What Films Have You Seen Recently?

[Justin101]

I watched Roger Corman's Gas-s-s-s last night, while it was not what I expected I enjoyed it somewhat, mostly for the photography rather than the narrative and the acting. It plays like a more adult version of a Monkees episode, manic encounter followed by manic encounter. I wasn't expecting Talia Shire and Bud Cort to be in it though which was amusing!

[keirarts]

Birdman

I was worried that this one would be pure oscar bait. Its a little sniffy towards mainstream entertainment but its still worth watching. Michael Keatons central performance is brilliant, as an Actor who is gambling everything on the success of his new stage play he begins to discover the futility of trying to be remembered through art at the sacrifice of real life. Its a technical marvel that looks like its captured in one long take (it isn't) and its difficult to really find fault with it. Worth a watch.

Demonoid

Absolute garbage in the best possible sense. Demonoid is the sort of film I really love for all its flaws. Essentially its a killer hand that possesses samantha eggars husband after they release it from its prison and it proceeds to go on a killing spree. Its difficult to hate it, it's too silly, too ott and is short enough to never drag. Vinegar syndromes blu-ray is region free and looks awesome.

[Justin101]

Originally Posted by keirarts

Birdman

I was worried that this one would be pure oscar bait. Its a little sniffy towards mainstream entertainment but its still worth watching. Michael Keatons central performance is brilliant, as an Actor who is gambling everything on the success of his new stage play he begins to discover the futility of trying to be remembered through art at the sacrifice of real life. Its a technical marvel that looks like its captured in one long take (it isn't) and its difficult to really find fault with it. Worth a watch.

While I enjoyed Birdman for it's performances, I found it doesn't really make for a good film if you get me. It ticks all the right boxes on paper, the acting is amazing, particularly Norton but over all when I finished watching it I felt a bit empty and found the experience a little forgettable. It's sad when the only thing you can remember about a film is a sight gag (Norton's hard dick on stage)!

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

If I remember from the stats I saw yesterday, it only made $25 million of its $30 million budget back at the cinema, which is a poor return. I'm sure what sort of business it did on video/DVD and whether that helped studios decide to invest in sequels.

Yes according to Box Office Mojo it only made $25m in the US. Unfortunately no worldwide stats are available, so it's anyone's guess.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

Yes according to Box Office Mojo it only made $25m in the US. Unfortunately no worldwide stats are available, so it's anyone's guess.

The only other info is at the IMDb, which has stats from the UK, saying it made £1,485,223 at the British box office in 1998, plus 1,339,872 Deutschmarks in Germany. However, the IMDb also says the budget was $25 million, which contradicts Box Office Mojo ($30 million), so unofficial information isn't always reliable.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

The only other info is at the IMDb, which has stats from the UK, saying it made £1,485,223 at the British box office in 1998, plus 1,339,872 Deutschmarks in Germany. However, the IMDb also says the budget was $25 million, which contradicts Box Office Mojo ($30 million), so unofficial information isn't always reliable.

It's generally regarded that a studio makes 55% of it's final gross. So even if it was budgeted at $25m it would have needed to make $50m to be just about in profit, which given the recorded figures seems unlikely. So as you say Nos, it was a big flop.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

It's generally regarded that a studio makes 55% of it's final gross. So even if it was budgeted at $25m it would have needed to make $50m to be just about in profit, which given the recorded figures seems unlikely. So as you say Nos, it was a big flop.

There is a maxim about studios spending about the same on a production budget as they do on publicity, so the bigger the film, the bigger the publicity budget, would explain that percentage. Mark Kermode talked about John Carter flopping because it cost something like $300 million and the same was spent on publicity, meaning it needed to make $600 million just to break even, which it failed spectacularly to do.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

There is a maxim about studios spending about the same on a production budget as they do on publicity, so the bigger the film, the bigger the publicity budget, would explain that percentage. Mark Kermode talked about John Carter flopping because it cost something like $300 million and the same was spent on publicity, meaning it needed to make $600 million just to break even, which it failed spectacularly to do.

I'm never convinced by that to be honest.

Take a Bond film for example. There's the production budget and publicity but then they must rake a hell of a lot back from advertisers such as BWW, Rolex etc who are desperate to get in on the game with mass tv ads, billboards etc.

However when i look at Box Office Mojo's chart which i do each week, i always look at a film in profit if it's over double it's production budget which is actually just as you say anyway.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

I'm never convinced by that to be honest.

Take a Bond film for example. There's the production budget and publicity but then they must rake a hell of a lot back from advertisers such as BWW, Rolex etc who are desperate to get in on the game with mass tv ads, billboards etc.

However when i look at Box Office Mojo's chart which i do each week, i always look at a film in profit if it's over double it's production budget which is actually just as you say anyway.

There are obvious exceptions, such as the Bond films, but whether they factor the product placement and adverts into the promotion budget, reducing it significantly, would be interesting. Going to the cinema before SPECTRE was released was weird because I occasionally saw three or four Bond-themed adverts before the trailers, and one afterwards, pushing products from Belvedere vodka to Heineken, Land Rover vehicles, and Sony mobile phones.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

There are obvious exceptions, such as the Bond films, but whether they factor the product placement and adverts into the promotion budget, reducing it significantly, would be interesting. Going to the cinema before SPECTRE was released was weird because I occasionally saw three or four Bond-themed adverts before the trailers, and one afterwards, pushing products from Belvedere vodka to Heineken, Land Rover vehicles, and Sony mobile phones.

It makes you wonder how much companies pay to associate themselves with Bond and other huge films doesn't it.