|
Island Nation posted:Because Blu-Ray discs are coded A,B,or C and some film companies (Warner, Universal and I think Paramount are the big ones) make their discs region free making it unnecessary to put them on there anyway. That makes sense. I'll look for the letter, and if not, then they probably are region free. I know Ps3s are still region free, and it seems most people have Ps3s as their player.
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Wild T posted:Five Cent Deposit, were you drunk enough that you didn't notice Arnold Swarzenegger was the protagonist? That probably would have helped you find out a lot easier than the electric clown (his name was Dynamo, incidentally, and he's the best overweight opera-singing electricity-themed villain ever). God, I love that movie. OVA HERE CHRISTMAS TREE
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 01:21
|
|
|
Did the Showgirls full theatrical trailer appear before any movies in theaters? Not the teaser that's on youtube but the one that's just basically a bunch of topless women. I assume it did, but I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 01:27
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:That makes sense. I'll look for the letter, and if not, then they probably are region free. I know Ps3s are still region free, and it seems most people have Ps3s as their player. Since when are PS3 consoles region free?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 07:01
|
|
|
Has anyone here watched The Yes Men? I just finished it and it was very good, and free. I can't find a thread, and it definitely deserves one. If nobody can point me to a thread i'm going to make one tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 10:51
|
|
|
Logtar posted:Has anyone here watched The Yes Men? I just finished it and it was very good, and free. I can't find a thread, and it definitely deserves one. If nobody can point me to a thread i'm going to make one tomorrow. Yeah, I saw it. I thought it was good in parts but as a movie in its entirety, quite good but not amazing. It's basically variations on a theme, quite snappily done, and, of course, very episodic in nature, almost by definition. Lastly, i is ultimately unsatisfying, because nothing really changes through their actions
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 15:37
|
|
|
Zwille posted:Since when are PS3 consoles region free? He has that backward, Blu Rays on PS3 are region locked but games are region free.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 16:03
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:He has that backward, Blu Rays on PS3 are region locked but games are region free. Ah nuts. I should have googled it rather than relying on other peoples info.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 17:14
|
|
|
Korak posted:Haha I can't believe someone hasn't seen Running Man by now. That is such a hilarious description for it and I kind of feel sorry for Five Cent Deposit for having to spend like 15 minutes typing in variations of "Electric clown film" into google. I didn't spend a second typing anything into google- are you crazy? I answered the guy's question with a guess. Seemed like an obvious and safe bet. Wild T posted:Five Cent Deposit, were you drunk enough that you didn't notice Arnold Swarzenegger was the protagonist? That probably would have helped you find out a lot easier than the electric clown (his name was Dynamo, incidentally, and he's the best overweight opera-singing electricity-themed villain ever). God, I love that movie. You need to improve your reading comprehension, pal. The drunkard was Co-sine, not me. Five Cent Deposit fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Jul 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 18:08
|
|
|
Does anybody know which cut of The Big Sleep is available for Netflix Instant Viewing? I watched it yesterday and embarrassingly enough I already forgot all the stuff that identified each version (if I remember, one version had more scenes with the two leads, and the other had the explanatory scene with the DA; I remember seeing something like the latter one). Is it worth watching both cuts?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:You need to improve your reading comprehension, pal. The drunkard was Co-sine, not me. Yup, I'm a dumbass who no read good. I blame it on using a iPhone instead of my PC and getting tired of scrolling by having to flick my finger like I'm in a back seat on prom night.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 01:49
|
|
|
What are some examples of films whose opening weekends were boosted by virtue of having a hot trailer (Keaton's Batman, Phantom Menace, etc..) before it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 05:42
|
|
|
DannoMack posted:What are some examples of films whose opening weekends were boosted by virtue of having a hot trailer (Keaton's Batman, Phantom Menace, etc..) before it? The only one I can remember is Wing Commander having the Phantom Menace trailer before it. Anybody actually see that movie? It looked like a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 05:49
|
|
|
Here is an article about The Phantom Menace http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/23/movies/now-playing-two-new-minutes-of-star-wars.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 06:13
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:The only one I can remember is Wing Commander having the Phantom Menace trailer before it. It was. The Phantom Menace trailer also greatly inflated the take of The Waterboy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 06:19
|
|
|
The end of that article is hilarious in hindsight.quote:''The trailer felt like five seconds,'' said Harry Knowles, who founded the Ain't-It-Cool-News Web site (https://www.aint-it-cool-news.com), which is populated by movie fans obsessed with ''Star Wars.'' Over the Internet, Mr. Knowles seemed stricken with guilt about his early qualms about the new ''Star Wars.''
