What DVD / Video did you watch last night? (pt3)

[DotCommunist]

He's always hated film versions of his work. See his chapter in 'Mythmakers and Lawbreakers: Anarchist Writers on Fiction'

 

[Reno]

He's always hated film versions of his work. See his chapter in 'Mythmakers and Lawbreakers: Anarchist Writers on Fiction'

I can't blame him, they've all been shit.

 

[Orang Utan]

He's always hated film versions of his work. See his chapter in 'Mythmakers and Lawbreakers: Anarchist Writers on Fiction'

I was referring to him talking about how Hollywood keeps using sixty year old superheroes like Batman and Superman. I mean, Captain America, wtf? Why can't they invent their own contemporary superheroes?

 

[DotCommunist]

I was referring to him talking about how Hollywood keeps using sixty year old superheroes like Batman and Superman. I mean, Captain America, wtf? Why can't they invent their own contemporary superheroes?

archetypes *knowing nod* its all about that. Why do we still love doctor who? I like moore and have met him in the shop when buying beer and he's an affable chap. Thing is you run out of ways to subvert the original ideas imo. Look at Supe vs Bat. Unmitigated wank based on the shittest re-imaginings of characters who once stood for decency in an unironic way. I like comic book 'what if?' sorts of thing but the film stuff has grown bland. And in DC's case, shit from start to finish.

 

[Orang Utan]

I don't love Dr Who. I'm a grown up.

 

[Beats & Pieces]

Star Wars (Silver Screen Edition - Team Negative 1)

There has been at least one other significant attempt at this kind of restoration, the 'de-specialized' version created by Petr 'Harmy' Harmecek, although the methodology used is quite different. This may well be the closest thing to seeing the film in 1977 that people can experience.

 

[Reno]

I was referring to him talking about how Hollywood keeps using sixty year old superheroes like Batman and Superman. I mean, Captain America, wtf? Why can't they invent their own contemporary superheroes?

Because the whole point of modern Hollywood is to base their projects on something which has name recognition. Looking at this year's box office though, there may be signs that audiences are getting tired of this. The Marvel films are still doing well, but a lot of the other blockbusters which were reboots/remakes/sequels tanked or they underperformed.

 

[Orang Utan]

They're also plumbing the depths with characters most people don't know - Deadpool, Suicide Squad, Dr Strange etc

 

[Reno]

They're also plumbing the depths with characters most people don't know - Deadpool, Suicide Squad, Dr Strange etc

They still all have the branding of known franchises, in this case X-Men, DC and Marvel.

There've been a few articles recently that low to mid-budget horror films and thrillers like The Shallows, The Witch, Lights Out, Green Room and Don't Breathe were the big winners of the year. They cost far less to make, they don't have to make a billion at the box office each but all together these films made a ton of money in 2016. Would be nice if Hollywood would make more films at different budgets again instead of pooling it all into a small number of mega blockbusters which gave to appeal to the widest possible audience.

 

[DotCommunist]

I don't love Dr Who. I'm a grown up.

the lack of Who this year has been most distressing to me. Bastards. Get back to work.

 

[belboid]

They're also plumbing the depths with characters most people don't know - Deadpool, Suicide Squad, Dr Strange etc

Doctor Strange is a golden age stalwart. One of their finest creations. Could be a great film, although it probably won't be.

 

[DotCommunist]

trailers look excellent. The sorcerer supreme

I will end up torrenting this one cos y'know, fuck cinema prices and they have got bland so hopefully this breaks the pattern

 

[belboid]

There've been a few articles recently that low to mid-budget horror films and thrillers like The Shallows, The Witch, Lights Out, Green Room and Don't Breathe were the big winners of the year. They cost far less to make, they don't have to make a billion at the box office each but all together these films made a ton of money in 2016.

They're talking rubbish tho, aren't they? Sure, there have been a few that have done very well (return wise), but how many more have lost money. After a very good year, they'll still only just leave their production companies with a slight profit, most likely.

 

[Reno]

They're talking rubbish tho, aren't they? Sure, there have been a few that have done very well (return wise), but how many more have lost money. After a very good year, they'll still only just leave their production companies with a slight profit, most likely.

