PDA

View Full Version : Box Office Slump



Oliver
31-05-2005, 11:56
The film industry have announced about a loss of revenue and visitors to cinemas. Wonder why it could because that films are getting worse and that the cinema is a rip-off, it costs me £5.50 to see a film at night time at the showcase. The box offices are wondering why there is a slump. Don't they see it they should raise there production values and make new and original films instead of remakes and sequels to films. What do you think?

Ok Rant over, Iím sorry if I donít make sense just ignore me.

Kohhna
31-05-2005, 12:01
Spot on. Hollywood is, as to an extent it always has been, a machine for churning money. Aside from a few producers who have a bit of vision, very few will take a risk on a project without murdering the script and sanitising it to the point of inanity.

Its a good thing that the rest of the world is getting in on the act and places like New Zealand are producing films that not only rival but better those being made in the states and more people are getting turned on to films from Japan and the rest of Asia.

Wraith
31-05-2005, 12:02
Costs me the same...

I think you're right though -- to many sequal, prequals, and remakes being made in my opinion.

Sai-Lauren
31-05-2005, 13:14
Let me guess, this is the from last year, when there wasn't a Lord Of The Rings film.

What were the big films of 2004? The only one's I can think of was Farenheit 911, which had it's own publicity machine, and the Shrek and Spiderman sequels. It was pretty much a dead year movie wise.

I bet there's no such report about falling revenues this year, thanks to the 1000lb gorilla that's currently on the screens. :p

athamas
31-05-2005, 13:21
Hollywood's been dead for some yeahs, now, they have been doing the comic books because they have run out of ideas, and are 'scraping the barrel' as it were, some have been good, but its getting to the point where movies are predictable, and nothing is trule different, (things like LOTR are an exception)

we need some truly new films, esp. some cult horrour films, as nothing recently has been up to much... most are more sick/horrifying that spinetingling scary..


New plots ppl!

Oliver
31-05-2005, 13:46
Let me guess, this is the from last year, when there wasn't a Lord Of The Rings film.

I bet there's no such report about falling revenues this year, thanks to the 1000lb gorilla that's currently on the screens. :p

It was for the financial year of April to April, and they are still falling for this year.

The pestilent 1
31-05-2005, 16:23
we need some truly new films, esp. some cult horrour films, as nothing recently has been up to much... most are more sick/horrifying that spinetingling scary..

watched Jeepers creepers 2 last night.
ive seen scarier water stains (though while i say that there is this one freakishly weird stain on the roof of the extension to my house, evertime i look at the thing i get a chill down my spine!)

we need some good horrors!
no more fricking prequels!
no more sequels to bad movies!
no more sequels that are the first one with a number afterwards!

Lord Lucifer
31-05-2005, 16:58
we need some good horrors!

I'm holding out hope for the Silent Hill movie.
If the quality of the movie is anywhere near that of the games, it'll be brilliant.


It stars Sean Bean I believe :D




But anyway, here's hoping we get some good films coming soon, and some production companies with the testicular fortitude to 'buck the trend'





Its a good thing that the rest of the world is getting in on the act and places like New Zealand are producing films that not only rival but better those being made in the states
Narnia. Saw trailer before Star Wars 3. Looks awesome.
I'm Weta's bitch.

Oh, and Once Were Warriors, pretty old by now, brilliant movie. Watch it.

athamas
31-05-2005, 17:07
oh yeah narnia look FANTASTIC!


should partialy make up for the stream of bad films recently,

is has the messed up angel from constantie as the witch!

Baggers
31-05-2005, 19:51
You do realsie that most of the money you spend on your ticket goes to cover the sale of the film. While the cinema mainly makes it money from you buying expensive popcorn and sweets. ETC if you combine this with the upwardly spiralling costs of movie making (espically if you have Nicole £20 mill a film Kidman (that number may not be accuarte but she is expensive to hire) it is no wonder we are seeing a slump.

Plus the fact that you can now download or buy a film sometimes before it is released here in the UK. It is blatenly obvious there is a market slump.

Personally I blame Gordon Borwn or was it Tessa Howard who killed the film tax loophole.

m1s1n
31-05-2005, 21:48
I think that Baggers has hit it right on the head.
Currently there is rising demand for more expensive and elaborate films. In the case of "Star Wars" and "Shrek" this really pays off. In the case of most films--like "The Day After Tomorrow" the high production costs was not enough to bring in an audience. There are a large amount of films out there that do not cost $50 million+ to make, however no one is watching them. Look at "Garden State", "Finding Neverland", and "A Very Long Engagement". In my mind those were the three best films of 2004--not one of those films held a Top 5 spot within the US. The highest any of those films got was an 8th place position for "Finding Neverland". The great quality films are out there--people are just not interested in seeing them in the same numbers as a super-expensive film.

You do not need a $100 million dollar budget to make "Garden State"--which lowers the demand for heavy distribution. "Star Wars" on the other hand required a large amount of marketing in order to earn its first week $303 million world-wide. The lack of major distribution and marketing makes it harder for smaller films to get noticed, because the companies distributing the films are not as concerned of the consequences of a $5 million dollar film failing (especially in comparison to the $45 million dollar "Sin City").

Since these high cost films are more high risk it is a natural consequence that the industry is feeling a slump. With the exception of "Star Wars" there really hasn't been a massive rush to the theatre in 2005. I think "Star Wars" was the only other film besides "Hitch" to be #1 two-weeks in a row.

Even though the numbers have been overall down since previous years, most films are still making their money back. Because of this most film production companies will maintain the current pace and style of films. People are interested in seeing "event films" more than deep insightful films. In this sense quality becomes subjective. For someone who has just invested millions of dollars into a film quality means getting your money back. If you are looking for deeper films, they are there--you just have to be more active in film selection.

Lord Lucifer and I are still trying to keep the Portent Movie Society (which will probably get renamed. . .) going. If you are looking for different, less "Hollywood" films I recommend joining. Every couple of weeks we try to present films that are generally less recognized by the mass audience, but filled with deep and interesting insight. Just a thought.

Christina
31-05-2005, 23:02
There are like so many crappy movies that paiyng $15 to watch one is too much these days.

I'd like to see some movies like Alexander but i'll jsut wait for them to come on TV.

Kohhna
31-05-2005, 23:13
Considering we all have DVD players now it is getting harder to justify spending £5 on a cinema ticket.

Saying that there have been a few films I've seen in the last 6 months that have been worth the price of admission;
Oldboy, Hero, House of Flying Daggers, Machuca, Team America, Steam-Boy, Sky Blue, Sideways, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.

I have seen some **** as well, Hitch-hikers guide being the chief offender, although the one part of the film that worked, the visual FX, were improved by seeing them on the big screen, it would probably have been more of a waste if I had've waited until I saw it on DVD.

m1s1n
01-06-2005, 00:19
I think something else that is important to note:
A lot of film making is about finding formulas that have been successful in the past and trying to repeat them. One of my profs once told me that a well accepted anecdote in film making is "The last sequel made is the one that didn't make any money." You will continue to see sequels, prequels, and films that are "rip-offs" of others coming from Hollywood because film making is a business.

TheHood
01-06-2005, 00:55
I think something else that is important to note:
A lot of film making is about finding formulas that have been successful in the past and trying to repeat them. One of my profs once told me that a well accepted anecdote in film making is "The last sequel made is the one that didn't make any money." You will continue to see sequels, prequels, and films that are "rip-offs" of others coming from Hollywood because film making is a business.

Certainly,

The Hollywood machine churns out film after film of a successful genre. At the moment, I would say we are coming out of the 'Epic' genre, what with Troy, Alexander, Kingdom of Heaven etc - which have all spawned out of the success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

And we will continue to see the same film (just with different titles :D ) until the producers and studio executives begin to realise that people are beginning to get bored of seeing Orlando Bloom running around with armour and a sword.

However, the smaller, more independant films rarely do well because they cannot compete with the advertising and promotion - and in most cases the big stars. It is a shame, because ultimately, these are the type of films I want to see.

Occassionally a 'small' film does well - Whale Rider, Reservoir Dogs, Garden State etc, but these are very few cases.

Back on topic, I haven't been to the cinema in ages for the simple reason that there is nothing on that I want to see. I went to see the new Star Wars film this weekend, and after paying for my ticket and food, I had spent over $25. I can buy a DVD for a little more!

And then I had to compete with noisy kids and cellphones (really!) and ultimately it wasn't an enjoyable experience. It isn't the same as to when I was a kid.

It's no wonder the industry is losing money. And this is an industry I am involved in (I'm an editor)

Sorry for the rant.

Frankly
01-06-2005, 04:58
!0 years ago, on of my hobbies was watching movies. I'd go to every movie that was playing(I'd used to start work at 5a.m. and finsh at 2.30p.m.). But the price raise of movie tickets in New Zealand and Australia was to steep. I rarely ever go to the movie anymore, which is a shame.

Jedi152
01-06-2005, 09:27
While the film industry is slumping, my local Showcase must be making a killing.

Tickets prices rise ever higher, and now they have started showing at least 10-15 tv adverts before each performance, more on films like Star Wars. I go to the cinema so i don't have to see adverts in my films.

I'm seriously considering not bothering in future, i have friends who can get films on pirate dvd before they're even out at the cinema.

Kohhna
01-06-2005, 09:37
I think something else that is important to note:
A lot of film making is about finding formulas that have been successful in the past and trying to repeat them. One of my profs once told me that a well accepted anecdote in film making is "The last sequel made is the one that didn't make any money." You will continue to see sequels, prequels, and films that are "rip-offs" of others coming from Hollywood because film making is a business.

Thats all true but it has been like that for at least the last 30 years. Although things do seem to have been getting progressively worse.

I think the reason why we are seeing the slump now is because of better quality home entertainment, and the fact that a lot of people now have access to picture perfect downloads available over the internet. There were quality issues with Pirated stuff before but in the era of DVDs that isn't an issue.

Cypher
01-06-2005, 12:52
Two things: firstly DVDs. The DVD market is huge at the moment, and I think a lot of people are reasoning that they dont need to see a movie at the cinema if they can hire it only a few months later.

Secondly, and I think this is more important. The overall quality of movies is declining. For a start there seems to be a lot more films being made that are simply bad (something like You Got Served is a good example of a waste of time and money), but its also that the blockbuster films, which is where the bulk of the money is made, arent really all that good. As an example look at The Day After Tomorrow from last year. It was expected to be a big money spinner, and while it did nicely and was a pretty good film, it certainly wasnt anything special. I doubt there were many people going a second time, or saying "you have to see this" to their friends. Doing "kinda well" doesnt cut it for a movie like that. Spiderman 2 and Episode 3 succeeded because not only was there hype, but people were (are) actually excited about the film after they saw it.

Lord Lucifer
01-06-2005, 12:58
Big problem affecting electronic media as an art form (this is everything, from movies, through music, to computer/console games) is the cost of spectacle

The resurgence of the blockbuster, and the success of the hype generated to accommodate those 'blockbuster' movies, means it's our blockbusters, our bloated, over-inflated high-budget 'event' films that are reaping massive cash rewards.
Problem is they don't always do that.

The cost of making movies (buying all the beautiful special effects and the talent free celebrity actors to mollify the masses) is increasing.
This directly results in two things.

Firstly, ticket prices go up to help the executives and financiers sleep easier about the whole thing. So we get to pay through the nose for these big films, and because it's unlikely a cinema would want to price accordingly to each movie, it's accross-the-board price hikes on every movie (with extra costs for 'blockbusters')

Secondly, because of the risk involved with such expensive-to-make movies, producers etc. really, really want to play it safe. Leading to countless copycat movies, every movie with the same predictable plot-line, less adventurous and innovative films.
Creativity getting strangled.


So we're left with massive, horrifically expensive Paint By Numbers movies with an itemised checklist of what the movie MUST and MUST NOT have.

All this more of the same may be leading to a very bored and disillusioned audience, which may account for the slump.

Remember there was a period of epics back in the 'golden era' of Hollywood, the whole Ben Hur-styled epic film, and how that eventually folded and brought hollywood to its' knees? (okay, that's anecdotal at best, but I suspect I'm right in that)
Same thing probably happening here
Of course they have the perfect scapegoat in teh intarweb!!! ;)




Disheartening, really.
Just remember, the bigger the film, the less adventurous they're going to be.
A pity really.

de Selby
01-06-2005, 14:16
Remember there was a period of epics back in the 'golden era' of Hollywood, the whole Ben Hur-styled epic film, and how that eventually folded and brought hollywood to its' knees? (okay, that's anecdotal at best, but I suspect I'm right in that)
Same thing probably happening here


And we got the Easy Riders, Raging Bulls period, with a bunch of film school talent brought in to reinvigorate Hollywood. That's the story, anyway.

