Madame Web

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Ghost said:

They are actually NOT packing in more demographics.

You only have to look at the numbers to see that.

 

Audiences are down.  Money is down.  Number of schedule releases this year is down.

 

 

Yeah complete disconnect with my point here. Aiming at a wider range of demographics  as a strategy does not mean that ticket sales are going to be up. Audiences are down for a number of reasons, fallout from Covid, competition from streaming, etc. Also, box office numbers are starting to take a hit from the rise of Chinese filmmaking starting to take more of the Asian market. 

 

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

23 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Aiming at a wider range of demographics  as a strategy does not mean that ticket sales are going to be up.

Well, if I had a comment on that...

 

Barbie and Oppenheimer were two very different movies, which were ostensibly aimed at two very different demographics.

They're also very good movies.

 

So whether it was a genius marketing exec wheeze (and I wouldn't put it past Robbie herself to come up with it) or a genuine viral trend, people watched them back to back. Often with appropriate or switchable outfits. 

 

Result: two billion bucks. Plus an awful lot of Barbie merch, hats, iTunes downloads, etc .

(Not so many Fisher-Price Oppenheimer First Atomic Lab For Toddlers kits, which was a shame.

I might pick up a remnant for the nieces for Christmas).

 

So my message to Whollyodd is: boot the marketers and analysts out of the boardroom at the pre-production stage.

Make smaller bets - and these days, $100m to $150m is relatively small, compared to the likes of Fast X...

...on making more and better movies. A good flick, marketed properly will find its audience. Even the ones that don't will find a home on Netflix.

Edited February 15 by ThaOGDreamWeaver

[Excraft]

13 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Riiight and have you done this?

 

Why should he have to?  Are you suggesting what he's saying is not true?  All one need do is point to films like Oppenheimer to prove that out.  Well crafted stories with a talented cast and crew are successful. 

 

14 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Like what makes you think that the people making these movies don't see what they are doing as exactly that?

 

Are you suggesting that the studio executives who are looking at cratering ticket sales, cratering profits and abysmal critical reviews are turning to their shareholders and saying that they're on the right track? 

 

16 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

As if Peter Jackson was able to continue that level of quality for the Hobbit movies, when he presumably had more control and more resources to work with. Not.

 

Peter Jackson didn't have as much control over the process as you might think and as I recall, the Hobbit was originally meant to be a two film project that was "requested" by the studio to be made into a trilogy that tied into the LoTR trilogy more.  As I recall, he didn't even want to direct it but MGM forced him into it.

 

18 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Untalented actors huh? Ezra Miller is a lunatic. But I saw that Flash movie and his acting wasn't the problem. He was cast in the part because of his previous performances in other projects, they didn't just randomly select some weird guy.

 

Ezra Miller is a lunatic.  He's also not a very good actor and isn't "leading man" by any stretch for a film like that.  Digging out 72 year old Michael Keaton to come back as Batman as nostalgia bait was done for a reason. 

 

20 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Godzilla: Minus One is a Godzilla movie. How many other well crafted and acted foreign films are doing those kinds of numbers?  You really think that speaks to the point you're making? 

 

Unless I'm mistaken, I think the point was more that it's an example of a financially successful, well received and reviewed film being done on a budget a fraction of what it would have cost in Hollywood.

 

21 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

And the thing about Hollywood budgets is this: it's an industry. It doesn't matter whether spending all that money on a film pays off with respect to profit. The money is spent to keep the machinery running--to keep all those creative teams employed.

 

I certainly hope you don't work in the finance or banking industry in any way.  I can assure you as I have friends working at major film studios, they are most definitely in the business of making a profit. 

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

2 minutes ago, Excraft said:

I certainly hope you don't work in the finance or banking industry in any way.  I can assure you as I have friends working at major film studios, they are most definitely in the business of making a profit. 

...and then hiding it from the IRS, investors, residuals calculations and anyone who foolishly took net points instead of salary...

Edited February 15 by ThaOGDreamWeaver

[battlewraith]

12 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

Why should he have to?  Are you suggesting what he's saying is not true?  All one need do is point to films like Oppenheimer to prove that out.  Well crafted stories with a talented cast and crew are successful. 

 

 

Are you suggesting that the studio executives who are looking at cratering ticket sales, cratering profits and abysmal critical reviews are turning to their shareholders and saying that they're on the right track? 

 

 

Peter Jackson didn't have as much control over the process as you might think and as I recall, the Hobbit was originally meant to be a two film project that was "requested" by the studio to be made into a trilogy that tied into the LoTR trilogy more.  As I recall, he didn't even want to direct it but MGM forced him into it.

