- Posts: 3936
- Thank you received: 3636
Wonder Woman 2017
TwiceOnThursdays wrote: One of the articles I read said that Young Justice wasn't canceled due to it's ratings, but due to toy sales.
I bet the overall correlation between ratings and box office is weak. We've all had plenty of experiences where ratings weren't predictive of our liking the movie (or not).
Some of the ultimate moneymakers (like Titanic) have mediocre ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. Titanic in particular only has an audience rating of 3.3 out of 5. Most people saw it. Some cried. Some gagged. The gaggers didn't pay to watch it again on any media. But they were part of box office success.
Then there's the creative accounting where billion dollar boxoffice movies aren't shown as making a profit, so some people on the creative end don't get paid bonuses. Pretty hard for us to figure out when all we get to do is to peak through the knotholes in the fence.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- shadar
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Uberposter par Excellence
shadar wrote: I believe the "bubble burst" (NOT) article said the studios only make 10% of their earnings from the box office take. The rest comes from licensing and toys and whatever. All that iTunes, Netflix, etc. etc. play, plus major networks, BluRay (and then reselling extended editions). There is no public accounting for that. Its conceivable that movie could look marginal at the box-office but still make a ton of profit
Net, net... If the studios are planning that many films, then they are highly confident of making the highest profits by going that route. Endless research and meetings. This isn't something they all just wake up and decide to do one day. Its hard not to be optimistic at this point.
Excellent point which I think only reinforces the argument that all "comic book adaptations" are NOT created equal......I imagine those Whiteout action figures and Scott Pilgrim backpacks weren't exactly flying off the shelves......
ElF
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- lfan
- Offline
- Administrator
- Posts: 3913
- Thank you received: 2942
One of the articles I read said that Young Justice wasn't canceled due to it's ratings, but due to toy sales
From what i have read one of the main causes was they wanted to do Green Lantern Show. Also there is a tendency in Cable Television once you get to a certain number of episodes and can show them when ever you want. This is the network that still proffitably reruns invader Zim, though they have don't any new episodes for close to a decade. Why make more?
Then there's the creative accounting where billion dollar boxoffice movies aren't shown as making a profit, so some people on the creative end don't get paid bonuses. Pretty hard for us to figure out when all we get to do is to peak through the knotholes in the fence.
A lot of creative accounting comes from the fact that....well studios are huge businesses. Its not only money spent on stars, and grip equipment but also marketing department parking lots and executives. They have to spread things out like any business-unfortunitly creative contracts are often written such bonuses aren't taken till all there fees are paid.
Excellent point which I think only reinforces the argument that all "comic book adaptations" are NOT created equal......I imagine those Whiteout action figures and Scott Pilgrim backpacks weren't exactly flying off the shelves......
the problem with Scott Pillgrim was that it was intended to be a big "lets push this movie in toys type thing". I am not entirely sure how sucessful it was-in this regard it could have been very success -toys, posters that type of thing appeal to a fan base that maybe diffrent then the real film was-and toys these days don't mean stuff for 12 year olds. I doubt it was enough to cover any kind of box office loss.
As for Whiteout-i actually do know the producer of that movie(never saw the movie actually). It goes into a truth about realitive movie sucess. It was always intended to be a middle budget (i think 40 million) thriller that took a lot of its financing from Canadian Tax credits and loopholes, that presold it to foriegn markets. Despite being something of a bomb critically and financially in america-it did enough to make a proffit-not a huge one but a proffit. They latter used the sucess to make the Planet of the apes movies, which was a slightly bigger version of the same idea finacing wise.
Often the way to be sucessful at this is to be as far away as you can from studios.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- castor
- Offline
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 1576
- Thank you received: 503
But I meant TV ratings share -- which determines how much they can charge for advertising, and thus how much money the TV show makes. It's a direct correlation to the profit from airing the show.
And why as castor says below that they just re-run shows -- if people still watch them, they still watch the commercials, they still make money.
Though as he says it's a complex business so they can things all the time for multiple reasons. I've also heard they were actually upset too many girls watched the show...which just seems stupid to me, so it can't possibly be true.
(I should quote...sorry...)
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- TwiceOnThursdays
- Offline
- Elite Member
- Posts: 1113
- Thank you received: 834
castor wrote: As for Whiteout-i actually do know the producer of that movie(never saw the movie actually). It goes into a truth about realitive movie sucess. It was always intended to be a middle budget (i think 40 million) thriller that took a lot of its financing from Canadian Tax credits and loopholes, that presold it to foriegn markets. Despite being something of a bomb critically and financially in america-it did enough to make a proffit-not a huge one but a proffit. They latter used the sucess to make the Planet of the apes movies, which was a slightly bigger version of the same idea finacing wise.
Often the way to be sucessful at this is to be as far away as you can from studios.
I agree with that last line. It's getting easier to make a nice looking movie, the technology needed is dropping fast, and TV is breeding a lot of people used to dealing with special effects that used to be big budget and now are every day usage in TV, sports, and commercials. I think the studios are always in a bit of fear that someone outside their network will snatch too much of the pie away.
And it's interesting to hear from someone with inside knowledge of all this. I knew of some of the incentives for filming in Canada -- and it's also making some interesting Canadian TV (Continuum, Lost Girls, Orphan Black) and that's not counting the countless shows made directly for American TV filmed there.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- TwiceOnThursdays
- Offline
- Elite Member
- Posts: 1113
- Thank you received: 834
TwiceOnThursdays wrote: [
I agree with that last line. It's getting easier to make a nice looking movie, the technology needed is dropping fast, and TV is breeding a lot of people used to dealing with special effects that used to be big budget and now are every day usage in TV, sports, and commercials. I think the studios are always in a bit of fear that someone outside their network will snatch too much of the pie away.
And it's interesting to hear from someone with inside knowledge of all this. I knew of some of the incentives for filming in Canada -- and it's also making some interesting Canadian TV (Continuum, Lost Girls, Orphan Black) and that's not counting the countless shows made directly for American TV filmed there.
Its not incredibly complicated- There versions of tax credits which pay money for filming there an in several states as well as some countries in eastern europe and elsewhere. they pay to finance in the hopes they benefit the film industry there. There is also a lot of depreciation things as well. Basically you can invest a certain amount of money-often 30 percent of it and get the rest of it with financincal dealings. Its also often a lot cheeper to film in places like Canada then it is in Los Angeles(whose film industry is really dying).
Canadian TV has the benefit that canadian networks want because of laws a lot of canadian content-which they can then ship it to American networks-typically cable, a lot on SCiFI, but also sometimes on Traditional networks in summer . This is how you get shows like Lost Girls, but also Doctor Who. Canada is a pretty small country but its does a good job of going above its weight class in this regard. And becuse Canada likes a little more edgy content in it shows and is more confterable then america with LGBT themese-well you get that there.
Of course not natively canadian shows also do this-like Arrow and Vampire Diaries are filmed in Vancouver . Supergirl appears to be doing this as well. Since canada has a lot of film incentives for using Canadian talent-i wouldn't be suprised if the phrase "Canadian Actress _________" pops up when where with casting. Or maybe even "Rachel MacAdams as her mom"(Rachel Macadams is someone whose film career is suposedly based on this).
This all goes to the strategy as you put it that digital cameras are cheep to use, special effects are cheeper all the time if used intelgently. Its not hard to make good looking films these days for not all that much money- this produces tons of Crap( a lot of those low budget Scy Fi movies go by the same canadian premise) but crap is not inherent to it. I could see a day possibly by the time these slate are finish where these out perform movies that do big. Who knows.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- castor
- Offline
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 1576
- Thank you received: 503
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- AJF
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 493
- Thank you received: 99
castor wrote:
TwiceOnThursdays wrote: [
I agree with that last line. It's getting easier to make a nice looking movie, the technology needed is dropping fast, and TV is breeding a lot of people used to dealing with special effects that used to be big budget and now are every day usage in TV, sports, and commercials. I think the studios are always in a bit of fear that someone outside their network will snatch too much of the pie away.
And it's interesting to hear from someone with inside knowledge of all this. I knew of some of the incentives for filming in Canada -- and it's also making some interesting Canadian TV (Continuum, Lost Girls, Orphan Black) and that's not counting the countless shows made directly for American TV filmed there.
Its not incredibly complicated- There versions of tax credits which pay money for filming there an in several states as well as some countries in eastern europe and elsewhere. they pay to finance in the hopes they benefit the film industry there. There is also a lot of depreciation things as well. Basically you can invest a certain amount of money-often 30 percent of it and get the rest of it with financincal dealings. Its also often a lot cheeper to film in places like Canada then it is in Los Angeles(whose film industry is really dying).
Canadian TV has the benefit that canadian networks want because of laws a lot of canadian content-which they can then ship it to American networks-typically cable, a lot on SCiFI, but also sometimes on Traditional networks in summer . This is how you get shows like Lost Girls, but also Doctor Who. Canada is a pretty small country but its does a good job of going above its weight class in this regard. And becuse Canada likes a little more edgy content in it shows and is more confterable then america with LGBT themese-well you get that there.
Of course not natively canadian shows also do this-like Arrow and Vampire Diaries are filmed in Vancouver . Supergirl appears to be doing this as well. Since canada has a lot of film incentives for using Canadian talent-i wouldn't be suprised if the phrase "Canadian Actress _________" pops up when where with casting. Or maybe even "Rachel MacAdams as her mom"(Rachel Macadams is someone whose film career is suposedly based on this).