It's not if you do the maths. Suicide Squat may have made a lot of money, but due to high production and promotion costs, it will just about break even. The Witch cost $3 million to make and it made $40 million at the box office. In 2016 many expensive blockbusters which were considered sure bets like Independence Day 2, Ghostbusters, Alice Through the Looking Glass and The Huntsman flopped or underperformed. Many of these low budget genre films recouped their budget many times. You add these up and altogether they make serious money. A low budget film doesn't have to be that successful to break even and it is moderately successful it's a winner but when an Independence Day 2 flops, it can damage a studio.

This was the way Hollywood used to do things, bet on many films, but spend less money on each, while now there are a small number of blockbuster behemoths on which everything depends. There are signs that financial model is finally crumbling. I certainly hope so.

Why Horror Movies Are This Summer's Real Winners

2016’s Summer of Movie Flops Is Not a Fluke, It’s the Beginning of the End

 

[belboid]

You could at least read my post before replying. The above articles ignore the small budget films that make losses. And the vast majority of the ones that do make money don't make enough to cover the costs of a single big budget flop. The Shallows, for example, has officially made $60m profit so far (although those figures tend to exclude promo costs, which can even wipe out the headline figure), but that will be wiped out by the losses on the Angry Birds Movie.

 

[Reno]

You could at least read my post before replying. The above articles ignore the small budget films that make losses. And the vast majority of the ones that do make money don't make enough to cover the costs of a single big budget flop. The Shallows, for example, has officially made $60m profit so far (although those figures tend to exclude promo costs, which can even wipe out the headline figure), but that will be wiped out by the losses on the Angry Birds Movie.

I read your post but you don't seem to understand what I said. This is about early trends which are possible indicators, not the revolution that is saving Hollywood right now. That would be impossible after one or two years, because Hollywod is still betting on large blockbusters. The point is that with so many of these huge films tanking, maybe Hollywood should change their strategy and make fewer hugely expensive films and more small ones and then let's see what happens. And that will take a few years, because films which are in production now won't come out till in two or three years. Nobody is claiming that all low budget films are huge hits, but even when they are not, they can still break even or make a small profit. And if they totally flop it's just a few millions lost rather than hundreds of millions. There aren't these huge numbers of smaller studio films ignored by the article which are losing money, because not that many get made, most of the money gets funnelled into blockbusters.

As to The Shallows, you are confusing earnings with profit. Profit gets counted after marketing and a small film like that doesn't get the type of marketing a Suicide Squat gets. The film cost $17 million, maybe there was another $8million for marketing (you roughly add half the budget). So far it's made $110 million and the film hasn't even been released or is on release in many countries. Home entertainment media and streaming services will add more.

Then again you of course know far more than any of these silly entertainment journalists whose job it is to follow these things because of......what goes on in your head which has nothing to do with facts or numbers ?

 

[belboid]

Come on, journalists never find a ‘new thing’ to hype because they have little to write about, do they?

Yes, relatively small films have done well this year compared to the blockbusters, but even that wont change anything. (or very little, anyway). The profits fo those smaller films just aren’t big enough to significantly change things. I probably exaggerated The Shallows’ profit margin before, as the $80m it took includes the theatres cut as well as the studios. So, once that and advertising are taken into account, there isn’t much left over. Definitely less than the berated Suicide Squad. And yes, blockbusters can obviously lose a hell of a lot more, but this isn’t new, Waterworld came out twenty years ago. Its failure didn’t really make much difference, did it? I doubt very much that this latest round of failures will make much difference either. Maybe it will make the studios think a bit more about what a blockbuster should be, and a shift away from superheroes, but that'll be about it.

 

[Reno]

Come on, journalists never find a ‘new thing’ to hype because they have little to write about, do they?

Yes, relatively small films have done well this year compared to the blockbusters, but even that wont change anything. (or very little, anyway). The profits fo those smaller films just aren’t big enough to significantly change things. I probably exaggerated The Shallows’ profit margin before, as the $80m it took includes the theatres cut as well as the studios. So, once that and advertising are taken into account, there isn’t much left over. Definitely less than the berated Suicide Squad. And yes, blockbusters can obviously lose a hell of a lot more, but this isn’t new, Waterworld came out twenty years ago. Its failure didn’t really make much difference, did it? I doubt very much that this latest round of failures will make much difference either. Maybe it will make the studios think a bit more about what a blockbuster should be, and a shift away from superheroes, but that'll be about it.

I realise that when it comes to journalism, cynicisism is the default mode here, but there always is plenty to write about when it comes to film journalism. Obviously you aren't following much of it. It shouldn't come as a total surprise that I do and let me assure you that there is no rational reason for it to be corrupt, it's not politics. But with this post you have shown that you don't have clue about very basics of film finance and accounting in general.

You are still confusing profit with earnings. The advertising is half the budget, so if we are generous, with advertising The Shallows comes to 26 million all included. The film has made $110 million according to box office mojo. So far 84 million is the profit, no more advertising or other expenses come out of that. That's what "profit" means. Have you never done your accounts?

And a low budget thriller, which got far less advertising and played in fewer theatres than a blockbuster, doesn't need to perform the same as Suicide Squat. A film's profitability gets measured by how many times a film doubles it's expenses. Suicide Squat hasn't at all, it will merely break even. So far The Shallows has made more than three times of what it cost to make and to advertise, which makes it a far more profitable film.

As to Waterworld, it eventually broke even and it wasn't even that much of a flop though it was a laughing stock. There always have been flops. There haven't been any summers like this one where more than half of the blockbusters have flopped or underperformed.

 

[belboid]

No need to go into full patronising twat mode.

I realise that when it comes to journalism, cynicisism is the default mode here, but there always is plenty to write about when it comes to film journalism. Obviously you aren't following much of it. It shouldn't come as a total surprise that I do and let me assure you that there is no rational reason for it to be corrupt, it's not politics. But with this post you have shown that you don't have clue about very basics of film finance and accounting in general.

I didn 't sday it was 'corrupt' stop making things up. I said it sexes stories up, and it does.

[qiote]You are still confusing profit with earnings. The advertising is half the budget, so if we are generous, with advertising The Shallows comes to 26 million all included. The film has made $110 million according to box office mojo. So far 84 million is the profit, no more advertising or other expenses come out of that. That's what "profit" means. Have you never done your accounts?[/quote]
I'm a qualified accountant, so its my turn to call smartarse. I see you have changed your original post, where you claimed the £17 million production budget included the advertising. And you've then just guessed at a figure. Probably a reasonable guess (altho once it started being a hit, they will probably have increased the advertising budget) tho, and even if we double it, its still a decent figure. And it will have a strong long tail, it will do well on DVD & streaming. I'm not arguing it wasn't a good hit, just about the extent of it.

And a low budget thriller, which got far less advertising and played in fewer theatres than a blockbuster, doesn't need to perform the same as Suicide Squat. A film's profitability gets measured by how many times a film doubles it's expenses. Suicide Squat hasn't at all, it will merely break even. So far The Shallows has made more than three times of what it cost to make and to advertise, which makes it a far more profitable film.

The rate of return is very handy, and very well publicised, but the bottom line is the bottom line. The rate of return is brilliant for allowing the filmmakers a bigger budget next time, because it shows they can deliver. But that isn't what the company stockholders really care about.

As to Waterworld, it eventually broke even and it wasn't even that much of a flop though it was a laughing stock. There always have been flops. There haven't been any summers like this one where more than half of the blockbusters have flopped or underperformed.

But SS made its money back, as did the awful Spiderman v Batman. They did badly, but they didn't come close to bankrupting a studio.

Look, I'm not arguing you (or the articles you were referring to) are completely wrong, merely that you/they are over-egging the pudding. And that not much is going to change. Not unless next years, and the year afters, blockbusters go tits up too.

 

[Reno]

Spiderman v Batman ?

I'm actually doubting you can read a sentence while simultaneously engaging your brain after that last post. You are making completely ignorant statements about the finances of an industry I work in. Pointless !

 

[DotCommunist]

Spiderman would win. Bats good, but he's not good enough to take spiderman. Plus Peter Parker is a good boy who lives with his old auntie and batman is basically a cunt now since miller ruined him

 

[fishfinger]

Spiderman would win. Bats good, but he's not good enough to take spiderman. Plus Peter Parker is a good boy who lives with his old auntie and batman is basically a cunt now since miller ruined him

 

[belboid]

Spiderman v Batman ?