 

 

Ezra Miller is a lunatic.  He's also not a very good actor and isn't "leading man" by any stretch for a film like that.  Digging out 72 year old Michael Keaton to come back as Batman as nostalgia bait was done for a reason. 

 

 

Unless I'm mistaken, I think the point was more that it's an example of a financially successful, well received and reviewed film being done on a budget a fraction of what it would have cost in Hollywood.

 

 

I certainly hope you don't work in the finance or banking industry in any way.  I can assure you as I have friends working at major film studios, they are most definitely in the business of making a profit. 

 

[Ghost]

45 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

 

Yeah complete disconnect with my point here. Aiming at a wider range of demographics  as a strategy does not mean that ticket sales are going to be up. Audiences are down for a number of reasons, fallout from Covid, competition from streaming, etc. Also, box office numbers are starting to take a hit from the rise of Chinese filmmaking starting to take more of the Asian market. 

 

Making excuses instead of admitting the actual cause.

Same thing actors/studios/directors are doing.  What’s the result?  They don’t change, and continue to put out crap.

As for the wider audience.  
Think of it this way - you have a built in audience for your product.  Almost everything you put out makes a profit.

You decide, let’s try to widen our audience by doing this, this and that.

The result is your built in audience hates it, and you lose a ton of money.

Wouldnt a smart person say “experiment failed, let’s go back to what made us successful” ?
 

Edited February 15 by Ghost

[battlewraith]

13 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Why should he have to?  Are you suggesting what he's saying is not true?  All one need do is point to films like Oppenheimer to prove that out.  Well crafted stories with a talented cast and crew are successful. 

 

That's nonsense. It's silly. A well crafted story with a talented cast and crew might be successful. A lot of them fail. Some may achieve a cult following and be regarded as classics long after their run. Others might be hot garbage but make a lot of money based on spectacle or some other reason.

 

Some of these movies that are being trashed now might have been seen as amazing if they had been done a few years sooner, or in a media landscape that wasn't saturated with a certain kind of film. Some that are acclaimed now will probably be forgotten fairly quickly.

 

The assumptions being made here are the opposite: that well made, quality films do well financially. Particularly low budget films. Okay, well maybe instead of Christopher Nolan and Oppenheimer we should be lauding Tyler Perry and Medea, hmmm?

 

 

[PeregrineFalcon]

The movie industry is the only industry that I'm aware of where it's considered acceptable to make a garbage product, have your employees insult your customers on Twitter, and then blame the customers when they refuse to spend money on said product. Think about it this way, in the 80s, when people started buying American cars less and foreign cars more, American automakers didn't publicly chastise Americans. Instead they decided to start making better cars in order to get Americans to start buying their cars again.

 

A couple of years ago, in response to my children not believing me when I grumbled that movies used to be better, I showed them "12 Angry Men." Not the remake, the black-and-white version. For those that don't know there's no special effects and no action of any kind. It's just 12 guys in one room talking. That's the whole movie. These energetic teenagers were riveted. Afterward I said to them "Now imagine if today's movies had those same special effects but with that quality of writing." They both said to me "Ok, now I see why you complain about modern movies."

 

TL;DR: Make a better product and stop blaming your customers. You aren't entitled to our money.

[battlewraith]

8 minutes ago, Ghost said:

Wouldnt a smart person say “experiment failed, let’s go back to what made us successful” ?
 

 

Exactly. I think they would. 

But here's where we diverge.

 

You assume that these studio bosses are idiots and that they are not successful, or at least on the road to ruin.

 

I think they do make dumb decisions fairly frequently but they understand the overall business far better than you. And they probably have tried to do what made them successful in the past. In fact, probably that's what they've done more than anything else--rehash old successes. And audiences don't want the same shit over and over. So they do a balance of safe, genre pap for the masses and a sprinkling of experimentation. And this is something that outsiders will point at and rail about what garbage these execs produce--but those outsiders don't see past their own narrow perspectives. 

 

[battlewraith]

3 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

The movie industry is the only industry that I'm aware of where it's considered acceptable to make a garbage product, have your employees insult your customers on Twitter, and then blame the customers when they refuse to spend money on said product. Think about it this way, in the 80s, when people started buying American cars less and foreign cars more, American automakers didn't publicly chastise Americans. Instead they decided to start making better cars in order to get Americans to start buying their cars again.

 

A couple of years ago, in response to my children not believing me when I grumbled that movies used to be better, I showed them "12 Angry Men." Not the remake, the black-and-white version. For those that don't know there's no special effects and no action of any kind. It's just 12 guys in one room talking. That's the whole movie. These energetic teenagers were riveted. Afterward I said to them "Now imagine if today's movies had those same special effects but with that quality of writing." They both said to me "Ok, now I see why you complain about modern movies."

 

TL;DR: Make a better product and stop blaming your customers. You aren't entitled to our money.

 

LOL ok, you are remembering a different past concerning the auto industry. People who had bought American cars were chastised. And at least one Chinese-American was beaten to death over being mistaken for Japanese.

 

Regarding Twelve Angry Men. Yeah twelve guys in a room talking. Gosh we had it so good, what happened. Tastes changed. It's that simple. When Twelve Angry Men was made, there was probably people who had grown up with Buster Keaton movies thinking "what the hell is this drab shit"?

 

They aren't entitled to our money. But I'm old school--if something doesn't look good I just don't go see it. That's it. I don't use it as an occasion to air my grievances about the industry, politics, or the world at large. 

[Ghost]

32 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

 

Exactly. I think they would. 

But here's where we diverge.

 

You assume that these studio bosses are idiots and that they are not successful, or at least on the road to ruin.

 

I think they do make dumb decisions fairly frequently but they understand the overall business far better than you. And they probably have tried to do what made them successful in the past. In fact, probably that's what they've done more than anything else--rehash old successes. And audiences don't want the same shit over and over. So they do a balance of safe, genre pap for the masses and a sprinkling of experimentation. And this is something that outsiders will point at and rail about what garbage these execs produce--but those outsiders don't see past their own narrow perspectives. 

 

I don’t think they’re idiots, I think they’re afraid.

They’ve gone way overboard to appease certain groups, and are now afraid to dial it back.

 

Despite the excuses thrown out by Hollywood, the general audience doesn’t care about the race or sexual orientation of characters - remember Brokeback Mountain and Philadelphia?  Two highly successful movies.  Last of Us?  Highly praised.

Let’s not forget about all the successful movies with female leads.

Its not about if they are in a movie or show. It’s about why.

 

What we don’t want is to be preached to or at.

What we don’t want is to see characters changed or crammed in to appease certain demographics.

We want good movies/shows with good characters and stories.  Quit using entertainment as a way to “teach us”

 

 

Edited February 15 by Ghost

[battlewraith]

6 minutes ago, Ghost said:

I don’t think they’re idiots, I think they’re afraid.

They’ve gone way overboard to appease certain groups, and are now afraid to dial it back.

 

Despite the excuses thrown out by Hollywood, the general audience doesn’t care about the race or sexual orientation of characters - remember Brokeback Mountain and Philadelphia?  Two highly successful movies.  Last of Us?  Highly praised.

 

What we don’t want is to be preached to or at.

What we don’t want is to see characters changed or crammed in to appease certain demographics.

We want good movies/shows with good characters and stories.  Quit using entertainment as a way to “teach us”

 

 

 

"They've gone way overboard to appease certain groups." Ok, explain. How have they gone way overboard?

 

"What we don't want is to be preached to or at."

 

Who is we? Everyone that is in line with your opinions? Does it occur to you that maybe some people have different backgrounds and some of the things you think are preaching is just a reflection of reality for them? You mentioned Philadelphia--it's hard for me to view that movie as anything other than preaching, that was the point. Preaching that there was an AIDs crisis and that gay people were human beings that deserved compassion. And I have no doubt that there were a lot of people that resented that movie for its preaching. Even a lot of old comic books are trying to use the medium to teach some perspective on the social issues of the time.

 

 

[PeregrineFalcon]

28 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

They aren't entitled to our money. But I'm old school--if something doesn't look good I just don't go see it. That's it. I don't use it as an occasion to air my grievances about the industry, politics, or the world at large. 

Don't give me that "I'm old school so I don't air my grievances" nonsense. As a kid in the 70's I heard my grandparents, born in the 20's, talk to other people their age and complain about stuff. So please don't act "old school" means you don't ever complain about anything.

 

And if you think that this isn't the appropriate place to talk about stuff then I think you don't understand the entire point behind an online forum.

[battlewraith]

1 minute ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Don't give me that "I'm old school so I don't air my grievances" nonsense. As a kid in the 70's I heard my grandparents, born in the 20's, talk to other people their age and complain about stuff. So please don't act "old school" means you don't ever complain about anything.

 

And if you think that this isn't the appropriate place to talk about stuff then I think you don't understand the entire point behind an online forum.

 

Lol no everyone complains about shit all the time. But this notion of a company owing me something I think is relatively recent or worse than it was in the past.  

[Excraft]

58 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

That's nonsense. It's silly. A well crafted story with a talented cast and crew might be successful. A lot of them fail. Some may achieve a cult following and be regarded as classics long after their run. Others might be hot garbage but make a lot of money based on spectacle or some other reason.

