The Big Picture: Broken Biz
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I find the idea of Twinkie The Kid: the movie strangely intriguing.
I was kinda hoping you'd tackle the news about Before Watchmen and Alan Moore's reaction but this was nether the less a good episode, very informative.
I was kinda hoping you'd tackle the news about Before Watchmen and Alan Moore's reaction but this was nether the less a good episode, very informative.
Interesting. I wonder just how much we could find out if the business of movie profit was exposed to the public. Perhaps some loopholes that ensure a guaranteed bomb like Candy Land won't come back to bite the investors because the money was funneled in through various subsidiary micro-studios that the big studios keep around to peddle independent films and cheap schlock they don't want anyone to know they produce. Just a theory.
But Bob, if you have a bad episode of The Big Picture, you're not allowed to fire Susan Arendt. I think she out-ranks you, at least on this website.
But Bob, if you have a bad episode of The Big Picture, you're not allowed to fire Susan Arendt. I think she out-ranks you, at least on this website.
I'm still personally upset and mystified that back in 2009/2010, The Hurt Locker, yet another overly-dramatized movie about the Iraq War won the Best Picture Oscar over Avatar, a well designed, well executed, and most will admit, paint-by-numbers plot and story. However, it was the movie that showed how 3D can be done right, instead of the cheap crap that keeps squirting out of Hollywood.
'Preciate the episode, I enjoyed it. With my lack of knowledge of cinema, I didn't realize that the major players had created subsidiaries that could technically call themselves "Independent".
Also:
Finally:
Also:
Erm, what?DVS BSTrD said:
Finally:
"I dunno what happened guys, there was massive awareness of Coupons and it had all of the special effects. Why did it fail?"Ne1butme said:
There's a Strong Bad episode where he discusses the difference between independent films and indie films. It's worth a watch if anyone is interested.
http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail203.html
It's funny because it's true.
"Indie films all have big Hollywod actors in it, but they're all working "for scale" which I can only assume is a solid gold scale, perfectly balanced with gold bricks."
http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail203.html
It's funny because it's true.
"Indie films all have big Hollywod actors in it, but they're all working "for scale" which I can only assume is a solid gold scale, perfectly balanced with gold bricks."
Don't let the mention of money and shady accounting practices discourage you from pursuing your Hollywood dream. Just remember the phrase you're looking for is %of Net, not %of Gross. I would rather take .1% of net profits for a movie than 50% of gross profits on a movie. Yeah, it sounds odd as hell, but it's the only way to make sure you actually get money.
Simple. It was the first high-profile film ostensibly about the Iraq War that had absolutely nothing to say about the Iraq War. The same story could have been about US soldiers in Vietnam ca. 1969, or Israeli soldiers in Lebanon ca. 1984, or UN peacekeepers in Bosnia ca. 1994, and only superficial changes would have been required.CronoT said:
For what it's worth, I liked the Hurt Locker for the tense thriller that it was, but it was a general commentary on the lives of soldiers in a war zone, with a focus on EOD personnel, not specifically the Iraq War. It doesn't glamourize war, but neither does it villify it. It doesn't condone the occuption, but neither does it condemn it. It portrays soldiers as normal human beings, neither superheroes nor monsters. A smart move overall, as no political feathers of any colour were ruffled in the process, so the Academy could recognize an "Iraq War film" without having to take a political stance on a divisive issue.
Sticking it to Cameron was probably a bonus.
Another interesting and enjoyable episode.
I do now have a powerful urge to go watch Tank Girl again, so thanks for that.
I do now have a powerful urge to go watch Tank Girl again, so thanks for that.
As long is it's directed by Micheal Bay, I'll go see it.BigTuk said:
[image/]http://i1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd509/QuickDEMOL1SHER/candy-landboomcopy.jpg[/IMG]
OT: Thank you Bob! It's good to know just how much of a retarded clusterfuck modern Hollywood actually is...
I wonder if there will be some kind of collapse.
How dare you, sir?! Jim Carrey is freaking Marlon Brando compared to Adam Sandler.BigTuk said:
OT: Studio execs only care about opening weekend totals? I didn't know that, I thought that lifetime gross was the go-to metric.
And speaking of indie movies, some examples would be useful. Just because a movie is released by a major studio doesn't mean they funded its production. Were Slumdog Millionaire and Juno funded by Fox, or did they just pick it up after it was done?
Ya know, I'm kinda waiting to see what they can accomplish with Battleship and Candy Land. They sound like disappointing stupid funny to me. I kinda wish videogames took that risk. I don't want to play a digital board game of Chutes and Ladders. I want to play a video game where the story and premise is fully fleshed out and revolves around chutes and ladders. I'd pay $10 for it.
Let me tell you the story about a little movie called "Hardwired" that most of you have probably seen.
What? Never heard of it? Of course you have. It starred Will Smith, and Alan Tudyk played all the robots.
You say that movie's called I, Robot? You're wrong. An I, Robot movie has never been made. In I, Robot, Earth has a ban on robots, and only the Spacers have robots, so there aren't in robots in mid-21st century Chicago. You watched the movie Hardwired that was reskinned with superficial Asimov trappings, just like how Super Mario Bros. 2 is actually Doki Doki Panic.
(You can read about how this happened at Screenwriter's Utopia.) [http://www.screenwritersutopia.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=2713]
What? Never heard of it? Of course you have. It starred Will Smith, and Alan Tudyk played all the robots.
You say that movie's called I, Robot? You're wrong. An I, Robot movie has never been made. In I, Robot, Earth has a ban on robots, and only the Spacers have robots, so there aren't in robots in mid-21st century Chicago. You watched the movie Hardwired that was reskinned with superficial Asimov trappings, just like how Super Mario Bros. 2 is actually Doki Doki Panic.
(You can read about how this happened at Screenwriter's Utopia.) [http://www.screenwritersutopia.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=2713]
So the reason Hollywood has such a tough time making movies that don't suck is because they're mired in archiac business and accounting practices? In addition to just not understanding how to make a good film? What a beuracratic nightmare. The government would be proud.
My view is that we're going to see a lot more legitimate "independent" films and serialized programming, owing to the advent of digital distribution. Sites like Blip.tv have made it easy for a low budgit production to gain a wide audience. Not necessarily a huge audience, but one that hopefully can cover their production costs. Which in the end is the real mark of success. If one guy produced an expensive blockbuster that topped the charts on opening, but didn't begin to cover his costs, he did worse than the guy with a low budgit who managed to reach a great enough audience as to be in the black.
My view is that we're going to see a lot more legitimate "independent" films and serialized programming, owing to the advent of digital distribution. Sites like Blip.tv have made it easy for a low budgit production to gain a wide audience. Not necessarily a huge audience, but one that hopefully can cover their production costs. Which in the end is the real mark of success. If one guy produced an expensive blockbuster that topped the charts on opening, but didn't begin to cover his costs, he did worse than the guy with a low budgit who managed to reach a great enough audience as to be in the black.
It makes a sad amount of sense that a movie consistently sitting at #2 for months would be considered a failure. After all, Hollywood is in the country in which the most successful NFL team of the early 90s is regarded as a failure and a joke because "they lost four straight championship games". Ignored in that is the fact that they went to four straight championship games, against several different opponents. But no, because they weren't #1, they suck. Just like NASCAR changed its rules after a driver won the championship without ever winning a race, just finishing near the top in all of them.
Sadly, the culture in the USA is all about finishing first, or else you're nothing. No wonder we have the cinematic disasters that we do.
Sadly, the culture in the USA is all about finishing first, or else you're nothing. No wonder we have the cinematic disasters that we do.