RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: 'Inconceivable!' Fans Outraged as Hollywood Considers ' - RightNation.US

Jump to content

'Inconceivable!' Fans Outraged as Hollywood Considers ' Rate Topic: -----

#41 User is online   erp 

  • Undead Undead Undead
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 38,176
  • Joined: 29-November 03

Posted 19 September 2019 - 08:03 PM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 19 September 2019 - 07:10 PM, said:

$30 million box office on a budget of $16 million. Not a blockbuster, but not a "bomb" either. As you say, an "OK" movie. Memorable for a couple of Iconic scenes that can be had on youtube. The "choosing to poison" scene and "My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die". You can find them on Youtube. the rest is "filler".

But, I'm probably the wrong person to ask because I like the "Readers Digest" version of things. I mean, I can Readers Digest even the hour-and-a-half long Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald down to about 10 seconds for business persons in a hurry:

In my best Gordon Lightfoot voice:

The legend Lives on of a ship that went down
And lots of people died
Well, that sucks.


Yeah, okay, I stole that. Full credit to Tim Hawkins and "Shortened versions of songs for people with ADD".

Itís funny, when we see production costs, it does not include marketing costs. It also does not include the cut the theaters get. Typically, theaters make more money the longer the movie plays. First few weeks, they make <censored>. The longer a movie plays, the more they make. This movie was a cult classic. Which means itís run was longer. Which also means, the profits, after marketing and theater run, was a lot lower.

My guess is that this production made a bigger profit on video release than theatrical release.

Iím other words, itís why they call this one a cult classic. ;)
0

#42 User is online   erp 

  • Undead Undead Undead
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 38,176
  • Joined: 29-November 03

Posted 19 September 2019 - 08:05 PM

I am such a wonk with box office numbers.

Sorry for the wonkiness.
0

#43 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,554
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 19 September 2019 - 09:02 PM

View Poststick, on 19 September 2019 - 04:15 PM, said:

Never saw it, what's the big deal?


  • Great cast
  • Andre the Giant
  • Iconic characters
  • Monty Python-esque, dry, absurd humor
  • As many memorable quotes as MP and the Holy Grail
  • It's a thinking-man's and -woman's comedy
  • Fun for all ages
  • Lack of sex, vulgar language, and graphic violence (the violence is cartoonish) allows it to be seen by kids. My 9-yo niece became a big fan first time she saw it. She's now nearly as bad as her mom and I in reciting movie lines at opportune (and inopportune) times. :P

This post has been edited by Howsithangin: 19 September 2019 - 09:04 PM

0

#44 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 59,017
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 19 September 2019 - 11:45 PM

View PostBootsieBets, on 19 September 2019 - 05:26 PM, said:

This isn’t an argument, it’s just contradiction!


No it isn't.

;)

As for Terry Pratchett - OK, I'm convinced. I'll check out Discworld when I get a chance.

:yes:

And Princess Bride is one of the all-time great movies.

So there.

:coolshades:

This post has been edited by MontyPython: 19 September 2019 - 11:46 PM

0

#45 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,020
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 20 September 2019 - 08:38 AM

Lemme guess.... they want to remake it with the characters all being transgender climate activists.

Oooh oooh I can see it know Fezzik will no longer be the legendary Andre the Giant in a simple leather shirt and pants but Ru Paul in a climate appropriate suit.

Un freaken' real.
0

#46 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,660
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 20 September 2019 - 01:04 PM

View Posterp, on 19 September 2019 - 08:03 PM, said:

Itís funny, when we see production costs, it does not include marketing costs. It also does not include the cut the theaters get. Typically, theaters make more money the longer the movie plays. First few weeks, they make <censored>. The longer a movie plays, the more they make. This movie was a cult classic. Which means itís run was longer. Which also means, the profits, after marketing and theater run, was a lot lower.

My guess is that this production made a bigger profit on video release than theatrical release.

Iím other words, itís why they call this one a cult classic. ;)


If it's still like when I was a projectionist in the '80s, theaters get little to nothing of the ticket price. About 8-12 weeks out, you "bid" on an upcoming film which is to say you promise the distributor a percentage of the ticket price. For first-run movies the typical bid is ~70-90% for the first week and then typically drops by 5-10% each following week. It's rare, but not unheard of, to bid MORE than 100%... if you KNOW it's going to be a blockbuster that will fill your theater with people buying popcorn and soda at 90-95% profit margin.

