HorrorMovieFans.com

zombie wrote:netflix does have competition though. i guess not physical store competition anymore, which is probably what you mean. but competition means that some things stop succeeding and go away. could netflix have more competition? absolutely and they will as digital becomes the norm more and more.

Mergers are showing us that there will be less competition, not more. Don't confuse different players with more players.

Entertainment is the worst. The digital era was supposed to democratize entertainment. Troma was once able to get movies into hundreds of theaters. No more. Now Disney has demanded 65% of the ticket sales, plus 4 weeks on the biggest screens at theaters in order to give them Star Wars.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:In reality, a more competive environment is created where more people have jobs.

well said. with fewer and fewer jobs comes less competition. what are we doing, culturally? automating jobs and merging companies together. capitalism seems, at it's current state, about creating bigger profit for themselves, at the sacrifice of competition.

Culturally we whine about everything the media tells us to whine about to misdirect from the real problems. We are a culture of sheep, existing at the pleasure of the wolves. Gently sedated by the next TV show or superhero movie and told our failings are not our fault. Drug addicted consumers, consuming rather than producing, wondering why the producers control everything.

Capitalism is not the problem. Lazy people in a capitalist society are.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:netflix does have competition though. i guess not physical store competition anymore, which is probably what you mean. but competition means that some things stop succeeding and go away. could netflix have more competition? absolutely and they will as digital becomes the norm more and more.

Mergers are showing us that there will be less competition, not more. Don't confuse different players with more players.

Entertainment is the worst. The digital era was supposed to democratize entertainment. Troma was once able to get movies into hundreds of theaters. No more. Now Disney has demanded 65% of the ticket sales, plus 4 weeks on the biggest screens at theaters in order to give them Star Wars.

nothing about what i said is anything to do with mergers. i agree that mergers create less competition. i said netflix has competition and that is true, whether you want to pretend otherwise or not.

there are problems for sure. ever increasing budgets means more and more squeeze on moviegoers, to the point that it's a shrinking pool to squeeze from. that needs to be figured out and reversed. i think a lot of the problems will go away if you bring budgets down and bring people back to theaters.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:In reality, a more competive environment is created where more people have jobs.

well said. with fewer and fewer jobs comes less competition. what are we doing, culturally? automating jobs and merging companies together. capitalism seems, at it's current state, about creating bigger profit for themselves, at the sacrifice of competition.

Culturally we whine about everything the media tells us to whine about to misdirect from the real problems. We are a culture of sheep, existing at the pleasure of the wolves. Gently sedated by the next TV show or superhero movie and told our failings are not our fault. Drug addicted consumers, consuming rather than producing, wondering why the producers control everything.

Capitalism is not the problem. Lazy people in a capitalist society are.

then mergers and subsidies are not the problem either. it's all lazy people.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:In reality, a more competive environment is created where more people have jobs.

well said. with fewer and fewer jobs comes less competition. what are we doing, culturally? automating jobs and merging companies together. capitalism seems, at it's current state, about creating bigger profit for themselves, at the sacrifice of competition.

Culturally we whine about everything the media tells us to whine about to misdirect from the real problems. We are a culture of sheep, existing at the pleasure of the wolves. Gently sedated by the next TV show or superhero movie and told our failings are not our fault. Drug addicted consumers, consuming rather than producing, wondering why the producers control everything.

Capitalism is not the problem. Lazy people in a capitalist society are.

then mergers and subsidies are not the problem either. it's all lazy people.

The other things are just symptoms of the laziness.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:In reality, a more competive environment is created where more people have jobs.

well said. with fewer and fewer jobs comes less competition. what are we doing, culturally? automating jobs and merging companies together. capitalism seems, at it's current state, about creating bigger profit for themselves, at the sacrifice of competition.

Culturally we whine about everything the media tells us to whine about to misdirect from the real problems. We are a culture of sheep, existing at the pleasure of the wolves. Gently sedated by the next TV show or superhero movie and told our failings are not our fault. Drug addicted consumers, consuming rather than producing, wondering why the producers control everything.

Capitalism is not the problem. Lazy people in a capitalist society are.

then mergers and subsidies are not the problem either. it's all lazy people.

The other things are just symptoms of the laziness.

and i think the laziness is a symptom as well. but i guess we'll just have to disagree.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:netflix does have competition though. i guess not physical store competition anymore, which is probably what you mean. but competition means that some things stop succeeding and go away. could netflix have more competition? absolutely and they will as digital becomes the norm more and more.

Mergers are showing us that there will be less competition, not more. Don't confuse different players with more players.

