|
I'm always happy to have more J.K. Simmons in my life but I still kind of wish Mads Mikkelsen was voicing the villain, if only out of morbid curiosity.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
Stayne Falls posted:Hadn't even heard of this movie till now, really want this question answered. (I am bad at the Google.) My overwhelming hatred of that book influenced the studio psychically and made them cancel it. Or it's just a massive turd and they'll dump it out eventually (probably September since it's not on the January schedule).
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Jose Oquendo posted:So Kung Fu Panda 3 comes out at the end of the month. I bet Star Wars will still gross more that weekend than Kung Fu Panda. KFP1 and 2 were really good, but I've yet to see a trailer for 3 that doesn't make it look like leftovers and rejects of ideas from the first two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Neo Helbeast posted:Gods of Egypt looks kind of cool, it's the same guys who did the Immortals right? If by "Immortals" you mean "I, Robot," then yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
I want so badly for Gods of Egypt to be as good as Immortals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
broken clock opsec posted:KFP1 and 2 were really good, but I've yet to see a trailer for 3 that doesn't make it look like leftovers and rejects of ideas from the first two. No shame in losing to star wars tho...
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:I want so badly for Gods of Egypt to be as good as Immortals. It's trying so hard to ape Tarsem Singh's style, too. It's almost kind of endearing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
It looks like it's gone far, far harder on the colours and over-the-top designs. To quote an article on SA: "it looks like how a Saudi sheik would imagine heaven". Movie looks only a couple steps down from this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KSOMA3QBU0 I like it. I mean, it's ancient Egyptian gods turning into mechs, basically. Why not, I say?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
raditts posted:I hope it's a remake of No Retreat No Surrender. Was that a sequel to The Thundergun Express?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
well why not posted:It looks like it's gone far, far harder on the colours and over-the-top designs. To quote an article on SA: "it looks like how a Saudi sheik would imagine heaven". Movie looks only a couple steps down from this : Gods Of Egypt: Are You Ready For, Ready For, A Perfect Snore, Perfect Snore? - Gene Shalit
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
If Gods of Egypt features a scene where Gerard Butler gorges himself on a tiny pyramid of Twinkies and a bowl of Flamin' Hot Cheetos before shooting lightning out of his hands, I might consider going to see it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
Neo Helbeast posted:
Remember that the Lord of the Rings trilogy actually lost money because Hollywood accounting makes no sense at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Remember that the Lord of the Rings trilogy actually lost money because Hollywood accounting makes no sense at all. That's not what was being talked about. Movies all "lose" money because studios set up a corporation for each separate film, feed money into it, and then that corporation loses money while the studio reaps all the cash. That's Hollywood accounting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:That's not what was being talked about. Movies all "lose" money because studios set up a corporation for each separate film, feed money into it, and then that corporation loses money while the studio reaps all the cash. That's Hollywood accounting. There's nothing about a movie's finances that's known to the public. For example, that "1/3 of box office revenue = actual revenue" statistic above is the first time I've ever heard that number come up, and this discussion has been had many many times before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Timby posted:Oh, it most certainly is too late. Rovio has essentially laid off any staff that isn't working on the movie, and they've poured effectively all their remaining cash on hand into financing the production and marketing. When it flops, it will very likely bankrupt the company. Do you have a link to something about this? I just saw a commercial for that movie and everything about it was poo poo. It sounds pretty bizarre, but if this is what they really did then they deserve to go out of business.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
I figured Rovio died after they started making $60 Angry Bird games.computer parts posted:There's nothing about a movie's finances that's known to the public. For example, that "1/3 of box office revenue = actual revenue" statistic above is the first time I've ever heard that number come up, and this discussion has been had many many times before. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/06/business/fi-boxoffice6 http://trueherostudio.com/producer-blog/what-to-budget-for-marketing-a-film http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/02/11/how-has-movie-marketing-and-distribution-evolved-over-time/ It's not hard to find information about this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Neo Helbeast posted:I figured Rovio died after they started making $60 Angry Bird games. One of those articles is about how it's hard to determine how much money studios get from ticket prices, one of those articles is about how it's hard to accurately determine marketing budgets, and one of them extrapolates the marketing budget for horror movies as an argument about how marketing budgets in general have skyrocketed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Inexplicable movies based on flash-in-the-pan freeware games, you say. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MKLNyKGUUI
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There's nothing about a movie's finances that's known to the public. For example, that "1/3 of box office revenue = actual revenue" statistic above is the first time I've ever heard that number come up, and this discussion has been had many many times before. Three times the production budget to be successful (not simply profitable) is a pretty common bit of shorthand. Here's the thing: there's a fuckton of variables involved and every movie is contracted separately. The cut of the ticket prices, the affect of the drop off, how the marketing budget is handled, how much of a cut each of the multiple layers of distribution get, and that's just getting started. But these factors also not wildly all over the place; they follow some general patterns. So people have made some simple rules of thumb that are helpful for giving someone with an external view a general idea of how things turned out. Accurate? Hell no. But it's worlds better than looking at the total gross, comparing it to the production budget, and going, "That movie made a ton of money!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:Three times the production budget to be successful (not simply profitable) is a pretty common bit of shorthand. The other thing is that none of those articles mention the "three times production budget" rule.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
For years, I'd always heard double the budget. That would be enough to figure in marketing and associated costs and give even allow for enough profit at the very end to keep the machine running or break even. Also, you have things like product placement that might offset the costs of the film. Merchandising, too. I sort of never figured the craze of stuff like Anchorman and Old School being thrown onto school school supplies in the last few years at Wal-Mart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:For years, I'd always heard double the budget. That would be enough to figure in marketing and associated costs and give even allow for enough profit at the very end to keep the machine running or break even. I once heard that Man Of Steel's entire production budget was covered through product placement alone. I wonder how much profit it made compared to films that nominally made more money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:I once heard that Man Of Steel's entire production budget was covered through product placement alone. I wonder how much profit it made compared to films that nominally made more money. What's also important to remember is that a film can have a net loss and still be deemed a success. Like, even if Star Wars "only" made back its production budget and about half of its marketing budget, it probably made about 4 times (made up number) in revenue from merchandising. Over $1 billion in just the US is expected from Star Wars merchandise this year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
A lot of that production budget stuff is also bunk because a lot of big budget films get enough tax breaks due to tricks and product placement deals they make money before they've even filmed. It's actually the middle to low budget films that cost more money to make for big studios. Smaller indie studios often make enough money off of presales overseas that their small budget pictures will have at least broken even before they begin filming, too. Besides all that, the entire accounting is purposefully a gigantic mess, and studios are constantly being sued, and constantly settling lawsuits so they don't have to open their books. Next time some hackers go after a studio's email, maybe they should take out their Quickbooks instead
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Yeah, I live in Connecticut and for a few years we were giving tax credits and suddenly a lot of movies decided to film here, like Indy 4 and War of the Worlds. Credits are gone, productions are gone too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:Besides all that, the entire accounting is purposefully a gigantic mess, and studios are constantly being sued, and constantly settling lawsuits so they don't have to open their books. Next time some hackers go after a studio's email, maybe they should take out their Quickbooks instead I've heard some people think that their accounting practices will fall apart if someone manages to get them into court someplace other than California.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:I once heard that Man Of Steel's entire production budget was covered through product placement alone. I wonder how much profit it made compared to films that nominally made more money. I remember hearing a long time ago that Tomorrow Never Dies was the first movie to do this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
This analysis is specific to Star Wars, but it provides a nice overview of how much money (at the extreme end of the spectrum) can be made from all of the tie-in media/merchandise channels: http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/2015/12/intergalactic-finance-valuing-star-wars.html The tldr punchline is that the Star Wars franchise has made ~$4 from other sources for every $1 of box office revenue. SetPhazers2Funk fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
I think the important thing is Valentine's Day is just around the corner and this is the last, best chance for them to milk some more money out of Paul Blart with some cards. "You've won my BLART", "You're such a BLARTbreaker.", "I (BLART) you.", etc. Comparatively speaking, I sort of think there is probably more disappointment in Pixels than Blart on more levels. It seemed like a movie that felt like it was really screaming out to be a big enough hit that it could get all sorts of merchandising stuff churned out for it eventually in addition to what was sold at Hot Topic and Gamestop. I was sort of thinking it had the highest hopes for a short-run animated series, a limited edition PS4/Pixels bundle for the 2015 holidays, maybe some Funko figures, etc. edit: Of course, the Sandler/Sony situation probably had deteriorated so much I don't think they were going to do much more for the film after it was done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
I don't see how the new Jungle Book movie could possibly top the 1994 one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyGlha4DIhg
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 12:05
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Yeah, I live in Connecticut and for a few years we were giving tax credits and suddenly a lot of movies decided to film here, like Indy 4 and War of the Worlds. Credits are gone, productions are gone too. The same thing happened with Chicago, especially after The Dark Knight. Then an unpaid extra got her skull split by a bridge cable in Transformers 3 and those tax credits all went away. (she lived!)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Apparently Ohio is picking up the slack for Connecticut and Illinois. Though I don't think the Cincinnati filmed Carol or Miles Ahead belong in this thread but the upcoming low budget Columbus filmed Schwarzenegger film might. For some reason Cincinnati has become the go to stand-in for 1950's New York City.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
SetPhazers2Funk posted:This analysis is specific to Star Wars, but it provides a nice overview of how much money (at the extreme end of the spectrum) can be made from all of the tie-in media/merchandise channels:
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Based on my son's preferences Cars merchandise is still making money. He LOVES that poo poo, and there's still a decent-sized section of Toys R Us devoted to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Based on my son's preferences Cars merchandise is still making money. He LOVES that poo poo, and there's still a decent-sized section of Toys R Us devoted to it. Cars is absolutely humongous. It beggars belief. It's like a Skylanders type thing where you think "who is still buying this poo poo"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
There are always more 5 year old's
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Cars is absolutely humongous. It beggars belief. It's like a Skylanders type thing where you think "who is still buying this poo poo"? Oh, I can help you with that too. My wife loves Skylanders. Thank God she's a cheapskate. She mostly buys old lots off eBay (I splashed for a few new ones for Christmas). I would love to track the lifecycle of one of those plastic hunks of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Oh, I can help you with that too. My wife loves Skylanders. Thank God she's a cheapskate. She mostly buys old lots off eBay (I splashed for a few new ones for Christmas). I would love to track the lifecycle of one of those plastic hunks of poo poo. aatrek spotted
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Oh, I can help you with that too. My wife loves Skylanders. Thank God she's a cheapskate. She mostly buys old lots off eBay (I splashed for a few new ones for Christmas). I would love to track the lifecycle of one of those plastic hunks of poo poo. Aren't the characters from the different version incompatible with one another? And it seemed like one of those things came out like every 6 months for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
All characters are forward-compatible, which means they'll work in any game that comes out after that point. However there are game design decisions that push people to buy a pretty good spread of the new characters.LORD OF BUTT posted:aatrek spotted I don't get the joke, so I don't know why you're calling me a child molester. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 23:20
|
|