from residuals isn't well publicized. The supposed flop Speed Racer made quite a bit from residuals. Having two small boys, I have spent a lot more on than for the movie tickets--hats, shirts, pjs, and, of course, lots of toys. Then again I got them hooked on the original before the movie came out.
Go go Mifune!
posted by eye of newt at 11:22 PM on August 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
--infinitewindow
I don't know about that. Disney has made a few dollars here an there from a cartoon character long after he was no longer in the theaters.
Money from residuals isn't well publicized. The supposed flop Speed Racer made quite a bit from residuals. Having two small boys, I have spent a lot more on than for the movie tickets--hats, shirts, pjs, and, of course, lots of toys. Then again I got them hooked on the original before the movie came out.
Go go Mifune!
posted by eye of newt at 11:22 PM on August 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
Money from residuals isn't well publicized. The supposed flop Speed Racer made quite a bit from residuals. Having two small boys, I have spent a lot more on than for the movie tickets--hats, shirts, pjs, and, of course, lots of toys. Then again I got them hooked on the original before the movie came out.
What would be silly is if a twentysomething man bought a Speed Racer showbag, including a Speed Racer flag. So silly....
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 11:35 PM on August 16, 2011 [6 favorites]
Perhaps they should ask Sony and Microsoft how well the overwhelming emphasis on graphics quality worked out for them this last console generation.
posted by Mitrovarr at 11:38 PM on August 16, 2011
posted by Mitrovarr at 11:38 PM on August 16, 2011
Why would anyone take a CTO's word as gospel when it comes to business strategy? That's not his job or, presumably, his area of expertise.
posted by dersins at 11:39 PM on August 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by dersins at 11:39 PM on August 16, 2011 [1 favorite]
This site has a list of the top grossing Disney films, and it doesn't follow the "tentpole" rule at all (Sixth Sense?). I assume the bomb rate for spectacle films is likely higher than targeted, crafted stories. This is a bunch of bullshit crafted to sell Disney on this guy's importance.
posted by benzenedream at 11:52 PM on August 16, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 11:52 PM on August 16, 2011 [2 favorites]
Politicians and movie/tv people both love the same lie: "We give them shitty product because that's what the people want."
Such crap. People take what they're given. People love great stories, but they're going to go to the movies. These "tentpole" movies make a lot because they're out in the summer and the studios spend a shitload marketing them. People go to them because, especially if you live in a town with just multiplexes, there really aren't any other choices.
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:54 PM on August 16, 2011 [8 favorites]
Such crap. People take what they're given. People love great stories, but they're going to go to the movies. These "tentpole" movies make a lot because they're out in the summer and the studios spend a shitload marketing them. People go to them because, especially if you live in a town with just multiplexes, there really aren't any other choices.
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:54 PM on August 16, 2011 [8 favorites]
And this is especially ironic coming from Disney, owners of Pixar, who fetishize quality story like no one else in the modern movie business.
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:54 PM on August 16, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:54 PM on August 16, 2011 [3 favorites]
Shouldn't the measure be ROI? I came into the thread to say this, but I suspect the reason ROI isn't brought up is because investing in film probably doesn't come anywhere near the right ROI for the level of risk.
posted by BrotherCaine at 12:38 AM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by BrotherCaine at 12:38 AM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
Well, at the end of the film, Alice becomes an opium-running merchant in Asia. No shit.
Wait, what?
posted by mek at 12:48 AM on August 17, 2011
Wait, what?
posted by mek at 12:48 AM on August 17, 2011
Well, at the end of the film, Alice becomes an opium-running merchant in Asia.
I'm going to be disappointed with any other ending now. This better be true.
posted by BurnChao at 12:59 AM on August 17, 2011 [11 favorites]
I'm going to be disappointed with any other ending now. This better be true.
posted by BurnChao at 12:59 AM on August 17, 2011 [11 favorites]
I wonder about the ROI of David Mamet or the Coen brothers vs Michael Bay or Uwe Boll or John Woo or the James Bond franchise.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:00 AM on August 17, 2011
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:00 AM on August 17, 2011
Well, at the end of the film, Alice becomes an opium-running merchant in Asia.
I'm going to be disappointed with any other ending now. This better be true.
Yeah, there aren't enough dark reimagings of Alice in Wonderland!
I'd love a light reimagining. Shigeru Miyamoto's Alice, a light hearted platform adventure! No drugs and lots of blue skies!
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 1:01 AM on August 17, 2011 [8 favorites]
Is this why disney keeps fighting tooth and nail to keep the old properties under copyright? ;)
I gotta say, it would have been funny, at SIGGRAPH no less, if any of the Pixar (or other talented people there) just walked in after him, and said "Bullshit." and walked off. The visuals and effects will become dated, pretty quickly with how things advance, while a good story will keep people wanting to watch it again and again.
Alice frankly sucked big donkey. I love the books, most adaptions, but i watched it on dish one night, and holy god it was awful. It didn't even look good, it was dreary, unimaginative crap, and the crap took a huge dump on the source material.
posted by usagizero at 1:10 AM on August 17, 2011
I gotta say, it would have been funny, at SIGGRAPH no less, if any of the Pixar (or other talented people there) just walked in after him, and said "Bullshit." and walked off. The visuals and effects will become dated, pretty quickly with how things advance, while a good story will keep people wanting to watch it again and again.
Alice frankly sucked big donkey. I love the books, most adaptions, but i watched it on dish one night, and holy god it was awful. It didn't even look good, it was dreary, unimaginative crap, and the crap took a huge dump on the source material.
posted by usagizero at 1:10 AM on August 17, 2011
Even looking at the top twenty or so domestic earners, at least a third of those are really shitty movies with only the special effects propping them up
Yeah, well ... [HL Mencken quote]
posted by philip-random at 1:11 AM on August 17, 2011 [3 favorites]
Yeah, well ... [HL Mencken quote]
posted by philip-random at 1:11 AM on August 17, 2011 [3 favorites]
I assume the bomb rate for spectacle films is likely higher than targeted, crafted stories. This is a bunch of bullshit crafted to sell Disney on this guy's importance.
It may be, but when a $150 million movie triples its money, it hasn't just made a significant ROI, it's turned $150 million into better part of half a billion bucks, which can suddenly cover a whole lotta failure.
Meanwhile, It takes a whole lotta of targeted, crafted successes to come close to achieving the same end. Big money is like the people have most of it. It's just different.
posted by philip-random at 1:17 AM on August 17, 2011
It may be, but when a $150 million movie triples its money, it hasn't just made a significant ROI, it's turned $150 million into better part of half a billion bucks, which can suddenly cover a whole lotta failure.
Meanwhile, It takes a whole lotta of targeted, crafted successes to come close to achieving the same end. Big money is like the people have most of it. It's just different.
posted by philip-random at 1:17 AM on August 17, 2011
The "Alice in Wonderland" remake was awful. They butchered the story so badly I thought about walking out before it finished, and I rather liked the visuals. I left wanting to strangle Joseph Campbell, and went right out and bought a copy of the book (couldn't find my old copy) just to remind myself that it was a great book, and maybe figure out why they blew it so bad.
posted by benito.strauss at 1:18 AM on August 17, 2011
posted by benito.strauss at 1:18 AM on August 17, 2011
If Hollywood really believes this, it's no wonder revenues are falling. Luring people into darkened rooms and mugging them is rarely a sustainable business model. Ever the most dull witted victim eventually becomes disinclined to repeat the process.
posted by howfar at 1:46 AM on August 17, 2011 [9 favorites]
posted by howfar at 1:46 AM on August 17, 2011 [9 favorites]
Also, what really angered me about the "Alice in Wonderland" crapfest is that the promotional material gave no indication whatsoever that this film's plot did to Alice what "Hook" had done to Peter Pan. It was a thoroughly dishonest con.
posted by Skeptic at 1:53 AM on August 17, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Skeptic at 1:53 AM on August 17, 2011 [3 favorites]
This review pretty much sums up my impression of "Alice".
posted by Skeptic at 1:55 AM on August 17, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by Skeptic at 1:55 AM on August 17, 2011 [4 favorites]
Finally someone is saying loudly what the studios feel. They don't not want to make anything good. They do not want to make anything that makes money based on good execution. They want safe; they want predictable. They want to market their way to a spectacle. They want Alice.