And this is all tightly audited. It's probably computerized now, but back then we had to fill out ledger sheets listing the beginning and ending ticket numbers of every showing of every film.
0

#47 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,020
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 20 September 2019 - 01:23 PM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 20 September 2019 - 01:04 PM, said:

If it's still like when I was a projectionist in the '80s, theaters get little to nothing of the ticket price. About 8-12 weeks out, you "bid" on an upcoming film which is to say you promise the distributor a percentage of the ticket price. For first-run movies the typical bid is ~70-90% for the first week and then typically drops by 5-10% each following week. It's rare, but not unheard of, to bid MORE than 100%... if you KNOW it's going to be a blockbuster that will fill your theater with people buying popcorn and soda at 90-95% profit margin.

And this is all tightly audited. It's probably computerized now, but back then we had to fill out ledger sheets listing the beginning and ending ticket numbers of every showing of every film.



Good info to know. I am curious though as to how Theaters actually recieve the movies though.

Is it on a Hard Drive, are they sent over a secure network and then just run from a Server at the Theater etc.
0

#48 User is online   Novaprime 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 808
  • Joined: 28-July 03

Posted 20 September 2019 - 01:31 PM

View PostSeverian, on 19 September 2019 - 03:41 PM, said:

Oh, and I made the mistake of going to see "Dune" (which sucked IMO) right after finishing the book.

I see this a lot and while I can see why, generally, I still don't understand it but then I saw the movie before I read the book. There are a lot of direct quotes from the book in the movie and, in general, it follows the book. What gets people was the change in the Weirding Way from a martial arts to a sonic ability. Personally, I understand why it was done. There were a lot of Chuck Norris, Van Damme, and Steven Seagal movies out and they didn't want to be seen as a martial arts in space movie. But, overall, it was an enjoyable movie but I do have the advantage of looking back at it from the aspect of seeing the movie before reading the book, which I also enjoyed.
0

#49 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,660
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 20 September 2019 - 02:08 PM

View Postoki, on 20 September 2019 - 01:23 PM, said:

Good info to know. I am curious though as to how Theaters actually recieve the movies though.

Is it on a Hard Drive, are they sent over a secure network and then just run from a Server at the Theater etc.


I've no idea how they do in now. In my day - mid-'80s - we still had film. Reels of 35mm film that came packed in metal "reel boxes" with several reels to a box....

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2013_0128_ScarfaceReel_lead.jpg

Then you spliced the reels together onto a horizontal platter, marked the edge of the film at each splice with white shoe polish so you knew where to take it apart. The film fed off one platter, through the projector, and wound onto the next platter. Most systems had three platters so that you could have two complete films ready:

http://francescatabakfilmproduction.weebly.com/uploads/4/7/6/8/47684277/356029_orig.jpg

I haven't paid much attention to how "modern" cinemas work because if you'd have asked me 20 years ago I'd have said there's no way theaters would even exist in 2019. Well, I was wrong. But as far as I'm concerned, without actual film the "magic" is gone.


0

#50 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,711
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 20 September 2019 - 03:57 PM

Every theater I've been in for years now uses digital projectors, have no idea how they distribute the video though. I do know most theaters using this approach are all woefully awful compared with a decent film setup, especially in contrast/black levels in dark scenes, but what can you do? "Advancements" often are not in quality but convenience, for someone, but not the end viewer. Our local multiplex sucks. It used to be OK, decent projectors, but they either haven't been maintaining them, been putting cheaper bulbs in, or switched to crappy projectors, because the image quality is terrible and dim. Of course it's barely hanging on, 10 screens, they no longer man either the front ticket selling windows or the ticket taker thing. You buy your ticket at the concession stand, of which only a quarter of its length has anything for sale and it has a max of two people manning it. They hand you a ticket and point to the hallway to the theaters.
0

#51 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 59,017
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 20 September 2019 - 04:39 PM

View Postoki, on 20 September 2019 - 01:23 PM, said:

Good info to know. I am curious though as to how Theaters actually recieve the movies though.

Is it on a Hard Drive, are they sent over a secure network and then just run from a Server at the Theater etc.


Back in the mid-70's when I worked at National Screen Service it was just like Smithee described: Actual film in actual film cans, actual projectors, etc. No drives or networks or servers. Well OK, pimply teenagers serving popcorn & stuff, LOL. But no other servers.

B)
0

#52 User is offline   Ben Cranklin 

  • Satiric Curmudgeon
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 7,217
  • Joined: 27-June 03

Posted 20 September 2019 - 09:54 PM

Does Hollywood only seem even less creative this generation than it was in previous ones? Sure, when you'd have a successful movie decades ago, they'd reduce it to a "formula" and then churn out multiple variations of it, like how Animal House inspired so many gross out youth comedies or Rocky all those plucky underdog stories that came after it, but at least back then they actually made variations. Now they just shamelessly do complete "remakes."
0

#53 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,020
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 20 September 2019 - 10:49 PM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 20 September 2019 - 02:08 PM, said:

I've no idea how they do in now. In my day - mid-'80s - we still had film. Reels of 35mm film that came packed in metal "reel boxes" with several reels to a box....