This all goes to the strategy as you put it that digital cameras are cheep to use, special effects are cheeper all the time if used intelgently. Its not hard to make good looking films these days for not all that much money- this produces tons of Crap( a lot of those low budget Scy Fi movies go by the same canadian premise) but crap is not inherent to it. I could see a day possibly by the time these slate are finish where these out perform movies that do big. Who knows.
It's encouraging and exciting that these changes in the movie and TV industry are happening right when there is this huge shift to comic-book inspired movies. With US states and other countries vying for their share of the work, generally through offering the filmmakers incentives to operate there and hire their people.
This is is exactly how the global industrial expansion happened during the 80's to current, with each country competing to offer greater incentives than their neighbors. One of my last jobs before retirement was negotiating with Asian governments about where to build a billion dollar factory. They didn't want to make money by taxing us (the company) but rather from taxing the workers who we employed and from kickstarting their own technology, industrial knowledge and their universities (the future engineering talent). Long range thinking.
Same thing seems to be happening to the American movie industry. New Zealand (Peter Jackson has created a national-character-defining industry) and Canada and parts of eastern Europe are seriously on-board. Different states in the US operating the same way to carve out bits of the old Hollywood. Governments competing to offer the best deals to get the work and employ their people, leading to the collapse of the traditional in-bred, corrupt and braindead vertically-organized industry. All that coupled to technology transformation in movie-making. This leads to the need for less money to make movies (which spreads the opportunity over more players) and hopefully ending up with direct marketing to end-users (who needs theaters and all the BS and cost that comes with that?). That opens the door to creativity.
This would be incredibly good when it comes to expanding the range of move-making and with people taking more creative risks (given they are partially underwritten by governments).
Reducing the concentration of power and wealth (and the idiotic decision making that comes from having too much money at stake. Movies that need a billion in revenue to make suitable profits are obscene.)
This evolution of the movie industry really tickles my old socialist heart. Break down the ingrown power structures and spread the wealth and reap the reward that comes from new players and new creativity, and get governments involved in helping their people. But it won't be so good for the people who work the old industry in LA, who like many of us who were involved in industrial globalization, will have to pick up and go live and work where the work is. Or find new work.
In the end, I think it's all good for our particular genre.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- shadar
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Uberposter par Excellence
- Posts: 3936
- Thank you received: 3636
shadar wrote:
This evolution of the movie industry really tickles my old socialist heart. Break down the ingrown power structures and spread the wealth and reap the reward that comes from new players and new creativity, and get governments involved in helping their people. But it won't be so good for the people who work the old industry in LA, who like many of us who were involved in industrial globalization, will have to pick up and go live and work where the work is. Or find new work.
In the end, I think it's all good for our particular genre.
I am little depressed it doesn't do more good for it actually. We some stuff as discussed here, but a lot of what this funds are low budget horror movies. Been working on financing film progects in this realm for years actually-but well i meet people who do a lot of Low budget horror movies and million dollar "Film it in a house stuff", with a d list movie star. Thats the only way to make a movie. There is this perception that its gone this far and you can't go any father
Really the basic tools of this kind of stuff -not just digital effects, but fight coreography, costumes etc-are not all that expensive. On of the legends of the fight coreography genre told me that the stuff you see in Batman fan films is often better then stuff you see in batman movies. Was talking to a producer about "Well how are you going to do a good looking super suit", when i explained that the stuff in Man of Steel is really just fabric.
This doesn't have to be expensive-and as you say Shadar not being expensive means you can take chances. Hell i have a Mumblecore superheroine movie that i have been wanting to film for years but i doubt I'll ever get made.
Maybe when Wonder Woman comes out it will be easier to explain all of this-but i am hoping not to have to wait until 2015 for it all.
Of course really this doesn't necessairly have to be girl power-there are dozens of great sci fi novels that aren't touched, fantasy et- but will see. .
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- castor
- Offline
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 1576
- Thank you received: 503
spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2014/11/1...-to-female-director/
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Markiehoe
- Offline
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 1995
- Thank you received: 1630
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- AJF
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 493
- Thank you received: 99
AJF wrote: Michelle Maclaren has been hired to develop and direct the 1st WW film, She's directed episodes of the HBO's Game of Thrones.
Specifically, she directed Season 3, episodes 7 and 8. That says she has the chops to direct intense, violent and sexy scenes.