Is anyone going to still want to watch films in ten years if this continues?
posted by schmattakid at 2:16 AM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
Is anyone going to still want to watch films in ten years if this continues?
posted by schmattakid at 2:16 AM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
Bear in mind "Alice" was in 3D, which would over-inflate revenue if cinemas charge premiums for glasses.
posted by John Shaft at 2:21 AM on August 17, 2011
posted by John Shaft at 2:21 AM on August 17, 2011
Is anyone going to still want to watch films in ten years if this continues?
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: You could probably find this kind of comment in reviews of "Birth of a Nation." And at any other time over the past 100+ years. Movies are always "getting worse," and yet people still go to see them. There's lots of why-oh-why handwringing about this, also some blurry-like-filmed-through-Vaseline nostalgia about how great the movies of the past were that fails to include the natural winnowing out of "classics" from the crap. But there was always a lot of crap, plenty of acceptably forgettable entertainment, and just a few real gems. Apply Sturgeon's Revelation.
posted by chavenet at 3:01 AM on August 17, 2011
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: You could probably find this kind of comment in reviews of "Birth of a Nation." And at any other time over the past 100+ years. Movies are always "getting worse," and yet people still go to see them. There's lots of why-oh-why handwringing about this, also some blurry-like-filmed-through-Vaseline nostalgia about how great the movies of the past were that fails to include the natural winnowing out of "classics" from the crap. But there was always a lot of crap, plenty of acceptably forgettable entertainment, and just a few real gems. Apply Sturgeon's Revelation.
posted by chavenet at 3:01 AM on August 17, 2011
I'd love a light reimagining.
Spirited Away is pretty good.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:05 AM on August 17, 2011
Spirited Away is pretty good.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:05 AM on August 17, 2011
Correction: Spirited Away is excellent.
posted by likeso at 3:10 AM on August 17, 2011 [13 favorites]
posted by likeso at 3:10 AM on August 17, 2011 [13 favorites]
Everything old is new again:
The problem with making a dark and disturbing version of Alice in Wonderland is that it's pretty dark and disturbing to begin with, which gives it little training wheels that help cultural firebrands ride it into geniusdom once every eighteen months or so. Masterminding a trippy reinterpretation of Lewis Carroll is like making a version of Crazy Traxi, only crazy! At this point, about the edgiest thing you could do with Alice in Wonderland is try to make it a little less fucking insane.
-- Old Man Murray, American McGee's Alice review (2000)
posted by brookedel at 3:22 AM on August 17, 2011 [6 favorites]
The problem with making a dark and disturbing version of Alice in Wonderland is that it's pretty dark and disturbing to begin with, which gives it little training wheels that help cultural firebrands ride it into geniusdom once every eighteen months or so. Masterminding a trippy reinterpretation of Lewis Carroll is like making a version of Crazy Traxi, only crazy! At this point, about the edgiest thing you could do with Alice in Wonderland is try to make it a little less fucking insane.
-- Old Man Murray, American McGee's Alice review (2000)
posted by brookedel at 3:22 AM on August 17, 2011 [6 favorites]
And this is especially ironic coming from Disney, owners of Pixar, who fetishize quality story like no one else in the modern movie business.
Horseshit. One plot-rich Ghibli film is worth the entire Pixar catalogue.
Anyway, looking at the boxofficemojo worldwide gross, the top 20 is full of Harry Potter and and Lord of the Rings which, yes, are spectacles, but they're also based on hugely popular, culturally important stories.
posted by rodgerd at 3:29 AM on August 17, 2011 [2 favorites]
Horseshit. One plot-rich Ghibli film is worth the entire Pixar catalogue.
Anyway, looking at the boxofficemojo worldwide gross, the top 20 is full of Harry Potter and and Lord of the Rings which, yes, are spectacles, but they're also based on hugely popular, culturally important stories.
posted by rodgerd at 3:29 AM on August 17, 2011 [2 favorites]
Oh, and the CTO of a filmmaking company argues story is irrelevant, it's all about spectacle? What next, the head of the actors' guild arguing the key factor in movie revenue is spending more money on actor salaries?
posted by rodgerd at 3:30 AM on August 17, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by rodgerd at 3:30 AM on August 17, 2011 [2 favorites]
The best thing I can say about the recent Alice was that Anne Hathaway was pretty funny as the White Queen.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 4:06 AM on August 17, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 4:06 AM on August 17, 2011 [2 favorites]
I think a sequel to that Alice game Murray is ranting about just came out.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 4:17 AM on August 17, 2011
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 4:17 AM on August 17, 2011
Here's top 12 movies in the States, according to The Numbers:
1 2009 Avatar $760,507,625
2 1997 Titanic $600,788,188
3 2008 The Dark Knight $533,345,358
4 1977 Star Wars Ep. IV: A New Hope $460,998,007
5 2004 Shrek 2 $441,226,247
6 1982 ET: The Extra-Terrestrial $435,110,554
7 1999 Star Wars Ep. I: The Phantom Menace $431,088,297
8 2006 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest $423,315,812
9 2010 Toy Story 3 $415,004,880
10 2002 Spider-Man $403,706,375
11 2009 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen $402,111,870
12 2005 Star Wars Ep. III: Revenge of the Sith
I never saw Shrek 2, so can't comment on it, but most of the list actually has decent stories in the midst of their spectacle.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:20 AM on August 17, 2011
1 2009 Avatar $760,507,625
2 1997 Titanic $600,788,188
3 2008 The Dark Knight $533,345,358
4 1977 Star Wars Ep. IV: A New Hope $460,998,007
5 2004 Shrek 2 $441,226,247
6 1982 ET: The Extra-Terrestrial $435,110,554
7 1999 Star Wars Ep. I: The Phantom Menace $431,088,297
8 2006 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest $423,315,812
9 2010 Toy Story 3 $415,004,880
10 2002 Spider-Man $403,706,375
11 2009 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen $402,111,870
12 2005 Star Wars Ep. III: Revenge of the Sith
I never saw Shrek 2, so can't comment on it, but most of the list actually has decent stories in the midst of their spectacle.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:20 AM on August 17, 2011
What's a nice girl like you doing on a Knight like this?
posted by seanmpuckett at 4:41 AM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by seanmpuckett at 4:41 AM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
How does an all-time top list look when you filter the gross to account for actual ticket sales? You, know...actual butts in the seats? I note that merely counting the gross skews the list toward films made in the era of very expensive tickets.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:47 AM on August 17, 2011
posted by Thorzdad at 4:47 AM on August 17, 2011
Well, at the end of the film, Alice becomes an opium-running merchant in Asia.
I'm going to be disappointed with any other ending now. This better be true.
I can vouch for this not being a joke at all. The implications of the very last scene are completely bizarre, and I'm glad I'm wasn't the only one to spot it. My friend and I were buzzing after the movie that the sequel should take place during the Opium Wars, without any fantasy component whatsoever.
Also, the movie's crap. Generic fantasy plot laid over muddy visuals. The only good visual moment was with a servant frog.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:48 AM on August 17, 2011 [2 favorites]
I'm going to be disappointed with any other ending now. This better be true.
I can vouch for this not being a joke at all. The implications of the very last scene are completely bizarre, and I'm glad I'm wasn't the only one to spot it. My friend and I were buzzing after the movie that the sequel should take place during the Opium Wars, without any fantasy component whatsoever.
Also, the movie's crap. Generic fantasy plot laid over muddy visuals. The only good visual moment was with a servant frog.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:48 AM on August 17, 2011 [2 favorites]
MAKE FEWER (and maybe better) MOVIES
Yes, it's happening. Disney just halted production on "The Lone Ranger" because they couldn't get Jerry Bruckheimer to do it for less than $200 Million. And this was a "tentpole" production with Johnny Depp.
Ferchrissakes, the old Lone Ranger serials were about as cheap as it gets. You get some horses and some extras, and you go out in the desert and film it. You don't even need a second unit. What in the hell did Bruckheimer need $250 Million for? Special Effects?
posted by charlie don't surf at 4:56 AM on August 17, 2011 [4 favorites]
Yes, it's happening. Disney just halted production on "The Lone Ranger" because they couldn't get Jerry Bruckheimer to do it for less than $200 Million. And this was a "tentpole" production with Johnny Depp.
Ferchrissakes, the old Lone Ranger serials were about as cheap as it gets. You get some horses and some extras, and you go out in the desert and film it. You don't even need a second unit. What in the hell did Bruckheimer need $250 Million for? Special Effects?
posted by charlie don't surf at 4:56 AM on August 17, 2011 [4 favorites]
What Old Man Murray said. The Alice books are already dark and "edgy", you don't need to update them to make them relevant.
posted by octothorpe at 5:14 AM on August 17, 2011
posted by octothorpe at 5:14 AM on August 17, 2011
The Alice books are already dark and "edgy", you don't need to update them to make them relevant.
They're not really that dark, at least in the context of the era in which they were written. Reading Alice today without that context would be like watching an episode of The Simpsons in 100 years. There are tons of references to things which readers of the period would have recognized.
In the first book, the "darkest" thing I can think of is the Queen of Hearts' constant "Off with his head!", but the Gryphon reassures Alice that nobody ever really gets executed. Most of it is pretty over-the-top silly with wordgames and parodies of poems that readers would remember from primary school.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 5:33 AM on August 17, 2011
They're not really that dark, at least in the context of the era in which they were written. Reading Alice today without that context would be like watching an episode of The Simpsons in 100 years. There are tons of references to things which readers of the period would have recognized.
In the first book, the "darkest" thing I can think of is the Queen of Hearts' constant "Off with his head!", but the Gryphon reassures Alice that nobody ever really gets executed. Most of it is pretty over-the-top silly with wordgames and parodies of poems that readers would remember from primary school.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 5:33 AM on August 17, 2011
I get that more people will see a spectacular blockbuster with an inferior story than a less spectacular blockbuster with a superior story. That can be true and the studios can still be dumb for making movies with stories that will definitely be stupid. It baffles me. So you are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on exploding cars and processing farms to make the metal on giant robots crinkle realistically but you aren't going to spend a couple million to make anyone care about said robots. It isn't like having a good story is necessarily at odds with having good spectacle, and all things considered it is relatively cheap.
posted by I Foody at 5:39 AM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by I Foody at 5:39 AM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
You get some horses and some extras, and you go out in the desert and film it. You don't even need a second unit. What in the hell did Bruckheimer need $250 Million for? Special Effects?
You think it is cheap, teaching a horse to drift? Light kits, spoilers; they add up.
posted by sebastienbailard at 5:51 AM on August 17, 2011 [14 favorites]
You think it is cheap, teaching a horse to drift? Light kits, spoilers; they add up.
posted by sebastienbailard at 5:51 AM on August 17, 2011 [14 favorites]
Oat burners, they call them.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 5:54 AM on August 17, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by overeducated_alligator at 5:54 AM on August 17, 2011 [5 favorites]
I wonder if we conceptualize Alice in Wonderland as dark because we grew up with the original Disney animated Alice in Wonderland, which seemed too strange and melancholy for words when I was a kid.
posted by muddgirl at 6:05 AM on August 17, 2011
posted by muddgirl at 6:05 AM on August 17, 2011
I wonder if we conceptualize Alice in Wonderland as dark because...
It's dark because of all the hats and striped stockings.
For the record, I found it inoffensive enough to spend a tired evening on. It's no They're Playing with Fire.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:12 AM on August 17, 2011
It's dark because of all the hats and striped stockings.
For the record, I found it inoffensive enough to spend a tired evening on. It's no They're Playing with Fire.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:12 AM on August 17, 2011
I wonder if we conceptualize Alice in Wonderland as dark because we grew up with the original Disney animated Alice in Wonderland, which seemed too strange and melancholy for words when I was a kid.
That's my guess. I love the Disney movie on its own, but, like the Disney Peter Pan, it's a pretty bad adaptation of the original text.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 6:13 AM on August 17, 2011
That's my guess. I love the Disney movie on its own, but, like the Disney Peter Pan, it's a pretty bad adaptation of the original text.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 6:13 AM on August 17, 2011
Of course he'd say this. He's not the chief story officer, he's the chief technical officer. But John Lassiter and Peter Docter and Brad Bird and Lee Unkrich would almost certainly disagree and they all have smash films under their belt.
posted by inturnaround at 6:22 AM on August 17, 2011
posted by inturnaround at 6:22 AM on August 17, 2011
Mefi's own Last Psychiatrist wrote a great post about the drivers behind blockbusters a couple of weeks ago. It's really worth reading: My name is Michael Bay, and I just fucked your girlfriend.
posted by falameufilho at 6:24 AM on August 17, 2011 [7 favorites]
posted by falameufilho at 6:24 AM on August 17, 2011 [7 favorites]
MAKE FEWER (and maybe better) MOVIES
No, no, no. They need* to make MORE movies. Way more. More movies = more chances that something strange will happen and a good one will slip through the cracks. What they need to stop doing is even thinking for a second about spending 200 million on The Lone Ranger (Christ that's insane.)
*Of course, they don't need to, I just really wish they would.
I work in television as a writer, and the more time I spend here the more I let my thoughts of switching over to features wither. You want to see something that's story/character based, something unusual, something stirring, you're just better off watching teevee these days.
posted by Bookhouse at 6:28 AM on August 17, 2011 [3 favorites]
No, no, no. They need* to make MORE movies. Way more. More movies = more chances that something strange will happen and a good one will slip through the cracks. What they need to stop doing is even thinking for a second about spending 200 million on The Lone Ranger (Christ that's insane.)
*Of course, they don't need to, I just really wish they would.
I work in television as a writer, and the more time I spend here the more I let my thoughts of switching over to features wither. You want to see something that's story/character based, something unusual, something stirring, you're just better off watching teevee these days.
posted by Bookhouse at 6:28 AM on August 17, 2011 [3 favorites]
What would be silly is if a twentysomething man bought a Speed Racer showbag, including a Speed Racer flag. So silly....
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 11:35 PM on August 16 [3 favorites +] [!]
