⊃∪∩⪽ | Legendary | October 22 2021 | Denis Villeneuve | Returns to IMAX on December 3

[tonytr87]

1 hour ago, MrGlass2 said:

Too many SF "blockbusters" have bombed lately... Let's hope for a BO miracle here, and that Hollywood finally adapts all the science fiction classics of the last century - rather than ever more comic books for kids.

 

For a while there in the late 00s and early 10s original scifi was booming. Avatar, District 9, Gravity, Inception, Interstellar, The Book of Eli, Eagle Eye, Super 8, even Edge of Tomorrow and Pacific Rim at least made it over 100 mil. Not sure what happened...were audiences more open to new shit during the Obama era? 

[Hunch]

This decade has been something of a golden age for sci-fi. 

 

I think there is still room for quality sci-fi to succeed, but it might have to move away from the from 'pure sci-fi' of films like Interstellar. Last year's A Quiet Place and Ready Player One are good examples. One of them is more of a horror film, the other has a YA feel. 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2019 by Hunch

[Hunch]

8 hours ago, The Stingray said:

I'm positively surprised WB greenlit this after the commercial failure of Blade Runner.
 

They have pretty deep pockets, and BR2049 did not fail because Villenueve didn't do his job. It failed because the marketing made the bone-headed decision not to reveal anything about the plot or explain anything to the uninitiated. It assumed Blade Runner was Star Wars-level popular when it's a cult film. I'm sure they learned their lesson and the Dune trailer will introduce the audience to the world and explain who everyone is.

 

Plus, Warner Bros executives, unlike Disney executives, actually seem to like films and seem to take pride in creating big budget spectacles that are also intellectually stimulating. 

Edited March 19, 2019 by Hunch

[terrestrial]

4 hours ago, tonytr87 said:

For a while there in the late 00s and early 10s original scifi was booming. Avatar, District 9, Gravity, Inception, Interstellar, The Book of Eli, Eagle Eye, Super 8, even Edge of Tomorrow and Pacific Rim at least made it over 100 mil. Not sure what happened...were audiences more open to new shit during the Obama era? 

Yes and no to the examples given. Half of those did not reach GA. Or not OS GA.

I think not all of GA likes post acopalypse themes, not all like depressing ends, not all like ... certain aspects that can be included into a Sci-Fi.

 

The politician named I am asking myself why ppl even try to connect everything to someone. As if GA in country xy gives a .... who is president in another country. First one who managed that got elected after the named one.

Edited March 19, 2019 by terrestrial

[The Futurist]

3 hours ago, Hunch said:

They have pretty deep pockets, and BR2049 did not fail because Villenueve didn't do his job. It failed because the marketing made the bone-headed decision not to reveal anything about the plot or explain anything to the uninitiated. It assumed Blade Runner was Star Wars-level popular when it's a cult film. I'm sure they learned their lesson and the Dune trailer will introduce the audience to the world and explain who everyone is.

 

Plus, Warner Bros executives, unlike Disney executives, actually seem to like films and seem to take pride in creating big budget spectacles that are also intellectually stimulating. 

Disney only cares for the money.

Warner cares for the Art, that s true.

Edited March 19, 2019 by The Futurist

[tomknff]

I think Warner is still chasing their next LOTR. This should've been a 8-10 episode series on HBO.

[TMP]

This should be WB's most expensive film of 2020, right? This or Kong vs. Godzilla anyways

[Valonqar]

10 hours ago, shayhiri said:

 

No, it will fail like BR2049. Which failed only because of the director's approach.

 

Actually, Dune will fail worse. Because Blade Runner at least had the cult status of the original to lure people in. Dune has nothing. And will be given nothing by this director - only taken from.

 

Dune CAN be made into a lucrative movie - but only by someone like JJ Abrams. If it looks and feels like Star Wars. Instead they chose the worst director possible for this job. I am 100% certain this will bomb. It would have flopped even with a good director - but putting it in The Frenchie's tiny little grabby hands is like burying the movie in the ground BEFORE putting a mercy shot through its head.

 

Once again, ANY other director (barring fellow midget Ruin Johnson), and I'd at least be happily awaiting to see the movie FIVE times - even while knowing it will 90% bomb. But now I don't even want to see it that much. BR2049 was a slog and a waste, while still miles better than all other miserable movies of the Frenchie.

There's no much wrong with this post I don't even know where to begin. 

 

JJ Abrams is a good fit for Dune, the hard sci fi philosophical story that subverts Campbellian hero journey. That's a no. 

 

Dune should look like Star Wars. No. Just make Star Wars. Dune should look like Dune.

