|
Baronash posted:Good god. Where are people getting these numbers, because they get more ridiculous every time someone brings them up. Nobody outside the industry has solid numbers because nobody with that knowledge is actually interested in sharing it. The thing most people forget is that in a movie that takes place in a modern day context, large chunks of the budget get covered by product placement. Like, Jeep paid a shitload of money to have Bruce Wayne drive it at the beginning of BvS. As did Aston Martin to have that big shot where Affleck yanks the tarp off of it. I also imagine they also pay more to get the shot to show up in trailers - like the Lamborghini shot that is a button in that one Dark Knight trailer. It's why a lot of sci-fi, period pieces, and fantasy movies are the real horribly expensive stuff (as something like Star Wars or Lord of The Rings has zero capability for a brand to show up in it) and why something like John Carter was a huge drain on Disney (never mind it became a sacrificial lamb when Disney bought the Star Wars license), and also why period pieces are usually crossed with sci-fi or fantasy just to create a merchandise revenue line. No studio really trusts a movie to be a movie and just make back all the money spent on it unless it's under like $10 million (the Midnight Specials and indie pickups and long-gestating Oscar bait pictures). Like Blade Runner 2049 will have a good amount of budget covered by product placement, which also helped pay for the original - I wonder if Coke will spend money to carry on what's one of the more famous instances of their logo showing up in cinema.
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
Baronash posted:As for the amount the studio "borrowed," Warner is generally the sole financier of its films, so the "someone" they borrowed from was themselves. It's ridiculous to say "the studio doesn't make money unless the gross is X" when it's all one company and it is advantageous for the studio to look unprofitable on paper. Warners is rarely the sole financier on any movies it makes since the turn of the millennium. I think Potter was a rare exception - they had that long deal with Legendary where Thomas Tull used his VC money to bankroll varying amounts of big movies, all the way up to like 80% of Seventh Son and like 65% of Pacific Rim (which is what busted that relationship up until Skull Island, when Tull figured there was more money in Zilla v Kong and made a deal for Kong to be a WB release as to make that happen), and since then they've been working with RatPac/Dune Entertainment, which is Brett Ratner and James Packer (RatPac) and Steve Mnuchin (Dune) bankrolling just about everything post-2013. So yeah, Trump's pick for Secretary of Treasury is the guy who helped pay for Mad Max Fury Road. It's also where the weird thinkpieces calling Suicide Squad the "Trumpiest movie of the year" and how it's categorically more than just bad as a normal movie came from. I want to say the only studio that does sole financing of its stuff is Disney, but that's because The Walt Disney Company is a fuckoff large conglomerate in and of itself and can afford to - Time Warner has stripped itself away to basically be Warner Bros, DC Comics, HBO, and the former Turner Networks family (TBS, TNT, TCM, Cartoon Network, CNN+assoc channels). Time Inc even got spun off some years ago, and they're half the name. Paramount is all caught up in the fuckery around the Viacom/Sumner Redstone stuff and Viacom is basically Paramount+MTV Networks at this point, since the forced split to have CBS and Viacom be two separate companies some time back. Like, Hasbro is paying for an amount of the Transformers movies, I know that much. Does Fox pay for its own stuff wholesale? I'm trying to recall if there's any major financial partners they are engaged with. I'm pretty sure they threw down all the cash for Avatar. I guess kiimo might know since he works there now. Uni currently has the deal with Legendary and there's still companies like Village Roadshow floating around. Lionsgate might pay for its own stuff, but they don't generally overspend on big spectacle movies.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Timby posted:TSG co-finances almost all of Fox's genre movies. Ah. It used to be Dune, and then obviously that deal ended when the RatPac merger happened, and I haven't seen many Fox films that aren't Spotlight pickups for a while so I've never noticed any real other names at the front of the features. And for those wondering who on earth would throw Trump into Suicide Squad somehow: https://www.uproxx.com/movies/suicide-squad-trump-2016/ <- this is really ridiculous, as is expected from uproxx
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Well it's not like the lawsuit is going to be over with any time soon. They can't do anything until that is cleared up - although I wonder how the video game has managed to slip by all the legal fallout so far. I'm guessing it must have already been in development prior to the filing?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
muscles like this! posted:I don't think I've heard anything about a lawsuit? http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/friday-13th-rights-at-stake-922911 In short both the original screenwriter and the original production company are claiming to have ownership rights over the IP - Miller says that his contract never stated that he wrote the screenplay as a work-for-hire and is trying to use a loophole involving that to lay claim to the franchise as a whole as his. Horror Inc (who were Georgetown Productions back in 1979) are saying that because he wrote the screenplay under the direct supervision and guidance of Sean Cunningham, that the work was more than obviously a for-hire gig and that the original copyright of the film states them as legally the "authors" of the film. Either way Paramount can't do poo poo about making a new movie until this is cleared up and is why they kept pushing back the movie to later and later Friday, __/13 dates until now, where they've just canned doing a movie until the lawsuit is over.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:Do people see Hollywood as progressive? Actual progressives I know world laugh at the notion. Personally, I see Hollywood as a collection of high risk venture capitalist who incidentally make movies. Uh, sure, Sony bought a film studio in 1989 solely to monopolize high definition home video formats seventeen years later.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:This is hilarious because the original home video format war, Betamax vs. VHS, happened 15 years before that. Sony developed Betamax. In a way Sony won that war because Beta was used as a regular part of broadcasting for longer than VHS ended up being around.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:That's true, TV stations were using it until the late 90s at least. You could, no poo poo, buy a Betamax cassette in Japan in certain electronics stores until March of last year. And I know that a lot of news shows basically have stuff up through the mid-00s on Beta at the very least as an archival copy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Hemingway To Go! posted:I wish I could watch an R-Rated Power Rangers animated series, by the same guy who made that edgy Power//Rangers short that was supposedly ironic Surely the director of Torque and Detention made a 100% sincere short film about superviolent Power Rangers and wasn't in fact taking the piss out of the marketing formula that got us five insane Michael Bay Transformers movies Edit: and it's not like Shankar can get a whole TV series off the ground using the Power Rangers name without going along with Saban. So he's bullshitting to remind people of the thing he put money into that went viral as the marketing for the movie picks up. It's a good way to attract money from some avenues. The Cameo fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Feb 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:In his zeal to provide bleeding edge commentary, he neglected to make his product "good". I'm pretty sure that's part of the joke. He went into the thing going "how do I make what's already really campy a different sort of camp" and went "what if it was a me-too Transformers clone that went over the top with grit and actual grim dark bullshit". By the time the black ranger drops into a North Korean nuclear site and every single movement has the exact same Power Rangers "whoosh" sound, it should be fairly obvious this is a big dumb joke being played straight-faced.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Ammanas posted:You guys didn't mind that the Nice Guys was essentially the exact same movie Shane Black has made like 4 times now? It's essentially the exact same movie he's been making for thirty-plus years now, and you know what? It still works. He found a successful formula, but keeps himself - and us - from being bored with it by changing everything that connects the formula together each time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Guy Mann posted:After Disney bought ABC they did a huge crossover/marketing synergy event where all of the different shows all went to Disneyland. Including Roseanne, which really conspicuously went against its entire theme of being about a working-class family that struggled to make ends meet. Well, Dan does blow his pension, severance check, and retirement account on the trip (which causes Darlene's wedding, itself caused by her getting knocked up on the Disney trip, to be a rushed, cheap affair and the realization that any nest egg he has got swallowed up by the Disney trip and this small wedding causes Dan to suffer a heart attack, which "in the story" leads to a separation between he and Roseanne when he falls back into pre-cardiac arrest habits after his recovery and "in reality" just out and out kills him), so it's probably the most believable "cast goes to Disney for twenty-two minutes of advertising for the new parent company" storyline I've ever seen. To the family, it's the biggest, craziest trip of all of their lives and ends up being somewhat financially ruinous to them and "in reality" directly leads to Dan's death within a matter of months. Also, boy there's something weird about having to remember there's a timeline split in loving Roseanne, of all shows, and they both "link" back together just in time for the actual Roseanne to subtextually insert the idea that The Walt Disney Company destroyed the Conner family story as one of the last scenes in the entire show.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:IIRC there is a first(?) season episode where she tries to get back into writing and goes upstairs to write, in the show she doesn't write anything but in the finale you find out everything afterwards was her written alternate versions of what really happened. The voiceover at the end of the show is a little vague on it; it definitively says that the whole previous season was just Roseanne avoiding having to write about losing her husband by making up an entirely different life that the family leads; it's the switcheroo twists of Darlene and Becky's husbands and who was actually gay and stuff like that which reveals the rest of the show is a rewritten version of the character's reality (although not nearly as much a flight of fancy as the final season), but it also seems very possible the whole "story" was written following Dan's death? I've