Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 1299758" data-attributes="member: 4720">Except that all of those are very flawed constructs which they misinterpret and ignore at will, anyway.&nbsp; The best (and most often cited) example being the Batman movies.&nbsp; After the truly, truly awful Batman &amp; Robin did poorly compared to previous Batman movies, the studio concluded that the franchise was over-exposed, and that was the reason for the lackluster performance.&nbsp; Anyone with 5 operating neurons could figure out that was a load, but it was the conclusion that allowed everyone to save face, and they conveniently had marketing reports to &quot;prove&quot; it.&nbsp; Of course, that's not surprising.&nbsp; You can prove anything with a well-designed survey.&nbsp; Give me a few hours to design one, and I can use a survey to prove that the public wants nothing more than to see Vin Diesel play James Bond in a Wachowski Bros. production of &quot;The Little Mermaid meets Octopussy in Space.&quot;Also, if movie studios wanted to entertain us, they wouldn't be complaining that text messaging is hurting their opening weekend revenues by allowing people to get early word of serious stinkers.&nbsp; If their motivation was to entertain us, they wouldn't be releasing known stinkers under the assumption that opening weekend sales would still cover costs.The studios want our money, and they don't care is they get it by entertaining us or tricking us.Outside of the modern movie studios there are true filmakers.&nbsp; Some, like Lucas, want to tell their stories and don't really seem to care how entertaining they are to the fan base or even the mass market.&nbsp; Others, like Jackson, want to entertain and tell stories.&nbsp; You'll notice that Jackson doesn't exactly seem to be plugged into the whole marketing report thing.&nbsp; I find that to be rather telling.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost, post: 1299758, member: 4720"] Except that all of those are very flawed constructs which they misinterpret and ignore at will, anyway. The best (and most often cited) example being the Batman movies. After the truly, truly awful Batman & Robin did poorly compared to previous Batman movies, the studio concluded that the franchise was over-exposed, and that was the reason for the lackluster performance. Anyone with 5 operating neurons could figure out that was a load, but it was the conclusion that allowed everyone to save face, and they conveniently had marketing reports to "prove" it. Of course, that's not surprising. You can prove anything with a well-designed survey. Give me a few hours to design one, and I can use a survey to prove that the public wants nothing more than to see Vin Diesel play James Bond in a Wachowski Bros. production of "The Little Mermaid meets Octopussy in Space." Also, if movie studios wanted to entertain us, they wouldn't be complaining that text messaging is hurting their opening weekend revenues by allowing people to get early word of serious stinkers. If their motivation was to entertain us, they wouldn't be releasing known stinkers under the assumption that opening weekend sales would still cover costs. The studios want our money, and they don't care is they get it by entertaining us or tricking us. Outside of the modern movie studios there are true filmakers. Some, like Lucas, want to tell their stories and don't really seem to care how entertaining they are to the fan base or even the mass market. Others, like Jackson, want to entertain and tell stories. You'll notice that Jackson doesn't exactly seem to be plugged into the whole marketing report thing. I find that to be rather telling. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification