|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like they were reading Lukas Kendall's "Franchise Fatigue" essay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 14, 2013 - 6:21 AM
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Spielberg has been saying the same thing since the mid-80s and he trots it out periodically, usually when he is peddling a non-event movie. I. 30 years he hasn't got it right. Blockbusters still cost gazillions and gazillion-dollar blockbusters are still being made inspite of mega-flops like the risible John Carter. Movie budgets may reduce over time but never drastically so. Even if the talent agree to take a substantially reduced wage, the sheer cost of mounting a big summer blockbuster isn't goi g to do anything but increase and that is just simple economics. Heck, even a home movie you could have made for 100 bucks a few years ago would now cost you five times as much. Yeah Mike, But the income demand for these pictures to make any actual money, as in a profit, is just absurd. A picture like Man of Steel probably needs about $800 or 900 million in ticket sales to recover. It occasionally happens, not often though. So the result is that what was "mass appeal" 20 years ago has to be even more "mass appeal", so these films are less made by filmmakers, than engineered/marketed and cross promoted. It is more like selling vacuums door to door. I mean, it is rather odd that I have the Man of Steel glaring at me selling razor blades. I mean does he want to hurt me before or after he sells me the razors?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unless you've actually SEEN the film AFTER EARTH, I wouldn't knock it. I disregarded the publicity and went to see it, and found both film & score enjoyable and worth seeing. Screw critics. Usually anything I like is put down by them anyway. Maybe Lucas and Spielberg are just jealous of the success of AVENGERS-type event films.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|