What Movies Have You Seen Lately?

Quote: Nareed

How much of that is accounted for by inflation? How much due to big name salaries?

I don't think that "inflation" is really applicable. You are not making the same movie. The special effects are getting more elaborate. The superstar salaries are getting more and more massive. Something that costs $140 in 2011 doesn't cost $250 in 2016.

Clearly production budget doesn't matter for a really successful franchise. The Captain America budgets went up by $30 million, and then by $80 million, but revenue went up by $344m and $437m.

Captain America: Release Date | Production Budget
Jul 22, 2011 $140 million The First Avenger Domestic: $176,654,505 + Foreign: $193,915,269=$370,569,774
Apr 4, 2014 $170 million The Winter Soldier Domestic: $259,766,572 + Foreign: $454,654,931=$714,421,503
May 6, 2016 $250 million Civil War Domestic: $406,632,129 + Foreign: $744,400,000 = $1,151,032,129


But these retreads like Snow White. Like Captain America there was similar return for the first film. But then they lose their major star who played Snow White. They release a sequel this year, that still cost over $100 million, and the boxoffice returns are dismal.

Snow White and the Huntsman Release Date: June 1, 2012
Production Budget: $170 million
Domestic: $155,332,381 39.2%
+ Foreign: $241,260,448 60.8%
= Worldwide: $396,592,829

The Huntsman:Winter's War Release Date: April 22, 2016
Production Budget: $115 million
Domestic: $48,003,015 29.2%
+ Foreign: $116,599,148 70.8%
= Worldwide: $164,602,163


I just don't think the world will support thirty movies with $100 million production budgets.

Quote: Nareed

On the other hand, how much money comes in through merchandizing, DVD/downloads, foreign sales, etc?

That's always the big question, and the accounting is a very closely held secret by the movie industry. "Batman and Robin" with George Clooney was widely considered one of the worst disasters of a movie of recent decades. It was a stupid commercial for toys, insane dialogue, and it was 8 years before another Batman film was made. It had the lowest revenue of any Batman movie. But most analysts believe that it was ultimately profitable because of the toy tie ins.

Date Domestic Title
6/23/89 $251.2 Batman
6/19/92 $162.8 Batman Returns
6/16/95 $184.0 Batman Forever
6/20/97 $107.3 Batman and Robin
6/15/05 $205.3 Batman Begins
7/18/08 $533.3 The Dark Knight
7/20/12 $448.1 The Dark Knight Rises
3/25/16 $330.4 Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Of the actors in Batman and Robin, it seems to have nearly wrecked the very promising careers of young Chris O'Donnell (Robin) and Alicia Silverstone (Batgirl).

Arnold Schwarzenegger
George Clooney
Uma Thurman
Chris O'Donnell
Alicia Silverstone

Statistics are difficult to obtain on production budgets, as many studios won't release them unless they have to. Disney is particularly sensitive to production budgets, because despite some amazing successes, they are known to release high budget disasters. Warner Bros has also had some spectacular failures.

Ryan Reynolds seems to have recovered nicely from one of the highest profile disaster films of the recent decade.

Green Lantern Release Date: June 17, 2011 with Production Budget: $200 million
Domestic: $116,601,172 + Foreign: $103,250,000 = Worldwide: $219,851,172

Deadpool Release Date: February 12, 2016 with Production Budget: $58 million
Domestic: $363,070,709 + Foreign: $419,300,157= Worldwide: $782,370,866

Quote: Pacomartin

I don't think that "inflation" is really applicable. You are not making the same movie. The special effects are getting more elaborate. The superstar salaries are getting more and more massive. Something that costs $140 in 2011 doesn't cost $250 in 2016.

Inflation's always applicable. The computers used, the programmers' and artists' time, the electricity consumed, all are affected by inflation to some degree.

Inflation, though, is not just the official index published. There's also price increases due to other factors, such as the salaries of the stars.

Quote:

I just don't think the world will support fifty movies with $100 million production budgets.

I don't think anyone spends that much on a film without an expectation of success. The implications, though are disturbing. This means lots of apparently smart and experienced people bet that much money on bombs like Waterworld, Ghostbusters 2, the last Terminator film no one saw, a sequel to Independence day for some reason, etc.

What do you think a movie needs to be in order to spend a reasonable amount on production and marketing? Other than the cheap horror flicks that break out now and then.

Quote: Pacomartin

That's always the big question, and the accounting is a very closely held secret by the movie industry. "Batman and Robin" with George Clooney was widely considered one of the worst disasters of a movie of recent decades. It was a stupid commercial for toys, insane dialogue, and it was 8 years before another Batman film was made. It had the lowest revenue of any Batman movie. But most analysts believe that it was ultimately profitable because of the toy tie ins.

That was a terribly bad movie indeed. Especially compared to the rather high quality animated series and films made at the time.

There was an ep involving a few of the supervillains at a poker game (I forget why). At some point there's this dialogue between Two-Face and Poison Ivy:

Two-Face: Part of me wants to kill you.
Poison Ivy: What does the other part want?
Two-Face: To hit you with a truck.
Poison Ivy (addressing the others at the table): We used to date.
Other villains: Ah!

No one even knows how much Avatar cost to make. You may find some numbers out there if you Google it, but James Cameron/20th Century Fox never confirmed anything.

The rumor was it approached $400+ million. (Developing the motion capture technology used was a big part of the expense).

Comments about a possible 'agenda' with the new Ghostbusters reminds me of my list of things that will turn me off for sure watching a movie

* having an agenda? sure, don't like that with movies, sometimes overlook it. Saw "The General's Daughter" recently, which I thought was a little heavy on promoting women in the military; or should I say had an unfair portrayal of the old Army 'Neanderthal' types who resist it, a bunch of rapists and such it seems. But it was an engaging enough movie that I wouldn't pan it totally. Liked Travolta's performance for once. But the worst part was the indication at the end of what happened later, that they aren't showing. I felt they did it in such a way as to strongly suggest it was a true story, despicable! and leads me to:

* phony claims or hints of a "true story" that is either totally false or the story is too fictionalized, making it a farce. I never really forgave the Coen Brothers for that in "Fargo" - I wouldn't watch their moves for years [finally relenting]

* children in the movie that are featured at all. Usually can't stand this. I find often, as if the movie-makers know this, that the featured kid will talk and think like an adult to make it more acceptable to some, but this drives me even more crazy. I tried to watch recently "Rocket Gibraltar" but preteen kids dominated really bad so, realizing I could never watch it, I fast-forwarded to the end Which leads me to:

* if the plot is just totally preposterous it just is too much for me. If you have read my posts in this thread you've probably noted that.

* Topping my list, irrationally maybe, I just can't stand it if the serial killer, mob, terrorists, whatever, go after the protagonist's wife and kids. Spoiler alert! This is the plot for just about every modern suspense movie involving serial killers, mobs, terrorists, or anything similar. But as soon as I confirm this will be the case, which doesn't take long, I ditch the movie. Recently "Criminal Law [1988]" I can really get into a rant about this, just hate it. And in real life it is so ridiculously rare. Now I am watching "Murder by Numbers [2002]"

Having the audience relate to the peril of the hero by identifying the things they value, then putting them (or it) at risk, is the basis of all good drama.

If the audience doesn't relate to the character, they won't engage in the story. Family relationships are universal. Fathers and Mothers protecting their children are basic to all people, and therefore a common point of contact between the story and the audience.

Without the personal connection, the story becomes less engaging. Why should we care what happens next? We don't have anything to lose. For example, was anyone shocked or disturbed when Darth Vader blew up Princess Leia's home planet in the original Star Wars? We, the audience, never met anyone there. We didn't even get a glimpse of cities, or people going about their regular lives. It was just a big explosion of blue and brown, then a few lines describing what should have been shown on screen.

Same with the 9/11 attacks in New York and Pennsylvania. I was on the west coast at the time, and people were actually joking as victims were jumping from the towers to their deaths. Without a human relationship, a friend or relative who might be in the building, or in the area to worry about losing them, it is easy to disengage.

I think that bad guys going after peoples families does happen (although not as commonly portrayed in films). There are lots of stories of drug gangs killing relatives, or kidnapping family members and sending body parts in the mail to gain cooperation or silence. This is why ISIS's strategy is to publicize their horrific acts. As a cold-hearted, evil strategy, it works. People comply in the face of threats of terror to their family and friends.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Having the audience relate to the peril of the hero by identifying the things they value, then putting them (or it) at risk, is the basis of all good drama.

Conflict is the key to good drama. Without conflict, the result is adventure or melodrama, not drama per se.

And I find conflict incredibly hard to do.

Quote:

For example, was anyone shocked or disturbed when Darth Vader blew up Princess Leia's home planet in the original Star Wars?

By that scene, we don't even have a connection with Leia. The scene has a lot more impact if you watch it after having seen the whole trilogy. Curiously they made the same mistake in Ep. VII. Yeah, it's awful in an abstract sort of way, but who are these people anyway and how do they relate to Rey and Finn? Asnwer, they don't relate at all.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Having the audience relate to the peril of the hero by identifying the things they value, then putting them (or it) at risk, is the basis of all good drama.

well, I get why it works.

But the 'terrorist etc goes after wife and kids thing' has been used to death. I refuse to watch another one - probably was engaging the first time or two [don't remember what that might have been]

btw I was OK with the Sandra Bullock movie

Quote: Ayecarumba

Same with the 9/11 attacks in New York and Pennsylvania. I was on the west coast at the time, and people were actually joking as victims were jumping from the towers to their deaths. Without a human relationship, a friend or relative who might be in the building, or in the area to worry about losing them, it is easy to disengage.

Reagan was shot 17 year, 4 months after Kennedy, and I remember some high school kids applauding when we announced it to the school. Some people remember the national trauma that went on when Kennedy was shot with millions of adults crying at the same time.

The argument is made by some people that constant media depictions of violence has dulled people sensitivities. Other psychologists say that it is a harmless release of emotions.

I talked to my friend who did extensive SEAL training for Vietnam, where part of his duties involved outright assassinations. He said it was obvious that constant exposure to depictions of killing dulls your sensitivity. He said in all his years of training for the SEALs they never shot or bayoneted a target once. It was always against realistic depictions of people. It was considered a natural part of training you to kill people, you had to desensitize your feelings.

Quote: Pacomartin

Reagan was shot 17 year, 4 months after Kennedy, and I remember some high school kids applauding when we announced it to the school. Some people remember the national trauma that went on when Kennedy was shot with millions of adults crying at the same time.

The argument is made by some people that constant media depictions of violence has dulled people sensitivities. Other psychologists say that it is a harmless release of emotions.

I talked to my friend who did extensive SEAL training for Vietnam, where part of his duties involved outright assassinations. He said it was obvious that constant exposure to depictions of killing dulls your sensitivity. He said in all his years of training for the SEALs they never shot or bayoneted a target once. It was always against realistic depictions of people. It was considered a natural part of training you to kill people, you had to desensitize your feelings.

Sad, but true. The vets I have talked to who have been in fire fights aren't eager to share details with me, someone who has never been in the situation. However, when they speak to each other, I can appreciate the "Band of Brothers" mentality. It is "Me and my brothers" vs. "the enemy", doing what we had to do. Never, "Us" vs. "Muhammed Nguyen, a loyal husband, and father of three young children back on his family farm"