|
General Dog posted:
i had to look this up to remember what it was and now im mad i did
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 11:53 |
|
|
GB 2016 didn't make nearly enough of a profit to be anything but a failure for a Hollywood blockbuster
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:GB 2016 didn't make nearly enough of a profit to be anything but a failure for a Hollywood blockbuster yeah I, too, believe all the published numbers about how profitable a movie is are completely accurate, and can't imagine any motive or precedent to the contrary
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Was A Winkle in Time marketed with the same woke factor as the other films? The adverts I saw played up it being a children's classic and Oprah being there more than anything
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
How does anyone have any opinions on movie budgets whatsoever given that the studios just make up 100% of the numbers that get out to the public and also the actors
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
just wait to see if they make a sequel or not
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
Fallom posted:How does anyone have any opinions on movie budgets whatsoever given that the studios just make up 100% of the numbers that get out to the public and also the actors youd be surprised how good i am at having opinions about things i dont know anything about
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
Jonathan Fisk posted:just wait to see if they make a sequel or not If they were gonna it'd have been out by now
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 01:35
|
|
|
Jonathan Fisk posted:just wait to see if they make a sequel or not Pretty telling that they're going to do OG Ghostbusters 3 instead of nu-Ghostbusters 2. Not that either option would be good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
im on the net me boys posted:Was A Winkle in Time marketed with the same woke factor as the other films? The adverts I saw played up it being a children's classic and Oprah being there more than anything The conspiracy theory in me is more and more convinced Disney is leaning into the whole "imaginary (or like 1 dude on Twitter) people are mad about <casting> so let's get Reddit and BuzzFeed to amplify it" style of viral marketing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 03:31
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:GB 2016 didn't make nearly enough of a profit to be anything but a failure for a Hollywood blockbuster They were counting on it making enough money to bankroll an entire studio dedicated to the ghostbusters cinematic universe. When you count all the money they spent on marketing, the movie didn't even break even.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
I don't even think that's a conspiracy theory anymore. At best they lean into the controversy because it boosts sales and their actors are the only ones who have to deal with the backlash. Someone claimed, although I didn't see them post proof so this is more conspiracy theory territory, that Disney pays people to stir up controversy over diverse casts on social media to drive the sales -- paying to see captain marvel is a feminist act, etc. I doubt it works unless the property is already inherently successful, like any given Marvel movie isn't going to fail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
it also only really works when the franchise in question is beloved primarily by sad nerds. i dont recall seeing any outrage over the all women Oceans Eleven
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
A Big Fuckin Hornet posted:it also only really works when the franchise in question is beloved primarily by sad nerds. i dont recall seeing any outrage over the all women Oceans Eleven i didnt even know they made an all women oceans 11
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 04:16
|
|
Dreylad posted:I don't even think that's a conspiracy theory anymore. At best they lean into the controversy because it boosts sales and their actors are the only ones who have to deal with the backlash. I've seen that claim too, but honestly, do people really think you have to pay someone to complain about people that aren't cis het white men in media?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:i didnt even know they made an all women oceans 11 it was ok
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
paul_soccer10 posted:it was ok Ehhhh. Better that 12, weaker than 11 and 13
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 04:43
|
|
|
The thing with all women reboots of franchises is they seem to be kind of mediocre at best franchises to begin with and it'd just be better if they made something new that focused on women to begin with.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
im on the net me boys posted:The thing with all women reboots of franchises is they seem to be kind of mediocre at best franchises to begin with and it'd just be better if they made something new that focused on women to begin with. They tried that with Annihilation and nobody saw it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 04:54
|
|
Blockade posted:They tried that with Annihilation and nobody saw it. I've never heard of it so that checks out
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 04:57
|
|
im on the net me boys posted:I've never heard of it so that checks out Okay I looked it up and now I remember it and thinking the premise for it was just inherently uninteresting
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
im on the net me boys posted:The thing with all women reboots of franchises is they seem to be kind of mediocre at best franchises to begin with and it'd just be better if they made something new that focused on women to begin with. Rebooting of franchises can't really be done if they aren't in a state of decay so they're bound to be at least somewhat mediocre. I'd argue the choice of Ghostbusters was actually a pretty good one with one of the four principals dead and the others long past their prime, the franchise untouched for over a quarter century, but with the cultural recognition high enough that everyone knows what it is. I'm not saying a successful original concept wouldn't have been preferable but those are hard to come by and generally require a bit of luck to actually stick. Given the dearth of original content in cinema today it just makes sense to piggyback on something recognizable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