 

Dune has nothing.  It's the greatest sci fi book with millions of fans. 

 

While I'm not the Frenchie fan either, your arguments are hilarious and sad at the same time. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2019 by Valonqar

[Valonqar]

3 hours ago, The Futurist said:

Disney only cares for the money.

Warner cares for the Art, that s true.

 

[Elessar]

12 hours ago, shayhiri said:

 

No, it will fail like BR2049. Which failed only because of the director's approach.

 

Actually, Dune will fail worse. Because Blade Runner at least had the cult status of the original to lure people in. Dune has nothing. And will be given nothing by this director - only taken from.

 

Dune CAN be made into a lucrative movie - but only by someone like JJ Abrams. If it looks and feels like Star Wars. Instead they chose the worst director possible for this job. I am 100% certain this will bomb. It would have flopped even with a good director - but putting it in The Frenchie's tiny little grabby hands is like burying the movie in the ground BEFORE putting a mercy shot through its head.

 

Once again, ANY other director (barring fellow midget Ruin Johnson), and I'd at least be happily awaiting to see the movie FIVE times - even while knowing it will 90% bomb. But now I don't even want to see it that much. BR2049 was a slog and a waste, while still miles better than all other miserable movies of the Frenchie.

F you. That frenchie is one sick mofo.

 

No but seriously, can't disagree more. Villeneuve is probably the most exciting "new-ish" director working right now. I dig pretty much all his stuff. BR2049 quite perfectly captured that slow, meandearing Blade Runner vibe and it's better for it.

 

To all your future responses a preemptive: No.

[Steele131]

17 hours ago, TMP said:

This should be WB's most expensive film of 2020, right? This or Kong vs. Godzilla anyways

WW84 

[The Futurist]

What s the point of Warner of distributing all these big films they don't finance that much ?

Means they don't reap all the money when they have hits.

 

I think Disney puts most of the money on their giant films no ?

[tonytr87]

20 hours ago, terrestrial said:

Yes and no to the examples given. Half of those did not reach GA. Or not OS GA.

I think not all of GA likes post acopalypse themes, not all like depressing ends, not all like ... certain aspects that can be included into a Sci-Fi.

 

The politician named I am asking myself why ppl even try to connect everything to someone. As if GA in country xy gives a .... who is president in another country. First one who managed that got elected after the named one.

 

What does OS have to do with anything? These were all huge successes domestically. 

[Barnack]

20 hours ago, terrestrial said:

Yes and no to the examples given. Half of those did not reach GA. Or not OS GA.

 

% of the movie business being OS GA 

 

 Avatar 73%

District 9 (45%)

Gravity 62% 

Inception 65%

Interstellar 72%

The Book of Eli, 40% (not that specially low for a Denzel US set aiming the religious audience movie)

Eagle Eye (43%)

Super 8 (51%)

Edge of Tomorrow (73%)

Pacific Rim (75%)

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, The Futurist said:

What s the point of Warner of distributing all these big films they don't finance that much ?

Means they don't reap all the money when they have hits.

 

I think Disney puts most of the money on their giant films no ?

 

Nowaday they are probably the only one doings so except for the rare exception like Potters, it is rare that when a movie start you only see one logo at the beginning past 2013 release (or say the studio logo and only the director/producer production company logo).

 

Studio distribution of heavily financed by someone else movie is really interesting risk wise, less profit on the big giant hits, but because has a studio are closer to the revenues and having the big end of the stick they usually break even faster than the others participants, that are more risk capital on it.

 

The ROI can still be really interesting.

 

If we take a bit on an extreme example, Angry Birds, Sony expected to break even at 135m WW on that one, very low for a franchise 3D movie with an world wide release P&A of 125m WW, almost no risk, in exchange for that low of a risk if things go very well and the movie end up doing 350m WW, they though they would make around 25-26m in profit, that would be low for a giant movie with a giant release, but they have spent only 160m on it and spent really close to went the revenue came in, for and excellent 27% gross profit margin (and a fast margin in annual ROI that much better than doing 30% on a movie that spent money and paid interest on it 2 year's before the revenues started to come).

 

That always a share of risk, and always an "error" when the movie is a success (when you had the choice to finance it) and always a "genius" move on failure.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Barnack

[The Futurist]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

 

Nowaday they are probably the only one doings so except for the rare exception like Potters, it is rare that went a movie start you only see one logo in past 2013 (or say the studio logo and only the director/producer production company logo).

 

Studio distribution of heavily financed by someone else movie is really interesting risk wise, less profit on the big giant hits, but because has a studio being closer to the revenues and having the big end of the stick they usually break even faster than the others participants, that are more risk capital on it.

 

The ROI can still be really interesting.

 

If we take a bit on an extreme example, Angry Birds, Sony expected to break even at 135m WW on that one, very low for a franchise 3D movie with an world wide release P&A of 125m WW, almost no risk, in exchange for that low of a risk if things go very well and the movie end up doing 350m WW, they though they would make around 25-26m in profit, that would be low for a giant movie with a giant release, but they have spent only 160m on it and spent really close to went the revenue came in, for and excellent 27% gross profit margin (and a fast margin in annual ROI that much better than doing 30% on a movie that spent money and paid interest on it 2 year's before the revenues started to come).

 

That always a share of risk, and always an "error" when the movie is a success (when you had the choice to finance it) and always a "genius" move on failure.

So Disney is a total outlier.

[Barnack]

20 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

So Disney is a total outlier.

 

Would have too look a long list but I feel so but even then tended to still have some partner on lot of stuff, just more light.

 

Their company credits are really light on their title:

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2025690/companycredits?ref_=tt_ql_dt_4

The Finest Hours (2016)

• Walt Disney Pictures (presents) (as Disney)
• Whitaker Entertainment

 

Beauty and the Beast (2017)

 

• Mandeville Films
• Walt Disney Pictures (presents) (as Disney)

 

Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)

 

• Marvel Studios

 

For other studios, it tend to look more like:

 

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)

Production Companies

• Paramount Pictures (presents)
• Skydance Media (presents)
• TC Productions
• Bad Robot
• Alibaba Pictures
• Film France
• Centre National du Cinéma et de L'image Animée (CNC)
• Norwegian Incentive Scheme (with the participation of)

Jurassic World (2015)

• Universal Pictures (presents)
• Amblin Entertainment (presents)
• Legendary Entertainment (in association with)
• Dentsu (presented in association with)
• Fuji Television Network (presented in association with)
• The Kennedy/Marshall Company

 

Transformers: The Last Knight (2017)

• Paramount Pictures (presents)
• Hasbro (in association with)
• Di Bonaventura Pictures
• Huahua Media
• Ian Bryce Productions
• Tom DeSanto/Don Murphy Production

 

On less franchise heavy affair:

 

Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

• Warner Bros. (presents) (as Warner Bros. Pictures)
• Village Roadshow Pictures (in association with)
• RatPac-Dune Entertainment (in association with)
• 3 Arts Entertainment (as 3 Arts)
• Viz Media (in association with) (as Viz Productions, LLC)
• Province of British Columbia Production Services Tax Credit (with the participation of)
• Dune Entertainment (in association with) (as Rat-Pac Dune Entertainment LLC)
• Prime Focus (uncredited)

 

 

Even for their relatively safer affair (if you want people to share your slate risk you need to let them in on some of your best title). Having at least 25% of your budget and some market sold to someone else must be really common.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Barnack

[terrestrial]

1 hour ago, Barnack said:

% of the movie business being OS

Its not the %, its the amount of money made. Half of the named examples were not huge, as in not reaching the GA.

A Sci-Fi fan is not GA.

Sci-Fi fans can carry a movie to a financial success, if the movie isn't expensive, but if GA really watches, the numbers dom and OS both are much higher. Hence to distinction on 'GA'.

[terrestrial]

1 hour ago, tonytr87 said:

What does OS have to do with anything? These were all huge successes domestically. 

You need to reach the GA in dom and in OS for the today's usual Sci-Fi.... budgets (production & distribution)

E.g. District 9 had a low budget,... it was financial very successful based on it, but it didn't reach the GA generally especially in OS. In OS you need also translation.... If ou look into per countr results, there are several who will have a minus result.

 

Some material 'needs' budget to get the rich worlds on screen, especially if the story / source material has something special in it.

I do not say you can't make a low budget with it, but if the visuals are unique, do not exist on earth,... and you want to include that into your movie, you need a story that has a chance on appealing to the GA too.

 

 

[Barnack]

30 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

E.g. District 9 had a low budget,... it was financial very successful based on it,

District 9 with a 100m budget would still have made nice money, it made over 250m and around 110m in profit, that a step above very successful because it was low budget.

 

30 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

If ou look into per countr results, there are several who will have a minus result

Many have a lower retention but much lower cost model too, no ?

 

Hard Sci-fi isn't easy, but what is? (outside sequel-franchise), not many thing, action is really not easy, comedy not easy, drama...

Edited March 20, 2019 by Barnack