| 73Q Music Videos | Vote On Clips | Submit | Login   |

Reddit Digg Stumble Facebook
Desc:Mike and Jay perform triage on dead and dying Hollywood summer movies.
Category:Classic Movies, Humor
Tags:hollywood, suicide, RedLetterMedia, half in the bag
Submitted:William Burns
View Ratings
Register to vote for this video

People Who Liked This Video Also Liked:
Duckman - Ajax & Ajaxer
FANS, VIEWERS AND HATERS - Chance to appear on the ArchieLuxury Channel!
U.N. Owen Was Yee?
Weatherman posessed by the spirit of Mutley
DONGER - A New Breed of Cop
Jim and Andy Trailer
Dreams Are Real
My Sugar Daddy Experiences
Fresh Prince of Bel-Air - Carlton meets Tom Jones.
YOUNG NIGGA - I Just Bought a Bugatti (I'm Happy)
Comment count is 23
The YouTube comments on this correctly pointed out that they are ignoring the theatre's cut of the box office. Which means that Mike and Jay are dumber than YouTube comments. Five for achieving the impossible.

In a nutshell, divide box office by two for revenue that the studio sees, and it becomes more apparent why the panic.
Solution: Spend less money on each movie and spend more time finding good writers and directors with better ideas and scripts to make people actually care.

Can't tell that to an industry that's been ground down into a soulless formula-following machine, though.

Not really. Distributors take the lion's share, 90-95%, for the first couple weeks, with the theater getting a larger share for succeeding weeks. For the theater, opening week movies are loss leaders because all their profit comes from the concession stand.

The ideal releases for theaters are long-tailed films like Mad Max, where the theater's take rises towards 50% for much of the run.

godot: I thought that as well; but I found some articles suggesting that heavy front loading had been curtailed significantly as a result of theatre chains going bankrupt. Apparently the 90% thing was a high water mark for the Star Wars prequels.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-nee d-to-make-to-be-profitable

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/04/25/iron-man -3-caught-in-dispute-between-disney-and-top-theater-chains/#4936fc f4521b

Gmork: The problem is going from financing your operations from massive blockbusters to playing small ball is a hell of a step, particularly if things hit a wobbly patch when you do. Which it probably will given that:

“Nobody knows anything...... Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what's going to work. Every time out it's a guess and, if you're lucky, an educated one.”

-William Goldman; screenwriter for All the President's Men, The Princess Bride, and the 2003 adaptation of Stephen King's Dreamcatcher.

Five stars for this thread!

And Bollywood Transformers.

I'm just saying they could split the risk by not putting all their eggs in one basket. Sure, sometimes you need a big budget because of a movie's scope, but the amount of "bloat" that can often be found in projects like those can be counterproductive to their end goal.

People "care" about robots, tits, and explosions. Hollywood is very much concerned about giving audiences what they care about - this is why they have focus groups and detailed market analysis - and everything else is just niche interest. Niche interest stuff can be handled just fine by indie filmmakers, Netflix, and Youtubers.

Hollywood is what it is. It's not going to change. It's either going to continue, or it will die.

Also, I would totes watch Bollywood Transformers. Could somebody do a Bollywood edit of Transformers and put it up for next Monday Night?

Niche interests are why there are a series of Fred movies.

Exactly. Fred was a highly succesful, niche Youtube production that tried to transition into a "sensibly-budgeted major motion picture". It got a 2.2 on IMDB and, despite low costs and John Cena, managed to lose 75% of its production budget. Add to that the logistical problems of advertising small films to small audiences, and you can see why my esteemed colleague, Gmork,'s proposition won't work.

The movie business does what it does, and the internet-streaming business does what it does. Reducing costs doesn't reduce risk or make for a blue-chip film portfolio - it just scales the money down.

Monkey Napoleon
This panic has been going on for awhile, and their solution is working just fine.

The movies get dumber and more broader in appeal so that they can be repackaged overseas. Movies that "flopped" here go on to make a billion dollars in foreign markets.

The solution is: stop making movies for you.

If you think focus group mentality movie production is a good thing, you're brain-damaged.

Define "good".

If the goal is to create a film which I, EvilHomer, unrepentant hipster and snob, find personally edifying, then focus group mentality is not a "good" thing.

If the goal is to get a load of butts in seats and make vast sums of money, then it is.

"Good" as in the quality of the movie, without regards to its success, and not solely for the enjoyment of those that consider themselves intellectual - but anyone who wants to subvert their normal reality for a while and actually be made to feel something meaningful.

So, yeah, what I just said then.

As a hipster and a snob, you value certain things. The things you value aren't what general audiences value. Hollywood, by the very nature of its business model, cannot cater to you; it must cater to the 80 million other people who are perfectly happy paying Hollywood to feel feelings like "exhilarated" and "horny" at the sight of two CGI robots punching each other.

Alas, regular movies lack the soul to be recut into Bollywood movies. Bollywood movies must be cultivated from preproduction to be only a Bollywood movie, combining the most amazing cultural blind spots with the most amazing musical productions.

No mere edit can encapsulate this.

"As a hipster and a snob"

I'm assuming you're speaking for yourself here, but that's kind of giving you the benefit of the doubt, and I'm not sure you deserve it.

This is a fun video, but ultimately all this number crunching is meaningless. The movie industry is, much like the gaming industry, steadily reaching a bubble pop moment. When films cost more than the GDP of a small nation to produce, even when they make a profit the profit has to be utterly staggering (like Jurassic World level) in order for the film to truly be a universal success. So even films that make a good profit over budget are still "flops" unless they blow away all expectations. We have entered a time when a film can make millions in profit, and it still results in firings, restructurings, refusals to hire on the same crew, etc.
It will take awhile, but eventually the whole reboot/sequel bubble is going to pop and studios are going to realize they will have to go back to the tried and true method of actually financing some "risky" films every year in order to produce better franchises and future investments. it will take awhile, largely due to the utter stupidity of most moviegoers who will gladly watch Kevin Hart fart for 90 minutes at $40+ a pop, but it *will* happen.
William Burns
The Superhero/Remake/Cinematic Universe-bubble is the Chinese/International Market-bubble. They are the same thing, and China isn't going anywhere.

Indeed, Mr Burns. And after Hillary and the Establishment drag us into war with Russia, the Chinese market's going to be the only one left.

Warcraft and Superheroes for the rest of time.

Who is paying $40 for a movie ticket?

Caminante Nocturno
Listening to RLM mock the Ghostbusters remake is probably the most entertainment that movie has ever managed to produce.
Register or login To Post a Comment

Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement