The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread

[epilogue]

Sounds to me like you have an awfully high amount of selective cynicism applied to remakes, Joey. Pretty much everything you said can be applied to a lot of studio films. Although there are plenty of cases, especially now when we have execs like Thomas Tull who are much more willing to let artists be creative, when artists do indeed get to make the vision they want to make (being commercially accessible and artistically fulfilling are not mutually exclusive).

And every filmmaker is an artist. It doesn't matter if they're being overseen by execs or working under restrictions: they are still making a work of art. Saying a director making a film under studio restrictions is not making a work of art is like a cinematographer who is working under the instruction of a director is not an artist. That's nonsense.

Which is why I wouldn't (and didn't) say that.

[epilogue]

And I assure you it isn't cynicism. It's just the way things work. And, yeah, that applies to lots of movies, not just remakes.

[hlniv]

Movies that have been released for more than 6 months and on demand / video for more than 2 months don't need to be spoilered.

Also, the Bruce Willis character in the Sixth Sense is dead.

[epilogue]

But, looking over the numbers, the Poltergeist remake has already made it's production budget. So, doesn't matter how terrible the thing is, it's a winner.

Meanwhile Tomorrowland, and original film, is failing at the box office and unlikely to meet it's production budget.

So there you have it.

[hlniv]

But, looking over the numbers, the Poltergeist remake has already made it's production budget. So, doesn't matter how terrible the thing is, it's a winner.

Meanwhile Tomorrowland, and original film, is failing at the box office and unlikely to meet it's production budget.

So there you have it.

Pretty much the synopsis of the current state of the cinematic motion picture industry right there...

[epilogue]

But, looking over the numbers, the Poltergeist remake has already made it's production budget. So, doesn't matter how terrible the thing is, it's a winner.

Meanwhile Tomorrowland, and original film, is failing at the box office and unlikely to meet it's production budget.

So there you have it.

Pretty much the synopsis of the current state of the cinematic motion picture industry right there...

'tis indeed. Which is why all the arguing I've done in this thread is moot.

I'd love to throw Lindelof under the bus like so many others are wont to do, but I actually like the guy. So I don't even have that to fall back on.

[epilogue]

Chris Pine coming over to Wonder Woman? Possibly even Suicide Squad?

http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/wonder-w ... eve-trevor

[LoathedVermin72]

I think it's naive to say all studio productions work one certain way. Yes, obviously what you're describing happens A LOT. But not EVERY time. There are cases when a director is able to make the film they want. There are cases when execs aren't crushing all creative impulses. I think to say things just work that way all the time is indeed cynical. In general, unilateral thinking of any kind is cynical. But maybe we actually agree and are getting our wires crossed in communication a bit? I'm not saying what you're talking about doesn't happen or isn't true (because I would have to be a moron to say that), I just don't think it's as extreme as you're making it sound. Not 100% of the time.

But, looking over the numbers, the Poltergeist remake has already made it's production budget. So, doesn't matter how terrible the thing is, it's a winner.

Meanwhile Tomorrowland, and original film, is failing at the box office and unlikely to meet it's production budget.

So there you have it.

Pretty much the synopsis of the current state of the cinematic motion picture industry right there...

There you have what? I'm not sure what this supposed to prove, exactly.

First of all, Tomorrowland made more money than Poltergeist. So what if they made back production budgets? That's only because the latter cost a lot less money. What does that say about the current state of the industry? More people went to see the original film, and execs allocated more money to its production.

That said, what exactly constitutes "original," anyway? Because technically it's based on an existing intellectual property owned by Disney. Very loosely, yes. But still.

[LoathedVermin72]

[hlniv]

I think it's naive to say all studio productions work one certain way. Yes, obviously what you're describing happens A LOT. But not EVERY time. There are cases when a director is able to make the film they want. There are cases when execs aren't crushing all creative impulses. I think to say things just work that way all the time is indeed cynical. In general, unilateral thinking of any kind is cynical. But maybe we actually agree and are getting our wires crossed in communication a bit? I'm not saying what you're talking about doesn't happen or isn't true (because I would have to be a moron to say that), I just don't think it's as extreme as you're making it sound. Not 100% of the time.

But, looking over the numbers, the Poltergeist remake has already made it's production budget. So, doesn't matter how terrible the thing is, it's a winner.

Meanwhile Tomorrowland, and original film, is failing at the box office and unlikely to meet it's production budget.

So there you have it.

Pretty much the synopsis of the current state of the cinematic motion picture industry right there...

There you have what? I'm not sure what this supposed to prove, exactly.

First of all, Tomorrowland made more money than Poltergeist. So what if they made back production budgets? That's only because the latter cost a lot less money. What does that say about the current state of the industry? More people went to see the original film, and execs allocated more money to its production.

That said, what exactly constitutes "original," anyway? Because technically it's based on an existing intellectual property owned by Disney. Very loosely, yes. But still.

Tomorrowland has not made more money than Poltergeist. It may have generated higher revenue, but "making money" means turning a profit. Time is yet to tell on the profitability of Tomorrowland, which most certainly depends on the production budget.

And yes, it really ain't that original anyway.

What I think this proves is that today's general movie-going audiences tend to spend their money on properties that they are familiar with, thereby discouraging original thought, which ultimately generates a deeper and deeper dive into remakes, lazy adaptations, and the Marvel universe.

[LoathedVermin72]

I think it's naive to say all studio productions work one certain way. Yes, obviously what you're describing happens A LOT. But not EVERY time. There are cases when a director is able to make the film they want. There are cases when execs aren't crushing all creative impulses. I think to say things just work that way all the time is indeed cynical. In general, unilateral thinking of any kind is cynical. But maybe we actually agree and are getting our wires crossed in communication a bit? I'm not saying what you're talking about doesn't happen or isn't true (because I would have to be a moron to say that), I just don't think it's as extreme as you're making it sound. Not 100% of the time.

But, looking over the numbers, the Poltergeist remake has already made it's production budget. So, doesn't matter how terrible the thing is, it's a winner.

Meanwhile Tomorrowland, and original film, is failing at the box office and unlikely to meet it's production budget.

So there you have it.

Pretty much the synopsis of the current state of the cinematic motion picture industry right there...

There you have what? I'm not sure what this supposed to prove, exactly.

First of all, Tomorrowland made more money than Poltergeist. So what if they made back production budgets? That's only because the latter cost a lot less money. What does that say about the current state of the industry? More people went to see the original film, and execs allocated more money to its production.

That said, what exactly constitutes "original," anyway? Because technically it's based on an existing intellectual property owned by Disney. Very loosely, yes. But still.

Tomorrowland has not made more money than Poltergeist. It may have generated higher revenue, but "making money" means turning a profit. Time is yet to tell on the profitability of Tomorrowland, which most certainly depends on the production budget.

And yes, it really ain't that original anyway.

What I think this proves is that today's general movie-going audiences tend to spend their money on properties that they are familiar with, thereby discouraging original thought, which ultimately generates a deeper and deeper dive into remakes, lazy adaptations, and the Marvel universe.

But how does this example prove that? What does profitability have to do with the moviegoing public? More people went to see the "original" movie than the remake!

[LoathedVermin72]

For the record, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with what you're saying, I just don't understand how this specific comparison is proving that point at all.

[Strat]

I think it's naive to say all studio productions work one certain way. Yes, obviously what you're describing happens A LOT. But not EVERY time. There are cases when a director is able to make the film they want. There are cases when execs aren't crushing all creative impulses. I think to say things just work that way all the time is indeed cynical. In general, unilateral thinking of any kind is cynical. But maybe we actually agree and are getting our wires crossed in communication a bit? I'm not saying what you're talking about doesn't happen or isn't true (because I would have to be a moron to say that), I just don't think it's as extreme as you're making it sound. Not 100% of the time.

But, looking over the numbers, the Poltergeist remake has already made it's production budget. So, doesn't matter how terrible the thing is, it's a winner.

Meanwhile Tomorrowland, and original film, is failing at the box office and unlikely to meet it's production budget.

So there you have it.

Pretty much the synopsis of the current state of the cinematic motion picture industry right there...

There you have what? I'm not sure what this supposed to prove, exactly.

First of all, Tomorrowland made more money than Poltergeist. So what if they made back production budgets? That's only because the latter cost a lot less money. What does that say about the current state of the industry? More people went to see the original film, and execs allocated more money to its production.

That said, what exactly constitutes "original," anyway? Because technically it's based on an existing intellectual property owned by Disney. Very loosely, yes. But still.

Tomorrowland has not made more money than Poltergeist. It may have generated higher revenue, but "making money" means turning a profit. Time is yet to tell on the profitability of Tomorrowland, which most certainly depends on the production budget.

And yes, it really ain't that original anyway.

What I think this proves is that today's general movie-going audiences tend to spend their money on properties that they are familiar with, thereby discouraging original thought, which ultimately generates a deeper and deeper dive into remakes, lazy adaptations, and the Marvel universe.

But how does this example prove that? What does profitability have to do with the moviegoing public? More people went to see the "original" movie than the remake!

Then why are reboots and sequels so popular? Why are we so inundated with them?



$$$$

[LoathedVermin72]

I think it's naive to say all studio productions work one certain way. Yes, obviously what you're describing happens A LOT. But not EVERY time. There are cases when a director is able to make the film they want. There are cases when execs aren't crushing all creative impulses. I think to say things just work that way all the time is indeed cynical. In general, unilateral thinking of any kind is cynical. But maybe we actually agree and are getting our wires crossed in communication a bit? I'm not saying what you're talking about doesn't happen or isn't true (because I would have to be a moron to say that), I just don't think it's as extreme as you're making it sound. Not 100% of the time.

But, looking over the numbers, the Poltergeist remake has already made it's production budget. So, doesn't matter how terrible the thing is, it's a winner.

Meanwhile Tomorrowland, and original film, is failing at the box office and unlikely to meet it's production budget.

So there you have it.

Pretty much the synopsis of the current state of the cinematic motion picture industry right there...

There you have what? I'm not sure what this supposed to prove, exactly.

First of all, Tomorrowland made more money than Poltergeist. So what if they made back production budgets? That's only because the latter cost a lot less money. What does that say about the current state of the industry? More people went to see the original film, and execs allocated more money to its production.

That said, what exactly constitutes "original," anyway? Because technically it's based on an existing intellectual property owned by Disney. Very loosely, yes. But still.

Tomorrowland has not made more money than Poltergeist. It may have generated higher revenue, but "making money" means turning a profit. Time is yet to tell on the profitability of Tomorrowland, which most certainly depends on the production budget.

And yes, it really ain't that original anyway.

What I think this proves is that today's general movie-going audiences tend to spend their money on properties that they are familiar with, thereby discouraging original thought, which ultimately generates a deeper and deeper dive into remakes, lazy adaptations, and the Marvel universe.

But how does this example prove that? What does profitability have to do with the moviegoing public? More people went to see the "original" movie than the remake!

Then why are reboots and sequels so popular? Why are we so inundated with them?



$$$$

For the record, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with what you're saying, I just don't understand how this specific comparison is proving that point at all.

[epilogue]

I think it's naive to say all studio productions work one certain way. Yes, obviously what you're describing happens A LOT. But not EVERY time. There are cases when a director is able to make the film they want. There are cases when execs aren't crushing all creative impulses. I think to say things just work that way all the time is indeed cynical. In general, unilateral thinking of any kind is cynical. But maybe we actually agree and are getting our wires crossed in communication a bit? I'm not saying what you're talking about doesn't happen or isn't true (because I would have to be a moron to say that), I just don't think it's as extreme as you're making it sound. Not 100% of the time.

I'm not saying 100 %. I'm saying it happens more than people know or are comfortable thinking about. It's okay if you don't want to believe it. But it's the truth. This isn't being cynical. It's relating information I know to be true based on countless conversations I've personally had with the people I know in the industry as well as endless accounts in books/interviews/magazines/etc that one can find. It is as extreme as I'm making it sound, but it's not 100%.

But, looking over the numbers, the Poltergeist remake has already made it's production budget. So, doesn't matter how terrible the thing is, it's a winner.

Meanwhile Tomorrowland, and original film, is failing at the box office and unlikely to meet it's production budget.

So there you have it.

Pretty much the synopsis of the current state of the cinematic motion picture industry right there...

There you have what? I'm not sure what this supposed to prove, exactly.

First of all, Tomorrowland made more money than Poltergeist. So what if they made back production budgets? That's only because the latter cost a lot less money. What does that say about the current state of the industry? More people went to see the original film, and execs allocated more money to its production.

That said, what exactly constitutes "original," anyway? Because technically it's based on an existing intellectual property owned by Disney. Very loosely, yes. But still.[/quote]
The studios don't give a good tin shit about the number of people that saw their film. They care about dollars. If Tomorrowland fails to recoup, it will be considered a failed project. And it will be another reminder that taking a chance on an unproven property over a proven property is dangerous to their bottom line. It's a cautionary tale if it doesn't break even let alone make money. And the thing SHOULD make money. Brad Bird, George Clooney and Disney! They have to consider this thing a bummer right now.

And by original, in this context, I meant not a remake/reboot. Nothing is original.

[E.H. Ruddock]

joey you are the one who originally said "there you have it"

[LoathedVermin72]

tomorrowland shouldn't make money because it's a piece of fucking garbage

[Strat]

Look, are they remaking Leprauchan 3 yet or not?

[epilogue]

joey you are the one who originally said "there you have it"

I don't.... what?

[tommymtcom]

Look, are they remaking Leprauchan 3 yet or not?

You're way behind, Strat. They made 7 of those movies.