|
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 22, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
The Cameo posted: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. gosh darnit, I had a reply but we lost internets and it didn't go through. too lazy to type it again, and going home.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2010 19:16
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:So are you ever going to type something up? If I'm wrong about stuff, I'd like to be corrected Um, sure, but I am going to be appallingly lazy and ask you to clarify what questions remain unanswered.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2010 12:01
|
|
(although by "movie market" I obviously mean just DVD sales, although the movie market itself has contracted quite a bit over the past two or three years - that's most of the news I saw coming out of Cannes, actually; that there's no more "easy" money out there, everyone's looking for genre pictures because they can be made on the cheap and potentially pull in shitloads of cash and have somewhat of a DVD lifespan, that directors who don't make movies like that are sort of hosed, that private equity is looking to be the primary funders of independents for the foreseeable future, etc.)
|
haveblue posted:The answer to almost all of those is "Studios are greedy and afraid of change". That is a pretty simplistic answer. While true in some instances, where studios are wary of locking in to one VOD provider which gains monopsony power (see iTunes for music), the picture is more complicated. In many cases, especially with independent film, a bundle of rights, which may or may not have included VOD rights, would have been licensed to a distributor in the US territory. Those distributors might not have the rights, or be authorised to exploit those rights without third-party approvals. Or it may be that they are sitting with the producer, or are the subject of dispute (1980 rights definitions didn't contemplate VOD or how VOD revenues would be treated). Because rights to films (even within a series) are often owned by different people, they'll strike different deals with VOD operators. Will all films some day be available via Netflix or similar? Yes, probably: but studios in particular will be watching the market very carefully to ensure that they don't allow one player to become so dominant that it can fix prices. In other cases, the revenue, and revenue splits offered by VOD operators, simply aren't high enough to tempt distributors (including studios) into VOD deals at the risk of cannibalising existing revenue streams (primarily DVD but also PTV and FTV).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
Trump posted:Is there anywhere to read up on this? I know star contracts are all hush-hush, but the reason I ask is because I found that actors here in Denmark gets paid per day. They still get an obscene amount of money, like $3-4000 a day, nothing compared to hollywood stars I know. It just surprised me, but also somehow makes a lot more sense. Actors in the UK and UK (and I think most of Europe) are either on a daily rate (smaller roles) or get a larger fee which is paid on a weekly basis. The minimum in the US is determined by SAG scale, although name actors obviously get a lot more. When we do an actor deal with a lead or major supporting role it'll be a lump sum either for s specified number of weeks, or a "picture deal' where they are available (but not necessarily working) for the duration of the shoot. A weekly rate is then worked out, and payment made accordingly.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2010 13:28
|
|
|
Power of Pecota posted:If anyone else has seen Nobody Knows Anything!, this is the exact feeling I had. The Majestic, anyone? Or What's Cooking?, one of the most offensively bland and mediocre film ever made?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2010 15:55
|
|
|
Synnr posted:Gonna be kind of a stupid question, but I didn't spend enough time in Europe to really figure this one out and google is failing me: Shaolin Soccer is absurdist, and bloody funny. Can't think of any others but they must exist.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2010 16:15
|
|
|
I thought Cache was a bad, pretentious, misanthropic, heavy-handed, and obvious film, albeit well-made. I haven't seen White Ribbon, but I bought a copy recently fairly inexpensively, but I do think that there is something slightly Emperor's New clothes about Haneke. (I don't hate him like I hate Von Trier though). VVVV Obvious and heavy-handed in that the symbolism hits you on the head with a sledgehammer. it's pretentious because it is so evidently trying to 'say something'. YMMV. This is probably better suited to the general chat thread. therattle fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Sep 28, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2010 12:28
|
|
|
kapalama posted:There's a movie general chat thread? It's a general chat thread in which movies are, on occasion, talked about. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3336350 Go wild.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2010 14:48
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I though that often a script will be changed due to star demands. You know "I want to ride a motorcycle in my George Washington biopic" and such. Or does that not happen as after as the stories would have us believe? It happens but the intermediary between the writers and the actors is the producer (and perhaps the studio too). If an actor wants a scene changed,m they don't call up the writer - it goes through the producer, who then deals with the writer. Bear in mind that in many cases, especially studio films, the writers are commissioned on a 'work for hire' basis, and that accurately depicts the relationship. The writers work for the producer, who pays them; he who pays the piper calls the tune. in the indie world there is much more of a collaborative approach; it's unusual to order a writer to do something.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2010 12:58
|
|
|
kapalama posted:If I did not like "There Will Be Blood", does that make me a bad person? Yes, yes it does. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2010 11:46
|
|
|
Rake Arms posted:I actually thought the opposite. He's a rich, powerful man with no sense of ethics. He won't be punished for murder because he's above punishment. He'll buy his way out or just cover the whole thing up. To me, it's the end because it's probably the last moment of passion in Daniel's life. His son has left him, his worst enemy is dead, and now he's free to quietly drink himself to death. I'm on a similar track to yours, but he's finished in that everything about which he cared, good or bad, is gone or dead. He's alienated his son, he's achieved all that he could financially, and he's killed his enemy - there is just nothing left for him. Whether he goes to prison (or hangs), or buys his way out is immaterial - his life is effectively over. He has nothing left to live for, no love, or hate, to sustain him. He's finished. Plus he's drunk all the milkshake.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2010 12:33