im on the net me boys posted:I've seen that claim too, but honestly, do people really think you have to pay someone to complain about people that aren't cis het white men in media? there's no reason to pay people to do it, if you look hard enough on twitter you can always find some dipshit with 80 followers complaining about something. just takes a few retweets to blow it up into a Media Outrage
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
im on the net me boys posted:I've seen that claim too, but honestly, do people really think you have to pay someone to complain about people that aren't cis het white men in media? Yeah you're right, no way they'd pay anyone to do what other people will do for free
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 05:08
|
|
|
the southern reach isn’t really ripe for a box office hit though, it’s esoteric as hell. I think the best example of a female ensemble success in recent years is bridesmaids which is argue was successful because it was built ground in as a story about women that wasn’t market tested into the ground to be *for women*
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 05:12
|
|
|
The_Franz posted:They were counting on it making enough money to bankroll an entire studio dedicated to the ghostbusters cinematic universe. When you count all the money they spent on marketing, the movie didn't even break even. It couldn't even outgross the original movie. Imagine making a big sci-fi comedy blockbuster movie in 2016 and it grossing less than the same sort of movie released in 1984. And the 1984 movie only made $300 million (which was a big deal back then, but, like, blockbuster movies make that on a long weekend). It literally made almost the exact amount Paul Feig's previous two movies had. They could have basically made any movie, any original idea, and based on Feig's track record to that point, they would have made the same money. And probably spent a lot less. I think Disney just learned to have a more deft hand when it comes to woke branding and can use the disturbing amount of sway the name Disney has over the average American to pull people into the theater, whereas Sony doesn't have just about a hundred years worth of trying to present itself as ~*~Magic Makers Who Make Your Heart Soar~*~ to use, and went hard to the floor with trying to make seeing the movie/buying GB2016 merch as "fighting the chuds". Disney also never really counters the chuds, they mostly just signal boost them so people convince themselves that they need to go see Guy Ritchie's Aladdin to show racists what's what
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 06:55
|
|
|
guy ritchie directing the lovely downey sherlock holmes movies and aladdin will never not be insane to me
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
im on the net me boys posted:I've seen that claim too, but honestly, do people really think you have to pay someone to complain about people that aren't cis het white men in media? I mean, a lot of them do get paid to complain. Through patreon and such.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 07:36
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:guy ritchie directing the lovely downey sherlock holmes movies and aladdin will never not be insane to me I didn't know he did Aladdin (wtf?), I did see that Robinhood movie of his which was a huge mess. Lock Stock and Snatch are two of my favorite movies, he just needs to go back to the British Crime Comedy's niche he actually makes good movies in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 07:48
|
|
|
Sherlock Holmes is fun you nerd
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 07:50
|
|
|
both movies are boring as hell. when the mediocre murder on the orient express is beating you out for mystery and intrigue you've made a bad sherlock story (or two, in this case)
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 07:54
|
|
|
the second one sucks but the first is hardly boring it’s not a good mystery movie though
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 07:56
|
|
|
General Dog posted:
I mean, there is only so much polishing you can do on a turd of an idea, and a 100 million 2018 a wrinkle in time movie is an idea on par with the 2018 100 million Ben Hur movie. Like who do you expect is going to see that? Especially when A Wrinkle in Time has 0% recognition outside the US market and maybe the UK, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 08:02
|
|
|
im on the net me boys posted:Okay I looked it up and now I remember it and thinking the premise for it was just inherently uninteresting Annihilation is one of the best sci-fi movies in the last decade smdh
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 08:09
|
|
|
im on the net me boys posted:The thing with all women reboots of franchises is they seem to be kind of mediocre at best franchises to begin with and it'd just be better if they made something new that focused on women to begin with. No, it's progressive to make an all women reboot as an attempt to salvage a property after all the possible male leads got too old / died / went insane / told their agent to block your calls. Creating a new property that isn't a worn-out hand - me-down for the new cast would be too risky, we would have to try it with a male lead first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 08:10
|
|
|
The important part in any of these cases is that you should make sure you never communicate to your audience why the hell they should be interested besides a bunch of names and quips.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 08:14
|
|
|
MokBa posted:Annihilation is one of the best sci-fi movies in the last decade smdh harsh condemnations of modern sci-fi itt
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 08:24
|
|
|
im on the net me boys posted:The thing with all women reboots of franchises is they seem to be kind of mediocre at best franchises to begin with and it'd just be better if they made something new that focused on women to begin with. its bc its propaganda to prime people to think capitalism-but-with-women-oligarchs is good and feminist, when its just the same old tired poo poo and not feminist
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 11:57
|
|
|
if it's not feminist why do feminists shout incel chud at you for not liking it
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 12:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 11:53 |
|
|
Feminism, a registered trademark of Time-Warner
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 13:50
|
|