Random Thoughts by the forum members (formerly 20 random thoughts)

[Alpha]

I won't see GOTG, definitely not first week.

 

Baumer seems like the loner sitting in the back corner of the wall while all the other people are having a party.

[BK007]

Think I need to take a sabbatical. 

 

Will post all my calls or thoughts til the next time later. 

 

 

 

1. Inside Out + Good Dinosaur to make $600m+

2. Interstellar + Big Hero 6 > October 2014 (made a thread)

3. Mockingjay Part One lowest of franchise, Mockingjay Part Two highest

4. 

[Phil in the Blank]

8. Why is Beauty and the Beast so ridiculously hard to find on DVD? Seriously, it's one of my favourites and one of the best known, but even in the most packed DVD stores, like HMV, you're lucky if you can find one and it's always about £13. Heck, Disney have recently done a new DVD release of most of their films with villain covers and I've yet to find a single one with Gaston's marvelous mug. And yeah, I know DVDs are becoming outdated nowadays, but I collect them. Speaking of, I just found out my favourite DVD store shut while I was at Uni, which is a major disappointment. I swear I bought half my DVD collection from them.

 

 

Blame Disney's 'Vault' System.

[Mulder]

I won't see GOTG, definitely not first week.

[baumer]

Been a while since we had this:

 

Here's 10 thoughts based on the last little while of my movie going experience.  Starting with one of my favourite movies of all time:

 

1) Indian Summer is a little film that came out in 1993.  It had a terrific cast that included Bill Paxton, Matt Craven, Kevin Pollak and Alan Arkin to name just a few.  It also had Sam Raimi in a small role as Stick.  Here's where it gets interesting.  There is a a prevalent Spider-man theme in the film.  Vincent Spano plays a terrific graphic artist and he paints a terrific Spider-man mural.  When the friends are supposed to run a marathon, Bill Paxton's character tells Uncle Lou that he's going to pass because he has a date with Spider-man, and is holding a comic book.  As he is walking away, Sam Raimi is shown, very clearly.  This is probably all coincidence but maybe it isn't.  This is about 5 years before Columbia truly starting developing the script.  Was some of this not so subtle of a hint that Raimi was in talks to do Spider-man?

 

2) As Tele mentioned in the Friday thread, he cries at a lot of films.  I do too now.  Indian Summer made me laugh hysterically and it made me cry because I could relate to about 95% of the issues that the characters are going through in the film.  

 

3) Furious 7 will break 140 mill this weekend.  It has an outside chance at 150.  Yes, there is the very odd franchise that has sustained their popularity like FF has, but not many.  But to have a 7th film in a franchise become not only their biggest grossing film, but one that possibly hits a billion, is really quite astonishing.

 

4) Recently watched a film called Drinking Buddies.  Ron Livingstone, Olivia Wilde, Anna Kendrick and Jake Johnson play the four characters.  They are each going through a bit of a tough situation in terms of their relationship.  It's one of the most surprising experiences I've had watching a film.  Totally caught me by surprise.  It's brilliant.  And the most interesting thing is it was all ad libbed, no script.

 

5) Shaileen Woodley looks so much hotter with longer hair.

 

6) I don't see Avengers 2 making 200 OW.

 

7) Watched Fast Times at Ridgemont High a few nights ago.  Sean Penn, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Forrest Whitaker, all so young and all so terrific.  Fast Times, even more than any John Hughes movie, is the pinnacle of teen movies in the 80's.

 

8) Get Hard is one of the funniest films I've seen, in a long time.  Critics were way too harsh with it.  In fact, too many people labeled it as racist or homophobic or whatever.  All of this is bullshit.  You're still allowed to make jokes about people, regardless of what colour they are and what gender they are attracted to.

 

9) I love Diane Lane.

 

10) Watched JAWS for perhaps the 1587th time last week.

Edited April 4, 2015 by baumer

[lilmac]

Brooklyn's Finest is an underrated movie.

[Plain Old Tele]

Just one thought for today:

The more I learn about movie production, I more I realize how little I (and we) know. We're used to treating box-office numbers (and budgets) like they're some sort of definitive, iron-clad thing, but the reality is that the numbers are more slippery and hard to pin down than we think. We look at production budgets and then double the quoted amount to get a sense of a movie being successful (or if we're trying to spin the movie's success in a harsher light, we'll add a guesstimated marketing budget as well), but nowadays most tentpoles are co-productions (and even beyond that, have multiple financing partners) and we don't get an idea of how the money is split up. Sometimes the outside financiers might be covering most or all of the production cost and the studio is only covering marketing and distribution. Sometimes the financiers might get some of the overseas markets, sometimes they might get all of the OS markets. Sometimes a movie might presell some or all of the OS markets and be profitable before it's even released. We'll never know all of these details, but the money guys at all these companies aren't stupid... and it's worth remembering that reality is much more complicated than what we make it out to be.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Telemachos

[dashrendar44]

Just one thought for today:

The more I learn about movie production, I more I realize how little I (and we) know. We're used to treating box-office numbers (and budgets) like they're some sort of definitive, iron-clad thing, but the reality is that the numbers are more slippery and hard to pin down than we think. We look at production budgets and then double the quoted amount to get a sense of a movie being successful (or if we're trying to spin the movie's success in a harsher light, we'll add a guesstimated marketing budget as well), but nowadays most tentpoles are co-productions (and even beyond that, have multiple financing partners) and we don't get an idea of how the money is split up. Sometimes the outside financiers might be covering most or all of the production cost and the studio is only covering marketing and distribution. Sometimes the financiers might get some of the overseas markets, sometimes they might get all of the OS markets. Sometimes a movie might presell some or all of the OS markets and be profitable before it's even released. We'll never know all of these details, but the money guys at all these companies aren't stupid... and it's worth remembering that reality is much more complicated than what we make it out to be.

 

As an aside to your point, the more I learn about movie production, the more I become aware of the hard task and process it is for a producer to develop a project (especially those which are deemed "risky"), get it greenlighted, secure all the financing, bring all the creative people together and managing them, the costs and bills to pay everyone involved for x period(s) of time, always keep an eye to get things done in time while being money-savvy and keep the self indulgence at bay, being the buffer between the director and the studios then try to get back the budget and benefits while negociating the split of the gross and eventual bonus points (upfront or backends).

 

You must be tough, level-headed to keep all this shit together having to manage all those people, the responsibility to get a movie in theaters on a steady track for everyone involved rest upon producer's shoulders. Producing movies is not for the faint of heart.

Edited June 26, 2015 by MADash Rendar

[Plain Old Tele]

Plus, in today's Hollywood, a producer doesn't get paid until the studio greenlights the production. The unfortunate side effect of this is many producers tend to want to rush through development and push for a greenlight as soon as possible, when most of the time a movie would benefit from a longer development process.

[The Futurist]

Just one thought for today:

The more I learn about movie production, I more I realize how little I (and we) know. We're used to treating box-office numbers (and budgets) like they're some sort of definitive, iron-clad thing, but the reality is that the numbers are more slippery and hard to pin down than we think. We look at production budgets and then double the quoted amount to get a sense of a movie being successful (or if we're trying to spin the movie's success in a harsher light, we'll add a guesstimated marketing budget as well), but nowadays most tentpoles are co-productions (and even beyond that, have multiple financing partners) and we don't get an idea of how the money is split up. Sometimes the outside financiers might be covering most or all of the production cost and the studio is only covering marketing and distribution. Sometimes the financiers might get some of the overseas markets, sometimes they might get all of the OS markets. Sometimes a movie might presell some or all of the OS markets and be profitable before it's even released. We'll never know all of these details, but the money guys at all these companies aren't stupid... and it's worth remembering that reality is much more complicated than what we make it out to be.

 

Well, I hinted at all of these ideas in some threads but people didn t care that much.

When you know that Warner financed only 25% of Pacific Rim and Legendary 75%.

Cloud Atlas is another monster of complexity, God only knows who financed what on this one.

The thing is people assume they know but they don t .

You are right, the financial details for every movie are highly complex and highly different from one movie to another.

Most movies are co productions, always have been.

Look at the credits for any movie, all the different logos, names, production companies etc

 

It s not about Warner, Disney, Universal, Fox, Paramount, Sony, Lionsgate will loose or make money with this film.

NOPE.

[Plain Old Tele]

Well, I hinted at all of these ideas in some threads but people didn t care that much.

When you know that Warner financed only 25% of Pacific Rim and Legendary 75%.

Cloud Atlas is another monster of complexity, God only knows who financed what on this one.

The thing is people assume they know but they don t .

You are right, the financial details for every movie are highly complex and highly different from one movie to another.

Most movies are co productions, always have been.

Look at the credits for any movie, all the different logos, names, production companies etc

 

It s not about Warner, Disney, Universal, Fox, Paramount, Sony, Lionsgate will loose or make money with this film.

NOPE.

 

Yep, and the other thing is, companies take a longer-term look at profits. Almost all movies will turn a profit in five, ten, twenty years... obviously if it's a publicly-traded company that doesn't help the quarterly or yearly numbers but for private companies it can be fine. And once a movie's expenses are covered, it's essentially a profit-generating machine (even if it's a small machine). That's why studios value their libraries so much.

[baumer]

I have some experience with trying to produce a film.  And it is complicated as hell.  Now mine was an independent film that we were going to make and as a producer, I spent months (almost a year) trying to get donations from local businesses, access to film at establishments after hours, support from local government, and not to mention casting and trying to direct the film myself, with no experience.  This is a little different that what Tele is talking about but it just expands on it a little bit from a lower level.  Ultimately I sunk about $6000 of my own money into the film before we even began shooting and it never got off the ground (there's obviously a lot more to the story, this is just brief) and I lost my investment.  This is all from an independent perspective.  I can only imagine the nightmare it must be to get a film financed on a much larger scale.