sure... i just watched part of the Hunger Games but it was so bad i turned it off
Posted on 03/25/2012 1:52:53 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
(Excerpt) Read more at boxofficemojo.com ...
In reviewing the numbers, one thing sticks out. There is a huge disparity between the film's domestic box office ($62 million) and its foreign box office ($172 million). I believe a large part of the discrepancy is attributable to a drop off in American young males going to watch movies at movie theatres.
The dirty little secret (which is scaring the hell out of Hollywood) is that it is now very easy to watch recently opened films on the internet without having to pay for them. And young males (risk takers that they are) are much more likely to watch movies this way than young females. As a result, action films that appeal to young males have been having a rough go of it in the past couple of years.
You may have also noticed that the action movies that are being put out often have a female as the lead or in a fighting role (e.g. The Thing, Hunger Games, Columbiana, Hanna). This is no accident. The studios are doing this because that is where the audience is right now.
And until Hollywood can figure out a way to end camcording of films (good luck with that) or begin to release films directly to the internet at reasonable prices, they can expect to continue to lose more and more of their audience to the internet.
You can watch first run movies on the net? I had no idea. Why would anyone go to the rotten theaters if there is another option.
That's how I watched it.
No, it was a poorly marketed film and a poorly chosen title.
I’m told that the movie is kinda good, if you can suspend a little belief.
What is happening is that the films get recorded at theatres (often in Russia or the Middle East) and then get uploaded to upload services like megaupload (which recently got shutdown by the feds). The camcorder versions aren’t the greatest quality in the world but they are watchable and the sound is often pretty good because the people recording the movies plug into the jacks that are available at theatres for the hard-of-hearing.
I won’t go to any movie where the waif girl survives huge guys and guns. In real life one on one there’s no contest. I can’t suspend the disbelief enough to buy that crap.
It is vintage-era science fiction and frankly, a little outdated in the storyline, if they stayed true to the book.
I mean civil war soldier era (mixing wild west and mars wild creatures - especially given what real science we know about mars) - just can’t get over willful suspension of disbelief of most people now.
“What is happening is that the films get recorded at theatres (often in Russia or the Middle East) and then get uploaded to upload services like megaupload (which recently got shutdown by the feds).”
Not only that: it’s available on the torrents. I can’t stand Cam versions but there were exceptions.
I had a cam version of Transformers and the uploader got blasted in the forums for not labeling it correctly as CAM. What the majority of the commenters did say was that the uploader fixed and muxed the audio and video that it “passed” the Cam title. I never even knew it was a Cam until a couple of heads right at the bottom of the screen stood up after the movie.
“No, it was a poorly marketed film and a poorly chosen title.....”
*******************************************************
I agree. My first image when hearing the title was one of Jimmy Carter in an Action movie (not an attractive or exciting image).
There’s a mom/pop grocery on the EBT card side of the tracks in my town where if you know the right person you can buy a bootleg DVD of a first run movie for $5 within a week of it coming out.
I saw John Carter and Hunger Games recently, and though I liked both, John Carter was a lot better.
Just the worst title in the history of movies is all, and poor marketing overall.
Haven't seen it---would like to---but I almost never go to a theater because of the rude people and the endless stream of trailers. I saw "Act of Valor" and there were at least six movie trailers and at least an equal number of TELEVISION trailers (!!)
Hollywood needs to get up with modern times and restructure their outdated business model. This is 2012. Americans have 60" HDTVs and Dolby surround sound in their homes. Theaters will always be a place for dates and for teenagers to get away from home for a few hours but many of us older film-watchers prefer to wait for the DVD. It's time to get rid of that lag time between the theatrical release and the DVD. Release the film in theaters on a Friday and the following Tuesday release the special-edition, director's cut blu-ray with all the bells and whistles and on pay-per-view for $10.99. Four weeks later, release the bare-bones theatrical edition to Redbox. That way everyone can see the film while there's buzz about it. This might also help prop up the lackluster Academy Awards. As it is, it's hard to get excited about nominated films when most of them haven't been released on DVD prior to the telecast and, as such, viewers haven't had the chance to watch them.
I'll ditto the market aspect, though.
“the films get recorded at theatres”
The 3D messes that up.
I guess that’s why they did this in 3D.
Distracted from the story IMHO though.
Bad marketing. A Burroughs movie should have been marketed to Burroughs people too, not just the usual slack-jawed movie audience.
It is really good and the humans are portrayed heroically too. Unlike Avatar
The 3D messes that up.A simple polarizing filter on the camera lens will fix that problem.
Come to think of it, with two camcorders with properly-adjusted polarizing filters, you could capture the 3-D version as well.
sure... i just watched part of the Hunger Games but it was so bad i turned it off
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.