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 06:26
|
|
|
Volvo of Despair posted:The end of that article is hilarious in hindsight. If I recall, Jar Jar Binks was totally absent from the trailer. More on topic, I remember going to see whatever movie had The Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions trailer before it, though I completely forgot what movie that was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 06:28
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:The only one I can remember is Wing Commander having the Phantom Menace trailer before it. PS - Don't every buy a movie because Matthew Lillard is in it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 06:29
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Yes, but we all know what happened to the "land" part. I still love that he's absolutely right when he says "I'll miss Hollywood!" because he crashes into "land". I didn't notice that the first few times I watched it, and I feel like an idiot now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 06:30
|
|
|
To be fair, Harry's initial review says this about Jar Jar "Mesa Luved him!" http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=3624
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2010 07:20
|
|
|
So, if a novelist writes a screenplay based on his own novel, and the screenplay is nominated for an Oscar, would it be Best Original Screenplay or Best Adapted Screenplay? Has this ever happened?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 01:28
|
|
|
We Are Citizen posted:So, if a novelist writes a screenplay based on his own novel, and the screenplay is nominated for an Oscar, would it be Best Original Screenplay or Best Adapted Screenplay? Has this ever happened? Adapted. The last time it happened that such an author won was The Cider House rules. You can go through the list on wikipedia to find other examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Writing_%28Adapted_Screenplay%29
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 01:48
|
|
|
This is going to sound dumb, but why all the love for Solaris? I thought it was mediocre at best, but got a kick out of seeing Daniel Farraday in space. I guess I probably bought into some hype about how it's a great "psychological thriller" but I thought the story progression was pretty bland and didn't really explore all that they could have with the set up. I looked through the Film Dump but I don't think there was even a review thread up for it.
loosenukes fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jul 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 02:34
|
|
|
loosenukes posted:This is going to sound dumb, but why all the love for Solaris? I thought it was mediocre at best, but got a kick out of seeing Daniel Farraday in space. I guess I probably bought into some hype about how it's a great "psychological thriller" but I thought the story progression was pretty bland and didn't really explore all that they could have with the set up. I looked through the Film Dump but I don't think there was even a review thread up for it. You're thinking of the wrong Solaris. The 1972 Tarkovsky is the loved one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 02:52
|
|
|
I started out on a Nicholas Ray viewing odyssey a while back, but I fell prey to distractions after seeing his most popular ones and never finished. Now, looking to resume, I find descriptions of Johnny Guitar amazing, but Netflix fails me and the only dvd on Amazon is Korean. Is is possible to see Johnny Guitar right now without having to buy a VCR?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 03:07
|
|
|
Aorist posted:I started out on a Nicholas Ray viewing odyssey a while back, but I fell prey to distractions after seeing his most popular ones and never finished. Now, looking to resume, I find descriptions of Johnny Guitar amazing, but Netflix fails me and the only dvd on Amazon is Korean. There is no R1 DVD if that's your question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 03:17
|
|
|
The Machine posted:You're thinking of the wrong Solaris. Eh, they are both pretty good.Lots of people aren't going to like Tarkovsky's style though, I mean, hes like, the opposite of what most people born in the last 30 years have watched with every waking moment of their lives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 03:17
|
|
|
I liked the origonal story, but I never could get through either film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 04:51
|
|
|
The Machine posted:You're thinking of the wrong Solaris.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 06:29
|
|
|
loosenukes posted:This is going to sound dumb, but why all the love for Solaris? I thought it was mediocre at best, but got a kick out of seeing Daniel Farraday in space. I can't stand the Sodoberg version for precisely this reason. I thought Jeremy Davies brought the movie down hard. Granted, this was before I fell for him on LOST, but it doesn't take away from the fact that his character was awful and awkward in Solaris. The original is by far the more entertaining film IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 07:27
|
|
|
The Machine posted:You're thinking of the wrong Solaris. Alright, that makes a lot more sense. I think it's on instant watch so I'll have to check it out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 13:59
|
|
|
FishBulb posted:Eh, they are both pretty good.Lots of people aren't going to like Tarkovsky's style though, I mean, hes like, the opposite of what most people born in the last 30 years have watched with every waking moment of their lives. Okay, that's the first I've heard that. Every other time I've seen people talk about Solaris, they're usually praising Tarkovsky and making GBS threads on Soderbergh. I guess I'll actually watch the newer one then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 14:03
|
|
|
I think people have really softened to the Soderbergh Solaris as time has passed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2010 16:32
|
|
|
Can someone explain box office mojo to me? Specifically, how to figure out how much a movie made/lost? For example, let's take a look at the admittedly awful Jonah Hex. I see this: Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic: $10,414,102 Domestic Summary Opening Weekend: $5,379,365 (#7 rank, 2,825 theaters, $1,904 average) % of Total Gross: 51.7% > View All 6 Weekends Widest Release: 2,825 theaters In Release: 40 days / 5.7 weeks The budget (it claims) was 47 million. It does not show a foreign box office total (why?) It does not show the price to market the film either, is this info there or somewhere? As it stands, I assume the film lost 37 million dollars for the company, is that correct? What am I doing wrong? The thing is, TONS of movies I look at on BOM seem to have lost a ton of money, so I assume I am reading it incorrectly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 16:31
|
|
|
ZenMaster posted:Can someone explain box office mojo to me? Specifically, how to figure out how much a movie made/lost? I'm not an expert, but they'll also recoup some their budget on home video and television sales. If Box Office Mojo doesn't list foreign figures, it's probably because it either hasn't been released yet or isn't going to be. I don't know of any site that compiles advertising costs. I don't think that information is given out that often.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 16:59
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I'm not an expert, but they'll also recoup some their budget on home video and television sales. If Box Office Mojo doesn't list foreign figures, it's probably because it either hasn't been released yet or isn't going to be. Ok, so DVD sales/rentals is not included. That makes sense. So, if a film loses say, 15 million in the box office, it will easily make that up in DVD rentals/sales, correct? Anyone know how this works, who gets a cut, and how much a movie typically makes (percentage of BO take) on DVD/Blu-Ray? I assume they sell the rights to BB, Netflix, etc to rent the DVD?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
ZenMaster posted:Can someone explain box office mojo to me? Specifically, how to figure out how much a movie made/lost? You are reading it incorrectly. It is very difficult to impossible to figure out how much a film made or lost. Let us start with the budget. Depending on how well the film does (or is expected to do) the budget figure will be inflated or deflated, usually by playing with the marketing costs directly attributable to the film. Jonah Hex - I am guessing that $47m is a low-ball figure that they adjusted downward when the film looked like it was tanking, to spare blushes. The problem is there is no standard way of defining budgets for these purposes. Does $47m include marketing? Who knows! Next is revenues. Box office is how much theatres take. From this they deduct a weekly fixed sum per theatre (the nut). The theatre also takes a % of box office, which varies widely from theatre to theatre and film to film - but for a rough estimate go with 50%. After that you have video (including VOD and DVD) and TV revenues, info on which is difficult to impossible to obtain unless you are privy to participation statements from the distributor. The net revenues go to the distributor (in this case, a studio). From that they deduct their distribution fee (say, 15% theatrical, 30% TV - for video they'll keep the lot and pay say 20% as a royalty), and then apply the money to their prints and advertising (P&A) costs - often plus interest. After those are recouped (often never - on successful films they mysteriously balloon), then the film has reached profit. Estimating that point from BO data alone is impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 17:15
|
|
|
In summary, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 17:31
|
|
|
haveblue posted:In summary, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting Yeah, that article describes it to a degree but not that deeply. Distributors (and studios especially) play with both costs and revenues - and the great big dirty secret is the allocations game. Imagine that Warners has a contract with the company that prints their posters or produces physical trailers. They do 10 films with that company. The costs should be split ten ways, equally (assuming the same amount of work, or posters, or whatever). You can bet your rear end that of those ten films, the successful or predicted to be successful films will have a far larger share of those costs allocated to them than the less successful ones. The studio is effectively using the better films to subsidise the worse ones - on the basis that the bad films will never make enough money to reach the point where third party participations might kick in, whereas the better films might: so by adding costs to the better films, that point is delayed. Capiche? The same thing happens with revenues. Most studios have output agreements with broadcasters, and/or sell films to broadcasters in packages. So, again, we have the same ten films. To nobody's surprise, the worse films (where the studio is not sharing revenues with anybody) will get a disproportionately large share of the allocation of that deal, and the more successful films a smaller slice. Or they might allocate a ten-picture deal equally ten ways, even when the whole package is driven by one or two desirable titles (the locomotive) and the other 9 films are a bunch o' crap. The studio keeps all the revenue anyway; they are playing with how much if any of those revenues get paid to third parties on profitable films. This is also how library titles also work (being older films re-licensed for TV and/or video rights). It's the basis for the film sales business, apart from the first-cycle theatrical independent sector. On a similar basis, many studios (the studios being Warners, Fox, Sony, Universal, Paramount, Disney) also own TV channels. When a studio has to pay a share of revenues (including TV revenues) to third parties (like Johnny Depp for Pirates of Caribbean) are they going to sell to an allied TV channel for a lot, or a little? Very good! You've been keeping up! Here's a decent article if anyone's interested. http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/06/5-lessons-warner-bros-learned-from-alan-ladd-jr-.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
ZenMaster posted:Ok, so DVD sales/rentals is not included. That makes sense. So, if a film loses say, 15 million in the box office, it will easily make that up in DVD rentals/sales, correct? It used to. Then DVD sales dropped immensely very quickly (part of the recession, really; spending money dried up overall, so of course the market for movies shrank). Thus why studios are so intent on getting people to go back to the theater again with the move towards IMAX and 3D. They need to get much closer to the profit point in theatrical release nowadays, or it's going to be a while before the movie begins to make money. That, or they have ancillary revenues to help survive off of. Apparently Watchmen was pretty profitable for Warners since they own the publishing rights to the comic, which sold even more than usual between the trailer and the movie, as well as the tie-in books and figurines and stuff they put out; also, Cars is a billion-plus dollar franchise, once you look at the merchandising for it and consider that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2010 18:45
|
|
