Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Thu Dec 18, 2014 7:29 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema. 
Author Message
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1791
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
MGamesCook wrote:
All it takes is 4-5 huge flops for things to start to change?


It may only take one really massive flop. I'm sure you've read about Heaven's Gate. Basically, the studios are facing the same issues that they were at the end of the 1970s; budgets are too high, and returns are diminishing. A film should not have to cost $200 million to make, and I don't see the current model holding itself up for too much longer.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:37 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:37 am
Posts: 1181
Location: Laurel, MD
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
MGamesCook wrote:
All it takes is 4-5 huge flops for things to start to change?


It may only take one really massive flop. I'm sure you've read about Heaven's Gate. Basically, the studios are facing the same issues that they were at the end of the 1970s; budgets are too high, and returns are diminishing. A film should not have to cost $200 million to make, and I don't see the current model holding itself up for too much longer.


I recently jumped back into movies hardcore after how good 2012 was, but I sometimes wonder whether I'm too late or came on during the wrong decade. Nowadays, TV shows generate far, FAR more tweets, facebook statuses, and discussion than movies, at least based on how my peers react. The strange thing is that I'm never been much of a TV watcher aside from sports and Family Guy/South Park. "Catching up" on stuff is a huge, epic project that I'm just not sure I have the time for nowadays.

But yeah, the production budget/advertising budget is way too high for a lot of these movies. Honestly, everyone knows about the latest franchise movie coming out. Do we really need saturation-level advertising for them? Yeah, I know, there's that ridiculous mentality that I freakin' hate where some people say that if a movie isn't being advertised down your throat every 5 minutes, it must not be worth seeing.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/ken.rossman.5


Sun Jun 16, 2013 9:23 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1527
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
Quote:
George Lucas agreed that massive changes are afoot, including film exhibition morphing somewhat into a Broadway play model, whereby fewer movies are released, they stay in theaters for a year and ticket prices are much higher.


not a bad turnout for World War Z's $50 ticket shows

Quote:
Sources tell Variety that four of the five theaters featuring the $50 mega ticket for “World War Z” were sold out with an average head count for each theater coming in at around 250 people per theater (the fifth theater was 80% full), which, if you do the math, amounts to about $60,000 (customers were given option for a regular ticket which would of been less then $50, which is why an exact figure was not supplied).

Not exactly mega bucks for Paramount, considering the film’s current $266 million worldwide cume, but the success rate proves that moviegoers were, indeed, willing to fork up $50 to see Brad Pitt battle zombies two days prior to release.

The $50 ticket package, offered at five Regal theaters in in Houston, San Diego, Atlanta, Philadelphia and Irvine, Calif., included a ticket to a 3D screening of the movie on June 19, two days before the film’s release, one HD digital copy of the movie when it becomes available, one pair of “World War Z” custom RealD 3D glasses, a full-size limited-edition movie poster and a small popcorn.


http://movies.yahoo.com/news/much-money ... 52691.html


Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:21 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1999
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
Quote:
not a bad turnout for World War Z's $50 ticket shows


People do still turn up for movies. This year especially has been ridiculous. But I think it could eventually become physically/economically impossible for a movie to make all its money back. But it may take several more years and might have to wait for budgets to get even higher still. The problem with the current climate is that it stifles smaller productions. Pain and Gain, good movie or not, is a striking thing; a non-indie made for 25 million that wasn't a clearly defined genre film. How often do you see that anymore? These days, even the director of Reservoir Dogs gets nearly 100 mil to make his movie. There's a lot of greed floating around and I have to say, from what I've encountered at some smaller companies in Hollywood, a lot of fear and insecurity.

I mean, some of the big budget movies are good. I really liked Skyfall, Fast Furious 6, and Man of Steel. But they come at the expense of movies that don't get made anymore. If Groundhog Day or Truman Show were made today, the focus would be on the production value, not the stories and concepts. Hannibal Lecter's cage would be much more elaborate. E.T.'s entire civilization would show up. Spielberg made the biggest blockbuster of the 80s for what today would be around 30 mil or less, so it makes sense that he'd speak out now.


Thu Jul 04, 2013 8:58 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2709
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
Sooner or later the economies of scale will kick in and technology will become much cheaper, making "blockbusters" even more commonplace.

And apart from anything, for how much longer can the same mediocre actors demand $25 million a movie? The film industry may be in the middle of a short-term bottleneck, but things won't change too much in the medium-term.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:37 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3978
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
NotHughGrant wrote:
Sooner or later the economies of scale will kick in and technology will become much cheaper, making "blockbusters" even more commonplace.