You could re-watch those episodes to examine her style, but to jog the memory, here are the descriptions of those episodes]:
Episode 7 - The Bear and the Maiden Fair
In the North, Jojen tells Bran they must go beyond the Wall to find the three-eyed raven, to Osha's horror. Jon and Ygritte's relationship deepens, much to Orell's displeasure. Theon is emasculated by his torturer. Talisa reveals to Robb that she is pregnant. Arya runs away from the Brotherhood, only to be captured by the Hound. Melisandre reveals to Gendry that his father was Robert Baratheon. Margaery comforts Sansa about her upcoming marriage, while Tyrion and Bronn discuss the match. Later, Shae tells Tyrion that she will not continue their relationship once he marries Sansa. Tywin counsels Joffrey and discusses Daenerys, with Tywin dismissing the danger she might pose. Daenerys reaches the city of Yunkai and receives an emissary. Roose Bolton departs Harrenhall for the Twins, a heavily fortified pair of castles that serve as the seat of House Frey, while Jaime says farewell to Brienne and departs for King's Landing. On the road, Qyburn reveals why he lost his Maester's chain and informs Jaime that Locke refused Brienne's father's ransom. Jaime returns to Harrenhall to find Brienne in a pit fighting a bear. He leaps in and saves Brienne and departs once more, this time with her.
Episode 8 -- Second Sons
King's Landing hosts Tyrion and Sansa's wedding. Cersei intimidates Margaery in the Sept of Baelor, and Joffrey walks the bride down the aisle. At the wedding feast Tyrion gets drunk and causes a scene. In their bedroom, Tyrion tells Sansa they will not consummate their marriage until she wants to. The Hound reveals to Arya that they are heading for the Twins to ransom her to her brother. Stannis releases Davos. Melisandre and Gendry arrive at Dragonstone, where she seduces him and extracts blood from him with three leeches. In a magical ritual, Stannis casts them into the fire naming three usurpers: Robb Stark, Balon Greyjoy and Joffrey Baratheon. Daenerys finds out Yunkai has employed a mercenary company called the "Second Sons". One of the lieutenants, Daario Naharis, kills the other leaders and pledges his and the company's loyalty to Daenerys. Sam and Gilly are attacked by a White Walker, whom Sam unexpectedly destroys with the help of the dragonglass dagger.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- shadar
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Uberposter par Excellence
- Posts: 3936
- Thank you received: 3636
That doesn't tell us much, but it did make me briefly consider what that would have been like. To share a a moment with Affleck, Cavill and Gadot, all dressed in their cost-is-no-object costumes as they worked to get in character before a scene. At the end, she said something about being "just being a mere mortal" among gods or whatever. Sounds like she was a little overwhelmed.
It also says the studio is already filming scenes where the Trinity are all in a scene with Lois. Some of us had hoped they'd give Gal as much time as possible to build some muscle before filming in costume. Apparently not.
Anyway, I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall on that sound stage.
Shadar
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- shadar
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Uberposter par Excellence
- Posts: 3936
- Thank you received: 3636
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- jnw550
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 346
- Thank you received: 168
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- erikhandel
- Offline
- New Member
Which isn't by today's standards very fit. Women in the 70s pop culture never have rock hard abs, even when there play athletes .Watch stuff like Golden Girl which is about a genetically engeered perfect olympian- and she looks today like a mom you would see in an exercise class. Particularly the late 70s i was a time period that fat on women was a bit more accepted-not to actual fat(goodness no) but more to round things out.
But well Carters got *some* guns, and her thighs are bigger then buxom it.Honestly she looks a lot like a female body builder who is just about to cut about 10-15 pounds.
I have said before. Gal Gadot looks someone who was afraid to have to cut fat.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- castor
- Offline
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 1576
- Thank you received: 503
This image is hidden for guests.
Please log in or register to see it.
She's got a very different set of curves than Linda Carter.
(Unfortunately, I don't know the name of this model and this is my only image of her. More than usual, YMMV.)
Shadar
castor wrote: I would say shes 70s female fit.
Which isn't by today's standards very fit. Women in the 70s pop culture never have rock hard abs, even when there play athletes .Watch stuff like Golden Girl which is about a genetically engeered perfect olympian- and she looks today like a mom you would see in an exercise class. Particularly the late 70s i was a time period that fat on women was a bit more accepted-not to actual fat(goodness no) but more to round things out.
But well Carters got *some* guns, and her thighs are bigger then buxom it.Honestly she looks a lot like a female body builder who is just about to cut about 10-15 pounds.
I have said before. Gal Gadot looks someone who was afraid to have to cut fat.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- shadar
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Uberposter par Excellence
- Posts: 3936
- Thank you received: 3636
This message has attachments images.
Please log in or register to see it.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Sarge395
- Offline
- Uberposter par Excellence
- Posts: 2553
- Thank you received: 3006
This image is hidden for guests.
Please log in or register to see it.
Looks pretty good brightened up a bit.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- jdrock24
- Offline
- Elite Member
- Posts: 1015
- Thank you received: 205