Author |
Message |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Joseba B-Loki wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Joseba B-Loki wrote: Nazgul9 wrote: Oh and X3 better than SR? All i can say to that is: LOL. i agree. its graceful filmmaking vs. monkey with a movie camera filmmaking. x3's production schedule alone gives me a good laugh. You have seen X3? no, but about 15 minutes of embarrassing trailers/making ofs/other preview clips dont lie. but perhaps it all magically works in the context of the whole movie 
In this case, shut your mouth. I was not a huge fan of X3, but it pisses me off when people badmouth films they haven't seen.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:18 pm |
|
 |
Heinrich Himmler
Cream of the Crop
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:17 pm Posts: 2716 Location: Berlin, Germania
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: Joseba B-Loki wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Joseba B-Loki wrote: Nazgul9 wrote: Oh and X3 better than SR? All i can say to that is: LOL. i agree. its graceful filmmaking vs. monkey with a movie camera filmmaking. x3's production schedule alone gives me a good laugh. You have seen X3? no, but about 15 minutes of embarrassing trailers/making ofs/other preview clips dont lie. but perhaps it all magically works in the context of the whole movie  In this case, shut your mouth. I was not a huge fan of X3, but it pisses me off when people badmouth films they haven't seen.
i bet you wouldnt mind if i badmouthed battlefield earth or gigli without actually seeing them.
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:35 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Joseba B-Loki wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Joseba B-Loki wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Joseba B-Loki wrote: Nazgul9 wrote: Oh and X3 better than SR? All i can say to that is: LOL. i agree. its graceful filmmaking vs. monkey with a movie camera filmmaking. x3's production schedule alone gives me a good laugh. You have seen X3? no, but about 15 minutes of embarrassing trailers/making ofs/other preview clips dont lie. but perhaps it all magically works in the context of the whole movie  In this case, shut your mouth. I was not a huge fan of X3, but it pisses me off when people badmouth films they haven't seen. i bet you wouldnt mind if i badmouthed battlefield earth or gigli without actually seeing them.
They are hardly a comparison. I make Gigli jokes as well, yet I'd judge it fairly if I saw it. Why don't you pick something in the same RT/IMDB/Metascore range as X3?
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:37 pm |
|
 |
Gulli
Jordan Mugen-Honda
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 9:53 am Posts: 13403
|
Joseba B-Loki wrote: i bet you wouldnt mind if i badmouthed battlefield earth or gigli without actually seeing them.
Just thought I'd wander in and say if you haven't seen it you can't implicitly bash it. You can say "I hear its awful" or "I think i'd dislike that movie so I'll pass". But bashing ANY MOVIE without watching it first is illogical by its very nature.
I mean I can't stand Adam Sandler but Little Nicky and Click are the the only 2 movies I can really rip to shreads since i've seen them. The others are off limits to a direct tirade.
_________________ Rosberg was reminded of the fuel regulations by his wheel's ceasing to turn. The hollow noise from the fuel tank and needle reading zero had failed to convay this message
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:40 pm |
|
 |
Nazgul9
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:32 pm Posts: 11289 Location: Germany
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: No, it's not.
Yes, it is. It's a special case. 
_________________
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:46 pm |
|
 |
Heinrich Himmler
Cream of the Crop
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:17 pm Posts: 2716 Location: Berlin, Germania
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: Joseba B-Loki wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Joseba B-Loki wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Joseba B-Loki wrote: Nazgul9 wrote: Oh and X3 better than SR? All i can say to that is: LOL. i agree. its graceful filmmaking vs. monkey with a movie camera filmmaking. x3's production schedule alone gives me a good laugh. You have seen X3? no, but about 15 minutes of embarrassing trailers/making ofs/other preview clips dont lie. but perhaps it all magically works in the context of the whole movie  In this case, shut your mouth. I was not a huge fan of X3, but it pisses me off when people badmouth films they haven't seen. i bet you wouldnt mind if i badmouthed battlefield earth or gigli without actually seeing them. They are hardly a comparison. I make Gigli jokes as well, yet I'd judge it fairly if I saw it. Why don't you pick something in the same RT/IMDB/Metascore range as X3?
ok. time to thow the phantom menace into discussion.
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:48 pm |
|
 |
Heinrich Himmler
Cream of the Crop
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:17 pm Posts: 2716 Location: Berlin, Germania
|
Gullimont-Kyro wrote: Joseba B-Loki wrote: i bet you wouldnt mind if i badmouthed battlefield earth or gigli without actually seeing them.
Just thought I'd wander in and say if you haven't seen it you can't implicitly bash it. You can say "I hear its awful" or "I think i'd dislike that movie so I'll pass". But bashing ANY MOVIE without watching it first is illogical by its very nature. I mean I can't stand Adam Sandler but Little Nicky and Click are the the only 2 movies I can really rip to shreads since i've seen them. The others are off limits to a direct tirade.
well what would you call a fair reaction when i see awful previews for a movie? is it ok to say that it looks awful? can i say that it has bad directing and acting when i see entire scenes?
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:54 pm |
|
 |
Gulli
Jordan Mugen-Honda
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 9:53 am Posts: 13403
|
Joseba B-Loki wrote: Gullimont-Kyro wrote: Joseba B-Loki wrote: i bet you wouldnt mind if i badmouthed battlefield earth or gigli without actually seeing them.
Just thought I'd wander in and say if you haven't seen it you can't implicitly bash it. You can say "I hear its awful" or "I think i'd dislike that movie so I'll pass". But bashing ANY MOVIE without watching it first is illogical by its very nature. I mean I can't stand Adam Sandler but Little Nicky and Click are the the only 2 movies I can really rip to shreads since i've seen them. The others are off limits to a direct tirade. well what would you call a fair reaction when i see awful previews for a movie? is it ok to say that it looks awful? can i say that it has bad directing and acting when i see entire scenes?
You have to see the whole movie before making a full judgement. Yes its far to say the scenes you see are good/bad but the critiique can't encompass the full movie.
There have been quite a few movies I've seen with shoddy trailers that turned out to be very enjoyable when I got to see the full movie.
Althou I really wish i'd gone with the feeling of shitfest I got from watching the Ultraviolet trailer and avoided it like the plague instead of being a gimp and actually seeing it.
_________________ Rosberg was reminded of the fuel regulations by his wheel's ceasing to turn. The hollow noise from the fuel tank and needle reading zero had failed to convay this message
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:01 pm |
|
 |
Argos
Z
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 2:20 pm Posts: 7952 Location: Wherever he went, including here, it was against his better judgment.
|
Argos likes Led Zeppelin and Bryan Singer, the former for their music, the latter for his luminous films.
_________________ "Der Lebenslauf des Menschen besteht darin, dass er, von der Hoffnung genarrt, dem Tod in die Arme tanzt." - Arthur Schopenhauer
Last edited by Argos on Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:04 pm |
|
 |
Nazgul9
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:32 pm Posts: 11289 Location: Germany
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: What you already know its actors? Enlighten me!
Well, i've heard rumors that they're considering a complete unknown (to most) for Bruce Banner (that guy from the TV show Prison Break i think). Yeah, i know, Supes was an unknown as well, but at least they had familiar faces in supporting roles, Kevin Spacey above all. I doubt Hulk 2 will get such a cast. Plus they're dropping the all CGI Hulk in favor of a body suit (or CGI/suit combo). Sounds cheap to me...
_________________
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:06 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Joseba B-Loki wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Joseba B-Loki wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Joseba B-Loki wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Joseba B-Loki wrote: Nazgul9 wrote: Oh and X3 better than SR? All i can say to that is: LOL. i agree. its graceful filmmaking vs. monkey with a movie camera filmmaking. x3's production schedule alone gives me a good laugh. You have seen X3? no, but about 15 minutes of embarrassing trailers/making ofs/other preview clips dont lie. but perhaps it all magically works in the context of the whole movie  In this case, shut your mouth. I was not a huge fan of X3, but it pisses me off when people badmouth films they haven't seen. i bet you wouldnt mind if i badmouthed battlefield earth or gigli without actually seeing them. They are hardly a comparison. I make Gigli jokes as well, yet I'd judge it fairly if I saw it. Why don't you pick something in the same RT/IMDB/Metascore range as X3? ok. time to thow the phantom menace into discussion.
Yes, I would mind it.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:14 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Joseba B-Loki wrote: Gullimont-Kyro wrote: Joseba B-Loki wrote: i bet you wouldnt mind if i badmouthed battlefield earth or gigli without actually seeing them.
Just thought I'd wander in and say if you haven't seen it you can't implicitly bash it. You can say "I hear its awful" or "I think i'd dislike that movie so I'll pass". But bashing ANY MOVIE without watching it first is illogical by its very nature. I mean I can't stand Adam Sandler but Little Nicky and Click are the the only 2 movies I can really rip to shreads since i've seen them. The others are off limits to a direct tirade. well what would you call a fair reaction when i see awful previews for a movie? is it ok to say that it looks awful? can i say that it has bad directing and acting when i see entire scenes?
You can say it looks awful, but you can't just claim that it's laughable to say Superman is a worse film than X3 if you haven't seen X3. At least Nazgul9 has seen it (I think/hope).
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:16 pm |
|
 |
Argos
Z
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 2:20 pm Posts: 7952 Location: Wherever he went, including here, it was against his better judgment.
|
I creep begging on my knees. Please, no more Hulk-movies. The one we've had was clearly enough.
_________________ "Der Lebenslauf des Menschen besteht darin, dass er, von der Hoffnung genarrt, dem Tod in die Arme tanzt." - Arthur Schopenhauer
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:16 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Nazgul9 wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: What you already know its actors? Enlighten me! Well, i've heard rumors that they're considering a complete unknown (to most) for Bruce Banner (that guy from the TV show Prison Break i think). Yeah, i know, Supes was an unknown as well, but at least they had familiar faces in supporting roles, Kevin Spacey above all. I doubt Hulk 2 will get such a cast. Plus they're dropping the all CGI Hulk in favor of a body suit (or CGI/suit combo). Sounds cheap to me...
Um...okay...have you heard any "rumors" about Hulk 2's supporting cast?
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:16 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Argos wrote: I creep begging on my knees. Please, no more Hulk-movies. The one we've had was clearly enough.
But even Joseba liked it!!!!111
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:17 pm |
|
 |
Nazgul9
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:32 pm Posts: 11289 Location: Germany
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: At least Nazgul9 has seen it (I think/hope).
I have.
X3 is not a catastrophy by any means, but very underwhelming non the less. Superman Returns on the other hand is grand cinema right there!
_________________
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:20 pm |
|
 |
Nazgul9
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:32 pm Posts: 11289 Location: Germany
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: Um...okay...have you heard any "rumors" about Hulk 2's supporting cast?
I will fill you in when i hear something. 
_________________
Last edited by Nazgul9 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:22 pm |
|
 |
Argos
Z
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 2:20 pm Posts: 7952 Location: Wherever he went, including here, it was against his better judgment.
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: Argos wrote: I creep begging on my knees. Please, no more Hulk-movies. The one we've had was clearly enough. But even Joseba liked it!!!!111
Surely, but even Joseba can err once.
_________________ "Der Lebenslauf des Menschen besteht darin, dass er, von der Hoffnung genarrt, dem Tod in die Arme tanzt." - Arthur Schopenhauer
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:23 pm |
|
 |
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm Posts: 36662
|
Nazgul9 wrote: Zingaling wrote: So, if you lost $100 dollars, would you say to yourself, "well, I lost $100, but it's okay because a few years ago, I found $20 on the ground! And I won like $50 from this scratch-and-win card back in 1998! Who cares about the $100!"? I hope not. No, but i think it's equally wrong to count these $50m spent on previous attempts towards the Singer production.
In the studio's eyes, it's not wrong. It's $50m lost. It's not like they're blaming Singer for that $50m loss, but nonetheless, another $50m WAS lost on the Superman project overall.
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:24 pm |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
 Re: Excellent HR Singer/Superman/X-Men Article
yoshue wrote: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/risky_business.jsp
Makes me all the more sad that Singer didn't finish the X-Men trilogy...even if, ironically, Ratner's uninspired X3 turned out better than Singer's Supes.
But reading that sure makes it seem like the Superman sequel will be made. If it is, and Singer can keep his "Wrath of Khan" promise, I'll ber first in line.
It's not gonna happen and it's all Damage Control and quite frankly, it's old now to..WB and Singer will simply never admit that this movie jkust didn't do as well as what they thought and still think people really care about this character in this day and age..
|
Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:14 am |
|
 |
Thegun
On autopilot for the summer
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:14 pm Posts: 21899 Location: Walking around somewhere
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: Thegun wrote: Please, I've been saying this for so long. Superman was a disappointment, but will still make money for the studios.
the 210 figure is very realistic, as the 50 million from predevelopment was obviously paid for from years passed from other successful films. That would mean that Superman Returns needs to make 400 million to break even. It will be near 375 million by the end of the weekend. It will probably finish around 410 million. And then lets not forget DVDs and merchandising. From the percentage that the studio makes from that. Superman will make over 100 million profit for WB.
Um, sorry, but no. Even if you take $50 million out of the play, which you shouldn't, it needs way more than $400 million worldwide to break even. Do you realize that studios get QUITE A BIT LESS than 50% from international grosses? Also, did you notice the poart where it said that $100+ million was spent on international marketing? It needed $500+ million to be close to profit from box-office takes.
Lector, as according to the last studio announcement, in a theatrical run, the studio gets 55% of what a movie makes. And as far as marketing goes. It for the most part pays for itself with tie ins. Superman had huge tie ins with Burger King, Pepsi, and some cell phone( I cant remember which one) to name a few. In many cases, such tie ins have resulted in almost more than 30 million that a company will pay to have it in the movie. And when you have multi billion companies like Burger king and Pepsi, one has to think that such deals are very possible. Its actually quite crazy how much money these companies pay for stuff like that.
For most blockbusters, Pirates, Superman, Xmen, its sometimes very reasonable that there could be upwards to 10 big tie ins. Although such statistics cannot be released for security issues, many times films are very much paid for before they are released, mainly on promotional tie ins alone. So technically Marketing gets cancelled out many times before a movie is even released.
And While many of you do not not to exclude the 50 million, its also not reasonable. Superman had been in development since about 1995. Tim Burton's project alone had already spent close to 30 million before it was scrapped. the other 20 million came from other ideas from say Kevin Smith, Mc G and Brett Ratner. They were all different projects, and had nothing to do with the current film that was released. So its safe to assume that since WB had been very very prosperous in the years leading up to 2006, its very safe to assume that the 50 million had long been paid off from other big hits like the Matrix, Harry Potter.
_________________ Chippy wrote: As always, fuck Thegun. Chippy wrote: I want to live vicariously through you, Thegun!
|
Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:57 am |
|
 |
Thegun
On autopilot for the summer
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:14 pm Posts: 21899 Location: Walking around somewhere
|
 Re: Excellent HR Singer/Superman/X-Men Article
MIAMI_BKB wrote: It's not gonna happen and it's all Damage Control and quite frankly, it's old now to..WB and Singer will simply never admit that this movie jkust didn't do as well as what they thought and still think people really care about this character in this day and age..