What would be even sillier would be if someone who was about to turn 30 hunted down a AA battery to put into his Mach 5 (original cartoon version with jumping action) 'model' car while listening to the Hardcore mix on his copy of Alpha Team's 'Speed' 12".
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 6:30 AM on August 17, 2011
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 11:35 PM on August 16 [3 favorites +] [!]
What would be even sillier would be if someone who was about to turn 30 hunted down a AA battery to put into his Mach 5 (original cartoon version with jumping action) 'model' car while listening to the Hardcore mix on his copy of Alpha Team's 'Speed' 12".
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 6:30 AM on August 17, 2011
Oh, and also, then remembers that he has Speed Racer: The Movie on VHS, and wonders where he can get a VCR at this time of night.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 6:32 AM on August 17, 2011
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 6:32 AM on August 17, 2011
Here's AirDave with supporting evidence:
posted by Legomancer at 6:34 AM on August 17, 2011
The only time I check a review is for a movie I already know I’m going to see. Not for one second do I believe that a reviewer, like, say Roger Ebert as an example, who watches movies professionally has the same taste in movies as I do. Please don’t take this as a slam. First, a reviewer sees probably ten times more movies than I will in a year. I go to see a movie for the full, complete experience, from the ticket window, to the popcorn and soda, to what shows up on the screen.When that's your viewer, do you really want to postpone production until the story is just right?
What drives my choices is finances. Pure and simple. This year, I may see maybe FIVE movies. Thor, Green Lantern, Captain America, Harry Potter and Twilight. As much as I might WANT to see more movies…as GOOD as those movies might be…I just might have to wait for eveything else to hit DVD or Netflix. That’s my reality.
There’s one other thing you touched on: Mars Needs Moms is an adaptation. It is very rare that an adaptation is done the justice it deserves. Whether live action or animated. Toy Story – and The Incredibles – were pretty original stories. Of the number of super-hero or comic book properties that have been made into film, how many of them have been successful as well as true to the original source material?
posted by Legomancer at 6:34 AM on August 17, 2011
No, no, no. They need* to make MORE movies. Way more. More movies = more chances that something strange will happen and a good one will slip through the cracks. What they need to stop doing is even thinking for a second about spending 200 million on The Lone Ranger (Christ that's insane.)
I will tell you the exact moment Hollywood went insane with money. I was there, I worked in Hollywood during the 80s, when everyone was complaining that accountants and big investors were taking over the studios. Along with that, a big upgrade in film equipment was happening, and suddenly you couldn't do a feature that wasn't shot on new generation Panavision cameras with vastly improved lenses, etc. that drove up production costs considerably. But that wasn't it.
The film that destroyed Hollywood was "The Last Starfighter." The film cost $14 Million to make, the majority of that expense was computer graphics. IIRC the cost of the CG alone was like $10 Million, run on the Cray XP-M at Digital Productions. I knew John Whitney Jr. and he complained that some of the frames were taking 40 minutes to render. And these were CG images that your iPhone could render in realtime today. Anyway, the film bombed at the box office, barely recouping its production expenses. The film was trying to ride the coat tails of Tron, to produce a more commercial film based on CG. Most of the film was totally cheap, filmed in a trailer park set, with aliens dressed as humans, with cheap rubber prosthetic heads and hands. Yeah, in those days, you could make a feature film (at least the part without CG) for $4M.
Well anyway, the film bombed, and the studios decided they would completely stop doing CG productions. It was too expensive, nobody could afford to add $10M for CG FX to the regular film budget, it was too risky. But the studios were surprised when the film "had legs." It made more money in the brand new VHS rental market than it did in theatrical release, and continued to be a big earner. This was one of the first real sleeper hits in the rental market. The studios decided that it wasn't so bad to pop $10M on CG. And they also realized, for the first time, the rental market could be more profitable than the entire worldwide run in theaters.
From that point on, it was an "arms race" in CG and FX. Each film had to outdo the last, with more FX and more expensive CG. The CG industry was rapidly developing, and sucked up a lot of the money in Hollywood. It became a self-fueled juggernaut. But this also drove up the cost of regular productions. Cameras and film techniques became more expensive, I saw a lot of films that were shot on 70mm that would have been shot on 35mm in the past. Films got sharper, the sound all had to be Dolby, etc. Budgets went fucking insane, and so did the studios. Ticket prices started going up. And then once budgets got into the tens of millions, the studios decided to start redoing old films with the new technology. The result? Today you get remakes of perfectly good films like Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. In its day (1971) it was a Technicolor extravaganza, loaded with FX and elaborate sets, costing a monstrous $2.9M. But now it has to be remade with CG and IMAX and Johnny Depp at a budget of $150M. The remake supposedly grossed $475M worldwide. And it's a fucking creepy, horrible movie, the original is much better. But it wasn't modern enough, even though it earned good money for decades and was well loved by audiences, as well as network TV that reran it over and over. What is next? Not just one studio, but TWO studios want to remake The Wizard of Oz.
posted by charlie don't surf at 8:13 AM on August 17, 2011 [13 favorites]
I will tell you the exact moment Hollywood went insane with money. I was there, I worked in Hollywood during the 80s, when everyone was complaining that accountants and big investors were taking over the studios. Along with that, a big upgrade in film equipment was happening, and suddenly you couldn't do a feature that wasn't shot on new generation Panavision cameras with vastly improved lenses, etc. that drove up production costs considerably. But that wasn't it.
The film that destroyed Hollywood was "The Last Starfighter." The film cost $14 Million to make, the majority of that expense was computer graphics. IIRC the cost of the CG alone was like $10 Million, run on the Cray XP-M at Digital Productions. I knew John Whitney Jr. and he complained that some of the frames were taking 40 minutes to render. And these were CG images that your iPhone could render in realtime today. Anyway, the film bombed at the box office, barely recouping its production expenses. The film was trying to ride the coat tails of Tron, to produce a more commercial film based on CG. Most of the film was totally cheap, filmed in a trailer park set, with aliens dressed as humans, with cheap rubber prosthetic heads and hands. Yeah, in those days, you could make a feature film (at least the part without CG) for $4M.
Well anyway, the film bombed, and the studios decided they would completely stop doing CG productions. It was too expensive, nobody could afford to add $10M for CG FX to the regular film budget, it was too risky. But the studios were surprised when the film "had legs." It made more money in the brand new VHS rental market than it did in theatrical release, and continued to be a big earner. This was one of the first real sleeper hits in the rental market. The studios decided that it wasn't so bad to pop $10M on CG. And they also realized, for the first time, the rental market could be more profitable than the entire worldwide run in theaters.
From that point on, it was an "arms race" in CG and FX. Each film had to outdo the last, with more FX and more expensive CG. The CG industry was rapidly developing, and sucked up a lot of the money in Hollywood. It became a self-fueled juggernaut. But this also drove up the cost of regular productions. Cameras and film techniques became more expensive, I saw a lot of films that were shot on 70mm that would have been shot on 35mm in the past. Films got sharper, the sound all had to be Dolby, etc. Budgets went fucking insane, and so did the studios. Ticket prices started going up. And then once budgets got into the tens of millions, the studios decided to start redoing old films with the new technology. The result? Today you get remakes of perfectly good films like Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. In its day (1971) it was a Technicolor extravaganza, loaded with FX and elaborate sets, costing a monstrous $2.9M. But now it has to be remade with CG and IMAX and Johnny Depp at a budget of $150M. The remake supposedly grossed $475M worldwide. And it's a fucking creepy, horrible movie, the original is much better. But it wasn't modern enough, even though it earned good money for decades and was well loved by audiences, as well as network TV that reran it over and over. What is next? Not just one studio, but TWO studios want to remake The Wizard of Oz.
posted by charlie don't surf at 8:13 AM on August 17, 2011 [13 favorites]
What in the hell did Bruckheimer need $250 Million for? Special Effects?
