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.

(io9)   Hollywood studios are starting to realize that making a movie on a $250 million budget might be an unsustainable business model   (io9.com) divider line 127
    More: Unlikely, Hollywood, The Croods, R.I.P.D., box-office bombs, Stretch Armstrong, Marvel Cinematic Universe, Ryan Reynolds, Jack the Giant Slayer  
•       •       •

4408 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 31 Jul 2013 at 10:58 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



127 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-31 11:01:12 AM
Fewer movies based on egghead nerd crap like books, more movies based on awesome stuff like theme park rides and video games.

Turn off the lights on your way out, motion picture industry.
 
2013-07-31 11:03:51 AM
Its unsustainable only if they retain the to theater and only theater first and then VOD, media release months and months later. Capitalize on momentum and wide release it across all platforms immediately. You'll make your money hand over fist, and easily recoup the 250m plus marketing
 
2013-07-31 11:08:16 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Its unsustainable only if they retain the to theater and only theater first and then VOD, media release months and months later. Capitalize on momentum and wide release it across all platforms immediately. You'll make your money hand over fist, and easily recoup the 250m plus marketing


I'm not convinced that killing off the movie theater is in the best interests of the movie business.
 
2013-07-31 11:09:17 AM
Blame the retarded public.... anyone who....

1) Goes to a Tyler Perry movie.
2) Goes to a Uwe Boll movie.
3) Sees "(Insert Genre Here) Movie" spoofs
4) Sees 90% of Adam Sandler's movies

There are specific patterns of crappiness that will undoubtedly result in a crappy movie, and if some simple rules are followed, bad movies can flop and good movies can flourish.

Don't blame the product, blame the consumer.

Also,

i.qkme.me
 
2013-07-31 11:11:47 AM

coeyagi: Blame the retarded public.... anyone who....

1) Goes to a Tyler Perry movie.
2) Goes to a Uwe Boll movie.
3) Sees "(Insert Genre Here) Movie" spoofs
4) Sees 90% of Adam Sandler's movies

There are specific patterns of crappiness that will undoubtedly result in a crappy movie, and if some simple rules are followed, bad movies can flop and good movies can flourish.

Don't blame the product, blame the consumer.

Also,

[i.qkme.me image 625x468]


Yet there are good movies (Pacific Rim) that won't get the audience.  Granted, it will likely end up profitable thanks to foreign markets and home video market, but the fact that it's been beaten by a shiatty Adam Sandler movie domestically shows that we will never have nice things.
 
2013-07-31 11:13:20 AM
The biggest thing you'll see to correct this is the fall of the comic book movie, which will probably happen within 10 years. It's still new(ish) and cool right now, but right about the time Sony or Warner want to start in on the third trilogy reboot of Spiderman, the audience will probably be done with it for a while.
 
2013-07-31 11:13:32 AM
Remake Fall Guy, dammit.
 
2013-07-31 11:14:50 AM

meanmutton: IdBeCrazyIf: Its unsustainable only if they retain the to theater and only theater first and then VOD, media release months and months later. Capitalize on momentum and wide release it across all platforms immediately. You'll make your money hand over fist, and easily recoup the 250m plus marketing

I'm not convinced that killing off the movie theater is in the best interests of the movie business.


Me either. I could understand shortening the delay between theater and home media... but simultaneous release would annihilate ticket sales of kids/family movies, which is where theaters make most of their money.
 
2013-07-31 11:16:32 AM
I liked Pacific Rim and it's too bad it didn't perform better cause it will pretty much kill any chances for a sequel.  BTW, is CGI really that costly?  When I think of the effects in MoS or Pacific Rim, I don't think they would cost $100 million and up.  Maybe the CGI effect prices are over-inflated?

Also the author of the article has a thing to say about the real reason that Sucker Punch will lose money.  The real reason was that the story sucked.  There, I said it.
 
2013-07-31 11:17:04 AM

clkeagle: meanmutton: IdBeCrazyIf: Its unsustainable only if they retain the to theater and only theater first and then VOD, media release months and months later. Capitalize on momentum and wide release it across all platforms immediately. You'll make your money hand over fist, and easily recoup the 250m plus marketing

I'm not convinced that killing off the movie theater is in the best interests of the movie business.

Me either. I could understand shortening the delay between theater and home media... but simultaneous release would annihilate ticket sales of kids/family movies, which is where theaters make most of their money.


Elimination of big giant corporate theater chains?

You say this like it would be a bad thing
 
2013-07-31 11:19:55 AM

jayhawk88: The biggest thing you'll see to correct this is the fall of the comic book movie, which will probably happen within 10 years. It's still new(ish) and cool right now, but right about the time Sony or Warner want to start in on the third trilogy reboot of Spiderman, the audience will probably be done with it for a while.


Yes and no. I think the superhero trend will die down but comic books are too convenient for studios to ignore. Already written stories with a prebuilt following are just what they look for. Who knows, trends might swing back to westerns or some other genre but even then there are plenty of comic books to draw upon.
 
2013-07-31 11:20:40 AM

meanmutton: IdBeCrazyIf: Its unsustainable only if they retain the to theater and only theater first and then VOD, media release months and months later. Capitalize on momentum and wide release it across all platforms immediately. You'll make your money hand over fist, and easily recoup the 250m plus marketing

I'm not convinced that killing off the movie theater is in the best interests of the movie business.


Movie theater tickets are artificially low due to the movie business. Only through concession sales are movie theaters profitable. If the industry moved to a distribution platform that made its money from ads and subscriber fees, then it would be much easier for them to recoup their budgets without having to spend as much to convince people to watch it. As there is no longer a fee to watch a movie, just an upfront cost to get access to 'movies' in general.

However, I don't think the people who'd rather watch these new movies at home outnumber those who still like movie theaters for the entire experience
 
2013-07-31 11:23:09 AM
Hey Hollywood!

www.joelloveskimberley.com

Here.  Take this and go buy a script that doesn't suck.
 
2013-07-31 11:30:52 AM
Or some movies have bad marketing and/or casting choices. While I didn't see it, The Lone Ranger seems like a perfect candidate to me. Say what you will about it being a franchise nobody cares about anymore -- but casting Johnny Depp as Tonto? Who's brilliant idea was that, wouldn't it make more sense for him to be the Lone Ranger? Also the marketing for this film was awful (let alone probably just being a bad film in general). But if you market something correctly, people will flock to it.
 
2013-07-31 11:31:30 AM
Sony is simply incapable of understanding a good story.  Disney is about half/half.  Both spend a ton of money on their movies. That is the trouble in the industry.
 
2013-07-31 11:32:01 AM

AngryDragon: Hey Hollywood!

[www.joelloveskimberley.com image 550x237]

Here.  Take this and go buy a script that doesn't suck.


They would, but assclowns go to watch them anyway.

DO NOT BLAME THE PRODUCT, BLAME THE DUMB-AS-ROOSTER-SH*T CONSUMERS!
 
2013-07-31 11:32:30 AM

PsyLord: I liked Pacific Rim and it's too bad it didn't perform better cause it will pretty much kill any chances for a sequel.  BTW, is CGI really that costly?  When I think of the effects in MoS or Pacific Rim, I don't think they would cost $100 million and up.  Maybe the CGI effect prices are over-inflated?

Also the author of the article has a thing to say about the real reason that Sucker Punch will lose money.  The real reason was that the story sucked.  There, I said it.


CGI can be very costly. Pacific Rim had the problem with multiple different looking monsters and Jaegers that all had to be modeled, rigged, textured and animated. As well as a couple different set pieces that had to be built then destroyed. It even all took place at night to reduce the tricks they had to do to make it cheaper.
I remember an article when TF3 came out and they said for many of the scenes, the computers (at ILM, the 2nd largest [known] computer system in the world) would take 24 hours to render out a single frame (there are 24 frames per second....math).

/Sucker Punch's story sucked, but it looked pretty.
 
2013-07-31 11:32:37 AM

Nemo's Brother: Sony is simply incapable of understanding a good story.  Disney is about half/half.  Both spend a ton of money on their movies. That is the trouble in the industry.


And yet retards go to watch their movies, so why should they give a f*ck?
 
2013-07-31 11:35:44 AM
Marketing can be tricky for certain movies. I overheard someone the other day saying that they heard Pacific Rim tanked at the box office, so it must suck. Thats how alot of peoples' minds are made up I think. I saw the movie and I loved it.
 
2013-07-31 11:37:43 AM
John Carter. Pluto Nash. Leonard VI. Remember them, Hollywood. Betting the farm on home runs every time sometimes fails spectacularly, even if you have a roided up batter using a tree trunk sized bat against a tennis ball lobbed gently under hand.

But I guess 20 modest profits don't match one big score.

How much do Woody Allen films cost?
 
2013-07-31 11:44:27 AM
So is there a Firefox plug-in to get rid of annotations?
 
2013-07-31 11:45:54 AM

Fano: John Carter. Pluto Nash. Leonard VI. Remember them, Hollywood. Betting the farm on home runs every time sometimes fails spectacularly, even if you have a roided up batter using a tree trunk sized bat against a tennis ball lobbed gently under hand.