always taken it as that, anyway quote:My writing’s really what got me through the last year after Dan died. I mean at first I felt so betrayed as if he had left me for another woman. When you’re a blue-collar woman and your husband dies it takes away your whole sense of security. So I began writing about having all the money in the world and I imagined myself going to spas and swanky New York parties just like the people on TV, where nobody has any real problems and everything’s solved within 30 minutes. I tried to imagine myself as Mary Richards, Jeannie, That Girl. But I was so angry I was more like a female Steven Segal wanting to fight the whole world. Like, it's all a story, but she tacked it close to her actual life until she hit the point in her life where things went completely downhill and led to her sitting and writing and invented a new life (even though the lottery winning was more a reflection of Roseanne Barr's actual reality since syndication had made her obscenely rich).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Dinosaurs! posted:That book was awful. We all get it. You want everyone to know how well you remember the 80s. I can't wait for the scene where he LARPs the entire length of WarGames. I would watch Steven Spielberg’s version of WarGames in a hot second.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:I certainly hope the lead scientist wasn't driven mad because is the same lady from G'14. This suddenly has given me visions of Sally Hawkins playing her character as Linda Hamilton in T2 and I never knew I wanted a performance so badly
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
[quote="“VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE”" post="“475815892”"] You shiver just thinking about the visual storytelling and attention to detail that goes into the amount of damage the T-800 character in T2 takes. Riddled with bullets, flesh scoured from much of the chassis, left arm crushed and ripped off, left knee exposed, chest crushed repeatedly. Impaled through the chest and running off of backup power, it crawls and limps to the finish line ... and then begs the humans to destroy it. [/quote] It’s one of the great feats in cinema, to be honest - to take the unstoppable avatar of death from your first movie, and not only make that avatar vulnerable and human, but to turn him into a complete underdog without ever removing the same aspects that made him the unstoppable avatar of death the first time around. He manages to reconstruct one of the great movie baddies and gives him an arc that is reminiscent of Indiana Jones and John McClane, where he always fights from under and where you believe every big chunk of damage he takes could be the one that puts him down for good. It even plays off of your expectations, right there, at the end, when the T-1000 jams the pole through his chest - after all, Terminator 1 ended with Kyle Reese, our thought-to-be hero, dead several minutes before the end. And all of this was done in under 365 days, from pitch to premiere!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Well, not from pitch to premiere entirely - first drafts of the script were written in May, but the script didn’t get to crew until the middle of July 1990 and production proper didn’t start till October and wrapped up in March. They only had four months of post, since the movie opened Independence Day weekend of ‘91. They also only had six weeks to go from “this is an idea” to “this is what we’re shooting, no changes from this point on”. But they have made a big deal about Cameron successfully pulling off a massively accelerated schedule on special features through the years, and they tend to “print the legend” on it and pretend just about everything was done between July 1990 and July 1991 (although really picture would have to have been locked sometime in early June to strike and ship the prints for a massive domestic release).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
muscles like this! posted:When was the last time that a 3D re-release actually did well? Didn’t the Toy Story 3D double feature and The Lion King 3D release each do like $100 million
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
I mean, given what happens in the movie, it is not a surprise that a bog-standard Friday night audience would recoil from the movie as hard as they possibly could. I’d be more weirded out if it got like a B (of course, in today’s “all or nothing” market even that gets written off as a failure by pundits and studios; really they should just do a four-star system) or something. It’s definitely going to be a movie that’ll develop a cult following in a few years for being ridiculously bold. More of a Requiem For A Dream than a Black Swan.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Gatts posted:I like Alicia's neck. Thumbs up. Good for a nibble, good for Lara Croft. I'd let her raid my tomb. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Hollywood is going after manga/anime because manga and anime is the Japanese cultural export that's most penetrated the Asian market, which is still where the biggest pile of money that Hollywood wants is. That, and it's easier for an exec or producer to understand "comic books except Japanese so it's ~weird and different~" as a pitch. I have no doubt that some studio exec somewhere is trying to lock down the live action rights for Your Name. as we speak, and has been trying since that thing became the top grossing anime movie of all time.