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2013_0128_ScarfaceReel_lead.jpg

Then you spliced the reels together onto a horizontal platter, marked the edge of the film at each splice with white shoe polish so you knew where to take it apart. The film fed off one platter, through the projector, and wound onto the next platter. Most systems had three platters so that you could have two complete films ready:

http://francescatabakfilmproduction.weebly.com/uploads/4/7/6/8/47684277/356029_orig.jpg

I haven't paid much attention to how "modern" cinemas work because if you'd have asked me 20 years ago I'd have said there's no way theaters would even exist in 2019. Well, I was wrong. But as far as I'm concerned, without actual film the "magic" is gone.





That's what I thought for how it used to work. The Theaters around here are quite good for picture quality though. Animated films and especially outer space movies really look good. As far as how movies are distributed know days?

It's godda' be one of two ways.
Either they ship hard drives to each theater and then the contents are loaded to a server, and that server of coarse is connected to an in house local network(projectors), or each theater has a high speed network. By high speed it would have to be at least a 1 Gig network to even be feasible. Anything lower and it will take longer to transfer a movie than to watch it. I am guessing that the actual movie a theater is gonna' use is in the range of 90-100 gig. Soooo.... at 1 gig through put speed....
8 seconds for a Gig to transfer.... 8 times 100..... 800 seconds ... so about fifteen minutes per movie. Although Gig service in a lot of places isn't cheap(yet), it won't take long for that to still be cheaper than shipping hard or thumb drives back and forth. Plus, you don't have to worry about sending or destroying drives, movies not arriving etc.
0

#54 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 59,017
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 21 September 2019 - 12:49 AM

View PostBen Cranklin, on 20 September 2019 - 09:54 PM, said:

Does Hollywood only seem even less creative this generation than it was in previous ones? Sure, when you'd have a successful movie decades ago, they'd reduce it to a "formula" and then churn out multiple variations of it, like how Animal House inspired so many gross out youth comedies or Rocky all those plucky underdog stories that came after it, but at least back then they actually made variations. Now they just shamelessly do complete "remakes."


True, but it's not just a recent phenomenon. There are plenty of classic movie versions that people don't realize are remakes. For a few examples:

Moby Dick starring Gregory Peck (1956) - Remake. Not the original.

Ben Hur starring Charlton Heston (1959) - Remake. Not the original.

A Christmas Carol starring Alastair Sim (1951) - Remake. Not the original.

Heck, even The Wizard of Oz starring Judy Garland (1939) - That's right - Remake. Not the original.

And plenty more.

B)
0

#55 User is offline   Ben Cranklin 

  • Satiric Curmudgeon
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 7,217
  • Joined: 27-June 03

Posted 21 September 2019 - 06:02 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 21 September 2019 - 12:49 AM, said:

True, but it's not just a recent phenomenon. There are plenty of classic movie versions that people don't realize are remakes. For a few examples:

Moby Dick starring Gregory Peck (1956) - Remake. Not the original.

Ben Hur starring Charlton Heston (1959) - Remake. Not the original.

A Christmas Carol starring Alastair Sim (1951) - Remake. Not the original.

Heck, even The Wizard of Oz starring Judy Garland (1939) - That's right - Remake. Not the original.

And plenty more.

B)

Just seems a lot more frequent now than when I was still a regular moviegoer back in the 80s and 90s. Not sure about in depth research to quantify it, hence why I only used "seems" both in my initial post and in this one.
0

#56 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 6,023
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted 21 September 2019 - 08:05 AM

Ah, the creativity of an earlier Hollywood <sigh>. Still waiting for my remake of one of the greatest movies ever... Sweet Sugar.



***NSFW***

Spoiler

This post has been edited by grimreefer: 21 September 2019 - 08:06 AM

0

#57 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 59,017
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 21 September 2019 - 10:22 AM

View PostBen Cranklin, on 21 September 2019 - 06:02 AM, said:

Just seems a lot more frequent now than when I was still a regular moviegoer back in the 80s and 90s. Not sure about in depth research to quantify it, hence why I only used "seems" both in my initial post and in this one.


I agree it seems more frequent nowadays. :yes: I just wanted to point out it's not "new".

