Why There Are No Sure-Thing Movie Stars Anymore, But Hollywood Pretends There Are

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Why There Are No Sure-Thing Movie Stars Anymore, But Hollywood Pretends There Are

    I'm trying to figure out if josh was making a joke, or what, but, yeah, Elwes was nowhere near A-List. Never was, never will be.

    HH (who likes Cary Elwes, by the way)

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Why There Are No Sure-Thing Movie Stars Anymore, But Hollywood Pretends There Are

      Stars matter. But I think concept (pre-existing vs. original) and budget are more important these days.
      There isn't a right answer.

      Both will put butts in seats.

      Sometimes a movie needs a name, sometimes it doesn't.
      Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Why There Are No Sure-Thing Movie Stars Anymore, But Hollywood Pretends There Are

        I was making a joke... I do like Cary Elwes but I would agree that he's not by definition an A-lister... but movies he's played in (star or otherwise) have made over $2.4 Billion worldwide according to Box Office Mojo and he generally does a better job as the antagonist compared to the protag in most of the movies he's cast in, in my opinion.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Why There Are No Sure-Thing Movie Stars Anymore, But Hollywood Pretends There Are

          Originally posted by christopher jon View Post
          There isn't a right answer.

          Both will put butts in seats.

          Sometimes a movie needs a name, sometimes it doesn't.
          Nobody knows anything.
          "I was dreamin' when I wrote this, forgive me if it goes astray." - Prince

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Why There Are No Sure-Thing Movie Stars Anymore, But Hollywood Pretends There Are

            Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
            People often like to treat the symptom instead of the problem.

            The problem with Man on a Ledge and Columbiana is not that they lacked star power. It's that they lacked a decent plot and/or decent advertising.

            Columbiana trailers told us that it's just a Taken rehash, but there's a hot girl in it. Man on a Ledge trailers pretty much did nothing in the way of explaining the plot so viewers could understand the concept, and it also showcased some of the worst attempts at misplaced comedy by a plastic-looking generic chick that's about as attractive as Liam Neeson with fake boobs.

            Needless to say, Worthington and Saldana were not the reasons people stayed home. But put them in a good story, and people will go. Put *anyone* in a good story, and people will go.

            If a movie looks like crap, it probably is. Heck, most movies that look good turn out to be crap, so why not?


            PS: People don't care about stars anymore. A star used to be someone who was cast in a good role in a good film because that's what everyone wanted to play. Now, stars are cast in crappy movies as a way to get people into the theater to see a film they would otherwise not even think twice about.
            So what's behind the decline in storytelling? Shrinking development budgets?
            "I was dreamin' when I wrote this, forgive me if it goes astray." - Prince

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Why There Are No Sure-Thing Movie Stars Anymore, But Hollywood Pretends There Are

              Originally posted by Furious Anjel View Post
              So what's behind the decline in storytelling? Shrinking development budgets?
              I'm going to be tarred and feathered for suggesting this ... but is good story telling so important to a film's success?

              Let's do an experiment.

              It will have its flaws .. but should still be interesting.

              To answer 'how important is good (X) to success with audience' we need to have some measurement of each.
              • We can use 'domestic box office revenue (US)' as a rough metric for 'success with audience'. (Look - I know it isn't perfect .. there's a massive issue with kid's films and foreign films etc.)
              • We can use 'won an Oscar / nominated for an Oscar in category (X)' as a rough metric for 'good at (X)'.


              Then we just have to look at each category, and see how the Oscar Nominees/Winners compared to the average.

              If we did that ... would we see that films with 'Best Costume Design' do much better than expected .. but 'Best Supporting Actor' only a small amount?

              Here's a graph of the results - with the categories obscured.

              http://dl.dropbox.com/u/800207/TempL...ypeOfAward.png

              Which would you say is best:
              • Actor
              • Actress
              • Cinematography
              • Visual Effects
              • Director
              • Best Picture
              • Original Screenplay etc..

              (Not all categories may be included on the graph)

              Success in which categories would you assume have the biggest correlation with success at the box office?

              Mac
              (PS: I know ... correlation doesn't equal causation. But if we truly want to understand causation then we need to look at what data does correlate.)

              (PPS: If you look around you'll see the article I stole it from. I'll fess up in a bit - but I'm curious as to what instinctively we would guess the categories as)

              (PPPS: That same article has some great data showing that the act of winning the awards doesn't make a big difference (on average) to domestic box office ... because most of the cinema run is over by then.)
              Last edited by Mac H.; 01-31-2012, 05:32 PM.
              New blogposts:
              *Followup - Seeking Investors in all the wrong places
              *Preselling your film - Learning from the Experts
              *Getting your indie film onto iTunes
              *Case Study - Estimating Film profits

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Why There Are No Sure-Thing Movie Stars Anymore, But Hollywood Pretends There Are

                but is good story telling so important to a film's success?
                Depends on how you define good story telling.

                It's a rhetorical question because there isn't a correct answer.

                Over 2.6 billion box office worldwide would suggest that The Transformers franchise is good story telling. The film snobs and crabby cakes will argue differently.
                Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Why There Are No Sure-Thing Movie Stars Anymore, But Hollywood Pretends There Are

                  Why are you arguing?
                  Mac H is right, from a professional POV : stars get movies made. Distributors want them, Producers want them, the audience wants them. This is how it goes, and even if you want to toy with it, it doens't change.

                  Stars : people wants to see the movie > good concept : they are intrugued > good story : word of mouth : more people wants to see the movie.

                  Stars : people wants to see the movie > Bad concept : They aren't sure about going to the theatre> good story : word of mouth : less successful than phase 1

                  Stars : people wants to see the movie > Bad concept : They aren't sure about going to the theatre> Bad story : bomb.

                  Good concept : some people are intrigued> Good story : word of mouth : small success

                  Good concept > Ruthless marketting> Big success

                  Good story provide B.O in the long term
                  Stars give you instant attention

                  Good story : the number of available theatres increases with the success, coming from low to high

                  Stars : coming from high to supa high.
                  The question is : Do you work in the business?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Why There Are No Sure-Thing Movie Stars Anymore, But Hollywood Pretends There Are

                    Originally posted by Mac H. View Post
                    I'm going to be tarred and feathered for suggesting this ... but is good story telling so important to a film's success?

                    Let's do an experiment.

                    It will have its flaws .. but should still be interesting.

                    To answer 'how important is good (X) to success with audience' we need to have some measurement of each.
                    • We can use 'domestic box office revenue (US)' as a rough metric for 'success with audience'. (Look - I know it isn't perfect .. there's a massive issue with kid's films and foreign films etc.)
                    • We can use 'won an Oscar / nominated for an Oscar in category (X)' as a rough metric for 'good at (X)'.
                    Then we just have to look at each category, and see how the Oscar Nominees/Winners compared to the average.

                    If we did that ... would we see that films with 'Best Costume Design' do much better than expected .. but 'Best Supporting Actor' only a small amount?

                    Here's a graph of the results - with the categories obscured.

                    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/800207/TempL...ypeOfAward.png

                    Which would you say is best:
                    • Actor
                    • Actress
                    • Cinematography
                    • Visual Effects
                    • Director
                    • Best Picture
                    • Original Screenplay etc..
                    (Not all categories may be included on the graph)

                    Success in which categories would you assume have the biggest correlation with success at the box office?

                    Mac
                    (PS: I know ... correlation doesn't equal causation. But if we truly want to understand causation then we need to look at what data does correlate.)

                    (PPS: If you look around you'll see the article I stole it from. I'll fess up in a bit - but I'm curious as to what instinctively we would guess the categories as)

                    (PPPS: That same article has some great data showing that the act of winning the awards doesn't make a big difference (on average) to domestic box office ... because most of the cinema run is over by then.)
                    (I can't believe you got away with the storytelling comment. Tar and feather free! Done Deal Pro is slipping.)

                    I'm going to take a wild guess and say visual effects (no clue if I'm right). Big tentpoles with impressive effects are usually recognized by The Academy. You are right about awards. The average moviegoer doesn't care that much about the Oscars.

                    I guess there are always going to be people dumb enough to overpay for (perceived) talent. Nobody forced Lautner to do Abduction. Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson have made smarter choices so far.
                    "I was dreamin' when I wrote this, forgive me if it goes astray." - Prince

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Why There Are No Sure-Thing Movie Stars Anymore, But Hollywood Pretends There Are

                      I think this will carry on until a new personality who stands out without relying upon marketing and hype only carves out a niche.
                      Forthcoming: The Annual, "I JUST GOT DUMPED" Valentine's Short Screenplay Writing Competition. Keep an eye on Writing Exercises.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Why There Are No Sure-Thing Movie Stars Anymore, But Hollywood Pretends There Are

                        Tom Cruise used to open anything, even Days of Thunder, doesn't happen anymore. Last star pretty much attain that position was Will Smith, but then he has had a slip.
                        @MacBullitt

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X