 

Some of these movies that are being trashed now might have been seen as amazing if they had been done a few years sooner, or in a media landscape that wasn't saturated with a certain kind of film. Some that are acclaimed now will probably be forgotten fairly quickly.

 

The assumptions being made here are the opposite: that well made, quality films do well financially. Particularly low budget films. Okay, well maybe instead of Christopher Nolan and Oppenheimer we should be lauding Tyler Perry and Medea, hmmm?

 

 

 

I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make.  Are you suggesting that successful movies aren't well written?  Well written and produced films do well financially.  History proves this out.

[Excraft]

12 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Who is we?

 

The general audiences, made up of people from all genders, races and orientations, who haven't been paying to go and see movies.  You seem to be trying to lump everyone into one group or another.

[battlewraith]

Just now, Excraft said:

 

I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make.  Are you suggesting that successful movies aren't well written?  Well written and produced films do well financially.  History proves this out.

 

No. It doesn't. A well written and produced film will probably do well financially. Being well written and produced does not entail that a film is going to do well. The film may be marketed poorly. It may be ahead of it's time. It may be ignored because of other films that are out at the same time. It may be too niche for a general audience. etc. Likewise, a lot of high grossing blockbuster films are absolute shite.

[battlewraith]

3 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

The general audiences, made up of people from all genders, races and orientations, who haven't been paying to go and see movies.  You seem to be trying to lump everyone into one group or another.

 

That's exactly the opposite of what I'm doing. I speak only for myself. You and Ghost seem to be speaking for the general audience and making assumptions for why they didn't turn out to see a movie.

[Excraft]

4 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

No. It doesn't. A well written and produced film will probably do well financially. Being well written and produced does not entail that a film is going to do well. The film may be marketed poorly. It may be ahead of it's time. It may be ignored because of other films that are out at the same time. It may be too niche for a general audience. etc. Likewise, a lot of high grossing blockbuster films are absolute shite.

 

So let me get this straight - films that are both critical and financial successes are not well written and produced?  Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.  If that's you're point, then you're way off base and yes, history does prove that out.

 

2 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

That's exactly the opposite of what I'm doing. I speak only for myself. You and Ghost seem to be speaking for the general audience and making assumptions for why they didn't turn out to see a movie.

 

I'm not speaking for anyone either.  However, it's not supposition that audiences who aren't attending movies aren't all of one group or another.  Audiences in general aren't going to the movies anymore. 

 

You've been throwing around all sorts of reasons as to why people aren't turning out to see movies - post COVID, foreign competition and the like.  While those are true to a degree, people are still turning out for good movies and there are well written, well produced movies surpassing the billion dollar mark at the box office.

[Ghost]

12 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

 

That's exactly the opposite of what I'm doing. I speak only for myself. You and Ghost seem to be speaking for the general audience and making assumptions for why they didn't turn out to see a movie.

and you’ve made no assumptions?

 

okay, since we’ve clearly gotten off track - tell us EXACTLY why you think this movie is bombing.  Please.

Because I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say, other than to argue everything being said.

Edited February 15 by Ghost

[battlewraith]

56 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

So let me get this straight - films that are both critical and financial successes are not well written and produced?  Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.  If that's you're point, then you're way off base and yes, history does prove that out.

 

No, that's not the point. Earlier you said that well written and produced films do well financially and that history shows this. Here's a list of well produced, well written flops (including Citizen Kane):

 

https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/best-films-box-office-bombs/

 

Up to this point, we've been talking about financial successes (now you've added critical to the description). The point is that being well written and produced does not guarantee that a film will be a success at the box office. Conversely, a film being financially successful does not mean that it was well produced and/or well written. 

 

High grossing bad movies: https://www.cbr.com/worst-box-office-hits/#alice-in-wonderland-was-the-kind-of-movie-no-studio-would-make-anymore

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Ghost said:

and you’ve made no assumptions?

 

okay, since we’ve clearly gotten off track - tell us EXACTLY why you think this movie is bombing.  Please.

Because I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say, other than to argue everything being said.

 

Ok, so you're not going to tell me how studios are going way overboard to appease certain groups? 

 

I know virtually nothing about this movie. I have no clue why it's bombing. I suspect more than anything else that superhero movies are just played out. I was just curious about the repeated assertion that studio failures are because they are pushing "the message" instead of simply crafting good stories with good characters and production values. It's unclear whether some people here think that these things are somehow antithetical--a good film needs to be apolitical and have no message (which isn't true even for comics)--or if said people just don't like "the message" and would hate any movie that expressed it regardless of how well executed the film was.