New score.
posted by madajb at 8:15 AM on August 17, 2011
New score.
posted by madajb at 8:15 AM on August 17, 2011
...and the crap took a huge dump...
Hehehehehe
posted by Senor Cardgage at 8:16 AM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
Hehehehehe
posted by Senor Cardgage at 8:16 AM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
Movies are always "getting worse," and yet people still go to see them
Well I don't. I go to at most 2 movies in a year, while in my teen years I would go all the time. The ticket prices are ludicrous, you have to sit through commercials for cars and razors now that don't seem to subsidize the ticket price, and the movies themselves are stupid 90% of the time. Along with bigger, wide-screen TVs and streaming movies on Netflix, the theatre just can't compete anymore. I don't care if I'm not the first to see Transformers.
posted by Hoopo at 8:18 AM on August 17, 2011 [5 favorites]
Well I don't. I go to at most 2 movies in a year, while in my teen years I would go all the time. The ticket prices are ludicrous, you have to sit through commercials for cars and razors now that don't seem to subsidize the ticket price, and the movies themselves are stupid 90% of the time. Along with bigger, wide-screen TVs and streaming movies on Netflix, the theatre just can't compete anymore. I don't care if I'm not the first to see Transformers.
posted by Hoopo at 8:18 AM on August 17, 2011 [5 favorites]
I wonder if we conceptualize Alice in Wonderland as dark because we grew up with the original Disney animated Alice in Wonderland, which seemed too strange and melancholy for words when I was a kid.
I've never even seen that movie and I still consider Alice in Wonderland to be dark. It's not a matter of actual violence or horror (though there's that too, at least in Through the Looking-Glass), it's just the emotional palette Carroll works with, all that confusion, melancholy, madness, indifference, and anger. I mean, compare Wonderland to like, Narnia or something. It's an awesome but thoroughly unwelcoming world. What about the treatment of the sneezing baby in the "Pig and Pepper" chapter?
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 8:20 AM on August 17, 2011 [8 favorites]
I've never even seen that movie and I still consider Alice in Wonderland to be dark. It's not a matter of actual violence or horror (though there's that too, at least in Through the Looking-Glass), it's just the emotional palette Carroll works with, all that confusion, melancholy, madness, indifference, and anger. I mean, compare Wonderland to like, Narnia or something. It's an awesome but thoroughly unwelcoming world. What about the treatment of the sneezing baby in the "Pig and Pepper" chapter?
'You don't know much,' said the Duchess; 'and that's a fact.'Then the Duchess sings a song about how she beats him when he sneezes, "flings" him at Alice, and he turns into a pig. "'IF I don't take this child away with me,' thought Alice, 'they're sure to kill it in a day or two: wouldn't it be murder to leave it behind?'" That's rough, no? I still remember it for the shock it gave me as a child. I mean, I hate when people overstate the darkness of a work, ignoring its tone and the actual experience of it and highlighting one or two conveniently ugly plot points or background facts just to make the stupid murder-mystery-themed hidden object puzzle game or whatever they're obsessed that week with sound interesting and worthwhile. But to me, saying Alice isn't really dark is doing the opposite - glossing over that it feels gloomy, disconcerting, and sometimes slightly brutal (not that it isn't also charming and hilarious) just because nothing really bad actually happens. It doesn't have to.
Alice did not at all like the tone of this remark, and thought it would be as well to introduce some other subject of conversation. While she was trying to fix on one, the cook took the cauldron of soup off the fire, and at once set to work throwing everything within her reach at the Duchess and the baby—the fire-irons came first; then followed a shower of saucepans, plates, and dishes. The Duchess took no notice of them even when they hit her; and the baby was howling so much already, that it was quite impossible to say whether the blows hurt it or not.
'Oh, PLEASE mind what you're doing!' cried Alice, jumping up and down in an agony of terror. 'Oh, there goes his PRECIOUS nose'; as an unusually large saucepan flew close by it, and very nearly carried it off.
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 8:20 AM on August 17, 2011 [8 favorites]
Most of the film was totally cheap, filmed in a trailer park set, with aliens dressed as humans, with cheap rubber prosthetic heads and hands.
Holy shit, I need to see that movie. They had actual aliens in the movie playing the role of humans? How counter-intuitive. This raises so many questions:
1. Where did the aliens come from?
2. Did they have any formal training in acting?
3. Were their parts dubbed, or could they speak, too?
4. Why not just use regular humans for the human roles?
5. Do the aliens work for less money than the humans?
6. Was the fact that the aliens were non-union part of the reason?
7. Were there alien characters in the movie? Were those played by humans?
posted by flarbuse at 8:24 AM on August 17, 2011 [15 favorites]
Holy shit, I need to see that movie. They had actual aliens in the movie playing the role of humans? How counter-intuitive. This raises so many questions:
1. Where did the aliens come from?
2. Did they have any formal training in acting?
3. Were their parts dubbed, or could they speak, too?
4. Why not just use regular humans for the human roles?
5. Do the aliens work for less money than the humans?
6. Was the fact that the aliens were non-union part of the reason?
7. Were there alien characters in the movie? Were those played by humans?
posted by flarbuse at 8:24 AM on August 17, 2011 [15 favorites]
Weirdly, Alice seems to lend itself to this sort of thing, regardless of medium.
(Though the Disney movie is a whole unique level of awful.)
posted by Wylla at 8:33 AM on August 17, 2011
(Though the Disney movie is a whole unique level of awful.)
posted by Wylla at 8:33 AM on August 17, 2011
Yes flarbuse, you should see the film, it is a rather charming little film in a lot of ways. The alien characters were shapeshifters that took human form, but when they ran out of their alien mojo that kept them in human form, their heads and hands reverted, so you had a character dressed in a police uniform with a fakey rubber alien head and hands stuck out of it. It was utterly ridiculous. And it was good enough for the era. But today you have to pay ILM tens of millions of bucks to do mocap that drives a full CG alien character.
posted by charlie don't surf at 8:41 AM on August 17, 2011
posted by charlie don't surf at 8:41 AM on August 17, 2011
On Tim Burton here for a second: the sad thing is that when Burton makes his (in my humblest opinion) his best films, the goobers dont show up to watch them.
Ed Wood, Mars Attacks, Big Fish, a lot of people forget that Nightmare Before Christmas was a bomb when it came out too, and hell I even loved Sweeney Todd. NONE of them did the business of any of his CGI merched-up crapfests.
Also remember when the Ooompa Loompas rapped like it was a music video from 2002? Yeah fuck that. No one is going to want to watch that in 20 years.
I suspect however that the kids of 2031 will still love watching Jack Albertson and Peter Ostrum float around on wires in a room full of bubbles though.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 8:44 AM on August 17, 2011 [6 favorites]
Ed Wood, Mars Attacks, Big Fish, a lot of people forget that Nightmare Before Christmas was a bomb when it came out too, and hell I even loved Sweeney Todd. NONE of them did the business of any of his CGI merched-up crapfests.
Also remember when the Ooompa Loompas rapped like it was a music video from 2002? Yeah fuck that. No one is going to want to watch that in 20 years.
I suspect however that the kids of 2031 will still love watching Jack Albertson and Peter Ostrum float around on wires in a room full of bubbles though.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 8:44 AM on August 17, 2011 [6 favorites]
Who needs Johnny Depp when you've got a veritable cavalcade of stars? That's what I want to know.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:46 AM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Sys Rq at 8:46 AM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
Alice felt even more indignant at this suggestion. "I mean," she said, "that one ca'n't help growing older."Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll
"One can't, perhaps," said Humpty Dumpty; "but two can. With proper assistance, you might have left off at seven."
posted by Crabby Appleton at 9:07 AM on August 17, 2011 [2 favorites]
I wonder if we conceptualize Alice in Wonderland as dark because...
It's dark because, despite all the inherent weirdness of the story events, at it's heart Carroll's dream-vision delivers a certain cold truth about how adults of that uptight and eccentric to the point of psychotic Victorian era viewed small children -- with deep suspicion to the point of threat. Nobody is ever just nice to young Alice. There's always a hint of malice or just plain strangeness in their manner.
For what it's worth, it very much reminds me of time I had to spend with certain elder relatives of my dad when I was maybe eight. It was his home town, a very old and English and Anglican community in rural Quebec ... like being in the wrong century. A ghost story.
posted by philip-random at 9:16 AM on August 17, 2011 [3 favorites]
It's dark because, despite all the inherent weirdness of the story events, at it's heart Carroll's dream-vision delivers a certain cold truth about how adults of that uptight and eccentric to the point of psychotic Victorian era viewed small children -- with deep suspicion to the point of threat. Nobody is ever just nice to young Alice. There's always a hint of malice or just plain strangeness in their manner.
For what it's worth, it very much reminds me of time I had to spend with certain elder relatives of my dad when I was maybe eight. It was his home town, a very old and English and Anglican community in rural Quebec ... like being in the wrong century. A ghost story.
posted by philip-random at 9:16 AM on August 17, 2011 [3 favorites]
The Victorians knew that children are little savages that have to be civilized by coercion.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 9:19 AM on August 17, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Crabby Appleton at 9:19 AM on August 17, 2011 [3 favorites]
That's weird, I see Alice in Wonderland at #22, unless he was just talking about the last five or six years.
Maybe it was Opening Weekends, where Alice is #9. That is really the number they are aiming for with tentpole films, because next week there is a new tentpole.
posted by smackfu at 9:25 AM on August 17, 2011
Maybe it was Opening Weekends, where Alice is #9. That is really the number they are aiming for with tentpole films, because next week there is a new tentpole.
posted by smackfu at 9:25 AM on August 17, 2011
Tim Burton is cinema's Hemingway. He made a couple of great things early on and then churned out worse and worse imitations of the worst of his own excesses.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:26 AM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by shakespeherian at 9:26 AM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
Domestic opening weekend and increasingly worldwide opening numbers are what drives Hollywood decision making. Tentpole films built on spectacle rather than storytelling get the right demographics into the multiplexes in the US and more importantly across the world.
So much of the math is driven by the limited number of weekends in the summer movie window and the necessity of making the majority of your domestic profits during a 2 week run before the next $200 million monstrosity comes down and steals your audience.
It seems that you would actually do better releasing a blockbuster in winter these days in order to give yourself more time for repeat customers but many studios seem reluctant to commit to a winter release for a blockbuster, instead focusing on cheaper but still profitable family fare.
Studios have become incredibly risk averse and for good reason, in many cases they are banking their financial success on the success of a small number of tentpole releases. As a result we see formulaic movie after formulaic movie with bankable stars highlighting massive projects along with the ohh so tired romantic comedies that continue to be the hallmark of bad date nights.
posted by vuron at 9:54 AM on August 17, 2011
So much of the math is driven by the limited number of weekends in the summer movie window and the necessity of making the majority of your domestic profits during a 2 week run before the next $200 million monstrosity comes down and steals your audience.
It seems that you would actually do better releasing a blockbuster in winter these days in order to give yourself more time for repeat customers but many studios seem reluctant to commit to a winter release for a blockbuster, instead focusing on cheaper but still profitable family fare.
Studios have become incredibly risk averse and for good reason, in many cases they are banking their financial success on the success of a small number of tentpole releases. As a result we see formulaic movie after formulaic movie with bankable stars highlighting massive projects along with the ohh so tired romantic comedies that continue to be the hallmark of bad date nights.
posted by vuron at 9:54 AM on August 17, 2011
Domestic opening weekend and increasingly worldwide opening numbers are what drives Hollywood decision making. Tentpole films built on spectacle rather than storytelling get the right demographics into the multiplexes in the US and more importantly across the world.
Yes, but that's only because opening weekend buzz directly drives long term video rentals. They don't care if the buzz is good or bad, as long as it's big. That means they remember the film when they see it for rental.
Spectacle is the problem. I recall back in the 80s, one newly appointed studio head (I forget who) wrote an editorial in the LA Times denouncing spectacle. He said it would lead to greater and greater excesses, bigger car crashes and explosions, bigger numbers of dead bodies etc. and there was only one possible outcome of this trend. It would lead to decadence on a scale never seen since the Romans and their gladiators battling to the death.
Of course, the studios laughed all the way to the bank with their profits from films like Friday the 13th Part IV: The Final Chapter and Friday the 13th Part V: New Beginning.
posted by charlie don't surf at 10:05 AM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yes, but that's only because opening weekend buzz directly drives long term video rentals. They don't care if the buzz is good or bad, as long as it's big. That means they remember the film when they see it for rental.
Spectacle is the problem. I recall back in the 80s, one newly appointed studio head (I forget who) wrote an editorial in the LA Times denouncing spectacle. He said it would lead to greater and greater excesses, bigger car crashes and explosions, bigger numbers of dead bodies etc. and there was only one possible outcome of this trend. It would lead to decadence on a scale never seen since the Romans and their gladiators battling to the death.
Of course, the studios laughed all the way to the bank with their profits from films like Friday the 13th Part IV: The Final Chapter and Friday the 13th Part V: New Beginning.
posted by charlie don't surf at 10:05 AM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yes, but that's only because opening weekend buzz directly drives long term video rentals. They don't care if the buzz is good or bad, as long as it's big. That means they remember the film when they see it for rental.
This is not my understanding. I don't think the rental market drives things nearly as much as it used to, even with Redbox. Thus the more attention paid to foreign markets.
posted by Bookhouse at 10:20 AM on August 17, 2011
This is not my understanding. I don't think the rental market drives things nearly as much as it used to, even with Redbox. Thus the more attention paid to foreign markets.
posted by Bookhouse at 10:20 AM on August 17, 2011
It seems that you would actually do better releasing a blockbuster in winter these days in order to give yourself more time for repeat customers but many studios seem reluctant to commit to a winter release for a blockbuster, instead focusing on cheaper but still profitable family fare.
The Alice movie in question was released on March 5th.
posted by smackfu at 10:46 AM on August 17, 2011
The Alice movie in question was released on March 5th.
posted by smackfu at 10:46 AM on August 17, 2011
Well I'm sure things have changed since I heard this theory, Bookhouse, but I know a lot of people still operate that way, especially at the low end of the film market. I first heard this theory from a screenwriter friend, and he has an Oscar so I have to assume he knew what he was talking about.
posted by charlie don't surf at 10:48 AM on August 17, 2011
posted by charlie don't surf at 10:48 AM on August 17, 2011
The tremendous profits enjoyed during the rental market heyday and with DVD/Blue Ray sales definitely seem to be under siege from streaming competitors.
Even with production and packaging and marketing costs the return on investment from a $15 DVD sale seems to be much higher than the cut studios get from someone like Netflix. You'll still get a decent amount of DVD sales to people that watch movies over and over again but I think more an more people are relying on streaming plans or really low cost rentals (redbox) for the bulk of their home movie viewing.
Worldwide gross seems to be the new benchmark for profitability. It can make even relatively expensive tentpoles pretty decent bets that show profitability much earlier. For studios that seem to be living on borrowed money all the time the ability to clear a profit quickly means that you can produce that next big moneymaker that much faster.
Unfortunately chasing the international market seems to come with simplifications of storylines and narrative techniques as a complex character drama is less likely to survive the translation process unscathed. End result seems to be relatively dumb comic book adaptations and movies built around bankable properties (sequels, older movies, popular kid book franchises, etc).
posted by vuron at 10:49 AM on August 17, 2011
Even with production and packaging and marketing costs the return on investment from a $15 DVD sale seems to be much higher than the cut studios get from someone like Netflix. You'll still get a decent amount of DVD sales to people that watch movies over and over again but I think more an more people are relying on streaming plans or really low cost rentals (redbox) for the bulk of their home movie viewing.
Worldwide gross seems to be the new benchmark for profitability. It can make even relatively expensive tentpoles pretty decent bets that show profitability much earlier. For studios that seem to be living on borrowed money all the time the ability to clear a profit quickly means that you can produce that next big moneymaker that much faster.
Unfortunately chasing the international market seems to come with simplifications of storylines and narrative techniques as a complex character drama is less likely to survive the translation process unscathed. End result seems to be relatively dumb comic book adaptations and movies built around bankable properties (sequels, older movies, popular kid book franchises, etc).
posted by vuron at 10:49 AM on August 17, 2011
Oh I loved Last Starfighter when I was a lad... it gave such credence to my childhood argument that video games were GOOD for me because they developed hand-eye co-ordination! Altho even as a tot it totally seemed like the starfighter spinning shooting super-move thing would totally wreck the pilots with whiplash and nauseau. I think the Monarchs 'Death's Head Panoply' in Venture Brothers is a direct homage to that.
posted by FatherDagon at 10:52 AM on August 17, 2011
posted by FatherDagon at 10:52 AM on August 17, 2011
"The Alice movie in question was released on March 5th."
Yeah, I'm not sure why Disney is pushing so many films in March in recent years. It looks like they are going to slot a new Snow White in March next year with a new Oz movie in 2014. Looking at some of the hoopla about the short theatrical release window for Alice it seems like Disney is trying to get both theatrical numbers and dvd/rental sales in a very compressed timeline.
It appears that other studios seem to be following this model as well with Universal slotting a Dr Seuss movie in 2013 and Paramount slotting an animated movie in 2014.
Honestly I think expansion from the summer and Christmas model is probably a long time in coming.
posted by vuron at 11:06 AM on August 17, 2011
Yeah, I'm not sure why Disney is pushing so many films in March in recent years. It looks like they are going to slot a new Snow White in March next year with a new Oz movie in 2014. Looking at some of the hoopla about the short theatrical release window for Alice it seems like Disney is trying to get both theatrical numbers and dvd/rental sales in a very compressed timeline.
It appears that other studios seem to be following this model as well with Universal slotting a Dr Seuss movie in 2013 and Paramount slotting an animated movie in 2014.
Honestly I think expansion from the summer and Christmas model is probably a long time in coming.
posted by vuron at 11:06 AM on August 17, 2011
What in the hell did Bruckheimer need $250 Million for? Special Effects?
CGI Werewolves. No, I'm not joking.
posted by redspraypaint at 11:33 AM on August 17, 2011
CGI Werewolves. No, I'm not joking.
posted by redspraypaint at 11:33 AM on August 17, 2011
vuron, March has been the new big push month since The Matrix bowed and wowed in 1999.
posted by infinitewindow at 11:33 AM on August 17, 2011
posted by infinitewindow at 11:33 AM on August 17, 2011
The tremendous profits enjoyed during the rental market heyday and with DVD/Blue Ray sales definitely seem to be under siege from streaming competitors.
Read somewhere (Financial Times?) that illegal downloads were a big factor in scratching the Dark Tower project.
No doubt there were other factors, but still, as always, you get what you pay for.
posted by IndigoJones at 11:34 AM on August 17, 2011
Read somewhere (Financial Times?) that illegal downloads were a big factor in scratching the Dark Tower project.
No doubt there were other factors, but still, as always, you get what you pay for.
posted by IndigoJones at 11:34 AM on August 17, 2011
Crabby Appleton, I must have read that exchange a thousand times and never got the implication. My mind has been blown for today!
You think it is cheap, teaching a horse to drift?
I believe this may be analogous to barrel racing sir.
posted by winna at 11:44 AM on August 17, 2011
You think it is cheap, teaching a horse to drift?
I believe this may be analogous to barrel racing sir.
posted by winna at 11:44 AM on August 17, 2011
Honestly if illegal downloads stopped Ron Howard from directing the Dark Tower than we should probably be thankful. That man can turn just about any story into a completely saccharine schmaltz-fest.
But honestly I blame Comcast for that cut, they definitely seem like the sort that will milk the Universal catalogue for maximum profit and minimum risk.
posted by vuron at 11:51 AM on August 17, 2011
But honestly I blame Comcast for that cut, they definitely seem like the sort that will milk the Universal catalogue for maximum profit and minimum risk.
posted by vuron at 11:51 AM on August 17, 2011
I think the Monarchs 'Death's Head Panoply' in Venture Brothers is a direct homage to that.
I thought so, too.
Also, the Death's Head Panoply was fucking rad. If Hollywood was smart, they'd do a tentpole summer blockbuster about the Monarch and it would climax with the Death's Head Panoply.
posted by COBRA! at 12:09 PM on August 17, 2011
I thought so, too.
Also, the Death's Head Panoply was fucking rad. If Hollywood was smart, they'd do a tentpole summer blockbuster about the Monarch and it would climax with the Death's Head Panoply.
posted by COBRA! at 12:09 PM on August 17, 2011
but still, as always, you get what you pay for.
Like unskippable ads, movie trailers and anti-piracy warnings.
posted by the_artificer at 12:20 PM on August 17, 2011 [2 favorites]
Like unskippable ads, movie trailers and anti-piracy warnings.
posted by the_artificer at 12:20 PM on August 17, 2011 [2 favorites]
"What in the hell did Bruckheimer need $250 Million for? Special Effects?"
The horses explode when shot.
posted by klangklangston at 12:25 PM on August 17, 2011 [4 favorites]
The horses explode when shot.
posted by klangklangston at 12:25 PM on August 17, 2011 [4 favorites]
I know a lot of people still operate that way, especially at the low end of the film market.