Entertainment is the worst. The digital era was supposed to democratize entertainment. Troma was once able to get movies into hundreds of theaters. No more. Now Disney has demanded 65% of the ticket sales, plus 4 weeks on the biggest screens at theaters in order to give them Star Wars.

nothing about what i said is anything to do with mergers. i agree that mergers create less competition. i said netflix has competition and that is true, whether you want to pretend otherwise or not.

there are problems for sure. ever increasing budgets means more and more squeeze on moviegoers, to the point that it's a shrinking pool to squeeze from. that needs to be figured out and reversed. i think a lot of the problems will go away if you bring budgets down and bring people back to theaters.

How does bringing budgets down bring more people to theaters?

Foo wrote: How does bringing budgets down bring more people to theaters?

i think that bringing budgets down will make the "need" to squeeze people for more and more money less of an issue. it is not the whole solution, but it's a start.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: How does bringing budgets down bring more people to theaters?

i think that bringing budgets down will make the "need" to squeeze people for more and more money less of an issue. it is not the whole solution, but it's a start.

When they spend $75 M to make a movie versus $150 M, do you get charged half the price to go to the theater? For a DVD? For Netflix?

Do you think they want to spend $150M instead of $75M?

Or is it simply that there is little reason to go to the theaters unless it is a $150 spectacle of explosions, laser beams, and characters bouncing around like rubber balls?

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: How does bringing budgets down bring more people to theaters?

i think that bringing budgets down will make the "need" to squeeze people for more and more money less of an issue. it is not the whole solution, but it's a start.

When they spend $75 M to make a movie versus $150 M, do you get charged half the price to go to the theater? For a DVD? For Netflix?

Do you think they want to spend $150M instead of $75M?

Or is it simply that there is little reason to go to the theaters unless it is a $150 spectacle of explosions, laser beams, and characters bouncing around like rubber balls?

if 150 m had not become the norm, i think that you would be charged less to go to the theater, but it is never going to sway on a movie by movie basis the way you're trying to argue. that's a trap and i'm not gonna fall into it.

i think there is reason to go to the theater beyond that, yes. i think they could make very successful movies while reining in the budgets a bit. and also i think that reining in budgets could allow for more diversity of movies again, theatrically.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: How does bringing budgets down bring more people to theaters?

i think that bringing budgets down will make the "need" to squeeze people for more and more money less of an issue. it is not the whole solution, but it's a start.

When they spend $75 M to make a movie versus $150 M, do you get charged half the price to go to the theater? For a DVD? For Netflix?

Do you think they want to spend $150M instead of $75M?

Or is it simply that there is little reason to go to the theaters unless it is a $150 spectacle of explosions, laser beams, and characters bouncing around like rubber balls?

if 150 m had not become the norm, i think that you would be charged less to go to the theater, but it is never going to sway on a movie by movie basis the way you're trying to argue. that's a trap and i'm not gonna fall into it.

i think there is reason to go to the theater beyond that, yes. i think they could make very successful movies while reining in the budgets a bit. and also i think that reining in budgets could allow for more diversity of movies again, theatrically.

If they could make those cheaper movies and draw crowds, they would.

Standing in line, sitting next to strangers and smelling their disgusting body odor, and ear splitting volume that you cannot change are all pretty appealing...if they could make me watch commercials while I am there it would be even better...oh wait...

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: How does bringing budgets down bring more people to theaters?

i think that bringing budgets down will make the "need" to squeeze people for more and more money less of an issue. it is not the whole solution, but it's a start.

When they spend $75 M to make a movie versus $150 M, do you get charged half the price to go to the theater? For a DVD? For Netflix?

Do you think they want to spend $150M instead of $75M?

Or is it simply that there is little reason to go to the theaters unless it is a $150 spectacle of explosions, laser beams, and characters bouncing around like rubber balls?

if 150 m had not become the norm, i think that you would be charged less to go to the theater, but it is never going to sway on a movie by movie basis the way you're trying to argue. that's a trap and i'm not gonna fall into it.

i think there is reason to go to the theater beyond that, yes. i think they could make very successful movies while reining in the budgets a bit. and also i think that reining in budgets could allow for more diversity of movies again, theatrically.

If they could make those cheaper movies and draw crowds, they would.

Standing in line, sitting next to strangers and smelling their disgusting body odor, and ear splitting volume that you cannot change are all pretty appealing...if they could make me watch commercials while I am there it would be even better...oh wait...

well, according to trends, moviegoing is on the decline, so bigger and bigger budgets isn't drawing crowds as much as you may think. squeezing the people that are still going is the result. figure out a way to bring them back. i think that reining in budgets could be a step in that direction. and some lower budget movies have drawn crowds. it's just become the norm to have the bigger and bigger budget movies for whatever reason.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: How does bringing budgets down bring more people to theaters?

i think that bringing budgets down will make the "need" to squeeze people for more and more money less of an issue. it is not the whole solution, but it's a start.

