|
It's the film equivalent of "it's a banana, how much could it cost, $10?"
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
Baron von Eevl posted:It's the film equivalent of "it's a banana, how much could it cost, $10?" Given the concession stands at the Miami Grand Prix this year, anything related to Formula 1 is going to be overpriced... 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 01:30
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Given the concession stands at the Miami Grand Prix this year, anything related to Formula 1 is going to be overpriced...
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 01:32
|
|
|
Most of that budget is probably just licensing. Petronas better allow me to buy tickets using my gas station loyalty points. (They sponsor Mercedes)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 01:37
|
|
|
But how much were the empanadas?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 02:02
|
|
|
Baron von Eevl posted:It's the film equivalent of "it's a banana, how much could it cost, $10?" Some of it has to be the directors getting one over on the streamers. Scorsese brought Silence in for $40 million. Yet the similarly modestly scaled Killers of the Flower Moon cost $200 million.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 02:22
|
|
|
High Warlord Zog posted:https://twitter.com/HollywoodHandle/status/1788573565677101395 gently caress. I'd love to watch a $300m Kozikski movie starring Pitt. Just not that one. I just could not care less about car racing no matter how good the flick is. Bummer.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 02:56
|
|
|
Pope Corky the IX posted:But how much were the empanadas? If you have to ask…
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 03:30
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Most of that budget is probably just licensing. They were in the middle of filming when the strike hit. I'm guessing most of the cost is because they had to shut down then restart production. If they have to do anymore race day filming it'll be a complete nightmare
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 03:39
|
|
|
High Warlord Zog posted:Some of it has to be the directors getting one over on the streamers. Scorsese brought Silence in for $40 million. Yet the similarly modestly scaled Killers of the Flower Moon cost $200 million. Also the lack of residuals, so people wanting to get paid up front.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 04:41
|
|
|
Goddamn, the latest Mission Impossible cost $291 million estimated, and even crazy Tom Cruise doing his own stunts couldn't push that movie up past the break even point. It doesn't matter WHY that movie costs $300 million, a Brad Pitt led race car movie is not going to pull in enough for a break even box office. Studios need to reign this poo poo in, because most movies aren't going to pull in Endgame/Avatar/Barbie money.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 06:17
|
|
|
Hollywood has a similar issue with AAA video games at this point where they seem to have forgotten how to not make bloated overbudgeted megablockbusters that try to do everything at once and usually have executives loving around with them every step of the way until they're an incoherent mess, thinking every single one of them can and has to make Avatar/Call of Duty money.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 06:27
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Hollywood has a similar issue with AAA video games at this point.... thinking every single one of them can and has to make Avatar/Call of Duty money. The marvel films have a lot to answer for with that as well. Huge budgets, somehow making it back, time and again. With avatar you could say it's just a weird unique talent Cameron has for creating that sort of movie, and put it down to be a one-off thing. The marvel films showed very clearly it is, or at least was, a very viable, and even reliable strategy when you get the formula just right. That temptation seems to of lead to quite a few studios losing poo poo loads of money.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 07:10
|
|
|
High Warlord Zog posted:Some of it has to be the directors getting one over on the streamers. Scorsese brought Silence in for $40 million. Yet the similarly modestly scaled Killers of the Flower Moon cost $200 million. Woah, Silence looks incredibly good that's less than I'd have guessed. They did a lot with that money!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 07:20
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:The marvel films have a lot to answer for with that as well. Huge budgets, somehow making it back, time and again. With avatar you could say it's just a weird unique talent Cameron has for creating that sort of movie, and put it down to be a one-off thing. The marvel films showed very clearly it is, or at least was, a very viable, and even reliable strategy when you get the formula just right. Thing is they got like that because they specifically didn't panic and throw their toys out the pram when IIRC Captain America and Thor 1 didn't get as much box office or glowing reception as Iron Man, but they still made money. They let the series gain momentum and developed on what people liked. All the wannabe cinematic universes keep stumbling out the gate because they expect Avengers money right away without doing anything to earn it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 07:26
|
|
|
But if the budgets are too tight, how are you gonna hide all the embezzling? Did you ever think about that, smart guy?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 13:19
|
|
|
Asterite34 posted:But if the budgets are too tight, how are you gonna hide all the embezzling? Did you ever think about that, smart guy? That's where the cancelled "finished" never to be released movies come in!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 13:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PoorOldRoloTony/status/1788783823594856542?t=4Vln1-fszCsPL-icNNuVVg&s=19
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 13:42
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:Goddamn, the latest Mission Impossible cost $291 million estimated, and even crazy Tom Cruise doing his own stunts couldn't push that movie up past the break even point. It doesn't matter WHY that movie costs $300 million, a Brad Pitt led race car movie is not going to pull in enough for a break even box office. Studios need to reign this poo poo in, because most movies aren't going to pull in Endgame/Avatar/Barbie money. I don't think Apple cares that much. If anyone asks, they can say its necessary to build up the prestige of their streaming service.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 14:26
|
|
|
Ccs posted:I don't think Apple cares that much. If anyone asks, they can say its necessary to build up the prestige of their streaming service. quote:According to Apple's latest financial reports the company has $73.10 B in cash and cash equivalents. Apple isn't going to care about anything that "only" costs a couple hundred million.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 15:19
|
|
|
If Annapurna can do it, so can Apple.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 16:24