Wasnt the whole article about that they thought it didnt do as well as they though?
And whoever wrote the whole "I lost $100" its very different in the business world. Spending 50 million dollars on revamping a project when you've made more than 1 billion profit that year, is a very reasonable thing. The pre-preproduction cost was paid off long before Superman Returns started production.
Its really hard that not too many people understand the inner workings of a studio, but its really funny when all in all, just because they dont see all the sources of revenue, they see bomb. The only film this year that doesnt look to make profit is Poseidon, but even that could be grey, depending on how it does on DVD.
_________________ Chippy wrote: As always, fuck Thegun. Chippy wrote: I want to live vicariously through you, Thegun!
|
Sun Aug 20, 2006 1:12 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Thegun wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Thegun wrote: Please, I've been saying this for so long. Superman was a disappointment, but will still make money for the studios.
the 210 figure is very realistic, as the 50 million from predevelopment was obviously paid for from years passed from other successful films. That would mean that Superman Returns needs to make 400 million to break even. It will be near 375 million by the end of the weekend. It will probably finish around 410 million. And then lets not forget DVDs and merchandising. From the percentage that the studio makes from that. Superman will make over 100 million profit for WB.
Um, sorry, but no. Even if you take $50 million out of the play, which you shouldn't, it needs way more than $400 million worldwide to break even. Do you realize that studios get QUITE A BIT LESS than 50% from international grosses? Also, did you notice the poart where it said that $100+ million was spent on international marketing? It needed $500+ million to be close to profit from box-office takes. Lector, as according to the last studio announcement, in a theatrical run, the studio gets 55% of what a movie makes.
In the
U.S.A.
NOT INTERNATIONALLY
How much clearer do you want me to make this till it gets to your head?
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun Aug 20, 2006 1:19 am |
|
 |
Thegun
On autopilot for the summer
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:14 pm Posts: 21899 Location: Walking around somewhere
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: Thegun wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Thegun wrote: Please, I've been saying this for so long. Superman was a disappointment, but will still make money for the studios.
the 210 figure is very realistic, as the 50 million from predevelopment was obviously paid for from years passed from other successful films. That would mean that Superman Returns needs to make 400 million to break even. It will be near 375 million by the end of the weekend. It will probably finish around 410 million. And then lets not forget DVDs and merchandising. From the percentage that the studio makes from that. Superman will make over 100 million profit for WB.
Um, sorry, but no. Even if you take $50 million out of the play, which you shouldn't, it needs way more than $400 million worldwide to break even. Do you realize that studios get QUITE A BIT LESS than 50% from international grosses? Also, did you notice the poart where it said that $100+ million was spent on international marketing? It needed $500+ million to be close to profit from box-office takes. Lector, as according to the last studio announcement, in a theatrical run, the studio gets 55% of what a movie makes. In the
U.S.A.
NOT INTERNATIONALLYHow much clearer do you want me to make this till it gets to your head?
Thanks, I didnt read close enough, but do you have a source for that? I've never read anything that. But I'll take your word, but can you be more specific. Is it like 10% or 45%?
_________________ Chippy wrote: As always, fuck Thegun. Chippy wrote: I want to live vicariously through you, Thegun!
|
Sun Aug 20, 2006 11:49 am |
|
 |
Gulli
Jordan Mugen-Honda
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 9:53 am Posts: 13403
|
Thegun wrote: Thanks, I didnt read close enough, but do you have a source for that? I've never read anything that. But I'll take your word, but can you be more specific. Is it like 10% or 45%?
I'd imagine its pretty difficult to nail down those figures. They vary from country to country.
_________________ Rosberg was reminded of the fuel regulations by his wheel's ceasing to turn. The hollow noise from the fuel tank and needle reading zero had failed to convay this message
|
Sun Aug 20, 2006 11:53 am |
|
|