When they spend $75 M to make a movie versus $150 M, do you get charged half the price to go to the theater? For a DVD? For Netflix?

Do you think they want to spend $150M instead of $75M?

Or is it simply that there is little reason to go to the theaters unless it is a $150 spectacle of explosions, laser beams, and characters bouncing around like rubber balls?

if 150 m had not become the norm, i think that you would be charged less to go to the theater, but it is never going to sway on a movie by movie basis the way you're trying to argue. that's a trap and i'm not gonna fall into it.

i think there is reason to go to the theater beyond that, yes. i think they could make very successful movies while reining in the budgets a bit. and also i think that reining in budgets could allow for more diversity of movies again, theatrically.

If they could make those cheaper movies and draw crowds, they would.

Standing in line, sitting next to strangers and smelling their disgusting body odor, and ear splitting volume that you cannot change are all pretty appealing...if they could make me watch commercials while I am there it would be even better...oh wait...

well, according to trends, moviegoing is on the decline, so bigger and bigger budgets isn't drawing crowds as much as you may think. squeezing the people that are still going is the result. figure out a way to bring them back. i think that reining in budgets could be a step in that direction. and some lower budget movies have drawn crowds. it's just become the norm to have the bigger and bigger budget movies for whatever reason.

"For whatever reason..."

Do you really not know the reasons?

Really, the lower budget movies have just become fillers and placeholders in theaters. It is not about selecting the few that are successes, it is about the rate of success. Stars, Established Properties, and Special effects are all expensive and they are the only thing that routinely draws.

Put out some of these Star Wars movies under a different title and they lose money. They are Valerian or Enders Game.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote: How does bringing budgets down bring more people to theaters?

i think that bringing budgets down will make the "need" to squeeze people for more and more money less of an issue. it is not the whole solution, but it's a start.

When they spend $75 M to make a movie versus $150 M, do you get charged half the price to go to the theater? For a DVD? For Netflix?

Do you think they want to spend $150M instead of $75M?

Or is it simply that there is little reason to go to the theaters unless it is a $150 spectacle of explosions, laser beams, and characters bouncing around like rubber balls?

if 150 m had not become the norm, i think that you would be charged less to go to the theater, but it is never going to sway on a movie by movie basis the way you're trying to argue. that's a trap and i'm not gonna fall into it.

i think there is reason to go to the theater beyond that, yes. i think they could make very successful movies while reining in the budgets a bit. and also i think that reining in budgets could allow for more diversity of movies again, theatrically.

If they could make those cheaper movies and draw crowds, they would.

Standing in line, sitting next to strangers and smelling their disgusting body odor, and ear splitting volume that you cannot change are all pretty appealing...if they could make me watch commercials while I am there it would be even better...oh wait...

well, according to trends, moviegoing is on the decline, so bigger and bigger budgets isn't drawing crowds as much as you may think. squeezing the people that are still going is the result. figure out a way to bring them back. i think that reining in budgets could be a step in that direction. and some lower budget movies have drawn crowds. it's just become the norm to have the bigger and bigger budget movies for whatever reason.

"For whatever reason..."

Do you really not know the reasons?

Really, the lower budget movies have just become fillers and placeholders in theaters. It is not about selecting the few that are successes, it is about the rate of success. Stars, Established Properties, and Special effects are all expensive and they are the only thing that routinely draws.

Put out some of these Star Wars movies under a different title and they lose money. They are Valerian or Enders Game.

it drew crowds without a 100m budget. deadpool drew crowds without a 100m budget. logan drew crowds without a 100m+ budget. it can be done. i agree that name recognition is important with huge budgets. if movies keep going with bigger and bigger budgets and more and more people stop going to the theaters, it's gonna die. i think it can be saved. maybe i'm wrong or maybe there is no interest in trying. i don't know. *shrug*

Don't believe the published budgets for some of those movies. I suspect Deadpool was indeed a budget friendly movie, but the production budget is very deceptive and I highly doubt the $58m number.

And no, I am not interested in saving multi-billion dollar businesses that do nothing but exploit people. I would rather give ten dollars to a bum than go to a theater.

Foo wrote:Don't believe the published budgets for some of those movies. I suspect Deadpool was indeed a budget friendly movie, but the production budget is very deceptive and I highly doubt the $58m number.

And no, I am not interested in saving multi-billion dollar businesses that do nothing but exploit people. I would rather give ten dollars to a bum than go to a theater.

if you include advertising and such, the budget is really more than the "production" budget. but maybe that's even a lie too. i don't know.

there is nothing intrinsic in a movie theater that is exploitive. it's all about the management in charge.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Don't believe the published budgets for some of those movies. I suspect Deadpool was indeed a budget friendly movie, but the production budget is very deceptive and I highly doubt the $58m number.

