KrangPrime
Master Member
don't forget faulty towers... just don't mention the war.
Justice League
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
-
- Tags
- justice leauge superman
don't forget faulty towers... just don't mention the war.
Father
Sr Member
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.
If you give e $10 and I tell you I'll give you $11 a year from now, is it still worth it to you? Your money was tied up for an entire year so you could get $1.
I'm sure they're weighing profit against the amount of time and work that it yields. If it cost $100 million to make a movie and they make $101 million... it's not worth the effort to try to repeat that process.
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.
I like British humor... but probably not because I get it as much as I just think it's funny how they talk and some of the words they use. Snatch being a great example.
For me, the best British humor is savagely and refreshingly non-PC. Benny Hill is just burlesque and Fawlty Towers is slapstick.
When I lived in the U.K. the show to watch was Father Ted. That's one program that would never be made in the US and very funny.
When I lived in the U.K. the show to watch was Father Ted. That's one program that would never be made in the US and very funny.
Riceball
Master Member
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.
Father
Sr Member
I've never tried to make the connection but I wonder if certain studios or maybe even more specifically producers/directors have a standing agreement to work with certain companies. For example, I remember, for example, when Smallville was on, they always seemed to have Ford as their car product placement. Michael Bay tends to use a lot of GE cars.
I did a brief Wiki search and it doesn't look like any major name consumer product companies are owned by any of the major film studios/distributors. Coca-Cola used to own Columbia/TriStar pictures. I wonder if during that period they plugged their products in a lot of movies under that banner.
First rule of money : Never use your own ! That's especially true when making a movie ...
drcraig13
Sr Member
Snikt
Sr Member
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.
KrangPrime
Master Member
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?
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?
firesprite
Master Member
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.
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!
Snikt
Sr Member
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!
KrangPrime
Master Member
I skipped SS and have no interest in seeing it on DVD either.
I'm toying around with skipping WW too, because Gal Gadot did not win me over in BvS and it looks like a Captain America period piece copy.
I think I'll skip JL altogether. Maybe I'll see it on home video rent. I'm about done with WB.
I'm toying around with skipping WW too, because Gal Gadot did not win me over in BvS and it looks like a Captain America period piece copy.
I think I'll skip JL altogether. Maybe I'll see it on home video rent. I'm about done with WB.
cboath
Master Member
They invested 250M in the film itself
THey paid out another 200M in advertising before the film was released.
Total, 450M
The studio gets about 1/2 of the ticket sales.
Therefore, to make 450M back, the film has to generate 900M (450 to the studios and 450 to the theaters showing it) to break even
Father
Sr Member
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.
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...
I saw Ghostbusters, BvS, and Suicide Squad because I had to know I was right... and I was, which was the ONLY satisfying thing about those movies. They were every bit as bad as I expected. Fortunately I didn't pay to see any of them. I saw them on a plane.
Want to see a movie just to see how bad it is but don't want to support the studio that churns out trash? You have a couple options... wait for it to come out on streaming service, cable, or network television, see it on an airplane, get a sucker friend to pay for it, or... the option which [I assume] cannot be spoken aloud (cough... torrent). Like it or not, piracy is one of the best ways to stick it to the studios for making garbage. I say this with a clear conscience because, unless it's an option and nobody has ever said anything, there is no satisfaction or your money back guarantee with movies. Not even if you walk out of it before its over because it's so bad. If a movie is truly good, odds are good I'll pay to see it in the movies and/or buy the DVD, although I feel like movie should be treated like software licensing. Once I pay I should get to watch it as many times as I want.
Snikt
Sr Member
With ticket prices being upwards of 14 dollars, and getting 4 of your friends to actually commit to seeing a movie, thats why I get pissed when these movies suck so hard. We could have went and done something else, 14 bucks can get you a couple of beers ya know? And its not like these movies were ok or anything, like "it was over all enjoyable". No. It wasnt anything like that. They were a chore to sit through. Now if the movies were like 7-8 bucks, I probably would care so much. But you take a girl out and bam. Youre instantly in the hole for 28 bucks, and the movie could totally suck. I dont know about you guys but I have to budget my money.
KrangPrime
Master Member
i don't mind bashing movies i havn't seen. but sometimes i feel the need to see it just so i can bash it properly to shut up the supporters who would defend even batman and robin as being good ;o). (And there where parts of that I liked
)and don't forget hate watching either ;o). a few movies this year I Hate watched.
luckily, I didn't pay for feigusters, cause i used the free ticket option and a co worker paid the difference for theirs ;o)..
Riceball
Master Member
Reality TV rose to prominence because it's cheap (when compared to a normal scripted show) to make and would often get good ratings, esp. when reality TV was still a relatively new thing. So when you have something that's cheap and popular, what do you as TV studio do then? Ignore the cheap, easy to produce, and highly profitable 500lbs gorilla in the room or spends all kinds of money and gamble on another scripted show? You go for the cheap and easy option because as a TV studio you're in the business of making money, not art. Even if you're the head of programming and you wanted to produce more scripted shows because you hate reality TV you're going to get overruled by the head of the studio who's going to tell to stop wasting money and make more reality TV because they're cheap and proven money makers. If you were the studio you still couldn't buck the trend and expect to keep your job because you still have to answer to the studio's board who will tell you go to for the easy money.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that any of this is right and that reality TV is great or anything, but this is just how things work in the world. 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.
Father
Sr Member
HAHA... Hate watching. Is that like grudge-fugging? Perfect label for it. I went into Ghostbusters knowing I would hate it so I guess it was truly hate watching. Any movie with Amy Schumer would probably fall into category as well. But should there be a price for hate watching? I don't know... maybe it's no different than binge drinking knowing that I'm doing it for the sole purpose ot consuming to the point that I not only throw up all of the alcohol I paid for but also the least 1-2 meals. Seems wasteful, but if you're choosing to do it....
Father
Sr Member
Don't forget the most important factor of that equation: the mindless viewers that continue to watch these stupid shows. Without them, there would be no reality TV. Just like if people stopped paying the ridiculous price to tickets to professional sports games they would probably have to lower the price and/or stop paying people tens of millions of dollars to catch a ball.