But I guess 20 modest profits don't match one big score.

How much do Woody Allen films cost?


Actually, what is dying is the intermediate movie, the one with a budget around 40-50 millions. What are left are huge blockbusters, who can earn shtloads of money, and very cheap indy-style movies, where the risk is very low, and the return on investment can be very high.
 
2013-07-31 11:48:42 AM
Reported budgets have skyrocketed in the last couple decades, much higher than the rate of inflation. They cook the books to make it look like they never make a profit.
 
2013-07-31 11:51:23 AM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: jayhawk88: The biggest thing you'll see to correct this is the fall of the comic book movie, which will probably happen within 10 years. It's still new(ish) and cool right now, but right about the time Sony or Warner want to start in on the third trilogy reboot of Spiderman, the audience will probably be done with it for a while.

Yes and no. I think the superhero trend will die down but comic books are too convenient for studios to ignore. Already written stories with a prebuilt following are just what they look for. Who knows, trends might swing back to westerns or some other genre but even then there are plenty of comic books to draw upon.


This is true, but are studios smart enough to realize what they can really do? Are they going to be brave enough to eventually ditch the "origin story" movie and just tell a story? Are they going to explore the comic universes fully or are they just going to keep coming back to Superman/Batman/JL/Spiderman/XMen/Avengers/FF? If history is any guide, Hollywood is going to drive the DC/Marvel properties into the ground until they eventually become box office poison.
 
2013-07-31 11:53:10 AM
Star Wars $11 Million and the original, untainted version still looks great compared to the crap being spewed out these days.

img2u.info
 
2013-07-31 12:01:10 PM
Maybe $250 million movies based on shiat like obscure graphic novels and stupid board games like Battleship is unsustainable.  $250 million movies based on awesome stuff like Lord of the Rings and superheroes are still good though.

I have an idea for a movie that will make at least $500 million worldwide and won't cost more than $100 million to make.  It's called "Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman and the Isle of Lesbos".  2 days of filming, 1 week editing on a desktop, $50 million each in salary with profit participation.  Boom.  I'm pretty much the King of Hollywood.
 
2013-07-31 12:02:29 PM

padraig: Fano: John Carter. Pluto Nash. Leonard VI. Remember them, Hollywood. Betting the farm on home runs every time sometimes fails spectacularly, even if you have a roided up batter using a tree trunk sized bat against a tennis ball lobbed gently under hand.

But I guess 20 modest profits don't match one big score.

How much do Woody Allen films cost?

Actually, what is dying is the intermediate movie, the one with a budget around 40-50 millions. What are left are huge blockbusters, who can earn shtloads of money, and very cheap indy-style movies, where the risk is very low, and the return on investment can be very high.


You are exactly right. And a movie like the Lone Ranger should have been one of them. I didn't mean to suggest Hollywood should churn out movies on a Bollywood budget. Diversifying into 20 moderate cost movies allows for breakout hits and avoiding utter disaster. How much did Maverick cost to make?
 
2013-07-31 12:05:04 PM

Mugato: Reported budgets have skyrocketed in the last couple decades, much higher than the rate of inflation. They cook the books to make it look like they never make a profit.


Book cooking is nothing new. Return of the Jedi has never made a profit, officially. David Prowse and some other actors were to get a cut. No profit (officially), no pay.

There is a pic from one of the Harry Potter films showing that distribution (which is owned by the production company) just happened to be exactly what the projected profit was to be, so the film officially netted zero dollars.

www-deadline-com.vimg.net
 
2013-07-31 12:08:35 PM

Dog Welder: coeyagi: Blame the retarded public.... anyone who....

1) Goes to a Tyler Perry movie.
2) Goes to a Uwe Boll movie.
3) Sees "(Insert Genre Here) Movie" spoofs
4) Sees 90% of Adam Sandler's movies

There are specific patterns of crappiness that will undoubtedly result in a crappy movie, and if some simple rules are followed, bad movies can flop and good movies can flourish.

Don't blame the product, blame the consumer.

Also,

[i.qkme.me image 625x468]

Yet there are good movies (Pacific Rim) that won't get the audience.  Granted, it will likely end up profitable thanks to foreign markets and home video market, but the fact that it's been beaten by a shiatty Adam Sandler movie domestically shows that we will never have nice things.


Both of these. The rare gems that are actually good don't get watched because "Oh my god! You have to see Grown Ups 2, dude!"
 
2013-07-31 12:12:47 PM

AngryDragon: Hey Hollywood!

[www.joelloveskimberley.com image 550x237]

Here.  Take this and go buy a script that doesn't suck.