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:That's just mean. When I heard about Netflix finally in Canada and on Xbox, i was "getting rid of my cable and just watching stuff through that!" and then i found out they have nothing, so why bother? It has to be some CRTC thing preventing them from having their full selection. Independent films will often have a different distributor in Canadia than in the US. Studios though - dunno. It might be that the studios and Netflix can't reach an agreement on terms, or the studios do not want Netflix to gain the same position of dominance in Canadia that it has in the US.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
I watched and enjoyed Exit Through The Gift Shop recently, and, until a colleague told me, didn't realise that Mister Brainwash was probably a brilliant hoax perpetrated by Banksy - which makes the film even better. Was that your interpretation too?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
NGL posted:I was really impressed with Kelly Macdonald's accent in No Country for Old Men. She's was also the under-aged Scottish girl in Trainspotting.  I've got such a crush on her. Had it since Trainspotting, and it hasn't gone away.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
BulletRiddled posted:In May I'm going to be giving a seminar about bad movies at the Banff Springs Hotel, and I'd like to show some clips to illustrate some of things I'll be talking about. Unfortunately, I'm not too sure about the legality of showing short clips, especially since I'll be giving the talk in Canada, but using clips from movies from around the world. None of the clips I want to use are over a minute long, and I won't be getting paid for it. I guess I have two questions: 1. Probably yes, practically yes. Nobody is going to sue or prosecute for non-commercial use of a clip in a very limited context. 2. This is much greyer. Even fair use provisions on use of clips are grey. http://www-sul.stanford.edu/cpyright.html I'd think that if you posted those clips online (even as part of a larger presentation) you are potentially vulnerable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2011 12:55
|
|
|
i don't know anyone who didn't enjoy The Princess Bride. i know people poo-poo it, but I actually really, really like Intolerable Cruelty. How about good biopics? Walk The Line? That's a hard one to dislike. Legally Blonde and Drop-Dead Gorgeous are also thoroughly entertaining and rather good.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2011 19:46
|
|
|
DannoMack posted:Is Sidney Lumet done with film-making? Don't think so. We received a submission written by him to direct just a month or two ago.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 12:07
|
|
|
I am sure that the massive SAG basic agreement deals with this. To my knowledge, anyone who appears onscreen and is credited (including eg stuntmen) receive SAG residuals, pension health and welfare, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
I don't find Lynch pretentious, but if you want to see him at his least "arty" and obscure, try The Straight Story. No tricks, no obscurity - just a straight story, magnificently told. It illustrates his sheer talent very well.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2011 12:46
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Nope, I love it. Applied well, it's exciting and dynamic. Applied poorly, it's just a cover for a director not knowing what the gently caress they're doing. Agreed. You could say that about most techniques.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
dolphins are gay posted:there's talk of BHD in the Prometheus thread, I saw someone say 'anti-war' film. I thought - Is there any Pro-War film (outside of WW2 Propaganda)? Sure sure: something like John Wayne's The Green Berets.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 13:33
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:It may not be his best, but my favorite Tim Burton film will always be Mars Attacks!. Oh! I forgot about that. I do love that film, actually.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:What are some first films by well-known filmmakers that are admittedly bad or even disowned? For instance Tarantino's My Best Friend's Birthday, James Cameron's Piranha II, and Woody Allen's What's Up Tiger Lily?.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Ip Man is a pretty straightforward Chinese action yarn set during World War II with some pretty good to great fight work at times. I doubt you'll miss anything super crucial. I thought it was about a man engaged in a bitter Intellectual Property dispute.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2011 12:14
|
|
|
caiman posted:This question applies mostly to people who, like me, speak only English. When you guys say out loud the name of a movie with a foreign language title, such as Au Revoir Les Enfants or Le Cercle Rouge (just to name a couple that spring to mind), how do you go about pronouncing them? Do you do your best to say them with the proper accent and pronunciation? When I try doing that I just feel like a pretentious rear end. Unless I could learn to pronounce them flawlessly, I typically say, "that movie with the foreign title I can't pronounce," but then I feel like an uncultured philistine. I try and say the foreign title as it should be said, usually followed by "or however it's pronounced"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
SpaceMost posted:If a movie does poorly domestically but does well internationally (such as the Golden Compass, with its domestic gross of 70 million but a worldwide gross of 370 million), is it still considered a flop in Hollywood, at least in terms of PR/hype/optics? How do the studios handle a situation like that and how does it affect a director or the actors' careers? Something like that would not be considered an outright flop but would not be a massive success either; it also depends on the budget size. My guess is, that with those figures a sequel would have been possible but not that likely. To get to $370m the studio in question (New Line/WB) would have spent a LOT on P&A (distribution expenses), which, given the performance, might not have generated a profit. An outright flop can kill a director's career more easily than an actor's - unless the actor was being pushed as the main reason to see the film.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 12:56
|
|
|
knees of putty posted:There was something dumb about the distribution of the golden compass, if I recall correctly. Didn't they sell the international rights cheaply, ending up with a loss or near loss? Yes, I think in many territories New Line sold of international rights territory by territory to distributors for smaller minimum guarantees, and retained US rights (basically, laid off risk on international in return for a guaranteed figure and took on the risk of the US release). When the film performed well internationally, local distributors captured most of the benefit, and New Line very little of it, but they took all the loss (or didn't make much profit) on the US. I'd be surprised if those distribution agreements didn't include a right of some kind for those distributors to acquire international rights again, probably for a figure based on budget, meaning that New Line would bot be able to stop repeating the same mistake. Don't hold your breath for a sequel.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
WebDog posted:The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Film Editing delves into Murch's experiences as a sound designer and editor at various points in his career. This is an amazing book about film picture and sound editing, film in general, and the creative process. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 11:46
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Are you really saying The Addams Family is bad? Because The Addams Family and Values are both amazing, wonderful movies. Yes. Addams Family Values is, in my opinion, a truly excellent film. Really high quality in absolutely every regard (the first film is very good, but the sequel, unusually, tops it). And Raul Julia is superb! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR7a8rPlAao VVV Yeah, but funny - clearly just in for a day to have fun and shoot one scene. therattle fucked around with this message at 11:16 on Apr 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 10:53
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:I think The Addams Family movies are vastly underrated. There's so much love and fun and care and ACTING!!! put into it that I could watch it multiple times in a day every day for a month and not get bored of it. Raul Julia is part of the reason for that. He's so brilliant in the role, so wonderful to watch. If any other actor were Gomez Addams then the movies could very well have been worthless. I like you. This is becoming more general chat than questions, but yes, I agree: I think they are very underrated (especially Values). they are really excellent films on every level. So, that does lead to a question: I think that comedies are often underrated as high-quality pieces of filmmaking. (For instance, I think Zoolander is an absolutely brilliant film - costume and production design, writing, acting, filming - superb). However, they don't seem to get the respect that more serious films do. it's as if viewers look at the form of the film and judge it accordingly: a comedy, being frivolous, cannot be seriously well-executed. Any other thoughts? Why are comedies under-rated as filmic achievements?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:I think the quality ratio for comedies is significantly skewed towards "bad." Every time I go to see a comedy in theaters I assume it will be bad unless it has serious credentials. The last really great comedy I saw was Black Dynamite, which was such a stellar effort that it transcends comedy and is re-categorized as Art. http://www.imdb.com/chart/top How many films on that list are "art'. Films don't have to be considered as works of art to gain high ratings, critical acclaim, and respect. And while many comedies do pander (I agree with that point), we are talking about the ones that DON'T pander - that are really good - but don't get acknowledged as such. Edit: let's move this to Cine D general chat - I'll repost my comment there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 17:34
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:People think James Franco is hot? I guess if you like creepy-looking motherfuckers with godawful hairstyles. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
SubG posted:I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand I really don't think my enjoyment of a film is necessarily contingent on being surprised by it, so in that sense I don't stress out over spoilers. On the other hand I prefer when possible to watch a film cold---having not seen a trailer, a review, or anything like that. Ideally I prefer to know pretty much nothing about a film except perhaps the director or maybe some of the other cast and crew.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2011 20:51
|
|
|
Voodoofly posted:Didn't mean to try and call you wrong or contradict you, just to clarify to the original answer (which seemed to jump immediately to "it is a nefarious scheme"). In this case, my immediate impulse wasn't that Fox Tv would give Fox Studios a break, but the other way around: Fox Tv would charge inflated rates for advertising, this would draw more revenue into the Fox group away from other revenue participants, and there might be a backhander paid from Tv back to studios to re-balance the figures to market rates (which would not be reflected in the individual films' accounting). I do not know if this actually happens but after some years of seeing how studios work I would not at all be surprised. The aim of the game is to keep as much revenue in the group and give as little away to third parties. (Let me just check Rupert Murdoch's voicemails to find out - I'll be right back) So, if it doesn't work that way then Fox Studios and Fox TV would hammer out an agreement at market rates. Those battles can often be fierce, even though they are in the same group.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
Talent agreements will have separate nudity riders specifying exactly what said actor will and won't do or show.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2011 10:06
|
|
|
The Goon Show is absolutely brilliant.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2011 11:58
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:If you're referring to the title reveal, that's actually a rack focus. Early Panavision anamorphics exhibit really heavy lens breathing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2011 10:46
|
|
|
Ninja Gamer posted:Really? I would think that would sting like hell. I've got some VC powder that I use for baking but am not prepared, in the name of science, to snort it to find out if it stings.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2011 11:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
fenix down posted:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078259/
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2011 23:34
|
|