Jump to content

That One Girl

Weak-end Thread | Hitman's Bodyguard 21.6M; Annabelle 15.5M; Logan Lucky 8M; Dunkirk 6.7M | Wonder Woman beats Spider-Man and is now at 404M

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Cochofles said:

 

Remember when journalists would simply report the news?

Oh, wait...it's Collider. 

No journalism degree required.

 

 

(Now someone will tell me "the writer of that line actually has a journalism degree," which makes it even worse...)

 

A bit off topic, but the Internet changed "journalism" forever. There's no law or rule saying you can't mix opinion with reporting facts, and now that everyone and their dog can have their own blog (and Twitter account), there's no gatekeeper screening the quality of "journalists" who write articles and opinion pieces online through any channel.  

 

But going further back, though, look up "yellow journalism" and you'll see that this isn't actually a new phenomena.  The 19th century saw opinionated sensationalism in print long before bloggers took over newspapers.  Moreover, such "journalism" from over a century ago contributed to actual wars: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/yellow-journalism

 

OK. Back to bickering about La La Land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Just now, Jake Gittes said:

There's gotta be a dozen places all reporting box-office as dry news. Don't see what the harm is in guys like Collider having some fun with it tbh

 

They need to have more fun with it. Do a fuck up like this sports article that made it to the local paper:

 

"“Dixon sucks donkey dicks and doesn’t wipe the shit off before practice. We like to keep him at the sweeper position so his sperm breath will stop people from penetrating to the goal. Speaking of penetrating, he prefers tall, red-headed guys. Told me to tell Kris he said ‘hello.’”

 

http://deadspin.com/the-fallout-from-sportswritings-filthiest-fuck-up-1797691830

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, filmlover said:

They also paid like $10M for Me & Earl & the Dying Girl (remember that? Yeah, didn't think so) two years ago. I'd say they should stay away from Sundance, but they also picked up Brooklyn from there two years ago to awards recognition and box office success, so win some, lose some.

 

If a Fox Searchlight studio is to stay away from something like sundance, may as well close the shop, isn't a large reason of is existence ?

 

Brooklyn is a good example of why they should continue, you are only aiming for a success rate around 55-60% max on movies.

 

Searchlight had nice recent success with:

The Way, Way Back

Beast of the southern wild

Brooklyn

 

You remove a lot of risk by buying finish product instead than financing them it is normal to expect much lower margin for your success (they were low risk, imagine having the possibility to pay the production budget of movie after seeing the finish product),

 

Sony classic recent track record with movie that played at sundance is not bad at all:

 

Take Shelter

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic:  $1,730,296    55.8%
Foreign:  $1,369,018    44.2%

= Worldwide:  $3,099,314  

2.28 million profit (on 5.94 million revenue)

 

 

The Guard

Total Lifetime Grosses

Domestic:  $5,360,274    27.4%
Foreign:  $14,200,000    72.6%

= Worldwide:  $19,560,274  

2.89 million in profit from 8.1 million revenue (only had domestic market)

 

 

Smashed

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic:  $376,597    100.0%
Foreign:  n/a    0.0%

= Worldwide:  $376,597  

2.77 million in profit from 6.46 million revenue (almost all revenues from international tv)

 

 

Celeste and Jesse Forever

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic:  $3,094,813    100.0%
Foreign:  n/a    0.0%

= Worldwide:  $3,094,813  

468k in profit from 7.055 million in revenue

 

 

Searching for Sugar Man

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic:  $3,696,196    100.0%
Foreign:  n/a    0.0%

= Worldwide:  $3,696,196  

1.959m in profit from 6.497 million in revenue

 

 

Kill Your Darlings

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic:  $1,030,064    100.0%
Foreign:  n/a    0.0%

= Worldwide:  $1,030,064  

6$ in profit (lol), from 4.3 million in revenue

 

 

Before Midnight

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic:  $8,114,627    72.6%
Foreign:  $3,061,842    27.4%

= Worldwide:  $11,176,469  

362k in profit from 15.16m in revenue

 

 

For movies like those theatrical is often less than 25% of the revenues (and could go below 10%, Take shelter made 500k from theatrical and went on to do over 5 million in the other windows), that outside the really big buy with really big release are not really easy to judge, a 48 month on netflix alone for them can rack up over 3m.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



5 minutes ago, That Floating Guy said:

73eac48902c534144930208dc3b2149b.png

 

453829819c78b4ec2a846b6859a9cb91.png

 

One of these is Silence, and the other film is Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close.  Which is which?

That movie no one should ever watch. 

 

And this is why I can't take the Oscars seriously. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nunya Biznez said:

 

A bit off topic, but the Internet changed "journalism" forever. There's no law or rule saying you can't mix opinion with reporting facts, and now that everyone and their dog can have their own blog (and Twitter account), there's no gatekeeper screening the quality of "journalists" who write articles and opinion pieces online through any channel.  

 

But going further back, though, look up "yellow journalism" and you'll see that this isn't actually a new phenomena.  The 19th century saw opinionated sensationalism in print long before bloggers took over newspapers.  Moreover, such "journalism" from over a century ago contributed to actual wars: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/yellow-journalism

 

OK. Back to bickering about La La Land.

I might add that "serious" journalists have lowered their standards and try to compete with the internet/blogs crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I mean all the other news outlets were just reporting the box office numbers or whatever which is fine. I just got a kick out of the way Collider reported this weekends. I thought it was funny and added something to it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



14 minutes ago, Alli said:

I might add that "serious" journalists have lowered their standards and try to compete with the internet/blogs crowd.

I feel that all that already started in the late 80s and was a bit full on in the 90s when cable news came along, CNN, etc... and started to be seen has a possible source of revenues instead of being operated as a loss leader/public service type of network time for credibility/prestige by the major network.

 

Giving more than the news and having commentator was already common previously to the Internet popularity.

 

There is still every hour on public radio a little news segment that try to be as factual as possible, listening to those now sound like an humor bit/sci-fi.

Edited by Barnack
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



23 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

In a La La Land vs Moonlight situation, La La Land's actually Star Wars. 

"And OBVIOUSLY better because Moonlight is a gay black movie that makes liberals feel good about themselves!" -JonathanLB, out there somewhere convincing himself Pitch Perfect is gay

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites









25 minutes ago, MrPink said:

 

They need to have more fun with it. Do a fuck up like this sports article that made it to the local paper:

 

"“Dixon sucks donkey dicks and doesn’t wipe the shit off before practice. We like to keep him at the sweeper position so his sperm breath will stop people from penetrating to the goal. Speaking of penetrating, he prefers tall, red-headed guys. Told me to tell Kris he said ‘hello.’”

 

http://deadspin.com/the-fallout-from-sportswritings-filthiest-fuck-up-1797691830

 

Holy hell at that entire story.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites





My homage point was completely wrong, but I do stand by everything else I said. Comparing la la land to nolan's filmography is like comparing shakespeare in love to cameron's filmography.

Also, jake how can I explain fewer directors thing? This might get wierd. Ofcourse, a person will make a movie with his own style. 

But I think spielberg and cameron are part of a group of directors with fewer members than a group with roman polanski, tarantino, scorsese, sofia coppola. Groups are by whose work will be more remembered. And I think chazelle will be in the later group while nolan in the first group.  

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites







  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.