|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Upcoming Movie Thread |
| 151-200 of 1215 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | Page 4 | 5 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 24 | 25 | Next Page > |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 05-27-10 06:41pm - 5323 days | #152 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Why does it have to make at least $50 million to make a profit if it only cost $10 million to make? Do you have a simple explanation of how to calculate the return on a movie? I understand there can be many costs to a movie beyond the simple production costs (marketing would be one additional cost), but it doesn't sound reasonable that a $10 million movie would require $50 million in box office to break even. | |
|
||
| 05-28-10 07:34am - 5322 days | #153 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
My prince has come. Jake Gyllenhaal stars in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, which opens today. This is a Jerry Bruckheimer production (Pirates of the Carribean), so it's an expensive movie filled with special effects. But the critics are giving this a thumbs down. Rotten Tomatoes is giving it a 41, which is a low score. So I guess I'll wait for the DVD. Not because the critics don't like the movie, but from what I've read and seen, the movie is not that good. I don't enjoy large special effects that are not combined with a good story or something to root for. And as far as I'm concerned, Jake can stay buried in one of those sand storms. | |
|
||
| 05-28-10 08:00pm - 5322 days | #154 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
The marketing cost is why 50 million is the number for the movie to show a profit or at least a box office profit. I won't touch future DVd sales. The movie was released in over 2500 theathers and print ads, TV spots and all the other advertising that was done for the movie are likely to cost 30 million. The movie made 4.1 million on the first weekend but only about 3 went back to the studio since 4.1 millions is box office take before theater have deducted their profit. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 05-28-10 08:10pm - 5322 days | #155 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I saw Prince of Persia tonight and I enjoyed it. Here is the Rotten Tomatoes consensus: "It doesn't offer much in the way of substance, but Prince of Persia is a suitably entertaining swashbuckler -- and a substantial improvement over most video game adaptations". That's how I'd sum up the movie. I never played the game but I did see a few reviews that showed the style of play in the movie. Jake is alright. I know some critics have said that he was miscasted in the role but I didn't think so. I not once looked at my watch and for a movie that is just shy of 2hrs, that is pretty good. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 05-28-10 08:50pm - 5322 days | #156 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Spending $30 million to advertise a $10 million movie ($10 million for production cost) seems ridiculous to me. I'm not in the business, but there's got to be a way to release low-budget movies less expensively, where the advertising costs are more in line with the production costs. But then again, if the basic marketing costs to release a movie in theaters are that expensive, I can understand why so many movies are direct-to-video releases without a theatrical run. | |
|
||
| 05-29-10 11:28am - 5321 days | #157 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I agree with you but your assumption is that the people responsible for making movies have to be inteligent. I'm affraid that isn't always the case. Macgruber was made by Universal and this is not a very good year for Universal. Here are the box office takes versus production cost. Leap Year: 25 millions vs 19 millions The wolfman: 61.9 millions vs 150 millions Green zone: 35 millions vs 100 millions Repo Men: 13.8 millions VS 32 millions Robin Hood: 82 millions vs 200 millions MacGruber: 6.9 millions vs 10 millions None of these movies have made a profit but Leap Year and MacGruber still win because they didn't lose as much as the others. I looked at the upcoming stuff and Universal is going to be in serious trouble by the end of 2010. Here are the upcoming Universal releases for 2010: Get him to the Greek: will bomb. Despicable Me: animated movie which should do well. Charlie St Cloud: stars Zac Effron likely to bomb Scott Pilgfrim vs the World: should do well. Nanny Mcphee returns: should do well. The adjustement bureau: likely to bomb My Soul to Take: likely to bomb. Little Fockers: likely to bomb. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 05-30-10 02:21pm - 5320 days | #158 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Prince of Persia opens at #3 this weekend, taking in an estimated $30 million. The relatively poor opening means the movie, produced by Jerry Bruckheimer (Pirates of the Caribbean), will probably not lead to a franchise like Pirates of the Caribbean. But there are so many other movies out there, based on comics and games and whatnot, that are probably going to have their own sequels. | |
|
||