B)
0

#58 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,660
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 21 September 2019 - 12:08 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 21 September 2019 - 12:49 AM, said:

True, but it's not just a recent phenomenon. There are plenty of classic movie versions that people don't realize are remakes. For a few examples:

Moby Dick starring Gregory Peck (1956) - Remake. Not the original.

Ben Hur starring Charlton Heston (1959) - Remake. Not the original.

A Christmas Carol starring Alastair Sim (1951) - Remake. Not the original.

Heck, even The Wizard of Oz starring Judy Garland (1939) - That's right - Remake. Not the original.

And plenty more.



And it's not just Hollywood remaking Hollywood; Lot's of big-name "Hollywood" films were simply re-makes of foreign films that nobody'd ever heard of (except maybe a few of us foreign-film geeks)

For example, most know that The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981), big hit for Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange was a remake of The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946)with John Garfield and Lana Turner. But few probably realize that the "original" was itself a remake of the french film Le dernier tournant (1939).

A few other examples, just to name a few of my favorites:

City of Angels (1998), minor hit for Nicholas Cage and Meg Ryan, was a remake of Germany's Der Himmel Łber Berlin (1987). The original is one of my favorites. The remake, meh. Much was lost in translation.

Breathless (1983) with Richard Gere was a remake of Jean-Luc Godard's french Breathless (1960). I actually liked the hollywood remake better, but then I was never really a fan of Jean-Luc Goddard or his whole "New Wave" style of directing. I think most of Goddard's films have been remade at one time or other, and for the better as far as I'm concerned.

Swept Away (2002) by director Guy Ritchie as a vehicle for then-wife Madonna. The original italian film by Lina WertmŁller Travolti da un insolito destino nell'azzurro mare d'agosto (1974)(Swept Away by an unusual destiny in the blue sea of August)is a classic and one of my favorites. But then I'm a huge fan of both italian director Lina WertmŁller and italian actor Giancarlo Gianinni.

Oh, and let's not forget two films that are mothers of ALL remakes of a foreign films:

Director John Sturges's [https://www.imdb.com...=fn_al_tt_4]The Magnificent Seven (1960)[/url] based on Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai (1954). While the Magnificent Seven is consider by many to be a lame remake of the Kurosawa classic, it's notable in it's own for ushering in a whole NEW wave of "ensemble" films: "Lets have not just a star and co-star, but a whole CAST of stars" that dominated big-budget filmmaking in the later '60s and throughout the '70s with especially war films and disaster films.

The Outrage (1964) as a remake of Kurosawa's Rashōmon (1950). Every film that's ever been made since then that tells the story as a series of competing "flashbacks" owes a debt to Rashōmon which essentially invented the concept. I would include in that even Blame it on Rio (1984) which was itself a remake of the french film Un moment d'ťgarement (1977) but Rashōmon'd. If you need a third reason to watch Rio beyond Michelle Johnson, look for how director Stanley Donen "borrowed" from Kurosawa
0

#59 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,660
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 21 September 2019 - 12:18 PM

View Postgrimreefer, on 21 September 2019 - 08:05 AM, said:

Ah, the creativity of an earlier Hollywood <sigh>. Still waiting for my remake of one of the greatest movies ever... Sweet Sugar.

***NSFW***

[spoiler]
Nudity on Youtube?! :o


Yes, on Youtube. Used to be absolutely verboten. Then Google bought them out, and increasingly lax ever since. Some of it might or might not require a login if it's been flagged as "inappropriate" (Google doesn't actually CARE if you see it, they just want to know who you are.) (And it likely goes on your "Permanent Record"). No actual "porn", as in explicit "Tab A into Slot B" (yet), but they definitely allow "Hard R" category these days.

This post has been edited by Dean Adam Smithee: 21 September 2019 - 12:19 PM

0

#60 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,660
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 21 September 2019 - 12:42 PM

View PostBen Cranklin, on 21 September 2019 - 06:02 AM, said:

Just seems a lot more frequent now than when I was still a regular moviegoer back in the 80s and 90s. Not sure about in depth research to quantify it, hence why I only used "seems" both in my initial post and in this one.


IMHO, DEFINITELY more frequent now. Back in the day, The OCCASIONAL remake and/or sequel but rare. I mean, was there EVER a "Casablanca II: Next stop, Algeria"??? (Oh lord, I hope I haven't given anyone ideas). And there should NEVER be a sitcom spinoff called "Captain Renault"; Swear to god, I will personally Strasser any Hollywood producer that even suggests it.

Even Airport (1970) knew when to quit. Airport '75, Airport '77, but by Airport '79 it had run it's course.

Now we're up to, what, Star Wars episode MDCLXVIII ??? that started in '77???
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users