And apart from anything, for how much longer can the same mediocre actors demand $25 million a movie? The film industry may be in the middle of a short-term bottleneck, but things won't change too much in the medium-term.

Whether an actor is "mediocre" or not is a matter of one's opinion, and as long as their films do well at the box-office they will continue to be worth quite a bit of money.


Thu Jul 04, 2013 11:59 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2709
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
A glitch in the movie markets may force studios to question the sanity of giving Will Smith 00s of $Millions to do shit movies.

Fingers crossed.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Thu Jul 04, 2013 12:04 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3978
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
NotHughGrant wrote:
A glitch in the movie markets may force studios to question the sanity of giving Will Smith 00s of $Millions to do shit movies.

Fingers crossed.

Well I like most of Smith's films(After Earth included) so I don't mind if he keeps getting millions. I do however hope Robert Pattinson's value goes down fast as he is currently the most wooden actor in existence.


Thu Jul 04, 2013 12:18 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1999
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
Quote:
Sooner or later the economies of scale will kick in and technology will become much cheaper, making "blockbusters" even more commonplace.


People have been saying this for 25 years. Still hasn't happened yet, because every time it's about to, some producers always find a way to justify spending more. Rise of the Apes is a terrific example of what you're talking about. Not long ago, that movie made for as little as 90 mil would've been amazing. War Horse and Les Miserables made for under 70 mil: equally impressive. That should be the new model. I loved Man of Steel, but 300 was probably more exciting because in terms of money, less is often more.

In other words, what you're talking about already happened years ago. But instead of making Apes-level movies commonplace, producers have to continue to create big events to put bodies in the theater. Technology isn't the issue, greed is.


Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:19 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1527
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
Disney's 'Lone Ranger' Could Lead to $150 Million Loss (Analysis)

Quote:
Directed by Gore Verbinski, Lone Ranger -- based on the 1930s radio show and 1950s television series -- posted a five-day opening of $48.9 million domestically, an abysmal number considering the film's $250 million production budget and a worldwide marketing spend in the neighborhood of $175 million, the norm these days for many summer event pics.

Given its poor opening and stiff July competition, box office experts now calculate that Lone Ranger will reach only $125 million domestically, if that. Overseas, it may earn $150 million for a worldwide total of $275 million. In 2011, Disney was forced to take a $200 million write-down when the ill-fated John Carter -- costing more than $250 million to produce -- topped out at $282 million worldwide. (Disney should fare a bit better on Lone Ranger because it will do better domestically than John Carter's $73 million, and the studio receives a higher percentage of revenue from domestic theaters than it does from international theaters.)


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/d ... ead-581503


Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:13 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1527
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
Quote:
All it takes is 4-5 huge flops for things to start to change?


There's a good streak going at the moment. Maybe Pacific Rim will continue the trend.


Quote:
Unless either "R.I.P.D." or "Turbo" pulls off a major tracking turnaround by July 19, the frame will likely mark the fourth straight week that a $100 million-plus film flops -- an unprecedented skid in the Tentpole Age.

This summer will see at least 20 films with budgets over $100 million -- six more than last year. With so much popcorn competition, major casualties were a given.

But this run of high-megaton bombs comes at an odd time: Right after record-breaking grosses in May and June that put summer 2013 on pace to be the biggest ever. Since then, it's been an ugly run for would-be blockbusters.

Sony's $150 million "White House Down" started the slide with less than $25 million the weekend of June 28. Disney's $225 million "The Lone Ranger" followed with $29 million over the July 4 weekend. Now, Guillermo del Toro's $180 million giant robot extravaganza "Pacific Rim" is tracking to open at around $30 million this weekend.

Early projections have the Jeff Bridges-Ryan Reynolds tale "R.I.P.D." opening below $15 million, a dismal return on a $130 million production budget.

And the outlook isn't much brighter for "Turbo," the $135 million DreamWorks Animation family film about a snail with dreams of speed, which opens that same weekend.


http://movies.yahoo.com/news/bombs-away ... 16373.html


Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:30 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1426
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
Your disdain for Pacific Rim in the last few days is dedicated, I suppose.


Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:54 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3978
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
I don't trust those "early trackers" too much, sometimes their estimates can be way off.


Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:07 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 731
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
Quote:
Unless either "R.I.P.D." or "Turbo" pulls off a major tracking turnaround by July 19, the frame will likely mark the fourth straight week that a $100 million-plus film flops -- an unprecedented skid in the Tentpole Age.

This summer will see at least 20 films with budgets over $100 million -- six more than last year. With so much popcorn competition, major casualties were a given.

But this run of high-megaton bombs comes at an odd time: Right after record-breaking grosses in May and June that put summer 2013 on pace to be the biggest ever. Since then, it's been an ugly run for would-be blockbusters.

Sony's $150 million "White House Down" started the slide with less than $25 million the weekend of June 28. Disney's $225 million "The Lone Ranger" followed with $29 million over the July 4 weekend. Now, Guillermo del Toro's $180 million giant robot extravaganza "Pacific Rim" is tracking to open at around $30 million this weekend.

Early projections have the Jeff Bridges-Ryan Reynolds tale "R.I.P.D." opening below $15 million, a dismal return on a $130 million production budget.

And the outlook isn't much brighter for "Turbo," the $135 million DreamWorks Animation family film about a snail with dreams of speed, which opens that same weekend.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/bombs-away ... 16373.html



Unless you're someone who craves a steady movie diet of remakes, sequels, movies based on "existing properties", or movies that are essentially amalgams of other, better movies, this should be good news to you. If these upcoming films are as bad as they look, then hopefully they fail miserably and make the money men think more about what they invest in.


Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:36 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3978
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
PeachyPete wrote:
Quote:
Unless either "R.I.P.D." or "Turbo" pulls off a major tracking turnaround by July 19, the frame will likely mark the fourth straight week that a $100 million-plus film flops -- an unprecedented skid in the Tentpole Age.

This summer will see at least 20 films with budgets over $100 million -- six more than last year. With so much popcorn competition, major casualties were a given.

But this run of high-megaton bombs comes at an odd time: Right after record-breaking grosses in May and June that put summer 2013 on pace to be the biggest ever. Since then, it's been an ugly run for would-be blockbusters.

Sony's $150 million "White House Down" started the slide with less than $25 million the weekend of June 28. Disney's $225 million "The Lone Ranger" followed with $29 million over the July 4 weekend. Now, Guillermo del Toro's $180 million giant robot extravaganza "Pacific Rim" is tracking to open at around $30 million this weekend.

Early projections have the Jeff Bridges-Ryan Reynolds tale "R.I.P.D." opening below $15 million, a dismal return on a $130 million production budget.

And the outlook isn't much brighter for "Turbo," the $135 million DreamWorks Animation family film about a snail with dreams of speed, which opens that same weekend.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/bombs-away ... 16373.html



Unless you're someone who craves a steady movie diet of remakes, sequels, movies based on "existing properties", or movies that are essentially amalgams of other, better movies, this should be good news to you. If these upcoming films are as bad as they look, then hopefully they fail miserably and make the money men think more about what they invest in.

I'm looking forward to R.I.P.D. as it's rare to see a horror film get that kind of big-budget treatment, plus Jeff Bridges/Ryan Reynolds sounds like an inspired pairing, so it should be fun, though admittedly I won't be too surprised if it dosen't make back it's budget, given that most casual movie-goers probably won't be familiar with the comic it's based on.


Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:30 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1426
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
R.I.P.D. a horror? I watch the trailer and there isn't any horror element in its bone. More like MIB with ghosts in place of monsters.


Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:27 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1527
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
Quote:
All it takes is 4-5 huge flops for things to start to change?


5 in a row at the moment:

White House Down
Lone Ranger
Pacific Rim
Turbo
RIPD

Disney pulled the plug on the 175 mill remake of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea last week. I'm guessing that's not a coincidence.


Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:21 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3978
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
calvero wrote:
Quote:
All it takes is 4-5 huge flops for things to start to change?


5 in a row at the moment:

White House Down
Lone Ranger
Pacific Rim
Turbo
RIPD

Disney pulled the plug on the 175 mill remake of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea last week. I'm guessing that's not a coincidence.

Actually Leagues has only been delayed and that was back in May, well before any of those films came out. The remake is still coming http://if.com.au/2013/07/22/article/20000-Leagues-remake-still-in-Disneys-sights/GHYPHBSQPG.html


Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:51 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:41 pm
Posts: 564
Location: The Desert
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
I didn't realize R.I.P.D. had a budget of $130,000,000. Yikes.

_________________
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool."
Letterboxd Profile


Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:13 pm
Profile WWW
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1527
Post Re: Steven Soderbergh on the state of Cinema.
Quote:
The remake is still coming


We'll see ;)
and if it happens, I wonder if it will still cost around 200 mill.

Quote:
I didn't realize R.I.P.D. had a budget of $130,000,000


Probably more. Studios always lowball. who knows if Man of Steel has even hit the break-even point yet, these budgets are insane.


Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:20 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] 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