The Big Picture: The Numbers

[Bluecho]

The man is right. If this WERE a perfect world, only good films would make money, only good actors would become famous, and the likes of Uwe Boll and James Cameron would be out of a job.

But we're not living in a perfect world. And do you know why good films get snubbed while mediocre ones make millions? It's because of all of us! We're the problem, always going with the "safe" or "familiar".

 

[Imp_Emissary]

As if I wasn't angry enough at the points Bob raised regarding box-office emphasis and profit (that Universal tried to establish a unique demographic among intelligent, self-aware movie lovers and got its ass handed to it by a fucking overly masculine, pandering, poorly written pile of mindless garbage), I reached the point of infuriation when I heard that not only are people seeing Pirates 4, but it's the highest grossing movie this year with a ridiculous $250million dollars intake globally in the first week. Cut that shit out humanity.

Well, you know what they say. If it sells more it must be good. Just ask the crack dealers.

 

[fundayz]

I liked Scott Pilgram and it's a real shame it didn't do well. But it's not surprising either. A lot of the jokes and references would even have gone over the heads of a large section of modern gamers. Sometimes you've got to face reality

This. To any non-gamer, non-geek the movie was terrible. No matter what geeks think, making Scott Pilgrim was a bad decision on Universal's part.

MovieBob's argument boils down to "most people don't like the movies I do, so movies I like aren't made as often BAWWW".

 

[FangShadow]

I do believe bob has a point. It does seem that for both movies and games, when something fails, people tend to completely seal off that direction as though it's filled with leppers and nuclear fallout. I believe that instead of just sealing of the area, we should go through and see why these things failed. It seems that most of the time, the risky things fail in execution.

Now I do agree that the market determines what gets made, and thinking of the way things are at least from where I live in the USA (for those wondering, the bible belt south), its one of those things where you'd rather take the safe unoriginal bet and be sure you'll at least have some fun than risk going to something that may be better conceptually and risk having no fun.

Keep in mind I saw expendables and have yet to see scott pilgram (wanted to see it opening day as I had yet to hear about the franchise before hand, but went with friends and they pretty much wanted expendables. it was ok, but doubt I'd watch it again.)

Not trying to start a war but that is how I see it....

 

[Inuprince]

The only thing I can say is - the movie business didn't start today - so what's the big surprise in all of this? The film starring famous action stars outsells the niche appeal movie - oh my god what a surprise.

If this is really the only reason Universal didn't highlight the Lovecraft movie - (which really sounds awesome we can all agree on that) - then you can go and throw your hatred at the studio because they are idiots for showing it the same weekend - I am not an expert but they probably knew when The Expendables were coming out - and since, to them especially, the box office is what matters, why didn't they put the Scott Pilgrim movie later (2-3 weeks later) - there's not a blockbuster every week - why show your movie the same week when an anticipated superteam action-movie is coming out?
They can only blame themselves.

This exists in the game industry as well - if I am a developer of say ... strategy games - and I have a brand new take on the genre - however good I believe it to be - I am sure as hell not going to release it the same week the new Call of Duty comes out, cause then I am screwed for SURE.

 

[DearFilm]

I liked Scott Pilgram and it's a real shame it didn't do well. But it's not surprising either. A lot of the jokes and references would even have gone over the heads of a large section of modern gamers. Sometimes you've got to face reality

This. To any non-gamer, non-geek the movie was terrible. No matter what geeks think, making Scott Pilgrim was a bad decision on Universal's part.

MovieBob's argument boils down to "most people don't like the movies I do, so movies I like aren't made as often BAWWW".

I am a gamer and a lite-to-moderate geek, but I still found Scott Pilgrim terrible. It is just like how I felt about Paul: references and winks and nudges do not make up for a poorly constructed story.

 

[Gindil]

The Numbers

How Scott Pilgrim ruined Guillermo del Toro's day.

Watch Video

Bob, I love your commentary but you should look at just ONE guy and notice why the first three days or a week shouldn't matter.


He's made his OWN movie and he's currently in the black. The movie was for 4 million (Red State) and before it's been distributed, he's made it all back.