| 05-30-10 02:21pm - 5320 days | #159 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Prince of Persia opens at #3 this weekend, taking in an estimated $30 million. The relatively poor opening means the movie, produced by Jerry Bruckheimer (Pirates of the Caribbean), will probably not lead to a franchise like Pirates of the Caribbean. But there are so many other movies out there, based on comics and games and whatnot, that are probably going to have their own sequels. | |
|
||
| 05-30-10 02:40pm - 5320 days | #160 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Don't forget that many of the movies you quoted have a world wide release as well. Robin Hood, for instance, despite the fact that it is doing poorly in North America is doing quite well world-wide with an overseas take (Saturday, May 29) of $154,600,000 or 65.1% of the total take. (Box Office Mojo). So that one should recover its costs. Will it make a profit? With the huge promotional costs involved only time will tell. | |
|
||
| 05-30-10 02:58pm - 5320 days | #161 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Actually, I recently read an article that said in the movie business, the main source of profits, in descending order, was: 1. sales to TV (including cable) 2. DVD sales 3. box office Box office is supposed to be a tiny profit or break-even business. There's even a saying in Hollywood that the theatrical release is a trailer for the DVD and TV sales. So unless you are in the business, or read an article about the way it really works, you wouldn't have the foggiest idea of the business side of movie making. | |
|
||
| 05-30-10 03:12pm - 5320 days | #162 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I have the feeling that article was right. Cable carries a lot of movies that no one has ever heard of. A lot of them are stinkers but it must be profitable to produce them or we wouldn't see so many of them. | |
|
||
| 05-30-10 07:01pm - 5320 days | #163 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I didn't mention Overseas sales because I couldn't find any data on it. I suspect that Oversea sales are larger than North American ones simply because there is more population. Mind you if a movie does poorly in NA than it's also likely to do poorly Overseas and you have to deduct the cost of translation into other languages when you send movies Overseas. I think Oversea sales are the reasons why some sequels get done because ther hav3 been a few movies that didn't do very well here but somehow got green lit for a sequel. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 05-31-10 07:50am - 5319 days | #164 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Try Box Office Mojo for really detailed information on any movie. They usually got everything from production cost to listing of a movie's daily,weekly,monthly take. Plus on how many screens it is playing etc. etc. Also a list of the all time biggest money makers (today's data and data adjusted for inflation). Good source if you are a movie buff. | |
|
||
| 05-31-10 07:25pm - 5319 days | #165 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Thanks messmer. They do have some very good info. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-09-10 07:15am - 5310 days | #166 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I saw a trailer for Jonah Hex. The movie is supposed to be a Western, Action/Adventure, Fantasy based on a comic or computer game. "Jonah Hex is a scarred drifter and bounty hunter of last resort, a tough and stoic gunslinger who can track down anyone... and anything. Having survived death, Jonah's violent history is steeped in myth and legend, and has left him with one foot in the natural world and one on the "other side." His only human connection is with Lila, whose life in a brothel has left her with scars of her own. Jonah's past is about to catch up with him when the U.S. military makes him an offer he can't refuse: in exchange for his freedom from the warrants on his head, he must track down and stop the dangerous terrorist Quentin Turnbull. But Turnbull, who is gathering an army and preparing to unleash Hell, is also Jonah's oldest enemy and will stop at nothing until Jonah is dead." The trailer that I saw had Jonah (played by Josh Brolin) facing 4 or 5 armed men, or maybe even more than 5 men. Jonah is on a horse. Will he be able to draw fast enough to outshoot all the men, or will he be shot dead along with some of his opponents? I was amazed when Jonah uncovered two gatling guns that were slung on the sides of his horse, and the gatling guns started blazing away, cutting down the opponents. What amazed me the most was that the horse started moving when the gatling guns began to fire, so that the gatling guns were able to cut down all the opponents. Did the horse have supernatural intelligence that it was able to consciously aim the gatling guns at the "bad" men? Or was the horse being controlled by Jonah while the gatling guns were blazing away? Any normal horse, with two gatling guns blazing away at its sides, would have reared and plunged and screamed and gone crazy. But that was one special horse, I figured. This is one special movie. I don't know how well it will do. I plan to see it on DVD, if I still remember the trailer. The release date for this movie is June 17 (in theaters). Edited on Jun 09, 2010, 07:30am | |
|
||
| 06-09-10 07:51pm - 5310 days | #167 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
