Chinoiserie Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 All the studio films are cash grabs from the studio bosses and the investors perspective. But the people in charge of the creative process such as the director, screenwriter and even the producers might do the project for artistic reasons. So blockbusters can have artistic merit the same way other films have, even if their ultimate purpose is to make profit. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Every film is made to make money, but certain films take big risks that make it harder for them to make money. Anything that Kubrick and Scorsese did/do fall into that category, imo. I understand what you are saying, but on the flipside, do you think (for example) WB bought the rites to Pileggi's book, hired Scorcese, got the amazing cast that it did, spent money scouting perfect locations, marketed it like they did and then just before it was released, they said, "Fuck if we make money, Goodfellas is just a great story. This is just for people to watch. In fact, let's screen it for free." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfirebird2008 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 When a film is made, there are hundreds of people who works 1000's of hours on the film. There has to be a level of commitment to that. That doesn't scream apathy to me, it means that there is passion behind what they are doing. A film like The Shining or Interstellar is just as much a cash grab as a film like the fourth part of any franchise,. I disagree with that sentence. Since you brought up Nolan, I'd love for you to explain to me how he cared just as much about what he did with TDKR as he did with Inception, a movie he wanted to make for 10+ years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecstasy Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Ha ha. It's the Marvel film I enjoyed the most. Now what? lol I was just joking. CAP2 is my favorite of the year. Of course that's a secret to nobody. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 You mean the book whose authors filed a lawsuit against Brown? Irrelevant. What does that have to do with how enjoyable the book is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4815162342 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 So basically it's like a quarterback/forward throwing/scoring 25 touchdowns/goals in a season instead of 30. Still a good season just not as good yes, get us all in the mood for NFL talk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecstasy Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 yes, get us all in the mood for NFL talk I don't think even iceroll would object this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
75Live Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 yes, get us all in the mood for NFL talk well it is the only interesting thing about this weekend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I disagree with that sentence. Since you brought up Nolan, I'd love for you to explain to me how he cared just as much about what he did with TDKR as he did with Inception, a movie he wanted to make for 10+ years. You're picking two different things here. Nolan makes films for passion, no doubt. But he is not the one financing them and that's where the business comes in. There are horror movies that go straight to DVD that also are passion projects by the writers and directors, but once the studio or whoever it is that finances the film, gets involved, then it is done so for money. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTF Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I think we have different ideas of what the term "cash grab" means. Coolio is right. This is definitely the issue here...I don't agree with Baumer's meaning of cash grab...Cash grab is direct to video American Pie 17, not every movie ever made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TServo2049 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Irrelevant. What does that have to do with how enjoyable the book is? Nothing. I guess I oversnarked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I think we have different ideas of what the term "cash grab" means. Coolio is right. Coolio is wrong. It's not an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockNrollaDIM Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Ran my first half marathon this morning and crushed it, 1:38 finish time. 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Jedi Master 007 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I understand what you are saying, but on the flipside, do you think (for example) WB bought the rites to Pileggi's book, hired Scorcese, got the amazing cast that it did, spent money scouting perfect locations, marketed it like they did and then just before it was released, they said, "Fuck if we make money, Goodfellas is just a great story. This is just for people to watch. In fact, let's screen it for free." No, I agree with you. However, I still think that there were a few risks involved with Goodfellas (in terms of its violence/language/and ending) that could've backfired on WB and cost them money. Same thing with Interstellar. Obviously, Paramount and WB wanted money there. They hired Nolan, who had been BO gold up until that point, casted the best actors and actresses in the world, targeted a big release date for BO and Oscars, and pours a lot of money into state of the arts visuals. However, at the same time, they took a few risks with that film (little action, a lot of science, long runtime) which could've backfired (and partially did). In comparison, there are other blockbusters that aren't as risky to me. I honestly don't know if THG: MJ1 falls into that category, but some do. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookie Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) Angels and Demons sold 1/3 of the books DVC did. It's good to look at the article on BOM. That explains it really well. http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2587&p=.htm and Da Vinci itself had a mixed reception and didn't leave audiences begging for more. Edited November 23, 2014 by C00k13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolioD1 Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 cash grab and made to make profit (which is everything) are two different things. 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatebox Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) Interstellar's an interesting case because with all the WB and Paramount mingling you could say that their motives were based on a future association with Nolan as much as pure profit on the film itself. Edited November 23, 2014 by Untitled Hatebox Project 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichWS Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Baumer, I feel you're taking the meaning of "cash grab" a bit too literally. It's more about churning out sequels and dilulating a brand for the sake of profit and how that hurts from a creative standpoint. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kvikk Lunsj Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Ran my first half marathon this morning and crushed it, 1:38 finish time. Congrats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatree Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Coolio is wrong. It's not an opinion. Why isn't it an opinion? The term is not something that has been officially defined anywhere; its meaning is dictated by what people believe it to be. I really don't feel that many people think the term "cash grab" means any product ever released. If that were the case, then the term would be void of all purpose, since it is necessarily true for every single film. People wouldn't use it, because it wouldn't distinguish one film from any other. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