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Thing is they got like that because they specifically didn't panic and throw their toys out the pram when IIRC Captain America and Thor 1 didn't get as much box office or glowing reception as Iron Man, but they still made money. They let the series gain momentum and developed on what people liked. All the wannabe cinematic universes keep stumbling out the gate because they expect Avengers money right away without doing anything to earn it. Man of Steel came out in 2013 but there were no other DC movies until 2016. Batman v. Superman came out that year and featured the two title characters plus four other superheroes. It really felt like DC saying "See? We have a superhero universe too! Now give us money!" Imagine if after Iron Man there had been no other Marvel movies for three years, and then Iron Man 2 introduced Thor, Black Widow, the Hulk, Captain America, and Hawkeye. And it looks like DC hasn't learned their lesson, since next year's Superman is supposed to introduce at least half a dozen other superhero characters.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 16:42
|
|
|
Action Jacktion posted:Batman v. Superman came out that year and featured the two title characters plus four other superheroes. Huh? No it didn't.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 16:44
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Huh? No it didn't. Wonder Woman was a supporting character, while Aquaman and Flash got little cameos. Edit: oh wait, they said four other superheroes, didn’t they? There might have been a Cyborg cameo at the end as well.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 16:53
|
|
|
Action Jacktion posted:Imagine if after Iron Man there had been no other Marvel movies for three years, and then Iron Man 2 introduced Thor, Black Widow, the Hulk, Captain America, and Hawkeye. It might have been a better movie than the actual Iron Man 2, Thor, Black Widow, or Hulk films.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 16:57
|
|
|
There's absolutely no problem with introducing multiple DC heroes in the same movie. Unlike the somewhat B-tier to Z-tier list Marvel had to work with back during the time of Iron Man, everyone is super familiar with the major Justice League heroes because there has been several decades of cartoons, and TV series introducing them. The movie just has to be good, and have fun using them. James Gunn managed to do this with his Suicide Squad Movie, AND Peacemaker (it name drops Matter Eater Lad!), and no one bitched that Vigilante didn't get his own origin story show before teaming up with Cena's Peacemaker. EDIT: The difference between the MCU and Gunn's concept of the DC universe, is that the MCU plays the world as being perfectly normal until all of a sudden a bunch of comic book poo poo started happening, and so everyone responds like it's weird that a talking robot took over an Eastern European nation. Gunn's DC movies just imply that this wild poo poo is happening all the time everywhere, and there are so many superheroes that most of them can't even get a job fighting crime because all the "big names" are hogging all the spotlight. Anonymous Zebra fucked around with this message at 17:02 on May 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 16:59
|
|
|
Splint Chesthair posted:Wonder Woman was a supporting character, while Aquaman and Flash got little cameos. By that standard this is literally exactly what IRON MAN 2 does, on top of just flat out ignoring those other movies.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 17:00
|
|
|
Splint Chesthair posted:Wonder Woman was a supporting character, while Aquaman and Flash got little cameos. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa, and Ray Fisher were in it, though yeah, they were cameos and not really featured players.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 17:00
|
|
|
You can't "earn" cameos. Don't be silly.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 17:02
|
|
|
Yeah, I feel if the second MCU film actually showed Iron Man having to fight Hulk as promised, it would have been a more natural progression. The Captain America and Thor movies doesn't need any changing. But the Avengers movie should have followed up the ending of Thor, with the heroes on Earth trying to find a way for Thor to get here without the the destroyed Rainbow Bridge. The actual Avengers movie just made Thor's solution to that problem happen offscreen.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 17:05
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:By that standard this is literally exactly what IRON MAN 2 does, on top of just flat out ignoring those other movies. You’re right, it’s the same strategy. More and more I feel like the biggest difference between the MCU and the DCEU/Snyderverse is simply the perception that WB was trying to copy off Marvel’s homework. The MCU was propped up by novelty and some really fortunate casting, and that’s about it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 17:15
|
|
|
Hype levels rising https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9S-WyzAalQ
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 20:04
|
|
|
Is that finally a good trailer
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 20:07
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:Is that finally a good trailer
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 20:09
|
|
|
I'm sure it'll be solid but I was thinking to myself how much I'd have just preferred just making a sequel with Charlize Theron. There's fun potential going by the end of the last movie. I mean why not? Did she just have an awful Fury Road experience? I'm not trying to say this is some Phantom Menace poo poo but no I'm not really that interested in tracing this poo poo back. Hell just give me another Yojimbo type story with a slightly different vibe, using Tom Hardy Mad Max just once seems like a waste.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 20:13
|
|
|
Furiosa is gonna bomb
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 20:19
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:Goddamn, the latest Mission Impossible cost $291 million estimated, and even crazy Tom Cruise doing his own stunts couldn't push that movie up past the break even point. It doesn't matter WHY that movie costs $300 million, a Brad Pitt led race car movie is not going to pull in enough for a break even box office. Studios need to reign this poo poo in, because most movies aren't going to pull in Endgame/Avatar/Barbie money. To be fair: that one had higher costs because they shut down for 7-8 months during covid but kept paying all the crew.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 20:19
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:I'm sure it'll be solid but I was thinking to myself how much I'd have just preferred just making a sequel with Charlize Theron. There's fun potential going by the end of the last movie. I mean why not? Did she just have an awful Fury Road experience? I'm not trying to say this is some Phantom Menace poo poo but no I'm not really that interested in tracing this poo poo back. Hell just give me another Yojimbo type story with a slightly different vibe, using Tom Hardy Mad Max just once seems like a waste.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 20:19
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Furiosa is gonna bomb Have the apes looking for a cure for ape alzheimers by testing feral humans but then they accidentally release a virus that makes apes stupid and humans dominant again. Boom, soft reboot, five more movies, repeat.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
Vegetable posted:Furiosa is gonna bomb I'll take that bet.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2024 20:38
|
|