I agree with all of the above that the desperate search for 'a sure thing' is a creativity killer. I remember reading about Thornton struggling with the executives over 'All the pretty horses', because they wanted to give him MORE money to make it. The studio wanted a tentpole release which they could promote heavily, so they were prepared to invest more heavily in production. The more money is invested in promotion, the more the movie has to make at the box office. The more the movie has to gross (in order to count as a success), the more the executives will play it safe, stripping out the originality and character from the film. Directors know this.

Woody Allen seems to have identified the precise line to tread, turning out film after film on a low budget with total artistic control. I presume this is at least partly because he can still bring in name actors to work for him, and it's a pity he's run out of interesting things to say. I can't think of another american writer-director who works in the same way.


I'm not sure how much of a problem piracy really is. How many would actually pay for the stuff if they couldn't get it for free? The wider problem is steadily falling cinema attendance, and this is probably due to competition from other forms of entertainment more than competition from pirate copies.

I know that many directors look to DVD sales to push their movies into profit. You could look at the whole film release process (including all the actual screenings) as just an enormous trailer for the DVD, where it's easier to find your audience.

wanderingblade
01-06-2005, 14:36
I think everyone knows that it takes Hollywood execs only five seconds to recognise creativity, and less than two to call in security guards to escort it outside the building. The majority don't really care. I know I don't.

By my lights, Hollywood have just ceased to make interesting films. Most of their actors can't even do justice to their poor, poor characters - or can, but can't be arsed because they know they are poor characters.

Most damningly for me, action heroes are pussy gay metrosexuals who most of us here would smack the everloving **** out of if it wasn't for their bodyguards. Bring back the big, muscly gay men who could rip our arms off and beat us to death with it.

Adept
01-06-2005, 14:57
Most damningly for me, action heroes are pussy gay metrosexuals who most of us here would smack the everloving **** out of if it wasn't for their bodyguards.

Blade, those of us who were around before the fall have seen those pictures. I believe Anar had a version as his avatar for a while?

The above quote, coupled with the pic in question creates, shall we say, an interesting dichotomy.

Although I do agree with you. Where have the Jesse Venturas and Ahnolds gone? Apart from politics?

Sai-Lauren
01-06-2005, 15:16
And we got the Easy Riders, Raging Bulls period, with a bunch of film school talent brought in to reinvigorate Hollywood. That's the story, anyway.

And then we had the big action blockbusters with the star headlined over the films name (Sly and Arnie aren't to blame on their own here, and it's still going on - Vin Diesel anyone?), followed by the more independant film makers like Tarantino when he started. It's all cyclic. Right now it's trying to ride Harry Potter and LoTR's coat-tails (why else are they doing the Narnia books), which, IMO at least, is dying off. Before that it was superheroes, prior to that video games, that followed mis-matched buddy-cop movies (the Lethal Weapons and Rush Hours etc), preceded by the aformementioned big budget action movies with lots of views of stuff blowing up from several different angles. Even re-makes tend to run in cycles (most recently it's been 60s/70s Brit films like Get Carter and The Italian Job, before that it was French cinema, then Chinese IIRC and so on).


And we will continue to see the same film (just with different titles ) until the producers and studio executives begin to realise that people are beginning to get bored of seeing Orlando Bloom running around with armour and a sword.
I think he's actually being very clever. He know's it's not going to be long before that happens, so he's making every single movie he can whilst he's still a fairly hot property.

Anyway, back to the topic. One thing I didn't mention in my earlier post is a big reason why there's starting to be a slump in box office, in the UK at least, and I would be surprised if it didn't apply across the rest of europe and in the US as well, if not globally.