Sure. And I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I think the foreign market has a bigger pull these days. And I could be wrong; I'm on the other side of the fence.
posted by Bookhouse at 12:48 PM on August 17, 2011
Sure. And I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I think the foreign market has a bigger pull these days. And I could be wrong; I'm on the other side of the fence.
posted by Bookhouse at 12:48 PM on August 17, 2011
But here's something that's true in television that I'm sure is true in features as well: things are changing very fast and nobody knows how its going to shake out in five years.
posted by Bookhouse at 12:49 PM on August 17, 2011
posted by Bookhouse at 12:49 PM on August 17, 2011
and nobody knows how its going to shake out in five years.
well, if TV's past is any indication of its future, I suspect it won't get any better (in terms of programming quality) than it is right now. That is, I've always taken the view that quality TV is a mistake of timing, demographics etc ... and that the steady state norm the corporate cabal is aiming for is brainfreeze the likes of Gilligan's Island, Joanie Loves Chachi, Chips, TJ Hooker.
posted by philip-random at 1:09 PM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
well, if TV's past is any indication of its future, I suspect it won't get any better (in terms of programming quality) than it is right now. That is, I've always taken the view that quality TV is a mistake of timing, demographics etc ... and that the steady state norm the corporate cabal is aiming for is brainfreeze the likes of Gilligan's Island, Joanie Loves Chachi, Chips, TJ Hooker.
posted by philip-random at 1:09 PM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
Well, yeah, if you add everything together the stew is pretty bad, but I'd argue that the last decade (or so) has seen a tremendous increase at the high end of the quality scale.
posted by Bookhouse at 1:39 PM on August 17, 2011
posted by Bookhouse at 1:39 PM on August 17, 2011
Honestly if illegal downloads stopped Ron Howard from directing the Dark Tower than we should probably be thankful. That man can turn just about any story into a completely saccharine schmaltz-fest.
I wonder if he has the Andy Griffith Show whistling going in his head constantly. That would explain a lot.
posted by Celsius1414 at 2:17 PM on August 17, 2011
I wonder if he has the Andy Griffith Show whistling going in his head constantly. That would explain a lot.
posted by Celsius1414 at 2:17 PM on August 17, 2011
As a fan of Speed Racer and Sky Captain, I'm okay with minimal story as long as the visuals are strange enough.
I love Sky Captain, flaws and all. In fact, I referenced it earlier today in the Canadian Armed Forces thread. Our friends to the north could do worse than to rename their Air Force "Sky Captain and the Flying Legion."
posted by Celsius1414 at 2:20 PM on August 17, 2011
I love Sky Captain, flaws and all. In fact, I referenced it earlier today in the Canadian Armed Forces thread. Our friends to the north could do worse than to rename their Air Force "Sky Captain and the Flying Legion."
posted by Celsius1414 at 2:20 PM on August 17, 2011
As a fan of Speed Racer and Sky Captain, I'm okay with minimal story as long as the visuals are strange enough.
You know, if you close your eyes and press gently on your eyeballs, the visuals are really trippy, man.
..nobody knows how its going to shake out in five years.
Oh of course they do, you know how it works, Bookhouse. People will throw all sorts of crap at the wall and see if anything sticks. Eventually, something will break out and become a smash hit, and everyone will try to copy it for the next 5 years. We don't know what that breakout hit is yet, but we'll know it when we see it.
posted by charlie don't surf at 3:44 PM on August 17, 2011
You know, if you close your eyes and press gently on your eyeballs, the visuals are really trippy, man.
..nobody knows how its going to shake out in five years.
Oh of course they do, you know how it works, Bookhouse. People will throw all sorts of crap at the wall and see if anything sticks. Eventually, something will break out and become a smash hit, and everyone will try to copy it for the next 5 years. We don't know what that breakout hit is yet, but we'll know it when we see it.
posted by charlie don't surf at 3:44 PM on August 17, 2011
I'm not talking about what people will like; I'm talking about money.
posted by Bookhouse at 4:21 PM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Bookhouse at 4:21 PM on August 17, 2011 [1 favorite]
Me too, Bookhouse. No disrespect intended to your profession, but people will watch some awful crap, even if it's just an imitation of something that wasn't crap at one time. Look at the current trend, how long has Reality TV dominated? When did that start, what was the first big hit? Big Brother? Survivor? And now years later, they're making loads of money off shows like Jersey Shore. Well let's just hope that the next trend is something that isn't specifically designed to eliminate "unnecessary" expenses like scriptwriters. Or talent.
posted by charlie don't surf at 8:51 PM on August 17, 2011
posted by charlie don't surf at 8:51 PM on August 17, 2011
Look at the current trend, how long has Reality TV dominated? When did that start, what was the first big hit? Big Brother? Survivor?
Probably The Real World.
An American Family was actually much earlier, but not really in the same class (in terms of watching unrelated 'interesting' people live together).
posted by eye of newt at 12:09 AM on August 18, 2011
Probably The Real World.
An American Family was actually much earlier, but not really in the same class (in terms of watching unrelated 'interesting' people live together).
posted by eye of newt at 12:09 AM on August 18, 2011
Here's what you need to do:
Read any article about movie finances.
Try to find a reference to exploding ticket costs, and how that's pricing people out of the movies.
You will suddenly notice a hole in every story, every speech, every discussion. This hole will be, of course, the complete lack of awareness that as prices go up, viewership goes down. It's very strange, because all the setup is there, up to and including the existence of 3D surcharges. But then, right when it's time to say, "Well maybe it's too expensive for a family of four to go to the movies..."
Boom. Missing paragraph.
posted by effugas at 4:17 PM on August 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
Read any article about movie finances.
Try to find a reference to exploding ticket costs, and how that's pricing people out of the movies.
You will suddenly notice a hole in every story, every speech, every discussion. This hole will be, of course, the complete lack of awareness that as prices go up, viewership goes down. It's very strange, because all the setup is there, up to and including the existence of 3D surcharges. But then, right when it's time to say, "Well maybe it's too expensive for a family of four to go to the movies..."
Boom. Missing paragraph.
posted by effugas at 4:17 PM on August 18, 2011 [1 favorite]
No disrespect intended to your profession, but people will watch some awful crap,
None taken. There is a lot of true shit out there.
Well let's just hope that the next trend is something that isn't specifically designed to eliminate "unnecessary" expenses like scriptwriters.
Fortunately the newest trend is in scripted cable dramas, which makes writers like me very happy.
posted by Bookhouse at 4:43 PM on August 18, 2011
None taken. There is a lot of true shit out there.
Well let's just hope that the next trend is something that isn't specifically designed to eliminate "unnecessary" expenses like scriptwriters.
Fortunately the newest trend is in scripted cable dramas, which makes writers like me very happy.
posted by Bookhouse at 4:43 PM on August 18, 2011
ME but still, as always, you get what you pay for.
YOU Like unskippable ads, movie trailers and anti-piracy warnings.
Part of the price, sure. You don;t like it, go to the toilet when you pop the disc in.
But if you don't want to pay anything at all, ever, no way, eff them, information wants to be free, and clearly a lot of people do not, then be prepared to say good bye to a lot of new production. We can't all have it both ways.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:24 PM on August 18, 2011
YOU Like unskippable ads, movie trailers and anti-piracy warnings.
Part of the price, sure. You don;t like it, go to the toilet when you pop the disc in.
But if you don't want to pay anything at all, ever, no way, eff them, information wants to be free, and clearly a lot of people do not, then be prepared to say good bye to a lot of new production. We can't all have it both ways.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:24 PM on August 18, 2011
We can't all have it both ways.
I'm willing to roll the dice on it. No forced advertising -- I'll figure out a way to pay. Force it on me and fuck it, let the magic kingdom fall. They just want to eat my soul anyway.
posted by philip-random at 7:12 PM on August 18, 2011
I'm willing to roll the dice on it. No forced advertising -- I'll figure out a way to pay. Force it on me and fuck it, let the magic kingdom fall. They just want to eat my soul anyway.
posted by philip-random at 7:12 PM on August 18, 2011
« Older Pssst: MNDR fpp | RCN and RCAF Return to Canada Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by schmod at 10:41 PM on August 16, 2011 [1 favorite]