Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:58 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR 
Author Message
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:40 pm
Posts: 556
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
My take on why this sequel is taking it up the ass at the box office is simple: it took WAY TOO FUCKING LONG for this film to follow up to the first one, period. 9 fucking years for a sequel? That's an eternity when it comes to the short attention span of the average moviegoing shlub in the North American market.

_________________
"Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain."


Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:56 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3599
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
Ragnarok73 wrote:
My take on why this sequel is taking it up the ass at the box office is simple: it took WAY TOO FUCKING LONG for this film to follow up to the first one, period. 9 fucking years for a sequel? That's an eternity when it comes to the short attention span of the average moviegoing shlub in the North American market.

Agreed, Basic Instinct 2 also failed for that reason(that and it was a bad idea to begin with).


Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:02 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:02 pm
Posts: 205
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
Ragnarok73 wrote:
My take on why this sequel is taking it up the ass at the box office is simple: it took WAY TOO FUCKING LONG for this film to follow up to the first one, period. 9 fucking years for a sequel? That's an eternity when it comes to the short attention span of the average moviegoing shlub in the North American market.


The thing is, I would argue that there is no average movie-going shlub in North America anymore, for the reasons I outlined earlier about the fragmentation of the film-going market, coupled with the loss of dominance of films (as shown in theatres) as the primary entertainment vehicle for North Americans, with films competing with video games, cable/Netflix TV, social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Reddit, 4chan, etc.).

I would also argue that this fragmentation in the film market means that the most successful films are one of 3 types:

(1) "Niche" films (particularly low-budget independent films) that can find its specific audience

(2) Massive "superevent" films (e.g. Godzilla)

or

(3) Films that are based on an established "brand name", e.g. films based on successful book series, TV series, comic books, etc.

(Please note that (2) and (3) often overlap)

The films that have the most difficulty are those films that don't easily fit into these 3 categories. Sin City: A Dame to Kill For could fit into (3) but Sin City isn't really a "brand name" film in the way that say, Star Wars or The Hunger Games are.


Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:52 am
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:40 pm
Posts: 556
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
StatGuy2000 wrote:
Ragnarok73 wrote:
My take on why this sequel is taking it up the ass at the box office is simple: it took WAY TOO FUCKING LONG for this film to follow up to the first one, period. 9 fucking years for a sequel? That's an eternity when it comes to the short attention span of the average moviegoing shlub in the North American market.


The thing is, I would argue that there is no average movie-going shlub in North America anymore, for the reasons I outlined earlier about the fragmentation of the film-going market, coupled with the loss of dominance of films (as shown in theatres) as the primary entertainment vehicle for North Americans, with films competing with video games, cable/Netflix TV, social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Reddit, 4chan, etc.).

I would also argue that this fragmentation in the film market means that the most successful films are one of 3 types:

(1) "Niche" films (particularly low-budget independent films) that can find its specific audience

(2) Massive "superevent" films (e.g. Godzilla)

or

(3) Films that are based on an established "brand name", e.g. films based on successful book series, TV series, comic books, etc.

(Please note that (2) and (3) often overlap)

The films that have the most difficulty are those films that don't easily fit into these 3 categories. Sin City: A Dame to Kill For could fit into (3) but Sin City isn't really a "brand name" film in the way that say, Star Wars or The Hunger Games are.

Going by your categories, I'd say that Sin City: A Dame To Kill For would fall into both (1) and (3). That adds strength to my reasoning as to the failure of this sequel in the box office: it is a brand name that was allowed to sit too long out of the public's view. This to me is another example of how development hell can completely fuck over a budding franchise.

_________________
"Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain."


Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:12 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 415
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
Quote:
Going by your categories, I'd say that Sin City: A Dame To Kill For would fall into both (1) and (3). That adds strength to my reasoning as to the failure of this sequel in the box office: it is a brand name that was allowed to sit too long out of the public's view. This to me is another example of how development hell can completely fuck over a budding franchise.


Developmental hell may a bit misleading as there was no constant creative turnover in writers,directors or studios. There were no massive script rewrites or reshooting. The problem seems to be the Weinsteins not trusting Robert Rodriquez(for good reason it seems)and tying up the film legally but once that was cleared up the project went ahead fairly smoothly from a script made in 2007.

Quote:
so why did the sequel take so long? Rumours circulated that backer Harvey Weinstein baulked after the failure of Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino’s similarly pulpy Grindhouse double-feature. “There’s all kinds of legal stuff that I won’t try to get into,” interrupts Miller, “because I’m really stupid about legal stuff.” The truth may never be known.



Could have a bad sequel ridden the coattails of a better movie if it had come out sooner? Most likely but maybe so many greenscreen aesthetics movies like Watchmen,300,Avatar,Suckerpunch and Great Gatsby have come out that the audience finds it old hat now.


Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:12 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3599
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR
oakenshield32 wrote:
Quote:
Going by your categories, I'd say that Sin City: A Dame To Kill For would fall into both (1) and (3). That adds strength to my reasoning as to the failure of this sequel in the box office: it is a brand name that was allowed to sit too long out of the public's view. This to me is another example of how development hell can completely fuck over a budding franchise.


Developmental hell may a bit misleading as there was no constant creative turnover in writers,directors or studios. There were no massive script rewrites or reshooting. The problem seems to be the Weinsteins not trusting Robert Rodriquez(for good reason it seems)and tying up the film legally but once that was cleared up the project went ahead fairly smoothly from a script made in 2007.

Quote:
so why did the sequel take so long? Rumours circulated that backer Harvey Weinstein baulked after the failure of Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino’s similarly pulpy Grindhouse double-feature. “There’s all kinds of legal stuff that I won’t try to get into,” interrupts Miller, “because I’m really stupid about legal stuff.” The truth may never be known.



Could have a bad sequel ridden the coattails of a better movie if it had come out sooner? Most likely but maybe so many greenscreen aesthetics movies like Watchmen,300,Avatar,Suckerpunch and Great Gatsby have come out that the audience finds it old hat now.


The Weinstein's have been known for making not-so-smart decisions(like buying the rights to All the Boys Love Mandy Lane, only to go into panic mode and sell them off after Grindhouse underperformed), they really should've had more confidence in their projects instead of second-guessing themselves, I blame them for this films failure much moreso then Rodriguez.

It's also their fault Grindhouse underperformed in the first place as they made the mistake of releasing it in March near Easter(a time which is normally reserved for family films) when they really should've released it in October instead, then it likely would've done better business(they also didn't do a very good job marketing the film).


Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:23 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr