General Movie (Film for snobs) News Thread

[WeeAl]

27 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

That’s one of the reasons they sold their stake in GB News isn’t it?

Yeah. Every cloud and all that. 

[Hannibal Scorch]

2 hours ago, Keith Houchen said:

The Predator doubled its budget at the box office. You’re making it out it only took 50 mill when it took 160 mill. 
 

A low key low budget reboot is absolutely the way to go for the franchise though, it was dead in the water. 

And a film needs to make at least 3 times it’s budget to make a profit. As I said, marketing costs are often double. And I did say it made $51m in the US, $160m globally is peanuts for a franchise film. Deserved it though, one of the worst mainstream films I’ve ever seen released with such blatant reshoots. Thank god for Prey

[Keith Houchen]

33 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

And a film needs to make at least 3 times it’s budget to make a profit

No it doesn’t. 

[Hannibal Scorch]

23 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

No it doesn’t. 

Ok. I’ll let you explain film economics. In the meantime a lot of talk about the last James Bond film and how much it had to make to break even. Article is here https://www.slashfilm.com/632463/no-time-to-die-might-need-to-earn-800-million-to-make-a-profit/ but here’s a TL:DR

Spoiler

 

[Keith Houchen]

Yes, a James Bond film is going to spend the same amount on marketing and advertising as a mid range budget film. It’s a shame The Predator only took box office and didn’t make a cent from home video, streaming, merch, partnerships, VOD, rental and won’t make another cent in history. And that’s before you take into account the notoriously accurate reporting of movie finance. They never inflate production costs for tax purposes. 
 

The general rule is if it takes somewhere between 2 and 3 times the budget, it’s a success. A film that makes a small profit is often not classed as a success but that doesn’t make it a flop. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Keith Houchen

[Hannibal Scorch]

19 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Yes, a James Bond film is going to spend the same amount on marketing and advertising as a mid range budget film. It’s a shame The Predator only took box office and didn’t make a cent from home video, streaming, merch, partnerships, VOD, rental and won’t make another cent in history. And that’s before you take into account the notoriously accurate reporting of movie finance. They never inflate production costs for tax purposes. 
 

The general rule is if it takes somewhere between 2 and 3 times the budget, it’s a success. A film that makes a small profit is often not classed as a success but that doesn’t make it a flop. 

Spoiler

So you didn’t read the spoiler tag then. $31m from China where the get about a 25% cut. That’s $7.5m. Leaving about $130m to get around 50% cut. And usually opening weekend it could be as low as 30% cut which increases week by week of release. So, pretending that it isn’t the case here and it was 50%, that’s $65m plus your $7.5m, plus your marketing of $40m But yes, thank god for the home media sales and streaming rights. 

Anyway far too much time discussing about a film that was a disgrace to Autism and Autistic people.

[Keith Houchen]

Yes I did, as I pointed out the top end films like Bond spend way more on marketing than The Predator did, thus why that needed to recoup more to make it back. 
 

I haven’t seen The Predator but based on your comment there I won’t.

EDIT - Removed a shitty personal attack comment. It was a dick move. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Keith Houchen

[Hannibal Scorch]

53 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Yes I did, as I pointed out the top end films like Bond spend way more on marketing than The Predator did, thus why that needed to recoup more to make it back. 
 

I haven’t seen The Predator but based on your comment there I won’t.

Yeah it made me angry at the time, but worse when I left the cinema and digested it. I know Hollywood doesn’t always get it right, but this really lowers the bar (article in spoilers)

Spoiler

https://autisticandunapologetic.com/2020/10/31/the-predator-2018-autisms-biggest-backhanded-compliment/

 

[Hannibal Scorch]

It relevant good news/bad news, Knives Out 2 hitting Netflix on December 23rd. Bad news, don’t expect to see it on a big screen

https://variety.com/2022/film/news/knives-out-2-movie-theaters-netflix-1235342935/. 

[Weezenal]

After quitting my Odeon Unlimited pass after about 8 months due to a price hike and feeling I couldn't justify going enough I got this offer from Groupon so rejoined.

https://www.groupon.co.uk/deals/odeon-cinemas-37?cjevent=4bf7e64f15d011ed820100d10a18050c&utm_medium=afl&utm_campaign=cid*1453124_pub*Pepper+Deals+LTD_pid*1546795&utm_source=cj&subs_group=afl&cjdata=MXxZfDB8WXww&bypass=true

It's pretty good if you live in London as it includes all the Luxe cinemas (£3 fee) that would usually cost £25 to go to the Leicester Square one. Maybe not the best screen for film snobs but great for snobs in general. 