The economic situation. We're basically on the start of a recession I'm afraid. Should have happened about 2 years ago, but the dot-com crash of 2001 took some of the pressure off and delayed it. Coupled with low interest rates (and shall we say some dodgy practices with mortgage lending), a lot of people could keep spending on credit, keeping the economy going. Now interest rates have gone up (although they may start to drop back again to try and stave a full recession off, but I think that'll only prolong the problem), house prices are beginning to slip, and the credit card companies and banks are starting to get a little nervous about whether they'll get all that money back.

But the end result is that people don't have money for luxuries, and going to the cinema is a luxury. The movie industry can blame bootleggers, the internet and so on all it wants, that's been going on for years, all that's happened is the technology's changed making it easier to do.

Cheesejoff
01-06-2005, 15:19
I think the "His Dark Materials" trilogy is being made into a movie. That should be efreshing, but a little controversial (the good guys are trying to kill God himself?)

The main factors for the slump are: Expensive ticket prices, piracy (although that's possibly caused by the prices), lack of refreshing or original ideas, general repetition, movies being dumbed down for the "wider audience" *coughs* Star Wars* *coughs*

Oliver
01-06-2005, 15:25
movies being dumbed down for the "wider audience" *coughs* Star Wars* *coughs*

Lol so very true you can normanly see wht the end of a movie is going to be after about 1/2 hour 10 mins if the movie was really bad.

Jedi152
01-06-2005, 15:54
I think the "His Dark Materials" trilogy is being made into a movie. That should be efreshing, but a little controversial (the good guys are trying to kill God himself?)
Don't get too exited. Weren't they talking about removing all religious aspects of it?

The namby-pamby liberals will think it's offensive to Christians (by trying to kill God) and all other religions (by saying there is a God).

Wraith
01-06-2005, 17:03
Most damningly for me, action heroes are pussy gay metrosexuals who most of us here would smack the everloving **** out of if it wasn't for their bodyguards.

You can say that again I mean lets have a look --

Hayden Christensen AKA 'Darth Vader' -- Skinny clean shaven (if he even shaves) kid portrayed with floppy blonde curls.

Tobey Maguire AKA 'Spiderman' -- skinny clean shaven kid, foppish hair.

Orlando Bloom AKA 'Legolas', 'Paris' etc -- ok he was given a beard in Kingdom of heaven but it's the exception. Skinny clean shaven.

Never mind Keanu, or Pitt (or even perhaps Cruise although he looked better as 'Vincent').

I think the only 'hero' that's even half decent is Hugh Jackman as 'Wolverine' -- the hairy, unshaven, cigar smoking, metal clawed near-bad **** of X Men fame.

Brandir
01-06-2005, 17:08
The reason that cinemas have lost my custom in recent years is simply the cost. Even taking me, The Wife and two kids to see a Disney film will cost over £30.00 (tickets and the obligoratory popcorn and coke combo) for a couple of hours entertainment.

I don't begrudge paying that for a decent film, but recently ther have been far too many re-makes and poor films.

Baggers
01-06-2005, 22:35
Don't get too exited. Weren't they talking about removing all religious aspects of it?

The namby-pamby liberals will think it's offensive to Christians (by trying to kill God) and all other religions (by saying there is a God).

I belive it is currently on hold as the director walked out of the project as well. Even though it is due to be released in two years.

Here in Nottingham we have the Broadway Cinema that not only shows popular mainstream material it shows an awful lot of good low budget films. Which no one wants to see. The Jacket was released a week before Star Wars over here and was gone by my local cinema after two weeks. But I enjoyed this film far more than I enjoyed the traversty that was star wars.

The real shame is that this film (even though it star Keira Knightly) will not be seen by the masses even though its brilliant while the mass will see the money making Star Wars.

If you look at this years big film you see lots are prequals, remakes sequals etc.. the offenders being

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
War of the Worlds
Batman Begins
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
Star Wars Episode 3
Herbie
Oceans 12

Or they will be based on popular franchises
Sin City (which I am looking forward to seeing)
Fantastic Four
Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe

Or in the case of Kingdom of Heaven, Ridley Scott showing how Historicals should be done even though he does not do it as well as Gladiator (which btw Hood started off the Epic historical film trend we have at the moment)

The only orginal big film we have this year is Serenity and Mr and Mrs Smith with the latter being rubbish.

tzeentchgiant
01-06-2005, 23:07
(by trying to kill God)

Hate to ruin it for you, but they do kill god :) (maybe I shouldn't have put that smiley up, oh well to late now)

I personnaly am tiring of the film industry in general, if you look at the trend over the last few decades you can see a decrease in entertainment value.

How long ago was it since a clasic like The Great Escape, or an astounding adventure like Kong hit the screen, the epic films do there best, but I do not beleive that they are in anyway up to scratch in comparison to the old classics. (I also feel my desensatising to talent has had a profound effect on the way I veiw films).

I'm sure I'm not the only one who in there childhood, would eagerly wait in anticipation to go the the pictures and see such films, (even the calabre of childhood films has gone downhill dramatically, from Babe to *shivers* Cats and Dogs) now I think about seeing something like I would plan to watch the simpsons, "oh another new episode, maybe I'll watch it depends what I'm doing." Why the sinicism people? Why, is it because of the lack of quality, no it is because of the lack of passion, the effects are great the affect isn't.

Another one of the main things that bothers me a bout hollywood is the culture of celebrity, but I won't start on that, maybe I'll start another thread (maybe not).

I'm sure my sinicism isn't affecting the big screens, but I think peoples veiws on films are changing just as mine are, seeing them not as brilliant thought provoking, or astounding rides of thrills, but as the money making projects that they are. I think that maybe this has contributed to the little money/time I have spent at the cinema of late, aswell as my pure distain for many of the actors involved in some of the more memorable titles from the past five years.

I won't go into that now....

TG

P.S I was thinking of maybe writing a couple of film reveiws, (can't be sure if I will yet) would the film thread be a suitable place to post them?

Also I added to the reputation on one of your earlier post lucy. I thought it was very true and accurate.

wanderingblade
01-06-2005, 23:54
Blade, those of us who were around before the fall have seen those pictures. I believe Anar had a version as his avatar for a while?

The above quote, coupled with the pic in question creates, shall we say, an interesting dichotomy.

Although I do agree with you. Where have the Jesse Venturas and Ahnolds gone? Apart from politics?

Even as presented in those pictures - which would be a head attatched to some shoulders - I would be quite happy about trying to take them on. Since I'm no longer fifteen, my bravado is even more justified.

So shame on you Artegall (I presume it is you there), shame on you for trying to pin the tail on me with a picture thats four years old.

As for where they've gone - the home of all bad actors really. The likes of Bronson, Connery and Eastwood were/are still making movies when old, the breed of the 80s didn't possess the sort of thespian qualities to continue. They've just stopped casting actors that truly look the part as well, although there are a few - damned if I can name them readily though.

And the idea that when watching Predator, I'm watching three candidates for US governorships slightly scares me.

tzeentchgiant
01-06-2005, 23:57
I'm watching three candidates for US governorships slightly scares me.

That scares me too, what do they know about politics(just becaus ethy're actors that doesn't make them stupid(oh yeah)), but Arnie rules

TG

Kohhna
02-06-2005, 00:08
(which btw Hood started off the Epic historical film trend we have at the moment).

Actually I belive it was Last of the Mohikans that was the first big historical epic to renew hollywoods faith in the genre after Heavens Gate.


...The only orginal big film we have this year is Serenity...

Yeah looking forward to that one.

Adept
02-06-2005, 02:22
Even as presented in those pictures - which would be a head attatched to some shoulders - I would be quite happy about trying to take them on. Since I'm no longer fifteen, my bravado is even more justified.

So shame on you Artegall (I presume it is you there), shame on you for trying to pin the tail on me with a picture thats four years old.

:D

Bravado is never justified. It's the poor mans substitute for confidence. But thats just semantics, and even as just a head attatched to shoulders I have to admit you probably could take on Orlando Bloom and Tobey Maguire.

Although I do feel kinda warm and fuzzy that someone remembers my old account.


And the idea that when watching Predator, I'm watching three candidates for US governorships slightly scares me.

I get a chuckle out of it every time.

"This stuff will make you a sexual tyrannosaurus!"

:D

Xhalax
02-06-2005, 02:30
And the idea that when watching Predator, I'm watching three candidates for US governorships slightly scares me.

Three? Shows just how much I don't care about US politics

Who was the third? After Jesse Ventura and Arnie

And that is a terrifying thought.

m1s1n
02-06-2005, 04:50
Sonny Landham ran for governor of Kentucky or something.

Props to Kohhna for remembering "Heaven's Gate". Most people don't know the story of this film (and previously "Cleopatra"). For those unaware (mainly everyone besides film majors), "Heaven's Gate" bankrupted United Artist--forcing owners to sell the company to MGM. "Cleopatra" caused a similar problem for Fox twenty-years prior--Fox was required to sell a majority of their studios and property in Hollywood to make back the money. It took "Cleopatra" 7-years in theaters to make its cost. "Heaven's Gate" is a great example of a film that was supposed to be a major success, but ended up financially ruining the company that made it. Really the box office slump isn't something to worry about--what we should fear are movies that go ten times over budget (at least) and only make 10% of their cost back in theatres. This would be extremely disastrous to the production company and the viewing audience.

If you are disappointed with films this year, just wait and soon a film will be released that you are interested in seeing. More than not, you've already seen some films you've actually enjoyed--you just pay more attention to the films you dislike.

Some new releases that have potential:
1. "Lords of Dogtown"
2. "Cinderella Man"
3. "Howl's Moving Castle"
4. "Charlie and the Chocolate Factor" (. . .okay. . .but still. . . OOMPA LOOMPAS!!)
5. "Night Watch" (someone will point out that it isn't Hollywood, but still looking forward to it)
6. "The Brother's Grimm"

x-esiv-4c
02-06-2005, 05:16
I'm interesting in seeing The Brother's Grimm, should be an interesting adaptation.

MVA
02-06-2005, 08:19
I know one film I'm really hanging out for....

Rambo IV.


*twitches and feels like killing small furry animals in a fit of rage*

Yeah... the movie industry is in reeeeal good hands.


And if the Red Dwarf movie end up blowing...ugh...

Adept
02-06-2005, 08:53
I know one film I'm really hanging out for....

Rambo IV.

Scarily, I am actually hanging out for the new Rambo. I'm a fan of midless action flicks with no pretension of a plot. Where the directors basically tell you "We're going to show you some cool explosions, some cool guns, some cool characters, and thats it." There is a reason Commando is one of my favourite all time movies.

Justicar Jacob
02-06-2005, 09:02
I remember a time when going to the movie theater with friends was a good hobby mine. Now everything became remakes, sequals, books made into movies, crappy potrayals of historical epics or just plain crap. (ughhh... timemachine and giggly)

My military discount ( my father did 20yrs in the Air Force )allows me to veiw movies without paying way too much(if there is someting to see). I can always get snacks from the local gas station for much less. By the end of the movie I will have racked up about $12.00-$16.00/ (Depends on if I go to an AM showing)

Now all I need is a movie that is worth seeing.

$5.55-$6.55 for ticket
$1.00 for a large kit kat (I get 1 or 3 of these)
$1.25 for a 1 liter milk

Jedi152
02-06-2005, 09:08
Hate to ruin it for you, but they do kill god :) (maybe I shouldn't have put that smiley up, oh well to late now)
Noooo! the end is ruined! :D

I'm halfway through Northern Lights, so i've got a while to till i get to that bit yet!


...And if the Red Dwarf movie end up blowing...ugh...
You mean you thought that this would be good?

They should put it in the hands of Spielberg. He'll probably re-set it nowadays with Tom Cruise as Lister, an american hero who saves the world, while Rimmer (Jason Isaacs) the cowering englishman, turns out to be evil.

I despair of Hollywood i really do. Are americans really so fickle that they won't go and see a film that's not based in their country, with an american as the lead?

If i see one more Hollywood flick where the american hero saves the world from the evil englishman (while singing the national anthem, a US flag tied round his neck, a bald eagle on one arm, and punching an islamic extremist with the other) i will puke.

Cheesejoff
02-06-2005, 09:09
Hate to ruin it for you, but they do kill god :) (maybe I shouldn't have put that smiley up, oh well to late now)

I know I've read the books...but God isn't really God, he's just the first angel.

MVA
02-06-2005, 10:17
Scarily, I am actually hanging out for the new Rambo. I'm a fan of midless action flicks with no pretension of a plot. Where the directors basically tell you "We're going to show you some cool explosions, some cool guns, some cool characters, and thats it." There is a reason Commando is one of my favourite all time movies.

As am I.

But for hells sake, it's going to star Stallone.

All I can see right now is a slight flatulence problem and the firing of two great whopping sub machine cannons in each hand from a wheelchair.



You know nothing, jedi152. Rimmer would be French, not English. ;)

As long as the said American uses the words 'Yippe-Ki-Yay, motherf*cker', THEN it's alright. :p

Brandir
02-06-2005, 10:34
I'm looking forward to the Chronicles of Narnia. I just hope they are as good as/better than the BBC's superb series a few years ago.

wanderingblade
02-06-2005, 11:44
:D

Bravado is never justified. It's the poor mans substitute for confidence. But thats just semantics, and even as just a head attatched to shoulders I have to admit you probably could take on Orlando Bloom and Tobey Maguire.

Bravado had a better ring to it there. If we're looking for accuracy, I am 110% iron clad certain that every single last person reading this forum would school the above like a red-headed step child. Even any babies that stare incomprehendingly at the screen for three seconds while their parent/babysitter posts.



Although I do feel kinda warm and fuzzy that someone remembers my old account.


Like roadkill in July huh?



I get a chuckle out of it every time.

"This stuff will make you a sexual tyrannosaurus!"

:D

Oh, I'd be lying if I didn't find it damn funny as well. You'll note how Jesse says that directly after calling them a bunch o' faggots.

These are the sort of movies Hollywood should be making. If you don't have the brains to intrigue us, just flat out amuse us.

Kohhna
02-06-2005, 12:10
I despair of Hollywood i really do. Are americans really so fickle that they won't go and see a film that's not based in their country, with an american as the lead?
Fairs Fair, they went to see Shaun of The Dead didn't they? I think the American audience, per head of population, is probably the most sophisticated movie going public in the world - the studio bosses are the ones that are terrified of not pandering to the lowest common denominator. It isn't so much that they are afraid of losing money as that they live by the principle of maximum capital yeild. i.e. why make 10bn when you can make it less challenging or complex and make 12.5bn? (excuse the hyperbole)

In a country of, millions I don't know, even iff they have a higher percentage of true afficianados than anywhere else that still leaves a lot of ******.

m1s1n
02-06-2005, 15:48
I despair of Hollywood i really do. Are americans really so fickle that they won't go and see a film that's not based in their country, with an american as the lead?

If i see one more Hollywood flick where the american hero saves the world from the evil englishman (while singing the national anthem, a US flag tied round his neck, a bald eagle on one arm, and punching an islamic extremist with the other) i will puke.

Again, I think Kohhna has the right idea in his response to this. But to add further examples--for the past two-weeks American's have been spending lots of money watching a film starring a Canadian, an Israeli, and a Scotsman. I really don't think that nationality has as much to do with it as we perceive. One of the highest grossing films of all time is "Titanic"--none of the leads in that play American characters(nor are they fighting off terrorists, which certainly would have made it more interesting)--so maybe nationality is not an issue in box-office numbers?

I admit that it would be easier for me to write a story about Americans living in America as Americans do--but that's because I've only lived in America, and while I am interested in other countries, I will never understand them as well as the society I was raised in. I'm sure a lot of screenwriters have this same complex--how do you escape your nurturing?

Jedi152
02-06-2005, 16:01
One of the highest grossing films of all time is "Titanic"--none of the leads in that play American characters
Is Leonardo DiCaprio not american? And his character? :p

But i do understand what you mean. I guess it is easier to set, and film, a film in the US when you're a US director.

I just wish a few more lower budget, foreign films could make it to the big time.

Baggers
02-06-2005, 19:53
I just wish a few more lower budget, foreign films could make it to
the big time.

Then may I suggest that you get yourself down to the Broadway a couple of times a year and see any of the low budget films on show there.

Xhalax
02-06-2005, 23:15
I'm looking forward to the Chronicles of Narnia. I just hope they are as good as/better than the BBC's superb series a few years ago.

From a visual point of view.....it look fantastic. So much so I'm willing to swallow my pride and go see it coz I don't particually like or enjoy the stories.
But I'm going to give it a shot.