 

Side note: I asked one person a question and got responses from three more. Somehow that's me "arguing with everything being said." If the conversation bothers you, don't engage.

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

No, that's not the point. Earlier you said that well written and produced films do well financially and that history shows this. Here's a list of well produced, well written flops (including Citizen Kane):

 

https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/best-films-box-office-bombs/

 

Up to this point, we've been talking about financial successes (now you've added critical to the description). The point is that being well written and produced does not guarantee that a film will be a success at the box office. Conversely, a film being financially successful does not mean that it was well produced and/or well written. 

 

High grossing bad movies: https://www.cbr.com/worst-box-office-hits/#alice-in-wonderland-was-the-kind-of-movie-no-studio-would-make-anymore

 

Both of those lists are meaningless as their based on the subjective opinion of the writer compiling them.  How one person defines "good" and "bad" are entirely different than the next person. 

 

I can remember way back in the day movie critic Gene Shalit calling Star Wars a "nothing movie" that would "go nowhere" when it first premiered.  I'm sure you could find people out there that believe films like Gymkata, Ishtar and Battlefield Earth are the most underrated true masterpieces of cinema in human history.  Those are all a matter of opinion though.

 

Ticket sales and box office numbers don't lie and aren't subjective.  Whether someone likes a movie or not, if that movie brought in a ton of money to the studio and turned a hefty profit, it's successful and that means the majority of movie goers thought it was well written and well produced enough to spend their money on it.  That's a fact and no matter how much you want to try and deny it, history proves that out. 

[Ghost]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

 

Ok, so you're not going to tell me how studios are going way overboard to appease certain groups? 

 

I know virtually nothing about this movie. I have no clue why it's bombing. I suspect more than anything else that superhero movies are just played out. I was just curious about the repeated assertion that studio failures are because they are pushing "the message" instead of simply crafting good stories with good characters and production values. It's unclear whether some people here think that these things are somehow antithetical--a good film needs to be apolitical and have no message (which isn't true even for comics)--or if said people just don't like "the message" and would hate any movie that expressed it regardless of how well executed the film was.

 

Side note: I asked one person a question and got responses from three more. Somehow that's me "arguing with everything being said." If the conversation bothers you, don't engage.

last part first - you’ve taken the time to go back and forth with everyone in this thread.  Refuting everything.  That’s arguing.
 

As for overboard…

Snow White not incorporating dwarfs in their live action remake because it may offend someone.

Changing the race of the Little Mermaid instead of, you know telling a new story with new characters.

Making sure every last demographic is represented in the final seasons of Sex Education - when they weren’t present at the start.

Kevin Smith He-Man show was about……a woman.

The recent L&O controversy.

Do we need to talk about the current gaming situation too?

Look, as I said before.  I don’t care if a show is about straight, white, black, Asian, LGBTQ+ characters.  If it looks interesting, I’ll watch it.  
Stop trying to shoehorn them in.

Stop using the time I watch a movie as a way to preach to me - If I want to be preached to, I’ll go to church.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[battlewraith]

5 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

Both of those lists are meaningless as their based on the subjective opinion of the writer compiling them.  How one person defines "good" and "bad" are entirely different than the next person. 

 

I can remember way back in the day movie critic Gene Shalit calling Star Wars a "nothing movie" that would "go nowhere" when it first premiered.  I'm sure you could find people out there that believe films like Gymkata, Ishtar and Battlefield Earth are the most underrated true masterpieces of cinema in human history.  Those are all a matter of opinion though.

 

Ticket sales and box office numbers don't lie and aren't subjective.  Whether someone likes a movie or not, if that movie brought in a ton of money to the studio and turned a hefty profit, it's successful and that means the majority of movie goers thought it was well written and well produced enough to spend their money on it.  That's a fact and no matter how much you want to try and deny it, history proves that out. 

 

All it shows is that these films sold tickets. That's it. So by your logic, 50 Shades of Grey is a better produced, more well written film than Citizen Kane or The Thing. If we look at album sales, a quick google search says that Mozart and Beethoven have each sold about 5.5 million each. Britney Spears has sold 150 million. Best selling car: Toyota Corolla. If sales are your objective criteria for quality...knock yourself out dude.

 

Part of the problem here is that you think a subjective opinion is worthless. All opinions are the same. They aren't. A plumber will give you an opinion. A doctor will give you an opinion. These opinions are more valuable because they are informed by knowledge of the field and experience. Same goes with the arts. There is a motion picture industry that encompasses actors, directors, critics, etc. There are general standards for things like acting, directing, writing, etc. None of these things simply default to what sold the best. Yeesh.