Jump to content


Photo

Never-ending Film Discussion/Debate/Questions Thread


  • Please log in to reply
817 replies to this topic

#801 Tony

Tony

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4238 posts

Posted 22 October 2008 - 01:25 PM

True. Pissy puts a finger on it. I think Jarmusch has more meat than most of his rivals and in terms of liking someone but adding the dismissive point of being one dimensional is just ridiculous. Sorry I came down hard but Tony talks all high end but rarely serves anything but smack. I bring the knowledge and I look for some constructive feedback. Instead we plug into these same roles. It becomes irksome and I wish there were more like minded thinkers but instead is back to jr high again. <_< I should know better by now... but I keep trying.


Jarmusch's reccurent theme of communication between different cultures and/or cultural backgrounds and the various barriers encountered when the attempt is made stopped paying dividends for me quite a while ago. I stand by my observation that 'Ghost Dog' is insipid both in its shallow treatment of Asian culture (Way of the Samurai indeed!) and for its cartoonish Italian mobsters. And 'Broken Flowers' felt like a screenplay written by a film school student. Especially the ending.

#802 Tony

Tony

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4238 posts

Posted 23 October 2008 - 01:36 PM

Why is the price of movies more or less fixed? All films at the same theater all play for the same ticket price. All first-run films in the same metropolitan area typically go for the same price, or are within 5% of each other (excluding I-Max theaters, of course). Yet the films themselves can have huge ranges in budgets and have vastly different attendance expectations. Some movies could easily fetch much more for a ticket without experiencing a proportional drop in attendance. For example, had they charged double the ticket price for the Lord of the Rings or the new Star Wars movies, they'd probably have had only 10-20% less number of ticket sales. While this obviously doesn't happen with most products, it's not even the same deal with other entertainment media -- new CDs retail anywhere from $12 to $20 (or more) depending on the artist, label, packaging and anticipated demand. New books have less of a range, but there still is a range. Is there some kind of union involved here? Does anybody know the answer to this?

#803 Agrimorfee

Agrimorfee

    Too nice for his own good

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13306 posts

Posted 23 October 2008 - 01:45 PM

Perhaps it's what the market will allow more than anything. Don't forget , theaters make more of their money on the concessions than from what's on the screen.

"Is everyone on here just an act sometimes?"--Hummingbird

Read all of my stupid song parodies here. Latest song improved/ruined: "No More Mr. Nice Guy" by Alice Cooper.

 

Download all of my alleged music free through the remainder of May at www.soundclick.com/agrimorfee

 

Also jabbering about music and movies at www.rateyourmusic.com


#804 M_Rots

M_Rots

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4277 posts

Posted 23 October 2008 - 01:49 PM

Look to the distributors and the exhibitors. Distributors set the price for leasing the movies. Exhibitors have to pay that price if they want the movies on their screens. If it's a movie the studios have put a ton of marketing money behind, the price of the lease rises proportionally, but these are also the titles theatre owners want. Exhibitors usually don't even break even just on ticket saes, and not even on exorbitant concession-stand prices. This is why we're seeing TV commercials playing ahead of trailers, now. The exhibitor has to do any and everything it can to make the theatres profitable. When the major studios also owned whole theatre chains, it was possible to control ticket prices. Those ownerships were broken up under anti-monoploy laws at around the same time the "studio system" was falling apart, beginning in the late 1950s.

#805 Tony

Tony

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4238 posts

Posted 23 October 2008 - 02:07 PM

Look to the distributors and the exhibitors. Distributors set the price for leasing the movies. Exhibitors have to pay that price if they want the movies on their screens. If it's a movie the studios have put a ton of marketing money behind, the price of the lease rises proportionally, but these are also the titles theatre owners want.

Exhibitors usually don't even break even just on ticket saes, and not even on exorbitant concession-stand prices. This is why we're seeing TV commercials playing ahead of trailers, now. The exhibitor has to do any and everything it can to make the theatres profitable.

When the major studios also owned whole theatre chains, it was possible to control ticket prices. Those ownerships were broken up under anti-monoploy laws at around the same time the "studio system" was falling apart, beginning in the late 1950s.


'Exhibitor' and Theater Owner are the same thing right? From the sound of it, movie theaters are on their last legs especially considering how much better Home Theater systems are getting every year. The Supreme Court decision which made it illegal for Studios to own movie theaters was 1948's 'United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc' ... known as the 'Paramount Decree'.

#806 M_Rots

M_Rots

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4277 posts

Posted 23 October 2008 - 02:21 PM

Ok, I missed by a decade. That's a big miss. Thing is, digital distribution is probably going to eclipse home theatre sophistication. Much like the music business, consumers seem willing to sacrifice quality of experience for convenience. We're probably looking at a future where consumers watch movies in bits and pieces; part at home; part on their lunch break through their PDA. Or in study hall at school on the PSP or similar devce. Movies are becoming portable, and increasingly disposable.

#807 Tony

Tony

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4238 posts

Posted 23 October 2008 - 02:26 PM

Ok, I missed by a decade. That's a big miss.

Thing is, digital distribution is probably going to eclipse home theatre sophistication. Much like the music business, consumers seem willing to sacrifice quality of experience for convenience. We're probably looking at a future where consumers watch movies in bits and pieces; part at home; part on their lunch break through their PDA. Or in study hall at school on the PSP or similar devce. Movies are becoming portable, and increasingly disposable.



Shudder. Just more audio-visual wall paper.

