|
Damnit, I find the budget thing annoyingly limiting because most found footage movies are so low budget they can bomb and still make money and if they don't they're so obscure they're not even worth writing about. I'll find something though. At the very least it looks like Gremlins 2 (barely) didn't make back it's budget.
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
I found some good ones. I'll do proper pitches later but I'm either gonna do Strange Days, Looney Tunes: Back in Action, or The Relic. Edit: gently caress it, unless I hate it upon rewatching it, I'm gonna do Strange Days. Maxwell Lord posted:Yeah, I was pondering Exorcist II as a backup since I can write up a lot on that too, but that actually made a profit thanks to a low budget and good opening weekend. Yeah, I wanted to do The Devil inside, a movie that everyone seems to hate alot, but it had a strong opening weekend before word about the ending got out, and that one weekend made it so it was in fact really profitable. axelblaze fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Sep 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I'm struggling with The Happening or The Wicker Man (2006). The Happening made a ton of money some how, so you have no choice but to go with The Wicker Man.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Sheldrake posted:Here's another a good list if you're still looking for ideas. While this list isn't as up to date, it contains quite a few more entries: http://www.imdb.com/list/ycf_KGcR3IU/
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
Fat Lou posted:I was actually just mentioning Soldier to Hewlett the other day. So, that narrows it down to Soldier or Strange Days for me. I'll narrow it down for you by making mine official Pitch: Strange Days Budget: $42,000,000 Box Office: $7,959,291 Strange Days, as a scifi noir film, was probably never going to make it's hefty budget back. Sure it had James Cameron's name all over it but it didn't have any big names, it was directed by a then not really well known Kathryn Bigelow and in general it was a dark, grungy little scifi movie, and when have those ever done well? Still, it had all the elements of a cult movie in the making but it didn't really even become that. It's a film that has people like me that love it but in general it just kind of faded into obscurity. It's a shame it's not a bigger force in pop culture because like most great scifi it's vision of the future becomes more and more relevant as time goes on. The movie didn't try to make a big leap, taking place in the 1999 (the movie was released in 1995) right on the dawn of the year 2000. Most scifi movies wouldn't' set themselves so close but here it's sort of the point. The year 2000 was always this far off point in scifi. It was a point that was so far off that anything was possible and things were mostly just better because technology had performed miracles. Here he were on the dawn of the year that had always meant the future and it was still the present and things were not looking like scifi had promised. Sure technology had done great things but it wasn't the force of pure good that people had hoped and it had come with it's own problems. The main point of technology in the film is something that on paper sounds like it woudl solve everything: the ability to almost literally experience what life is like living in someone else shoes. In the film there is technology to record your experiences and have someone play them back in their mind, feeling what that person felt. This is the ability for people to fully understand their fellow man. It's a technology that should but instead it causes people to retreat further away. The technology is just used like a drug with people experiencing the highs of life without actually having to experience them. The main character replays his old memories of his ex, giving him a means to not go on with his life. It's a movie in which technology that was meant to bring us closer actually does the opposite. I think it's pretty clear how this can be seen as relevant today, and if it's not I will try to make it clear when I write about it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
If anyone needs a really good movie that flopped, Iron Giant cost $70 million and only made a little over $23 Million.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
nocal posted:Again, tempted to do this one...but it sounds awful. Just to clarify, I don't think this isn't about writing essays about box office bombs, it's about writing essays about box office bombs that you actually like. In the OP it does say: quote:To that end, I want to collect essays from CineD regulars regarding films you love and, more to the point, why you love them. So there's no need to subject yourself to an awful move just to analyze it because that's not really the point (unless you end up liking the film).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Corek posted:Paranorman made $40 million over its budget, it wasn't a bomb. That is if we're including international, which apparently we are not.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
I'm gonna get at least one more in that I may or may not actualyl write but better safe than sorry: Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003) Budget: $80 Million Domestic Gross: a little over $20 Millon This is the movie Joe Dante was meant to direct. He's always had a sense of cartoon anarchy in his films and here he can fully explore that. This is through and through a Looney Tunes movie that takes classic characters and puts them in a modern setting with a wacky adventure and ti never really feels forced, just like a cartoon. Sure the plot isn't amazing but it's just there to have scene after scene that is a constant love letter to classic Warner Brothers cartoons and the sillier side of Hollywood in general. Brendan Frasier gets alot of flack as an actor for some reason but here he proves himself extremely able at doing physical comedy and almost holding his own again the cartoons (though really no one can). This is the best Looney Tunes movie there is and probably the best one we're gonna get and it's a shame it was overlooked.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Eh, Reeves hit it big with Speed he kind of made a bunch of movies that just didn't take off and he seemed like he was doomed to fade until The Matrix came around. I mean Devil's Advocate did well, but it was also the most notable movie he made between Speed and The Matrix and it wasn't exactly a movie that said "this man is a star that should be opening movies".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
Maybe I'll actually do mine now. I can't guarantee anything but as long as the window is open for a while, I could still go forth with this. At this point maybe you should just let it float for a while. I don't think anyone here really thinks this needs to be something that's rushed and the people that already submitted probably could even fo some revisions with the extra time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2013 01:25
|
|