As far as product placement goes, I think that it depends on who is doing the placement. If it's the studios idea to include, say Coke, in their movie then they have to negotiate with Coke to get their permission to use Coke in their movie and determine how much it would cost to do so. On the other hand, sometimes a company, let's again say Coke, will approach a studio and say, "We'll pay X for you to use a can of Coke in your movie".
Okay, first off I will admit Economics is not my subject.
I don't understand this "movie must make 3X to be profitable".
If I invest $10 in something and I make $11 back--I made profit, didn't I? Why do I have to make $30 before it is considered profit?
Furthermore, studios never, at my knowledge, finance 100% of a film, they use diverse financing sources, some of which take their cut from the B.O. as well, and more that what they gave, when it comes to private money (interests, bonus,...) and not public funds and tax incentives from states/countries (over here, in Europe, most producers are weary of American investors, because they're known to be vicious sharks in business ! Heard a few horror stories from veteran producers about them...)
So all in all, a lot of players are involved in getting a movie out there, and they almost all take their cut in the B.O., so it has to be really high is the studio is to make profits. Of course, big studios have several movies per year, so can spread the risks between them and stay afloat.
To be fair, I didn't say all Americans don't get British humor, just some.
I imagine it's more often the latter. I can't imagine a studio saying "No, this guy HAS to be hold a can of Coke... NOT PEPSI!!!"
What about off-screen product "tie-ins" (if that's the correct wording)? Like the fast food place that gets to have BvS themed menu items, or the cereal that gets to have Superman on the box, or whatever. Anything tying the product to the movie... Who pays who for that? I imagine, using Gillette again as an example, they could look at it one of two ways: (1) We're selling plenty of razors and shaving cream without slapping Superman on the packaging... so you need to pay us if you want to do that. In that scenario I would wonder why the studio would even feel the need to make the connection between their movie and something so far removed from the theme beyond "Clark Kent has a beard for ten minutes in the film," or (2) WB ad execs approach Gillette. "Hey, Superman has a beard for a while in this movie. We can use this to help you sell razors and you give us 1% of all sales.". Not sure which of those comes closer to reality.
It's probably the studio approaching Gillette or putting something out to various razor companies asking if anybody is interested in some product placement in their film and then they work out a deal of some sort. For product tie-ins that aren't in film, I don't know who approaches who, it's possible that large corporations like Gillette and Coke have people specifically responsible for keeping track of movies being made that might be a good match for product tie-ins, likewise the studios might have people who liaise with these people or go and reach out to them and asking if they'd be interested in working with the studio.
First rule of money : Never use your own ! That's especially true when making a movie ...Good point. I think I've seen that in a few shows and movies... can't be too far off the mark. Why spend (and risk) your own money when you can spend other people's money.
First rule of money : Never use your own ! ...
Thats why, if we stop seeing these awful movies, they wont make them anymore...Thats the only way they listen. They make a trailer and it gets people in, and everyone sees it once, and says its awful, but like someone said, the studio doesnt care because they already got your money. Take Justice League for example, Im not going to see that in theaters, or pay any money at all for it. I know it doesnt mean anything to the studio if *I* personally dont, but if more people do, then it wont reinforce their ****ty movie making.Well, the thing is, it's not just the fans that are reacting negatively to the DC offerings, but the critics as well. After the critical acclaim that the Dark Knight series garnered (Rotten Tomatoes has the trilogy at 84%, 94% and 87% respectively), the absolute disdain that most critics have expressed for Man of Steel (55% on RT), BvS (27%), and Suicide Squad (26%) has to hurt on some level.
Thats why, if we stop seeing these awful movies, they wont make them anymore...Thats the only way they listen. They make a trailer and it gets people in, and everyone sees it once, and says its awful, but like someone said, the studio doesnt care because they already got your money. Take Justice League for example, Im not going to see that in theaters, or pay any money at all for it. I know it doesnt mean anything to the studio if *I* personally dont, but if more people do, then it wont reinforce their ****ty movie making.
Completely unrelated, I got Starship troopers for Christmas Firesprite, when Im done reading it we will have to talk about it.
Good, Im doing mine too. Im still on the fence about WW. I might wait to see after its release. One of the only decent parts of BvS was when she blocked the blast and her opening riff came on and I was like "oh man that is rad".Well, I'm doing my part. I saw Man of Steel in theaters and enjoyed it well enough, but I skipped BvS and SS in theaters altogether. I'll see WW in theaters because it's freaking WW, but if they **** it up, I will not be seeing anymore DC movies in theaters until their next reboot.
Also, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on Starship Troopers!
Okay, first off I will admit Economics is not my subject.
I don't understand this "movie must make 3X to be profitable".
If I invest $10 in something and I make $11 back--I made profit, didn't I? Why do I have to make $30 before it is considered profit?
Well, the thing is, it's not just the fans that are reacting negatively to the DC offerings, but the critics as well. After the critical acclaim that the Dark Knight series garnered (Rotten Tomatoes has the trilogy at 84%, 94% and 87% respectively), the absolute disdain that most critics have expressed for Man of Steel (55% on RT), BvS (27%), and Suicide Squad (26%) has to hurt on some level.
Thats why, if we stop seeing these awful movies, they wont make them anymore...Thats the only way they listen. They make a trailer and it gets people in, and everyone sees it once, and says its awful, but like someone said, the studio doesnt care because they already got your money. Take Justice League for example, Im not going to see that in theaters, or pay any money at all for it. I know it doesnt mean anything to the studio if *I* personally dont, but if more people do, then it wont reinforce their ****ty movie making.
Completely unrelated, I got Starship troopers for Christmas Firesprite, when Im done reading it we will have to talk about it.
when peoples expectations are set so low, they forget what greatness truly is.
hollywood has been becoming lackluster for a while now.....and people just want two hours of forgettable entertainment. how else can you explain the rise of reality tv?
Not only are expectations set low, but I think fans like us will go see a movie even if they have zero expectations for a few reasons: (1) They want to see if they're right about how bad they think it will be (2) They want to be wrong and have hope that the people that cobble the trailers together just did a bad job (3) they have to much integrity to bash a movie they haven't seen...
when peoples expectations are set so low, they forget what greatness truly is.
Hollywood has been becoming lackluster for a while now.....and people just want two hours of forgettable entertainment. How else can you explain the rise of reality TV?
and don't forget hate watching either ;o).
It all boils down to money, movie and TV studios (with the possible exception of small indie studios) are in the business of making money and everything is secondary to that.