#808 theremin

theremin

    Rockist

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6367 posts

Posted 07 November 2008 - 01:31 AM

I have no idea where to put this.

Do we still have a 2008 movies thread?

What about a generic upcoming movies thread?

I dunno. Watch this:

http://movies.yahoo....5/trailers/173/

#809 no magnets

no magnets

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4763 posts

Posted 10 November 2008 - 12:22 AM

i just watched anatomy of a murder. this had a lot of elements that reminded me of witness for the prosecution, from the seemingly innocuous testimonies out of nowhere, parallels between the wives and husbands (don't want to spoil by going into specifics), astute defense attorneys who distract themselves during trials, and final twists. anatomy may be the more accurate, but witness is by far the more watchable.

#810 no magnets

no magnets

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4763 posts

Posted 23 December 2008 - 01:00 PM

i saw mr mom last night for the first time in probably twenty years. michael keaton kills with so many good lines.

comparing heroin and blankets, playing poker for coupons, "i'm going to sleep on the fat couch if i can fit through the door", A-to-Z reasons why not to sleep with his neighbor, etc. great movie.

#811 Ogawa

Ogawa

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 1591 posts

Posted 22 January 2009 - 11:38 AM

Anyone see this? The Curious Case of Forrest Gump. Quickly outlines the similarities between Forrest Gump and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Pretty hilarious.

http://www.funnyordi...mp-from-fgump44
Few beings have ever been so impregnated, pierced to the core, by the conviction of the absolute futility of human aspiration. The universe is nothing but a furtive arrangement of elementary particles. A figure in transition toward chaos. That is what will finally prevail. The human race will disappear. Other races in turn will appear and disappear. And human actions are as free and as stripped of meaning as the unfettered movements of the elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, sentiments? Pure ‘Victorian fictions.’ All that exists is egotism. Cold, intact, and radiant.

Michel Houellebecq

#812 Tony

Tony

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4238 posts

Posted 22 January 2009 - 11:39 AM

i just watched anatomy of a murder. this had a lot of elements that reminded me of witness for the prosecution, from the seemingly innocuous testimonies out of nowhere, parallels between the wives and husbands (don't want to spoil by going into specifics), astute defense attorneys who distract themselves during trials, and final twists. anatomy may be the more accurate, but witness is by far the more watchable.


Anatomy of a Murder >>>>>> Witness for the Prosecution

#813 Asher Ford

Asher Ford

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 1172 posts

Posted 22 January 2009 - 11:40 AM

Anyone see this? The Curious Case of Forrest Gump. Quickly outlines the similarities between Forrest Gump and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Pretty hilarious.

http://www.funnyordi...mp-from-fgump44


Yea, I loved this.

#814 velocity

velocity

    Chanel No. ♪♫

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10081 posts

Posted 22 January 2009 - 10:19 PM

Look to the distributors and the exhibitors. Distributors set the price for leasing the movies. Exhibitors have to pay that price if they want the movies on their screens. If it's a movie the studios have put a ton of marketing money behind, the price of the lease rises proportionally, but these are also the titles theatre owners want.

Exhibitors usually don't even break even just on ticket saes, and not even on exorbitant concession-stand prices. This is why we're seeing TV commercials playing ahead of trailers, now. The exhibitor has to do any and everything it can to make the theatres profitable.

When the major studios also owned whole theatre chains, it was possible to control ticket prices. Those ownerships were broken up under anti-monoploy laws at around the same time the "studio system" was falling apart, beginning in the late 1950s.


Not only can the theater not set ticket prices, they also get just a fraction of the gate during the first 2-3 weeks of a film's distribution (it's something like 10%). The theater's percentage increases gradually after that if a film has staying power. But with the widest distribution happening up front, rapid saturation and quick release to DVD, there are very minimal returns once the % gets decent. It's hard to see how theaters remain in business as it is.

#815 Holiday in Risk

Holiday in Risk

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 1147 posts

Posted 23 January 2009 - 09:06 AM

I just watched Whit Stillman's Metropolitan, a favorite of mine. "Oh, my coat has a lining" or thereabouts is my standby line whenever people ask why I don't mind walking somewhere. Really nice movie. It makes me happy, for some reason. Anyone else a fan?
what a fine day for a parade

#816 Campaigner

Campaigner

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 1674 posts

Posted 08 February 2009 - 10:40 PM

Need help people. Prison movie... made sometime this decade. European. Concerns middle-aged guys in a cell, and some black magic book that they use to try and escape. Can't for the life of me remember the name and I want to watch it again. Help please!

#817 Ogawa

Ogawa

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 1591 posts

Posted 09 February 2009 - 02:16 AM

Could it be.... Maléfique?

Posted Image

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309832/
Few beings have ever been so impregnated, pierced to the core, by the conviction of the absolute futility of human aspiration. The universe is nothing but a furtive arrangement of elementary particles. A figure in transition toward chaos. That is what will finally prevail. The human race will disappear. Other races in turn will appear and disappear. And human actions are as free and as stripped of meaning as the unfettered movements of the elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, sentiments? Pure ‘Victorian fictions.’ All that exists is egotism. Cold, intact, and radiant.

Michel Houellebecq

#818 Campaigner

Campaigner

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 1674 posts

Posted 09 February 2009 - 02:48 AM

Could it be.... Maléfique?

Posted Image

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309832/


That's the one!

Cheers Ogawa. Can't remember whether I liked the film or not - but for some reason want to watch it again.