The Big Picture: The Numbers
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
As an R-rated, money making movie you would think that people would use The Expendables as a reason to make At the Mountain of Madness. Scott Pilgrim was a PG-13 kiddy-love-story. Its success would have in no way aided the creation of Mountains of Madness, save to give the production company extra money. From a standpoint of audience and market, Expendables seems to me to be absolute proof that R-rated entertainment can make money.kickyourass said:
Anyone who has or had to deal with the public for their job are taught one important life lesson:
The public are fucking stupid.
You also get the same results reading You Tube comments.
The public are fucking stupid.
You also get the same results reading You Tube comments.
I might be alone in this, but Guillermo del Toro is not a good director.
He's not necessarily bad, but he lacks a great deal of compitence. Visually, his movies are terrific, but when it comes to pacing, directing the actors, and story, his movies just plain suck.
And I hope you didn't use The Wolfman as a positive example, because that movie was the most ghastly piece of shit I've seen in years.
He's not necessarily bad, but he lacks a great deal of compitence. Visually, his movies are terrific, but when it comes to pacing, directing the actors, and story, his movies just plain suck.
And I hope you didn't use The Wolfman as a positive example, because that movie was the most ghastly piece of shit I've seen in years.
While I agree that SP was a fun movie that I enjoyed going to it was not going to have a broad appeal. People who went to the expendables instead were not likely to go to it.
Your overall thesis is true however. Vote with your dollar folks. That is how it works in our version of capitalism.
Your overall thesis is true however. Vote with your dollar folks. That is how it works in our version of capitalism.
Goddamn it.
Look Bob, I'll admit I HATED the premise of Scott Pilgrim before I saw the film; it sounded like the shitty fan-fiction I'd write in high school when the cute girl I bent over backwards to help with her homework would date the douchebag jock who paid her no mind. But then I saw the movie and fell in love with it. I played the game, I bought the books, and all was good.
But...I DON'T go around whining to people how underrated it was, how it was a cinematic masterpiece unfairly tossed aside. I like it. That's all that matters. You're starting to sound like those uppity Power Rangers fans who want an R-rated movie with blood and sex so they can turn around and show it to the people who made fun of them for liking a kids' show and say, "LOOK POWER RANGERS IS SERIOUS!!!"
I also find it hilarious that movies Bob bashes on Fridays usually make a decent amount of box office (Pirates 4) while the ones he champions tend to get brushed aside.
I'm also surprised he didn't use this opportunity to take a shot at Michael Bay or Transformers again.
Look Bob, I'll admit I HATED the premise of Scott Pilgrim before I saw the film; it sounded like the shitty fan-fiction I'd write in high school when the cute girl I bent over backwards to help with her homework would date the douchebag jock who paid her no mind. But then I saw the movie and fell in love with it. I played the game, I bought the books, and all was good.
But...I DON'T go around whining to people how underrated it was, how it was a cinematic masterpiece unfairly tossed aside. I like it. That's all that matters. You're starting to sound like those uppity Power Rangers fans who want an R-rated movie with blood and sex so they can turn around and show it to the people who made fun of them for liking a kids' show and say, "LOOK POWER RANGERS IS SERIOUS!!!"
I also find it hilarious that movies Bob bashes on Fridays usually make a decent amount of box office (Pirates 4) while the ones he champions tend to get brushed aside.
I'm also surprised he didn't use this opportunity to take a shot at Michael Bay or Transformers again.
Even though I enjoy most of your stuff Bob, I'm getting a little tired of all of this hate on The Expendables and blaming it on the failures of Scott Pilgrim and other geek friendly movies. This might just be me, but I didn't see one advertisement for Scott Pilgrim til the week and it left my area after two weeks because it made no money. So maybe lack of advertising and the fact that I only thought Scott Pilgrim was 'okay' leads to find this whole episode annoying.
I will sit on the fence on this one. While some movies make anohter one that is bad. Sometimes it takes the make a good film and then just put it on DVD and not on the big screen. So the point i would make is why even do the box office thing any more. DVD and direct download are now more in use than the move box office. Plus I do not have to have some kids makeing out. Just my $.02 but meh.
I didn't like Scott Pilgrim. There, I said it, but I didn't like Scott Pilgrim. Sure, when I first saw it, I was all like "COOL! THIS IS AWESOME! I LOVE IT! GAMER REFERENCES YAY!!" but upon rewatch in the cold light of day, I just didn't like it. A lot of it's problems for me can probably be traced right back to Micheal Cera, because I liked a lot of it.
This is a sad thing, really. I think Scott Pilgrim could have made a lot of money... if Micheal Cera wasn't playing the lead. The audience has spoken, and Micheal Cera is NOT the face of my generation, like the studios wanted him to be. It's sad Del Torro isn't getting his Lovecraftian horror flick made, but some other studio with less to lose will most likely try to put it into play. We haven't heard the last of this just yet.
This is a sad thing, really. I think Scott Pilgrim could have made a lot of money... if Micheal Cera wasn't playing the lead. The audience has spoken, and Micheal Cera is NOT the face of my generation, like the studios wanted him to be. It's sad Del Torro isn't getting his Lovecraftian horror flick made, but some other studio with less to lose will most likely try to put it into play. We haven't heard the last of this just yet.
Well. I thought that you are going to delve into the fact that the latest Cannes festival made the decision of awarding the prize based on the directors persona rather than the movie's content...
But I guess this one is fine too.
But I guess this one is fine too.
I should clarify, I'm not saying that capitalism doesn't work, I'm saying that the way it works has done harm this time around. The whole purpose of it is to serve as a reward for good work, which it often does. It's like xp for real life, and it usually works in that respect.MBE said:
What I believe happens here though is that money is being earned by the suggestion of good work rather than good work itself. Expendables earned more than Scott Pilgrim, but arguably Scott Pilgrim was a better film. Expendables simply had the power to make more people take a gamble and pay to see it. The money in this case is earned by convincing people to try it, not by the product being any good.
I don't think people WANT these movies, but they do fall for marketing for these movies because we consider them a safe option. In this case, capitalism is working for the marketing side, not for the product itself, which makes the product a high risk when it can't receive benefits from effective marketing. What I mean is that by the way capitalism works, wide-access is much more important than quality in the film industry in the majority of cases, and certainly here.