Here (Portugal) Scott Pilgrim was not only released months late, it was released in a total of 3 theatres nationwide. After one week, 2 of them had moved it to night slots only, by which point I gave up on actually being able to see it.Srdjan Tanaskovic said:
The Big Picture: The Numbers
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I totally agree with this apart from:
1. The expendables was actually a pretty good film.
2. Scott pilgrim was an incredibly poor film.
1. The expendables was actually a pretty good film.
2. Scott pilgrim was an incredibly poor film.
Actually there's much calculation about sales and demographics involved so it's not the business that's retarded. It's us, the people that pay to see movies, that are retarded, since we choose to pay to see all the Hollywoos%#¤" instead of the really good movies, and so Universal that suprisingly showed integrity in moviemaking lost money because they chose integrity over calculation.HankMan said:
Also, if you think "but I didn't go see any of the bad movies, I only saw the good ones." You're still part of the retarded demographic that wants to see really vrappy movies and their remakes.
Hhmmm, so that's why Del Toro has been quiet all this time. He was trying to get Lovecraft out there. A hard sell at the best of times.
I'm on the fence about the Expendables. In a way it's aimed as squarely at movie fans as Scott Pilgrim was at the nerd demographic. But where everybody's seen a couple of movies that will make you get a few in-gags in the Expendables the Scott Pilgrim movie aimed at a niche within an already smaller demographic. Ie. not all comic book fans have read or liked Scott Pilgrim. It's not like it's The Sandman.
I'm on the fence about the Expendables. In a way it's aimed as squarely at movie fans as Scott Pilgrim was at the nerd demographic. But where everybody's seen a couple of movies that will make you get a few in-gags in the Expendables the Scott Pilgrim movie aimed at a niche within an already smaller demographic. Ie. not all comic book fans have read or liked Scott Pilgrim. It's not like it's The Sandman.
While I'm annoy this is another complaint about Scott Pilgrim failure however this does seen valid.
Heck this is the reason why modern Alien vs Predators films were 15 and not an 18 like the old ones. Money make the world go round...
Heck this is the reason why modern Alien vs Predators films were 15 and not an 18 like the old ones. Money make the world go round...
Yeah, Bob does his best when he's pissed, or when he has made some great connections other people might not have seen. It's when he gets on the same old soap box or just uses personal preferences as justifications that I quickly lose interest. (Yeah, I tune-in to get Bob's personal preference, but when that's the only content without any other meat I get frustrated.)Anachronism said:
In any case his columns seem to be back on track with moviebobish-informative-ranty-goodness.
Myself and all my fiends spent quite a bit of money in total in supporting Scott Pilgrim, saw the film at the cinema multiple times, and all bought the DVD and the soundtracks. And it is very upsetting that it had to fail so badly. Although it did fair better here in the UK, but Edgar Wright has that pulling power. I'm just thankful that universal took that risk. Shame it seems like their last...
*Sigh* Yeah....unfortunately military jack-off material will always bring in more money than innovation. No matter what the medium it's presented in.
To quote you in a previous Big Picture, Bob...
"This is why we can never have good things!"
Someone should force all of Hollywood to watch this Big Picture so they can get a fapping clue. As much as I may have liked Tron, it was still not that great a movie since it only had niche appeal...same with the Fast and the Furious movies.
Hell, it's probably because of this that I no longer go out to watch movies anymore. Nothing good is being made except for a few very rare exceptions like Thor.
"This is why we can never have good things!"
Someone should force all of Hollywood to watch this Big Picture so they can get a fapping clue. As much as I may have liked Tron, it was still not that great a movie since it only had niche appeal...same with the Fast and the Furious movies.
Hell, it's probably because of this that I no longer go out to watch movies anymore. Nothing good is being made except for a few very rare exceptions like Thor.
Actually, this is an example of good capitalism. People demand crappy movies, the studios supply crappy movies. Studios compete to see who can release the crappiest cash-grab.LawlessSquirrel said:
OT:
Bob, the sooner you realize that people like crap and there's nothing you can do about it the sooner you'll lose those headaches. It's not worth worrying about.
This is the kind of falacious argument that makes me absolutely insane. Bob is saying here that we as a movie going public should go out and see "risky" and "high road" movies in order to facillitate better movies in the future.
The problem then is that Scott Pilgrim was, simply put, not a good movie. It had ever reason to succeed, and it failed because it deserved to do so. It had big name stars, a cult director of no small acclaim, massive marketing, and a choice release spot. The only thing that could hold it back was bad word of mouth, which it got in spades because it failed to deliver.
Mountains of Madness, then, was killed because of Universal's poor business choices. It lost money on movies it shouldn't have made for so much money, and it suffered for it. If it had been serious about Moutains of Madness, it would have made other guaranteed money makers in order to support it. Warner Brothers is a pretty good show at this: they make big money schlock but can then prop up Inception. And because Inception was good, it made money.
Saying that Scott Pilgrim succeeding would have enabled Mountains of Madness is ridiculous for another reason: one is a PG-13 love film to indie kids, and the other is an R-rated cerebral horror film. There is no pressumed crossover in audience appeal here. Scott Pilgrim only could have served as a money-injection for this film, which was always going to fail.
Universal, if they want to make risky movies, has to strike a balance of sure-fire profitable projects and high brow entertainment. And we have to stop blaming the failure of all good things on Scott Pilgrim.
The problem then is that Scott Pilgrim was, simply put, not a good movie. It had ever reason to succeed, and it failed because it deserved to do so. It had big name stars, a cult director of no small acclaim, massive marketing, and a choice release spot. The only thing that could hold it back was bad word of mouth, which it got in spades because it failed to deliver.
Mountains of Madness, then, was killed because of Universal's poor business choices. It lost money on movies it shouldn't have made for so much money, and it suffered for it. If it had been serious about Moutains of Madness, it would have made other guaranteed money makers in order to support it. Warner Brothers is a pretty good show at this: they make big money schlock but can then prop up Inception. And because Inception was good, it made money.
Saying that Scott Pilgrim succeeding would have enabled Mountains of Madness is ridiculous for another reason: one is a PG-13 love film to indie kids, and the other is an R-rated cerebral horror film. There is no pressumed crossover in audience appeal here. Scott Pilgrim only could have served as a money-injection for this film, which was always going to fail.
Universal, if they want to make risky movies, has to strike a balance of sure-fire profitable projects and high brow entertainment. And we have to stop blaming the failure of all good things on Scott Pilgrim.