And no, I am not interested in saving multi-billion dollar businesses that do nothing but exploit people. I would rather give ten dollars to a bum than go to a theater.

if you include advertising and such, the budget is really more than the "production" budget. but maybe that's even a lie too. i don't know.

there is nothing intrinsic in a movie theater that is exploitive. it's all about the management in charge.

Published budgets are never accurate. Just a bunch of bullshit. If Ryan Reynolds makes $30m on the back end, but the line item on the budget is only $2 million, that is just an example. If the initial budget that gets published does not include $20m in additional shooting is another. Advertising, increased post-production expenses, etc.

There is also accounting across multiple films that make it difficult to assess. We don't know how things get bundled. Some services get bundled, plus talent often has multi-film contracts that can be deceptive. Let's say you give a relative unknown a lead part in a big movie. It almost always comes with the catch that they are gonna make you a star but also control you for a couple films. If they are paying you $250k for this one and $2m for the next one, and $5m for the next one, that can be manipulated.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Don't believe the published budgets for some of those movies. I suspect Deadpool was indeed a budget friendly movie, but the production budget is very deceptive and I highly doubt the $58m number.

And no, I am not interested in saving multi-billion dollar businesses that do nothing but exploit people. I would rather give ten dollars to a bum than go to a theater.

if you include advertising and such, the budget is really more than the "production" budget. but maybe that's even a lie too. i don't know.

there is nothing intrinsic in a movie theater that is exploitive. it's all about the management in charge.

Published budgets are never accurate. Just a bunch of bullshit. If Ryan Reynolds makes $30m on the back end, but the line item on the budget is only $2 million, that is just an example. If the initial budget that gets published does not include $20m in additional shooting is another. Advertising, increased post-production expenses, etc.

There is also accounting across multiple films that make it difficult to assess. We don't know how things get bundled. Some services get bundled, plus talent often has multi-film contracts that can be deceptive. Let's say you give a relative unknown a lead part in a big movie. It almost always comes with the catch that they are gonna make you a star but also control you for a couple films. If they are paying you $250k for this one and $2m for the next one, and $5m for the next one, that can be manipulated.

isn't back end something based on a percent of the movie's success? or merchandise success if it's something with a toyline or clothing line or whatever. that's different than the production budget. but i'm not disagreeing that it's manipulated to look less expensive than it is.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Don't believe the published budgets for some of those movies. I suspect Deadpool was indeed a budget friendly movie, but the production budget is very deceptive and I highly doubt the $58m number.

And no, I am not interested in saving multi-billion dollar businesses that do nothing but exploit people. I would rather give ten dollars to a bum than go to a theater.

if you include advertising and such, the budget is really more than the "production" budget. but maybe that's even a lie too. i don't know.

there is nothing intrinsic in a movie theater that is exploitive. it's all about the management in charge.

Published budgets are never accurate. Just a bunch of bullshit. If Ryan Reynolds makes $30m on the back end, but the line item on the budget is only $2 million, that is just an example. If the initial budget that gets published does not include $20m in additional shooting is another. Advertising, increased post-production expenses, etc.

There is also accounting across multiple films that make it difficult to assess. We don't know how things get bundled. Some services get bundled, plus talent often has multi-film contracts that can be deceptive. Let's say you give a relative unknown a lead part in a big movie. It almost always comes with the catch that they are gonna make you a star but also control you for a couple films. If they are paying you $250k for this one and $2m for the next one, and $5m for the next one, that can be manipulated.

isn't back end something based on a percent of the movie's success? or merchandise success if it's something with a toyline or clothing line or whatever. that's different than the production budget. but i'm not disagreeing that it's manipulated to look less expensive than it is.

Yeah, it can be based on a variety of numbers. Think of it like this though, at some point, you become aware of that rough number and it counts just the same as a pre-production number. There is also the issue of how difficult something is to obtain. If Ryan Reynolds is being paid a percentage of the gross from the first dollar and they know a likely range in which a movie will perform, they can use that as part of the estimated production budget if they want. Or they can leave it out.

When they made Superman Returns, do you believe they spent that much money on it? Hardly any money spent on cast. Filmed outside of the US. Are they counting the ten times the movie went into pre-production, paying writers, directors, producers, and cast over and over?

Or when they knew Jack Nicholson was gonna make tons more for playing the Joker in Batman, it would be disingenuous to claim the low production budget that has floated out there for years.

And to be fair, this is not the studio, this is industry "news" sources taking tidbits of information and running with it.

so, hopefully there can be a better balance found between theaters / studios and moviegoers. and on a larger scale between producers / service providers and consumers.