Ron Howard's Drought

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #31
    Re: Ron Howard's Drought

    Originally posted by Crayon View Post
    "What absolute twaddle!" ~ Withnail

    A "box office bomb" doesn't mean that people didn't go to see it in large numbers; it just means that it made less money than it cost to make it.

    The top twelve biggest box office bombs!? Top twelve!!?? Twelve!!!??? Who the heck does a top twelve? Let me guess: number twelve is suitably sandy?

    I never watch those 'exotic jungle' movies. They're just all trees and leaves and sh!t.
    So if you're a studio executive, you'll blow $150 million dollars because 3 million people see your film? I mean, 3 million is a lot of people, right? Success in blockbusters is measured in dollars.

    All I'm saying is this: blockbusters are about entertainment, escapism. And a Transformers movie about giant robots blowing up a city with super-realistic FX is a lot more entertaining than watching (I'm simplifying I know) a few sailors getting hit by a whale, then bob up and down in the sea for an hour.
    I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Ron Howard's Drought

      Originally posted by Bairn_Writer View Post
      You're using the wrong stats to justify your position- John Carter may have lost a lot of money but it actually performed pretty well at the box office - almost $300m worldwide; The Lone Ranger was also north of $250m - they just cost too much.

      It's not that people didn't want to see them, they just cost too much.

      Maybe they could remake The Martian in a lush forest and it'll do better; I'm sure it'll help with the feeling of isolation.
      Ya, but Disney obviously thought that 3x that amount of people would see their films, and they didn't. So the question becomes why didn't they? You could argue it was because the two films looked like garbage, but so does Transformers. Transformers at least has epic scenery / robots / visuals to entertain.

      The Martian works because it has an epic story, Red Planet did not. But what if you were pitching an original sci-fi adventure of an astronaut stranded on a distant planet? What type of environment(s) would you pitch?
      Endless snowscape? I mean, if your story is as good as Lawrence of Arabia, sure, but what if it's not so great. How'll you attract people to watch your average story?
      I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Ron Howard's Drought

        It's dependent on what kind of a movie you are making.

        With sweeping adventure films we want varied, lush locations. With a horror movie we often want a single, isolate location.

        Story determines the location, not vice versa.

        Yet another ocean-based film that did very well: Perfect Storm.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Ron Howard's Drought

          Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
          So if you're a studio executive, you'll blow $150 million dollars because 3 million people see your film?
          Oh dear; I'd rather not.

          I mean, 3 million is a lot of people, right?
          For a house party, yes. For a global box office, no.

          Success in blockbusters is measured in dollars.
          Yes; that's the bottom line.

          All I'm saying is this:
          All you're saying?

          blockbusters are about entertainment, escapism.
          About?

          And a Transformers movie about giant robots blowing up a city with super-realistic FX is a lot more entertaining
          Oh yes, much more.

          than watching (I'm simplifying I know)
          Indeed, you are.

          a few sailors
          Ooh, sailors!

          getting hit by a whale,
          Oh, good gawd, no!

          then bob up
          'Up' you say?

          and down
          No, not 'down' as well?

          in the sea
          Ah yes, the cruel wet sea.

          for an hour.
          That's a lot of bobbing.

          But anyhow; whatever point you're trying to make, I suspect that Paul Greengrass and Tom Hanks would disagree ...
          Captain Phillips (Oct 2013)
          Budget: $55m (estimated)
          Gross U.S. Box Office: $107m (Feb 2014)
          [source: IMDb]

          Although, my disputing your 'monotone settings are rarely appealing' theory by highlighting a profitable example is just as fallacious as you asserting the theory by highlighting unprofitable examples. That's because correlation does not imply causation.

          But I do see what you're getting at. I've experienced it first-hand; mostly in the looks on the faces of girlfriends when I've suggested we see such movies.
          Know this: I'm a lazy amateur, so trust not a word what I write.
          "The ugly can be beautiful. The pretty, never." ~ Oscar Wilde

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Ron Howard's Drought

            With a great story or hook, you can make films like Captain Phillips work at the BO.

            The two aforementioned films felt very dull & repetitive story-wise. Given that, what else reason is there to go see it? It isn't just some random anomaly they were BO disappointments.

            What's even more strange is that us DDER's (even casual movie-goers) can predict bombs with such good accuracy, but the biggest studio execs and directors are often clueless.
            I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Ron Howard's Drought

              Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
              What's even more strange is that us DDER's (even casual movie-goers) can predict bombs with such good accuracy, but the biggest studio execs and directors are often clueless.
              It's always easier when you're an outsider, and you actually can see clips of the finished film.

              When you're part of the process, you get automatically blinded by what you're doing. Happens to everyone. It's hard to be objective, when your work more or less demands you to be subjective. Passion requires subjectivity. Objectivity flies out of the window, because it's a passion-killer.

              Comment

              Working...
              X