Posted on 01/26/2015 11:22:06 AM PST by cotton1706
Not sure I would have put the Hurt Locker or the Kingdom in the anti war list, especially the latter.
I saw “A Mighty Heart” and “Munich”. Neither struck me as anti-war. I liked both of them.
#29 The Sony emails that were hacked show various movies that were costing Sony money and they knew they would not make it back even before releasing the movie to the theater. I remember the George Clooney apologizing for one of his money losing films to a Sony exec.
“BTW, movies with very low box-office returns are often actually profitable.”
No, movies with low box office returns are not profitable. You’re conflating the theatrical distribution motion picture business with the direct-to-DVD business, which confuses the issue. These are two different business models.
You’re right that the sole purpose of putting films intended for direct-to-DVD release into five theaters for sixty seconds is to stay just this side on the bright shiny line of outright lying about whether a movie was released theatrically. But you’re mistaken about the reason for this limited release of a DVD film. It isn’t about “saving promotion or distribution costs” — it’s about direct-to-DVD distributors refusing to release films that haven’t played in at least a couple theaters.
Frankly, with three theaters under its belt, it’s disingenuous at best to call a film a theatrical release, especially when it was never intended for any theater showings, except for appearances’ sake. These films may go on to make money on DVD — lots of films made for DVD do fine — but saying that they recouped very little at the box office and still did fine is missing the point. You might just as well say “The film did very low box office at the Paris Opera, where there’s no screen and no projector, but it was still profitable on DVD.”
REAL theatrical films with REAL wide-scale theatrical distribution need to make money at the box office to see a profit. If they fail at the box office, they fail post box office.
America thinks George Clooney is a movie star, but in my book, a movie star’s films have to make money. Clooney’s films don’t, unless he’s part of an ensemble (The “Ocean’s 11” films) or up against a giant wave (”The Perfect Storm”). Oh, and he’s piggybacking on his small role in Sandra Bullock’s successful “Gravity.”
But not one film with George Clooney in the lead has ever gone into profit. Ever.
You first raised the point about producers “spinning”, and I agreed with you about that. Now, you’re the one spinning things.
We’re not that far apart on substance — but, you’re using a very different definition of “theatrical release” than I was using. When I pointed out that many movies with low box-office returns are actually profitable — I was, and remain correct. You simply chose to change the definitions, so that these very-limited distribution movies aren’t actually “movies”. You say it’s “disingenuous at best to call a film a theatrical release, especially when it was never intended for any theater showings, except for appearances’ sake” — and I agree with you. That’s all part of the spinning that we both agreed is endemic in the industry. However, I was right using my definition — you’ve changed the definitions, to suit your argument.
My original point stands — a low box office is not a sufficient indicator of the financial results of a movie. It’s a better indicator, when combined with the cost of producing the movie — but, still not sufficient. Going back to the anti-war/anti-American movies that are the subject of this thread — it is simply wishful thinking to imagine that Hollywood lost $1 billion on them. While they lost $1 billion at the box office; they will have recouped a significant portion of that amount in other markets (DVD, streaming, pay TV, etc.). Some of these movies will be making money for decades.
Oh, and BTW, just so there’s no misunderstanding — yes, without a doubt, the producers would have preferred to make money at the box office. And yes, the low box-office returns clearly indicate that the American (and international) public rejected these instruments of propaganda. The article was completely right about that analysis. I was only quibbling about the size of the financial hit the producers took.
“My original point stands — a low box office is not a sufficient indicator of the financial results of a movie.”
You’re still speciously conflating feature films with direct-to-DVD. “Low box office is not a sufficient indicator of the financial results of a movie.” What do you mean by “movie?” If you mean wide-release theatrical features, you’re mistaken. Failed wide releases rarely go into profit in after-markets. Box office IS the only measure of success for theatrical features.
If you’re talking about “direct-to-DVD” releases, you’re correct that they can make money, but you’re incorrect that they make it despite low box office. These films aren’t ‘low box office,’ they’re NO box office, because they were never released wide. They ONLY make money — succeed or fail — based on DVD sales. It’s a completely different business model.
And I’m not “spinning,” and I didn’t “change definitions” — I’m an entertainment industry professional, and I’m telling you the standard definitions. I told you why a direct-to-DVD release plays in three theaters first — it isn’t to save money on promo or distribution, and the intention certainly isn’t to make money at the box office. It can’t, if it isn’t released wide. A three-theater release satisfies the demands of a DVD distributor.
The one-billion-dollar hit figure the studios took on these anti-war films seems about right to me. For a theatrical release, box office is the best predictor of after-market success — you need a decent amount of box office to drive demand. And rather than build over the next decade, box office performance suggests these films will do worse and worse. I think we both agree that it’s indisputably producer spin to suggest that a box failure can go into the black on DVD or streaming.
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.