If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   Sharknado far more popular in social media than in meatspace. "That's particularly strange since Syfy original movies have an average viewer age of 52, and fiftysomething guys are a bit off the key demo for Twitter"   (theatlantic.com) divider line 11
    More: Strange, Sharknado, Twitter, 2013 and beyond in film, witness, demos, booms and busts  
•       •       •

1160 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Jul 2013 at 1:06 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-15 01:42:35 PM
3 votes:
That is because it was gutted for ratings because Bonnie Hammer didn't like Science Fiction.  Nerds, geeks and other science fiction fans never forgave her for gutting MST3K and other great programming.  Then came wresting, more reality tv and fake ghost hunting shows.

Don't be too sad, this is happening to many channels, check out this press release.
"The name Lifetime has been associated with angry low income females and depressed, battered women in their show kitchens and stuff like that, as opposed to the general public and the male audience in particular," said Nancy Dubuc, who helped launch LyfTym Channel with A&E
2013-07-15 02:41:11 PM
2 votes:
The best part of  Sharknado is how incompetent the editing was. I'm assuming a lot of the weird cuts in the film were because they didn't have the FX budget to show what they wanted to, so they just cut before it got expensive. But it's a deeply bizarrely edited film. So much of what happens on screen makes no sense- but that actually is a big ingredient to what makes the film actually enjoyable, especially when they can't keep the lighting consistent between the cuts.
2013-07-15 03:47:55 PM
1 votes:
ESPN even got in on the action, asking if the San Jose Sharks thought about changing their name to the San Jose Sharknados via twitter.

The Sharks social media person responded by asking ESPN if they thought about showing more hockey highlights.

Brent Burns of the San Jose Sharks rumored to be in the next Syfy original movie depicting a prehistoric cave man.

nbcprohockeytalk.files.wordpress.com
2013-07-15 03:46:38 PM
1 votes:
Dog Welder ,
I love cheesy B movies, but "Sharknado" was a D movie. B movies are great because there is an earnest attempt at quality by the filmmaker. It's why movies like "The Room" or "Mansquito" are hilarious because the subject matter is taken very seriously, but the skill of the writers, director and acting talent typically fall short. All too often now, we see lots of "bad movies" where the filmmakers are actively trying too hard to make a bad movie, and it completely saps all the fun out of watching a bad movie. "Sharknado" didn't even come close to having a "so bad it's good" vibe to it, and even by bad movie standards, it was really really bad.
The same goes for "Megashark vs. Giant Octopus," "Transmorphers: Fall of Man" and all the other shiat Asylum is pumping out with Z-grade CGI effects.

The reason why Ed Wood worked, he was passionate about the subject matter and even if his resources were limited, he cared. Those kind of car wrecks are fun. And he got out a fair amount of movies with limited resources.

Then there are those ilke Michael Bay, JJ Abrams or McG that are just out to make a temporary entertainment, and may not really respect the audience. The movies are being made for the studios, not the audience. It is meant as a business transaction first. And it sure as hell is not art.

Michael Bay quotes:
The press don`t like to say nice things because nice is boring. It`s much better to label me the devil. What we do is not brain surgery. We are entertainers, plain and simple, and we`re responsible to bring that money back, to make a profit.

I make movies for teenage boys. Oh, dear, what a crime.
2013-07-15 02:45:35 PM
1 votes:

Doc Daneeka: Uzzah: "Snakes on a Plane" nods in approval.

I don't know why people consider Snakes on a Plane to be a bust.

The movie was pretty profitable.  $62 million box office on a budget of $33 million.


Let's take this figure at a time:

Estimated production (negative) cost: $ 33 mil.
US Domestic Box Office: $ 34 mil.

Already we have a problem. Conventional wisdom in Hollywood is that P&A (prints and advertising, aka marketing) costs and the theater's take of ticket prices means that a movie has to gross double its negative cost to turn a profit. And that's for domestic box office only. Now, I can grant you that "Snakes" got a healthy press boost for free from internet attention, so maybe they didn't have to spend as much on advertising to get it out there. Let's be crazy generous and say that they were able to cut back 50% on marketing costs compared to a conventional release, and call their P&A $ 15 mi. So that $ 34 mil in domestic box office is still around a $ 15 mil loss.

International box office: $28,001,200

This gets trickier -- overseas releases have P&A costs, too (and theater's share of the ticket price is a little higher than in the US), so this figure has to be reduced somewhat, too. There aren't a lot of well-established rules of thumb that apply to figure the P&A costs and theater share of international releases. Just to pull numbers out of thin air, let's say that international P&A is 25% of the movie's budget -- it's cheaper to advertise in Kazhakstan, maybe. So that's $ 8.5 million in international P&A, plus the as-yet-unrecouped $ 15 mil that we've got from the domestic release.

So maybe -- maybe -- it's a million or two on the positive side of the ledger after all theatrical showings are factored in. And that is with really generous assumptions. In all likelihood, it's a few million in debt at the end of its theatrical runs.

Now, there are DVD sales and tv rights that are worth something, but it's pretty hard to say how much. Because it was such a stinker in the theaters, DVD sales are likely to be on the low side, and that means DVD mastering and pressing costs eat up a bigger share of DVD revenue than it would with a hit that is expected to sell millions of DVDs. TV rights -- well, whatever it's worth, it's worth.

Bottom line: Odds are pretty good that it lost a little bit of money, or maybe barely broke even. But given the expectations that its internet "popularity" fed, even breaking even has got to feel like a huge loss to the studio.
2013-07-15 02:32:52 PM
1 votes:
No - it's just that the Sci-Fi Schlock/Movie-of-the-week have hit "Peak Meme" because they are so recockulous, so it's trendy to laugh at how silly they are. Soon, more people will learn what most Sci-Fi fans already know: SyFy really isn't wearing any clothes.
2013-07-15 01:51:35 PM
1 votes:
Doc Daneeka,
Uzzah: "Snakes on a Plane" nods in approval.
I don't know why people consider Snakes on a Plane to be a bust.
The movie was pretty profitable. $62 million box office on a budget of $33 million.


You really trust hollwood accounting?
2013-07-15 01:34:03 PM
1 votes:

r1niceboy: I'm holding out for Three-toed Slothquake or Llamageddon before I take to twitter.


ratcliffecomics.com
2013-07-15 01:33:45 PM
1 votes:

Uzzah: "Snakes on a Plane" nods in approval.


I don't know why people consider Snakes on a Plane to be a bust.

The movie was pretty profitable.  $62 million box office on a budget of $33 million.
2013-07-15 01:31:58 PM
1 votes:
"Snakes on a Plane" nods in approval.
2013-07-15 01:31:36 PM
1 votes:
I can't watch SyFy movies, the creatures look like they were rendered by a junior high animation class.
 
Displayed 11 of 11 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report