Works out £11.25 a month.

 

 

 

[Loki]

Cinemas are dying though, it's really just a matter of time.  The quality of experience you can have at home is better now than most cinemas were (and still are frankly).  And the cost of visiting the cinema has gone from something you'd do on a whim to the price of a takeaway meal.

As much as I enjoy seeing a film on the big screen, it's now something I do maybe twice a year and only for films that benefit from the extra oomph - like Top Gun 2.  And I'm not going to The Odeon as it's 25 quid for me and the missus, and it's a fleapit.

The future is certainly streaming, the economics are just in flux right now.  My guy feeling is that the move to individual subscription services hasn't paid off for the large media comglomerates.  Look at HBO, best drama producer of the century and it's on its arse and might not survive the merger with Discovery.  Something like Disney - people pay the subs, rinse the service for content and then cancel after a year.  That's not a sustainable model.  Netflix, despite taking an absolute beating, seems a more realistic model long-term in its earlier form - a conglomerate of different content under one subscription.  Like Peacock in the US I guess, or NowTV here.

If cinemas are to survive they need to find a new niche somehow.

[Hannibal Scorch]

7 minutes ago, Loki said:

Cinemas are dying though, it's really just a matter of time.  The quality of experience you can have at home is better now than most cinemas were (and still are frankly).  And the cost of visiting the cinema has gone from something you'd do on a whim to the price of a takeaway meal.

As much as I enjoy seeing a film on the big screen, it's now something I do maybe twice a year and only for films that benefit from the extra oomph - like Top Gun 2.  And I'm not going to The Odeon as it's 25 quid for me and the missus, and it's a fleapit.

The future is certainly streaming, the economics are just in flux right now.  My guy feeling is that the move to individual subscription services hasn't paid off for the large media comglomerates.  Look at HBO, best drama producer of the century and it's on its arse and might not survive the merger with Discovery.  Something like Disney - people pay the subs, rinse the service for content and then cancel after a year.  That's not a sustainable model.  Netflix, despite taking an absolute beating, seems a more realistic model long-term in its earlier form - a conglomerate of different content under one subscription.  Like Peacock in the US I guess, or NowTV here.

If cinemas are to survive they need to find a new niche somehow.

I agree with most of that. One thing which Cinemas offer which can't be replicated is a shared experience. Going to see a Jackass film on opening night and hearing a full scream laugh and wince is joyful. Same as seeing the latest Star Wars/Marvel film for a different shared experience. 

Another thing, is things more gimmicky, whether that is a 4DX showing or IMAX with sound and vision which is harder to replicate at home without shelling out thousands. But I agree they need to adopt and change to survive as much as it pains me to say. We haven't gone as a family to see a film since May because my daughter wanted to see Dr Strange. She enjoys watching films at home as much as the Cinema, but wanted to see it before it went to D+. And whilst I pay for an unlimited card and get a fair bit of use out of it, to add my wife and daughter was £20 for that film. And as my son cannot cope with the cinema experience most family films are now watched at home.

[DavidB6937]

We're in a whole different world now. A world where we've got people complaining that they're not getting enough for their Netflix subscription. It's baffling to think that we're living in a world where getting that much content for a fixed price everything month isn't enough. I mean I get it - it's what so many are used to now, and it's all down to personal preference. But when you compare back to when I was younger, and you'd suggested I could get all of that for a set price I'd laugh in your face.

I'd definitely go to the cinema more if I could. I really love the experience. It's just difficult timing wise with kids especially. We've all got different priorities and rising costs etc, and it's difficult to see just how much more cinemas could adapt to that.

[Mr_Danger]

For all the talk of cinema dying it was still worse off 20 years ago where I had half the amount of cinemas available to me locally and would have to go and watch shite like The Preachers Wife because that was literally the only thing showing in the evening. A bunch of teenage boys sitting around watching Whitney Houston’s latest foray in to the acting world.

 

[LaGoosh]

2 hours ago, Loki said:

If cinemas are to survive they need to find a new niche somehow.

They need to stop being so fucking expensive. That's it. I'd go all the time if it didn't cost such a small fortune.