This.
 
2013-07-31 12:13:16 PM

Witty_Retort: Book cooking is nothing new. Return of the Jedi has never made a profit, officially. David Prowse and some other actors were to get a cut. No profit (officially), no pay.


That's pretty slimy. But that's Hollywood.
 
2013-07-31 12:24:03 PM
How about not buying two similar scripts that came out of the same writing camp.
 
2013-07-31 12:25:00 PM
And while they're at it, get rid of 3d. It's distracting, looks terrible most of the time and adds absolutely NOTHING to the story.

/they're doing it now just to stop bootlegging
//really, if someone doesn't mind watching a movie -- recorded via some jerky handycam and compressed into a low-res Flash file and stashed on some sketchy chinese site -- on his tiny iphone, he wasn't interested in paying to see the movie in the first place
 
2013-07-31 12:28:16 PM

PsyLord: liked Pacific Rim and it's too bad it didn't perform better cause it will pretty much kill any chances for a sequel. BTW, is CGI really that costly? When I think of the effects in MoS or Pacific Rim, I don't think they would cost $100 million and up. Maybe the CGI effect prices are over-inflated?



Pacific Rim has made $225 million so far, and it still has yet to open in several countries (including Japan).

The international sales may make a sequel feasible.
 
2013-07-31 12:30:45 PM

Fano: Remake Fall Guy, dammit.


As what? Some kind of Tron-esque "digital construct escapes into the real world" bullsh*t? The majority of serious movie stuntwork is done with CGI nowadays.
 
2013-07-31 12:32:22 PM

PsyLord: I liked Pacific Rim and it's too bad it didn't perform better cause it will pretty much kill any chances for a sequel.  BTW, is CGI really that costly?  When I think of the effects in MoS or Pacific Rim, I don't think they would cost $100 million and up.  Maybe the CGI effect prices are over-inflated?

Also the author of the article has a thing to say about the real reason that Sucker Punch will lose money.  The real reason was that the story sucked.  There, I said it.


I walked out of Sucker Punch.  Only done that to one other movie in my life... and I stayed all the way through Naked Lunch.
 
2013-07-31 12:49:30 PM

PsyLord: Also the author of the article has a thing to say about the real reason that Sucker Punch will lose money. The real reason was that the story sucked. There, I said it.


It did suck.

What are the consequences if all the action scenes are just metaphors? Nothing was at stake since everything was just part of some some girl's fervent imagination. There was a bit of an Inception-like reality-bending twist that suggested there were delusions within delusions, but it wasn't explored very well or handled properly. If it wanted to be a vehicle to explore the nature of reality and perception like some Philip K. Dick novella, then it needed to have more content in this area and less stylized action scenes which were 20 minute detours that actually slowed the story down.

Yes. Sucker Punch was the first movie I ever watched where the action scenes brought the plot to an absolute standstill. I mean, we get it -- she's dancing sexily for some bloke. But that's a two minute scene, tops. It doesn't need to be interpreted as a 20 minute bombastic alternate universe steampunk World War I fight for freedom.
 
2013-07-31 12:56:34 PM

EyeballKid: Fewer movies based on egghead nerd crap like books, more movies based on awesome stuff like theme park rides and video games.

Turn off the lights on your way out, motion picture industry.


You mean the industry that's making more profit than ever?
 
2013-07-31 12:59:33 PM

Ishkur: I mean, we get it -- she's dancing sexily for some bloke.


That's second level, reality is a level below that.
 
2013-07-31 01:04:13 PM

Boojum2k: That's second level, reality is a level below that.


Yes, but by the time that is revealed, you no longer care because 2/3 of the movie has been spent on pointless action choreography.

The action needs to drive the plot. In Sucker Punch, it is a complete waste of time. You can remove 60% of the movie and not miss anything.
 
2013-07-31 01:17:11 PM

Ishkur: but by the time that is revealed


At the beginning, when she first arrives at the asylum.

Sucker Punch was flawed, but lazy criticisms like this are worse than any problem with the movie.
 
2013-07-31 01:24:14 PM

Boojum2k: At the beginning, when she first arrives at the asylum.


No, at the end, when she gets lobotomized.

There is not enough information at the beginning for you to make that judgment call. You're not even sure what kind of movie it is at that point.

Boojum2k: Sucker Punch was flawed, but lazy criticisms


Stop lying about the movie.
 
2013-07-31 01:31:11 PM

AngryDragon: Hey Hollywood!

[www.joelloveskimberley.com image 550x237]

Here.  Take this and go buy a script that doesn't suck.


That's illegal, dude.
 
2013-07-31 01:36:42 PM

Blues_X: PsyLord: liked Pacific Rim and it's too bad it didn't perform better cause it will pretty much kill any chances for a sequel. BTW, is CGI really that costly? When I think of the effects in MoS or Pacific Rim, I don't think they would cost $100 million and up. Maybe the CGI effect prices are over-inflated?


Pacific Rim has made $225 million so far, and it still has yet to open in several countries (including Japan).

The international sales may make a sequel feasible.


Unlikely. So far the studio has probably made back 80-90 million on their $300 million investment. Pacific Rim will make a slight profit after VOD but i'd be surprised if they invest another 200-300 million in a live action film. Comic book or anime sure.
 
2013-07-31 01:43:34 PM

meanmutton: IdBeCrazyIf: Its unsustainable only if they retain the to theater and only theater first and then VOD, media release months and months later. Capitalize on momentum and wide release it across all platforms immediately. You'll make your money hand over fist, and easily recoup the 250m plus marketing

I'm not convinced that killing off the movie theater is in the best interests of the movie business.


Once everyone has a kinect like camera in their living room and they can charge based on the number of people watching it might work. You can charge people $20 each to watch in their own living room or $15 each to watch it in theaters. Set a hard limit of 6 people watching a movie at home and add digital artifacts throughout the whole thing to help trace people who copy it.

They'd even be able to do all kind of marketing research like what time did people get up and go tot he bathroom and when did they get bored and fall asleep.
 
2013-07-31 01:46:09 PM

Carth: Blues_X: PsyLord: liked Pacific Rim and it's too bad it didn't perform better cause it will pretty much kill any chances for a sequel. BTW, is CGI really that costly? When I think of the effects in MoS or Pacific Rim, I don't think they would cost $100 million and up. Maybe the CGI effect prices are over-inflated?


Pacific Rim has made $225 million so far, and it still has yet to open in several countries (including Japan).

The international sales may make a sequel feasible.

Unlikely. So far the studio has probably made back 80-90 million on their $300 million investment. Pacific Rim will make a slight profit after VOD but i'd be surprised if they invest another 200-300 million in a live action film. Comic book or anime sure.


A japanime would be kinda cool.
 
2013-07-31 01:46:33 PM

Carth: meanmutton: IdBeCrazyIf: Its unsustainable only if they retain the to theater and only theater first and then VOD, media release months and months later. Capitalize on momentum and wide release it across all platforms immediately. You'll make your money hand over fist, and easily recoup the 250m plus marketing

I'm not convinced that killing off the movie theater is in the best interests of the movie business.

Once everyone has a kinect like camera in their living room and they can charge based on the number of people watching it might work. You can charge people $20 each to watch in their own living room or $15 each to watch it in theaters. Set a hard limit of 6 people watching a movie at home and add digital artifacts throughout the whole thing to help trace people who copy it.

They'd even be able to do all kind of marketing research like what time did people get up and go tot he bathroom and when did they get bored and fall asleep.


Sounds bad for couples who want to get playful while watching the movie.
 
2013-07-31 01:46:43 PM

Ishkur: Yes, but by the time that is revealed, you no longer care because 2/3 of the movie has been spent on pointless action choreography.

The action needs to drive the plot. In Sucker Punch, it is a complete waste of time. You can remove 60% of the movie and not miss anything.


That was sorta the point of the movie, that everything we create in our head to ignore the realities around us are nothing more than fluff. So that fluff with represented by an extreme style laden fluff. The characters are nothing more than set pieces to be moved around to create a visual scenery. It is at it's end a representative message heavy painting.

I don't get the hate on that movie, really I don't. I thought it was good.
 
2013-07-31 01:51:25 PM
This woman writes for a living apparently....

As recently as 2000, it was considered unusual for a film to have a budget over $100 million, and only seven movies that year had such big budgets. Now, it's considered typical for films to have budgets of $130 million and up (or roughly $100 million in 2000 dollars.)
 
2013-07-31 01:52:57 PM

Ishkur: And while they're at it, get rid of 3d. It's distracting, looks terrible most of the time and adds absolutely NOTHING to the story.

/they're doing it now just to stop bootlegging
//really, if someone doesn't mind watching a movie -- recorded via some jerky handycam and compressed into a low-res Flash file and stashed on some sketchy chinese site -- on his tiny iphone, he wasn't interested in paying to see the movie in the first place


Take 3D glasses, put one lens in front of handycam, no 3d effect or ghosting from the other frame.
/3d in Avatar looked amazing. Was worth the extra price. Didn't add to the story, but story is optional now-a-days.
 
Displayed 50 of 127 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report