• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

Zardnaar's thread about movie stats

trappedslider

Explorer
Generally the smaller independent studios.

Also never claimed the larger studios don't make smaller movies. What part of lack of variety at the top of the heap is so hard to understand?.
Step 1:
I should have rephrased it to ones that make lots of money.
Step 2 was me posting the fact that all three of those new IPs all made money.

Step 3:
Those are all Indy type movies.
When they are not indy type movies.

EDIT:And it's a fact that historically, Horror has always preformed well with New IPs (more or less),maybe not billion dollars like you want,but clearly enough for the studios to keep paying for them to be made. And let's be honest straight up horror movies will never hit the billion dollar spot right out of the gate if ever. But to dismiss a whole selection of films as not money makers because they don't hit the "B" is well just arrogant and makes me think you agree with the following statement with "a society that is hit-driven, and makes way and room for only those films that are expected to be a hit, is in fact a limited society" -The Long Tail, Chris Anderson
 
Last edited:

Zardnaar

Adventurer
Horror doesn't need a massive budget but it's never gonna be massive as by default you're excluding kids.
Personally I find horror hard as I don't find them scary which kind if defeats the purpose of the genre. I plan on watching IT soon, looks good though.

Scariest movie I ever saw was Aliens but I was very young 8 or 9.

I don't actually care if a movie makes money or not, the studios do though. They'll spam out whatever they think people will pay for.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Because people are just not picking after I gave said multiple times I wasn't referring to Indy type movies, provided links to 6 studios make up over 85% of last year's box office.
Read up on the No True Scotsman fallacy; that will explain why you're having such a hard time in this conversation, and why people are finding it a frustrating experience trying to talk with you.
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
Read up on the No True Scotsman fallacy; that will explain why you're having such a hard time in this conversation, and why people are finding it a frustrating experience trying to talk with you.
I thought the context of my first post was fine at least as I understood it.

Is there anything misleading or wrong with the following
" There is a lack of variety and originality in big Hollywood productions".

That's basically what I meant/was aiming at. Do I really need to put IMHO on everything you post on a forum unless you're quoting someone?

I provided links to what I was talking about, you're the one who says reference things more. Main reason I don't usually bother is because people
A. Don't read them.
B. Fake news it
C. Ignore it's contents.

I even provided a link to what's available locally. If people like find from Cannes to go with their organic soy lattes and kale salad that's great, not much of an option here even if you wanted to.

Any looks like I'm being dragged off to the Lion King and Secret Life of Pets. Combined with the classic Detective Pikachu that's almost 3 movies in a month. I got outvoted my vote and her vote. On a draw I lose.
 

Hussar

Legend
Rise of Netflix, Amazon Prime...etc
Current Living Costs as opposed to the 90's
Ease of Piracy
Crappy storytelling and unoriginal content
Higher production and marketing costs
Trying to compare the 1990's to now is pretty difficult. It's such a different market that there really isn't any comparison. I mean, good grief, we're to the point now where TV shows have budgets that put 1990's big tent pole movies to shame. Something like Star Trek Discovery, or Game of Thrones has a budget that dwarfs most big screen offerings.

I remember a time when it was always a mark of an actor "making it" when they moved from small to big screen. Now, we're seeing big name actors working on the small screen and it's seen as a step up for their careers.

The whole industry is so different now.

Oh, and let's not forget that we live in a time when the video game market dwarfs Hollywood. The competition for the entertainment dollar is much greater than it was. And, let's not forget, you have the emerging Chinese market - the second largest movie market outside of the States, where lots of properties work and others completely don't. The Fast and Furious franchise absolutely rakes it in in China, while, Star Wars, for example, tanks.

It's a radically different market than 30 years ago.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
I provided links to what I was talking about, you're the one who says reference things more. Main reason I don't usually bother is because people
A. Don't read them.
B. Fake news it
C. Ignore it's contents.
You know, casting aspersions on folks because they see different things as important is... not really a great way to have a conversation.
 
Last edited:

trappedslider

Explorer
I thought the context of my first post was fine at least as I understood it.

Is there anything misleading or wrong with the following
" There is a lack of variety and originality in big Hollywood productions".
and if you're going to quote yourself do it correctly because you said

Hollywood doesn't really do new movies.
I named three movies that were original and you dismissed them despite them fitting the criteria that you originally posted. It wasn't till later that you started adding words like "blockbuster" etc
 

Advertisement

Top