F___ Hollywood. Guillermo should talk to Smith.

 

[The Gawaine]

Guess what I happen to be reading right now? (now exactly now)

 

[Alar]

That sounded like it would have been the greatest monster horror movie ever made...

What the hell was Universal thinking? -sigh-

 

[FangShadow]

If this is really the only reason Universal didn't highlight the Lovecraft movie - (which really sounds awesome we can all agree on that) - then you can go and throw your hatred at the studio because they are idiots for showing it the same weekend - I am not an expert but they probably knew when The Expendables were coming out - and since, to them especially, the box office is what matters, why didn't they put the Scott Pilgrim movie later (2-3 weeks later) - there's not a blockbuster every week - why show your movie the same week when an anticipated superteam action-movie is coming out?
They can only blame themselves.

This exists in the game industry as well - if I am a developer of say ... strategy games - and I have a brand new take on the genre - however good I believe it to be - I am sure as hell not going to release it the same week the new Call of Duty comes out, cause then I am screwed for SURE.

I also agree with this. It was just a bad idea to launch anything the expendables at least for the first week or two. The expendable pretty much had the heavy advertising and nostalgia factor going all at once.

captcha: saltes grant ...?

 

[fundayz]

I am a gamer and a lite-to-moderate geek, but I still found Scott Pilgrim terrible. It is just like how I felt about Paul: references and winks and nudges do not make up for a poorly constructed story.

Exactly. Angry nerds might say "oh the expendables was trash and is only a pander to the lowest common denominator" but they don't realize Scott Pilgrim and other "geek" movies are the exact same thing, a pandering to a the lowest "geek" denominator.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I'll be honest, considering the number of people who really enjoyed Fast 5, the move to a sequel is bringing happiness to more people. It's not like PotC4, it's actually good at what it wants to be and what people want to see

I liked Scott Pilgram and it's a real shame it didn't do well. But it's not surprising either. A lot of the jokes and references would even have gone over the heads of a large section of modern gamers. Sometimes you've got to face reality

^_^ I reject your reality and put in its place my own. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go play Tomba! 3 with Heath Ledger.

 

[Crimson_Dragoon]

WE GET IT, BOB! You don't like the Expendables. But stop blaming it for Scott Pilgrim's failure. Scott Pilgrim was a big budget movie that catered to a small, niche audience. The nerd crowd is not big enough to support an expensive movie (this is why super hero movies tend to cater more towards a wider audience, and thus make more money). It didn't matter when it came out, or what it came out against, it was going to do poorly in the box office anyways.

 

[K V MAN]

great topic as usual Movie BOB,

now if any one asks why i quit movies i'll refer your video, thanks.

 

[Sutter Cane]

To me the reason Scott Pilgrim failed was the same reason that Kickass failed.

They were advertising films that weren't going to happen.

If you never read Kickass and only saw the trailer then you'd think it was just a comedy on some guy who tries to be a superhero, isn't that good but internet memehood inspires others to take up the mantle as he then gets better and eventually all the heroes team up to face the bad guy with the little girl and dad being the best ones even if no one takes them seriously.

Kickass was alright but it wasn't the film the non-geeks were promised, the general public looked it up and realised it wasn't their cup of tea after they realised the film was going to stay true, they wanted wacky comedy, not dark comedy that abandons comedy by the third act with the torture scene (seriously... why? it's marketing hell). It failed.

Scott Pilgrim also was advertised as just comedy until the above scenario happened.

Basically if people want to make movies like Kickass and Scott Pilgrim then they need to ditch the dark and drama and only make it a spoof of the genre or just comedy if they want the Hollywood cash flowing in.

Sad? Yes. Necessary? Also yes.

Kick Ass was a finincial success. From what i understand they had pretty much already covered their budget before the film even hit theaters

 

[gellert1984]

OK, so I actually like the fast and the furious, I've kinda enjoyed the movies, they arent special but they are fun.

However, I would gladly sacrifice whole small fishing hamlets along the coast to the Elder gods to see a good lovecraft movie. This makes me a sad future insane servant to beings for whom irrepressible evil is just a side effect of living.