The fact that you wondered about that in the trailer does not bode well for it's future box office take if more people think like you do. I saw the trailer and I thought the same thing so I'm with you on the wait for the DVD. I would add that this is the type of movie that should never have been made except for DVD. This could make a killing on DVD but I don't think it will ever make it's money back at the box office. They had a budget of 80-100 millions. That doesn't include marketing and so forth. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-10-10 10:54pm - 5308 days | #168 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Sort of off topic: Buy this new TV and you won't have to go to the movies any more: You can watch them in your own home. Also, after buying this TV, you won't be able to afford the ticket price of any movies, anyway. No price has yet been set, but the probable price is well north of $100,000. >>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<< Panasonic rolls out 'world’s largest' full HD 3D plasma display at 152" By Rachel King | June 10, 2010 Panasonic has taken large format HDTVs to a completely new level with the launch of the 152-inch TH-152UX1 full HD 3D plasma display. The TH-152UX1 boasts a massive 4K x 2K (4,096 x 2,160) resolution and 17:9 aspect ratio, promising smooth playback in either 2D or 3D form - and even movies recorded in 24p (i.e. on film - remember when they did that?). While these screens are obviously targeted towards large enterprises and government agencies, can you imagine have one of these at home? You’d never have to go to a movie theater ever again. In fact, you could probably just open up your own theater in your living room and charge your friends every time they come over. This might become necessary as these big screens will cost small fortunes. The TH-152UX1 should be available in January 2011, although Panasonic has neglected define a price. But judging on the prices of the two other screens being launched this December, you might have to sell a kidney as the 103-inch TH-103VX200U and 85-inch TH-85VX200U screen will cost $65,000 and $45,000, respectively. Rachel King is a freelance journalist based in New York City and San Francisco. | |
|
||
| 06-11-10 11:49am - 5308 days | #169 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Does the $100k 3-D tv come with it's own nuclear reactor to power the damn thing? At the very least it should be internet ready with thousands of prepaid porn memberships too. | |
|
||
| 06-11-10 01:16pm - 5308 days | #170 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
It better come with it's own UPS (uninterruptible power supply) and forklift--with a pretty girl to set it all up for you! And if you pay with credit card, they throw in the cables for free! But seriously, who the hell needs a 152" physical display in their home anyway? There are more than enough projectors out there to fit a requirement for 150+" of display, assuming you have the wall and room space to do it. And most projectors are a fraction of the price of a display that looks like it requires a heavy crane to move. The only advantage I could see to owning one of these things (besides proving to all your friends how strong your floors are) is the extreme-super-high definition level of resolution available, but who exactly needs that? If you're watching porn at that resolution you might as well be a San Fernando Valley dermatologist whose clients are too busy to schedule an appointment so you have to watch one of their latest videos instead (in the privacy of your own home, late at night...  ). Or you just love new toys that really have no purpose other than to say to rest of the world "Hey, look at me! I'm rich and you're not, you fuckers! Ha ha ha!" Kinda reminds of Lexus' recent LFA supercar, which costs a cool $350,000 (and that's just the base price), and apparently requires prospective buyers be approved before the company will sell you one, meaning just because you have the money doesn't mean you can own one. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 06-11-10 06:49pm - 5308 days | #171 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Although a projector is a great piece of technology. The quality of the image does not compare to what a screen can offer. If your a well known sports, TV, Movie, Music, Fashion, ect personality who gets paid unbelievable amounts of money then I guess 100,000$ is a small amount of money to you. The fact that you have no problem spending it on a TV that is the size of your wall instead of helping people in need simply makes you a rich A..hole. Who knows, if I was so rich that 100,000$ TV wasn't even an issue maybe I'd be as big an A..hole. I'm likely never going to find out, but if I do then I hope I can find something more productive to do with that kind of money. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-12-10 01:16am - 5307 days | #172 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
For those interested in the business side of movies, there is an article on what it costs to market a major Hollywood movie. There were some comments touching on this subject in this thread before, and here is a more complete post on why it costs 30+ million for prints-and-advertising spending. It would be more clear if they broke the prints-and-advertising spend down into prints spend, and advertising spend, but evidently the normal way to report costs is to lump prints and advertising costs together. The article can be found at: http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovies.th...vie-marketing-matter Quote: Disney's $200 million production "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time," which has raked in $63 million domestically to date against a prints-and-advertising spend stateside of $75 million. So Prince of Persia cost $200 million to make, not counting prints and advertising spending. Then Disney (the producer of Prince of Persia) spent an additional $75 million for U.S. (and Canada, as well, I am guessing, even though the article says "stateside", which would refer specifically to the U.S.) prints and advertising. Normally, the U.S. and Canada are lumped together when reporting box office results, so I am assuming that the prints-and-advertising costs would also lump the U.S. and Canada together. But even this apparently simple article can be confusing. In one of the tables, it shows: negative costs p&a costs average negative cost average p&a cost I don't know what the negative cost is referring to. P&A refers to prints and advertising. So what is the separate cost of the negative? You need to send a separate print to each theater that is showing the movie. But what the heck do they mean by negative costs? Spending $6.4 billion (that is $6,400 million) on negative costs, and then spending another $3.6 billion on P&A, for 2009 by the major studios, means there is a ton of money being spent on these movies. But I don't know what the heck they mean by negative costs. Why can't they explain their terminology at the bottom of the article, so the outside reader can understand what the f_ they are writing about? Negative costs must refer to production costs. But why they call it negative costs, and then talk about production costs, makes it seem confusing. Then again, Hollywood is famous for their tricky accounting, where they hide costs and profits from everyone except the insiders, anyway. Edited on Jun 12, 2010, 01:22am | |
|
||
| 06-12-10 01:36am - 5307 days | #173 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
This article shows, in a simple way, how confusing (and apparently unethical) movie financing can get, as practiced by some of the industry players. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovies.th...transit-sold-auction Troubled 'Back Water Transit' sold at auction Source: The Hollywood Reporter Fri Jun 11, 2010, 6:03 pm EDT The troubled history of the unreleased thriller "Black Water Transit" took another twist on Friday when ownership of the movie valued in legal papers at $26 million was sold for a $2 million credit in a foreclosure auction opposed by a lender and the federal bankruptcy court trustee overseeing five companies controlled by embattled financier David Bergstein. The movie was sold at an auction in a west L.A. law office by Library Asset Acquisition Company (LAAC), whose ownership is confidential, but believed to be Bergstein and sometime partner Ronald Tutor, the construction company executive who is backing a Bergstein advised $650 million bid for Miramax. The buyer was a newly formed company called Black Water Transit Acquisition Company whose ownership is as murky as the plot of the movie, but appears to be Bergstein and Tutor. In the notice of the sale, buyers were told to contact Bergstein's lawyer Ray Reyes, who also signed papers on behalf of the buyer. Reyes told THR the identify of the seller and buyer was confidential. Bergstein has a history of buying properties out of foreclosure, even when it has involved his own companies, for a fraction of the real value, having eliminated all legal and debt obligations through the sale process. He is then free to re-sell or market the movie without paying lenders, mortgage holders or others. LAAC was apparently created by Bergstein and Tutor after they made a partial $45 million payment earlier this year on a debt owned to bankrupt New York hedge fund D.B. Zwirn (who claimed to be owed over $100 million). Tutor previously confirmed to THR he put up that $45 million. Since LAAC was technically a lender, they were able to bid $2 million Friday as a "credit," which means they took it off what they were owed without actually paying any cash. LAAC then transferred ownership of Black Water Transit to the new entity. There is also another legal entanglement. Both the sale and purchase involved Aramid Entertainment Fund, which made loans toward the production of the movie, but is now involved in litigation with Bergstein, Tutor and related entities. Aramid strongly objected to the sale of BWT because they said their rights were not being protected and that the sale would violate the bankruptcy laws, because five companies controlled by Bergstein are the subject of an involuntary bankruptcy action. Aramid has been one of the prime movers among the creditors bringing that action in federal court in Los Angeles. A lawyer for interim bankruptcy court trustee Ronald Durkin also strongly opposed the foreclosure sale Friday because he had not been consulted or given approval. Jeffrey Garfinke, an attorney with Buchalter Nemer, who was the agent handling the foreclosure sale, said on the record Friday that it was the opinion of his clients (LAAC) the sale had nothing to do with the bankruptcy action. He called the objections by Durkin "untenable, unsupportable and frankly idiotic." An attorney for Aramid, Eric Harbert of Stroock & Stroock, attended and noted the objections of his client, who he said reserved all their legal rights to challenge the sale later. Also attending was David Ahdoot, an attorney representing SAG, the DGA and WGA, who also objected to the sale and reserved legal rights to file a challenge. Ahdoot referred all questions to the guilds, whose spokesman declined comment. There were no other bidders for the movie, a crime drama based on a novel by Carsten Stroud, directed by Tony Kaye ("American History X"  and starring Laurence Fishburne, Stephen Dorff, Brittany Snow and Karl Urban. | |
|
||
| 06-12-10 10:08am - 5307 days | #174 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Negative cost is simply the cost of producing and shooting a movie. I assume they use that term because it's in fact a loss to the studios until the movie is released and then it either becomes a bigger loss or it's a money maker. A good example of negative cost being insignificant when compared to the P & A cost would be The Blair Witch Project. It had a negative cost of about 35,000$ in the beginning which somehow climbed to almost 750,000$. The studio spent about 25 millions to market the movie. It made almost 250 millions dollars so I don't think they are crying about the investment. Hollywood is renowned for their ability to play with the profit a movie makes. It's very common for a movie that made hundreds of millions to somehow be a loss. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-12-10 02:35pm - 5307 days | #175 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
You might have to be an inventive a-hole; that thing's got to be a bitch to get in the door.  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 06-12-10 07:54pm - 5307 days | #176 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
Finally getting to see Bruno now that it's on cable - some of it's hysterdically funny. The bit where he goes to an anti-gay parade handcuffed to his assistant pleading with these shit-heads carrying "God Hates Fags" signs to unlock them is a scream, as is the bit where he has a baby casting call and the parents are fine with whatever the hell he wants to do with their kids, including liposuction - I'm sure that's completely true to life. | |
|
||
| 06-15-10 04:38pm - 5304 days | #177 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
OK, for those who have been disappointed with this year's movie release schedule, there is still hope. I just read an article saying that 2011 year will be strong. So all you have to do is hold your breath until 2011 (and maybe saving your pennies to pay for any movie ticket price increases), and then it's BACK TO THE MOVIES! (Actually, I've been watching a lot of DVDs lately, getting them from redbox, for $1 each (plus tax). Anyhow, a partial listing of movies coming out in 2011: "Thor," "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides," "Captain America: The First Avenger," "Super 8," "Green Lantern," "X-Men: First Class," "Rise of the Apes," "Transformers 3," "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2" and "Cowboys & Aliens." And 2012 should be even stronger: "Battleship," "Men in Black 3," the "Spider-Man" reboot, "Star Trek 2," "The Avengers", "Batman 3." | |
|
||
| 06-15-10 07:28pm - 5304 days | #178 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
So what you are telling me is that we can look forward to 3 comic book movies. One of a Norse demi-God with a magical Hammer, Captain America whose super power is an indestructible shield, Green Lantern who has a magical ring(rumor has it that the movie is almost all CGI),the latest installement of Pirates of the Caribbean and after that third one which I thought was a nearly unwatchable mess, a new version of planet of the apes(whomever greenlite this one needs to have his/her head examined), the third Trasnformer movie without the twins and Megan, the lastest installment to Harry Potter. That will leave only 2 movie without any prior connection as far as I know. I'm really curious about 2012 because we have a new Spider Man in town and he's now a teenager fighting criminals all the while trying to fit in, in High School. Men in Black with aloder Will and Tommy Lee. I guess we won't see Zed since poor Rip broke into a bank last year. The Avengers. I wonder if Uma and Ralph will reprise their memorable roles? Batman 3. I'm possibly one of the few people who thought that Batman 2 was a large piece of turd and that the Joker was not very good character. Battleship which is based on the F..G game. This one is even worse then the Planet of the Apes or Avenger remake. Who do you have to F..k to get anyone to give money for a movie based on a board game? At least there is a new Star Trek. We should do try to guess ultimate box office profit for each of these movies before they are released. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-15-10 07:34pm - 5304 days | #179 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I won't say that Get him to the Greek is a bomb just yet but after almost 2 weeks in theather. It has earned only 39 million(that includes Intl sales) and their original budget was 40 million before marketing. You can add at least another 20 million for P&A and whatever else. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-15-10 09:22pm - 5304 days | #180 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Why exactly does Spider-Man even need a reboot? Didn't the last three makes hundreds of millions of dollars only a few years ago? And most of the those upcoming 'new' movies just look like a bunch of rehashes. This is part of the reason I avoid the theaters like a plague (the outrageous ticket prices don't help either); these supposed new releases are just extensions of crap I wasn't that interested in the first time around. It's as if Hollywood is just full of overgrown man-boys who are reliving their formative nerd years bringing every television series and comic book character to film rather than coming up with anything that hints at originality. Phew! That was a RagingBuddhist-style rant there for a moment, but I think I'm okay now.  I think I'll just stick with Netflix until I calm down. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 06-15-10 11:16pm - 5303 days | #181 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
The new Avengers movie that will be coming out is not based on the old TV series, but on some property from Marvel. So Uma and Ralph will not be making an appearance, unless it's by pure chance. As for guessing box office profits, I gave up on that game ages ago. When I watch a movie, I have no idea how much box office it will do until I read about it on the Internet. How much I personally like a movie has 0 correlation with the movie's box office. | |
|
||
| 06-25-10 07:06pm - 5294 days | #183 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I saw the new Tom Cruise movie Knight and Day and it's not bad. I don't know if I'd recommend it except maybe on cheapy tuesday(if you guys have that). It's got some good action sequences and the 2 main leads have good chemistry The problem is a recuring one with a lot of movies coming out of Hollywood these days. The story is poor and does not make a lot of sense. They try to imply that Tom's character is a rogue agent that went nuts but if he's your protagonist then why would you make him a deranged nutcase? This movie won't affect Tom or Cameron's career but I do not think we will see a Knight and Day II. If nothing else then it will be a great rental. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-25-10 08:44pm - 5294 days | #184 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
But isn't that the plot of the Jason Bourne movies? Rogue agent goes berserk, or berserk agent goes rogue, or something like that? Or am I just way off (again)? "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 06-26-10 07:07am - 5293 days | #185 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Hollywood often uses the rogue spy idea and Tom has all ready starred in one called Mision Impossible. Knight and Day is less intense and much funnier. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-26-10 10:55am - 5293 days | #186 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Tom Cruise hasn't had a major hit in years. The last time he starred in a hit was the Mission Impossible 3 movie, I believe. And even though that was a hit, I think it was also a box office disappointment, because that was around the time of his couch jumping incident, and when Viacom (Paramount) announced it was dumping him. Unfortunately, his new movie, Knight and Day, appears to be a major box office disappointment, based on the first two days of box office results. Cruise is still more popular than Kevin Costner, but neither one is as big box office as he used to be. | |
|
||
| 06-26-10 01:06pm - 5293 days | #187 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
That couch jumping incident did it for me. I saw "Eyes Wide Shut" shortly after that on TV and could no longer imagine him as a doctor or as an action hero. Too bad! | |
|
||
| 06-26-10 05:33pm - 5293 days | #188 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I think the problem is that until that moment. Most of us had no clue that Tom Cruise was mentaly disturbed. Since then we keep hearing stories about him and Scientology so that what we might have taken as a moment of siliness is now something different. I wonder if it was better in the old days of the studios and their complete power over their stars and the media. We knew less about our stars and therefore could watch them without having their personal lives interfering with our fantasy. I was a huge fan of Tom Cruise and I did enjoy Knight and Day. I just wish that I didn't think he's a nutcase so that I can enjoy his movies more. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-26-10 06:23pm - 5293 days | #189 | ||
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I think that's a big factor in the psychology of how we interact and enjoy movies, where the actor is a fantasy figure that has a glamorized, fantastical life. But when the real life of the actor conflicts with our image of the star, it can ruin or damage his career. And that's what happened to Tom Cruise, unfortunately.
| ||
|
|||
| 06-26-10 07:10pm - 5293 days | #190 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I wonder when real life will ever catch up with Robert Downey jr. (one of my favorite actors) or with Charlie Sheen? Man, those guys seem to be teflon coated because no scandal seems to stick to them very long before they are back in favor. | |
|
||
| 06-27-10 12:20am - 5292 days | #191 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I don't think so, because some of the scandals and secrets in the old days would churn you're stomach. Seriously, Tom Cruise is an angel in comparison to some of the things the 'old days' stars did, though their extracurricular activities were usually only revealed many years later. Murder, rape, underage sex partners (also rape), organized crime problems, government spying--couch jumping is just silly, but hardly a scandal. Maybe a little immature for an adult in his forties, but not too scandalous. Maybe if he had jumped up and down and admitted to murdering his wife/fiance instead of just loving her and then he ran out of the studio laughing his ass off like a maniac, then I would have been truly shocked. That's a scandal!  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove Edited on Jun 27, 2010, 12:26am | |
|
||
| 06-27-10 12:29am - 5292 days | #192 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
To be honest I enjoy a lot of their films, not all, but they have acted in some good movies. I think until dead bodies start surfacing in their backyards (or maybe it'll have to be the front yards) the public will still love them. I guess we can't help ourselves.  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 06-27-10 11:14am - 5292 days | #193 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
That's what I mean by the Studio system in the old days. There were many skeletons but they almost never came out during the stars career. Would many of us be able to watch a wholesome actress if we found out that she slept with the producer and the director to get the part? The casting couch isn't just a fantasy. It existed and still does. That's small potato to some scandals but if it was found out. How many actresses would be able to get family friendly roles after that? I had no problem with the couch jumping in itself. It's all the Scientology crap that followed. MY eyes were opened after I saw an actor that got really high inside the organisation before he realised how much BS it was and how much money they wound up taking from him. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-27-10 07:37pm - 5292 days | #194 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Crazy scandals and/or lifestyles could also help their acting credit. Might make one think "Wow, I know he's a fundamentalist nut in real life but when I watched him in that film he seemed like a truly different person." Or it could also scare you to death if you ever met that person in real life, because you know the nut lurking just behind the smile.  I am still way more freaked out by Mel Gibson. There are other actors who are probably more devout but they don't have the star power of Mel, nor do they seem as genuinely psychotic. Who else really has the blockbuster filmography, antisemitic-themed arrest scandal, and Holocaust-denying father to their name? "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 06-30-10 01:54pm - 5289 days | #195 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Eclipse (the 3rd movie in the Twilight series of vampires and werewolves) took in $30 million at its Wednesday midnight showings. This gives the movie a strong shot at opening at #1 or #2 for the weekend. Fans of the series were waiting in line at some theaters starting at 3 pm or earlier for the midnight showing. Some estimates are that Eclipse will earn $200+ million in its first five days (Wednesday thru Sunday), setting a new box office record. Even though the core fan base is teen girls, the book and movie franchises are a world-wide phenomenon. I plan on waiting for the DVD. I saw the first two movies in this series on DVD, thought they were boring. But I'm not a teen girl. But pre-teen girls and older women are also into this series. I'm not sure how many guys are into this series. Especially the guys at PU. Even though I have heard the Twilight series referred to as "girl porn": no explicit sex, heightened emotions, romantic male characters. Actually, though, even girl porn is starting to expand its borders, and allow at least some explicit sex. Many sub-genres of girl porn, that never allowed more than a kiss, now allow groping and actual sexual acts to occur, even when the hero and heroine are not even married. Heaven forbid! | |
|
||
| 06-30-10 11:47pm - 5288 days | #196 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I gotta get my hands on projector and a print of this film and start having private 'discount' screenings at my home with a 18-19 year old age range posted at the door. These movies sound like catnip for teen girls and if they are willing to line up hours ahead of the premiere then they are probably willing to buy tickets from some guy willing to show it for cheap, even if he doesn't know anything about the movie itself. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 07-01-10 08:35am - 5288 days | #197 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
turboshaft, you will need to get the teens to sign a waiver stating they are of legal age, and are consenting to some type of relationship with you. That should protect you against showing "girl porn" to unprotected females. | |
|
||
| 07-01-10 03:40pm - 5288 days | #198 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Mel Gibson still having problems with anger management? There are reports of a recorded rant by Mel Gibson where Mel Gibson says to his former girlfriend: "You look like a f****** pig in heat, and if you get raped by a pack of n******, it will be your fault," Gibson allegedly said in a recording. Gibson also reportedly called Grigorieva a "c***" and a "wh***," the sites both reported. Additionally, Radar claimed Gibson told his ex, "I am going to come and burn the f***ing house down." Grigorieva and Gibson are currently locked in a heated custody battle over their daughter Lucia, who is just 7 months old. TMZ reported that audio tapes of Gibson's alleged rant have been turned into the court, where they remain sealed. It is unclear if a tape, perhaps recorded without the other person's knowledge, would be admissible in court. If the reports are true, it sounds like Mel Gibson has more than just anger management issues. Maybe he's got alcohol-related problems, as well, which led to his arrest and massive bad publicity for his anti-Semitic rant 4 years ago. | |
|
||
| 07-01-10 05:03pm - 5288 days | #199 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I know he's played a bunch of nutballs and crazies in his films but in real life he doesn't sound much kinder. But at least he's not donning warpaint and a kilt and charging after his critics on horseback!  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 07-02-10 07:28pm - 5287 days | #200 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I've read all the books and enjoyed them all. They won't win any literary awards or at least I hope they don't. They are written with young girls in mind and it shows. At it's core it is a love triangle that is a little too soap operaish(not sure if this is a word?) for my taste but it's got vampires, werewolves, good looking people living the perfect life forever.(except for the part about repeating high school every few years). Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 07-04-10 06:38pm - 5285 days | #201 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I saw Eclipse this afternoon and it's by far the best movie in the series. There is far more action to appeal to the boys and more romance for the girls. My biggest issue with the movie is the same one I've had with all of the other ones. The films add many things that aren't in the books and omit things that should be. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 07-08-10 02:41am - 5281 days | #202 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Accounting at the movies (and TV) Disney is a billion dollar corporation, but they never learned to keep a set a books. Or maybe the problem is they keep too many books: one for employee bonuses, one for business partners, one for shareholders, one for the IRS, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Jury says Disney owes 'Millionaire' makers $269.2M AP By SUE MANNING, Associated Press Writer Sue Manning, Associated Press Writer – Wed Jul 7, 5:55 pm ET LOS ANGELES – A federal jury on Wednesday awarded $269.2 million in damages to the creators of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" because they didn't get their fair share of profits from the popular Walt Disney Co. television game show. The jury of five women and four men returned a unanimous verdict agreeing with a British TV production company, the London-based Celador International, which accused Walt Disney of using creative accounting to hide profits. The trial was held before Judge Virginia Phillips in U.S. District Court in Riverside, about 60 miles east of Los Angeles. "We believe this verdict is fundamentally wrong and will aggressively seek to have it reversed," Disney said in a statement. Disney attorneys did not return calls for additional comment. Lead Celador attorney Roman Silberfeld said the verdict form given to jurors was 18 pages long and included 40 or 50 questions, and "every one came out in Celador's favor, 9-0 on every question." The jury awarded $260 million in license fees and $9.2 million for merchandising claims, which were made based on $70 million in sales of a home edition of the game show. Celador had asked for a minimum of $202 million and a maximum of $395 million, Silberfeld said. "At a time when (Disney-owned) ABC was ranked last among the networks and desperately needed a hit, it entered into an agreement with Celador to put 'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire' on the air and share the profits of success — if there was success — with Celador 50-50. Every witness testified that was the deal," Silberfeld said. During four weeks of testimony, Disney Chief Executive Robert Iger took the stand and e-mails from former Disney boss Michael Eisner about his enthusiasm for the show were admitted into evidence. The show, which was first hosted by Regis Philbin, became very successful for ABC in 1999 and 2000, ranking in the top 10 shows across the country at least four times that season, Silberfeld said. It put the network in first place, allowing them to charge more in ad revenues, he said, but "ABC and a series of affiliated companies entered into a series of agreements that were solely intended to show 'Millionaire' never showed a profit." "If you look at an accounting statement today, after 10 years on the air, it says it has lost money every year and is $75 million in the red," the attorney said. Silberfeld said he expected post-trial maneuvers and that an appeal would take a couple of years. The show was on the air from August 1999 to May 2002. It came back in syndication in fall 2002 and has been on the air since. Celador sought profits from the show from August of 1999 through the day the original complaint was filed in May 2004, Silberfeld said. An auditing of books and records is continuing, he added. | |
|
||
| 151-200 of 1215 Posts | < Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | Page 4 | 5 | 9 | 13 | 17 | 24 | 25 | Next Page > |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