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:I can't see Disney getting a hold of Studio Ghibli until after Miyazaki dies. The studio will die with Miyazaki and Takahata. The only other person they've produced that's actually stayed with the studio is Yonebayashi, the guy who made Arriety and When Marnie Was There. Hiroyuki Morita went and became a key animator for other stuff, Yoshifumi Kondō (Whisper of The Heart) died, and even Miyazaki's own son Gorō said "gently caress this" after his second movie and made his own studio. By the way, those are the only other people who've been allowed to direct features at Ghibli outside of Miyazaki and Takahata. Which is very bad when the studio's been around for thirty years and studios half their age have cultivated a lot more talent. And if it doesn't die completely with two of the founders Japan's government is 100% going to block a purchase from any American/European/Chinese company, no matter the ridiculous amount of money I am sure Disney would offer for it. There's a very striking blockade against allowing foreign companies - particularly monolithic things like the Disney empire - to sweep in and take cultural or financial cornerstones in the country and own them. The same goes for Nintendo - the only sort of buyers who could get away with buying them would be a Sony or a GungHo or a Bushiroad, and the only one that would be able to have the collateral to do such a thing is, really, Sony. The only way I can see any American company purchasing, or even getting a sizable investment in, a Japanese company is if their entire economy is on the brink of total collapse on the level of "our society will crumble", and even then, it's a bit of a coin flip whether they'd just let it all fall apart so they could rebuild it again. I mean, just look up how home buying works over there and realize that it's a culture 100% okay with razing things to the ground and building a better thing on top of it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
People don't believe that the multiple sequels to a movie that made almost $3 billion would be able to pull that sort of budget? And if it's four movies, it's basically $250 million a movie, which is... almost the standard for big tentpole summer blockbusters every year now. If it's five, he's actually ahead of the curve.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:I have no doubt that some studio exec somewhere is trying to lock down the live action rights for Your Name. as we speak, and has been trying since that thing became the top grossing anime movie of all time.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
Moon Atari posted:Even its perversion is so boring it barely registers, and it somehow fails to even meet normal anime quality of convincing/earned romance. It's missing like one or two more scenes needed to establish that they have feelings for each other before kicking into the final act conflict. The whole entire comet hits town and our body switching lovers must stop it thing is hilariously unnecessary and is endemic of the biggest problem Makoto Shinkai has with his features: he gets scared that the little story he's telling can't hold up to the 90 to 120 minutes of a full feature film so he jams in some insane subplot that cuts into what he's very clearly actually interested in. Meanwhile every short he's done is incredibly focused and good (if sappy as hell; someone once described Shinkai as "a walking talking missed connection craigslist post" and that is as good a descriptor as I could possibly imagine). His features make for good premises, but never seem to become good movies. So it's almost appropriate that JJ Abrams, who tends to make the exact same mistakes (Super 8 is the most prime example, where "a young boy falls in love with the daughter of the man who accidentally killed the boy's mother" is seriously a great premise on its own, but then for some reason there's a monster in the movie that eats away at all of those scenes for spectacle's sake), is grabbing hold of it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:Is he the guy who made Girl who Jumped through Time and Summer Wars? Because that's the exact problem with those two movies. He's the guy who made The Place Promised In Our Early Days and Children Who Chase Lost Voices, which are respectively a pretty bad movie and a loving awful, soggy lump of Ghibli impersonation. He also did the shorts Voices From A Distant Star, three shorts woven together as a movie called 3/cm A Second, and The Garden of Words, all of which are pretty all right. He's also known as the "cloud porn" guy, because holy poo poo does that man love drawing clouds and does it ever loving show. Mamoru Hosoda is the guy who did Girl Who Leapt Through Time and Summer Wars and Wolf Children and The Boy And The Beast, and he has the key capability of managing to wrangle his high concepts into being propulsion for the characters and their emotional states and some greater thematic point in general (although Boy + Beast overstuffs itself way too much in the last hour of the movie and becomes by far the weakest thing he's done). I'm actually surprised Warner Bros., who distributed Summer Wars in Japan, never tried to negotiate any live action remake rights for it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Makoto Shinkai is a very lonely, very sad man who doesn't really know how to talk to women (and one could argue anyone), his work has made that much obvious again and again. He is like the platonic ideal of the "herbivore male" trend of Japanese guys who struggle with any interaction with people not of their gender. I mean, this is a guy who got massively worried when Your Name was breaking into the top 5 films all time in Japan because it was "too successful" and was giving him anxiety about making anything else. He seems like someone who would be much happier doodling clouds and women's feet for the rest of his life in a cabin in the woods.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
a kitten posted:Like jesus loving christ that is some loving projection happening there. Sorry, Mr. Shinkai, didn't realize you posted here, too
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Gigantic blockbuster movies don't actually cost the amount that gets reported. Like, a studio tells you the production budget, sometimes with the tax break for wherever they shot it included in the total and sometimes not, but they don't surface how much product placement covers, what is the balance from co-financing, what is covered from foreign pre-sales, how much licensing will get them back, and so on. You can go "boy Man of Steel cost that much and only made that much back, that must have been a disappointment!", but $170 million of that production budget was covered by product placement - there's over 100 brands in that movie. They were well on the way to profitability on the film even if they blew $250 million on promotional buys. Then there's the licensing they did with Carl's Jr., Pepsi, Doritos, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And then merchandising returns, home video release, it's a pretty good racket. BvS has a similar ridiculous amount of product placement. As do Marvel movies. And we all know the ubiquity of the licensing deals on those films. Suddenly it makes a lot more sense why studios keep on excessively shoving towards giant, recognized brands as the movies they put out, doesn't it. Then you use your corporate overlord's accounting department to make your massive profits disappear for enough time that the government can't tax all of it and rinse + repeat. Things like Star Wars don't get the benefit of product placement, but they do have an excessively lucrative license (that you can charge a premium for) that everyone wants and that alone has probably covered like the entirety of at least one movie's budget. Hell, The Emoji Movie probably paid for itself by tech companies wanting to be literal settings in the movie.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
I'm sure Disney gives a big enough poo poo about Galactus, though, so they can use him as the next "oh no a big bad is coming ten years on from this movie" guy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Honestly the one and only benefit I can imagine coming out of Disney buying the creative units of 21st Century Fox is that, hey, we can get the loving Fox fanfare back in front of the endless Star Wars movies. It feels so wrong without it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Disney doesn't own Pulp Fiction. Miramax owns Pulp Fiction. Miramax was sold off almost a decade ago. All they did was what they basically did with every Miramax release - operated as a distribution arm through their Buena Vista Film Distribution company and gave some money to anything the Weinsteins wanted, no questions asked, that was below a certain budgetary threshold. Miramax was as hands-off a relationship as the Warner Communications/New Line Cinema relationship was - complete autonomy within this gigantic company. Qatari entertainment company BeIN Media Group owns Pulp Fiction (and Jackie Brown, and Kill Bill) now. Really, if you want R-rated Disney films? Good Morning, Vietnam and Pretty Woman, since Touchstone has never been an independently operating company but just Disney's "adult" label for things they felt too much trepidation over letting release under their "golden" family brand. The Cameo fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Dec 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:gently caress! How could I forgot that episode? "This leash dehumanizes us both."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:Jon Peters is a treasure trove of classic Hollywood stories. like the flip side of Robert Evans. instead of being a hollywood wunderkind who was in the right place at the right time who ended up being responsible for many of the greatest auteur-era films of the 1970s before burning out, he was a hollywood wunderkind who was with the right woman at the right time who ended up being responsible for a bunch of absolute loving garbage and still works regularly. I imagine both did enough cocaine to kill a gorilla. He hasn't worked in six years. He got money off of Man of Steel but that's due to his ownership of the rights. He came out on the losing side of a sexual harassment lawsuit in 2011 and basically killed his career the moment the verdict came down. All he can get now are residuals.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:He’s producing A Star is Born with Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga, which comes out next year. But is he an active producer on the project, because this could be just as much a case of him holding film rights as the Superman stuff, given he and Streisand were the producers on the '76 version (and funny enough, if what people involved say is to be believed, that credit is a thing he talked Barbara into in the first place and he wasn't actually involved in the, y'know, production of the actual movie or even getting the remake rights).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
I assure you, Tomorrowland didn't break even. There's a reason why Brad Bird suddenly found himself sitting back in Pixar and having to make an Incredibles 2, much like Andrew Stanton before him made a live-action movie and suddenly found himself sitting back in Pixar and having to make a Finding Nemo sequel, and it's not because that's what they imagined for themselves in the months before their movies opened. As for A Wrinkle In Time, it's a movie that screams "we could have, and probably should have, just done it as an animated movie".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 20:16
|
|