I'm actually doubting you can read a sentence while simultaneously engaging your brain after that last post. You are making completely ignorant statements about the finances of an industry I work in. Pointless !

Oh no, I made a dumb mistake which means everything I say must be wrong! i note you couldn't deny how you changed your figures, or that you changed what I said about the press.

Oh and you still didn't knock the cinemas cut off that $110m for The Shallows, reducing that '84 million' profit even further. Figures really aren't your strong point.

 

[belboid]

Anyway, aside from all that....I've been watching (I'm sure Reno will appreciate this) Braindead - not the Peter Jackson film, a yankee series.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead, the lass from 10 Cloverfield Lane, stars as a Senator's assistant (and sister) in (something very like) today's Congress - Trump & Clinton are squaring off in the background. As well as a partisan, gridlocked, government, she also has to deal with an invasion of bugs from outer space, who crawl into people's brains and either turn them into radical (of either left or right, it doesn't matter), or make their heads explode. While its message of 'gee, we should all be centrists who just work together to sort shit out' is patent liberal nonsense, it's very well done, sharp and fast paced, with enough 'wtf' to make it a very entertaining 43 minutes. It's just finished in the US, and well worth catching up with.

 

[Beats & Pieces]

All this thread needs is Pickman's Model to come on....

 

[seventh bullet]

Anyway, aside from all that....I've been watching (I'm sure Reno will appreciate this) Braindead - not the Peter Jackson film, a yankee series.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead, the lass from 10 Cloverfield Lane, stars as a Senator's assistant (and sister) in (something very like) today's Congress - Trump & Clinton are squaring off in the background. As well as a partisan, gridlocked, government, she also has to deal with an invasion of bugs from outer space, who crawl into people's brains and either turn them into radical (of either left or right, it doesn't matter), or make their heads explode. While its message of 'gee, we should all be centrists who just work together to sort shit out' is patent liberal nonsense, it's very well done, sharp and fast paced, with enough 'wtf' to make it a very entertaining 43 minutes. It's just finished in the US, and well worth catching up with.

I noticed it on Amazon, have quite enjoyed it. The little recap ditties at the beginning of each episode have raised a smile, too.

 

[krtek a houby]

They're also plumbing the depths with characters most people don't know - Deadpool, Suicide Squad, Dr Strange etc

I'd not heard of the first two until relatively recent but I grew up readinf Doctor Strange.

 

[rubbershoes]

Top Five

Not what i was expecting. As it's written by and starring Chris Rock , you might expect everything being way over the top. And bits of it are but It treads a line between being reflective and funny and manages to hit both.

There's some great cameos, especially DMX

 

[DotCommunist]

Cleverman

The six-part drama series reimagines several stories of the Aboriginal Dreamtime in a modern, superheroic context, and reflects on racism, asylum seekers and border protection.[2] Its central story revolves around two estranged Gumbaynggirr brothers who are forced together to fight for their own survival when one of them is passed the mantle of the "Cleverman". Creatures from the Dreaming also feature in the series' real world dystopian landscape.[3]

really good stuff imo, I only saw the first two but I was glued to my screen. Reminded me in its sci-fi/spec fiction as allegory of District 9. Heavy handed but it knows it is, really good aussie sci fi, seems to be set five mins into the future iyswim

its on the iplayer for all us honest license payers

 

[trabuquera]

Speaking of "heavy handed, but knows it is": Barbarians Rising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History Channel gamely tries to rip off the Spartacus "bloodshed + guitar shred" genre, but less bloody, less pulpy, lower-budget and with the (pretty weak) dramatisations interrupted by all these geeky 20thC historians, writers and civil rights activists ((yeah really)) popping up at intervals to chip in extra info. It's really just a way of getting adolescent boys into basic Classics (by luring them in with vidgame style CGI blood and "gallery of heroes" etc) but it has its moments - and the focus being NOT on Mighty Rome but the various hairy guys trying to bring it down is also interesting. It won't do anyone as a useful revolutionary manual but it's not a total waste of time.

Another bonus is that several of the Barbarians are played by familiar faces from other historical series, so you've got several actors best known to me as Vikings, pirates and other miscreants popping up centuries out of sync.