Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Trent Trueheart

In Reply To
mtyoung

Subj: Re: Curious to your reasons
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:33:08 am EST
Reply Subj: Re: Curious to your reasons
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:57:18 am EST

Previous Post

> > But look at Golden Compass, a recent movie flop. $250M budget, $60M in marketing, and will probably only make $150M in theater gross. Then the studio probably only gets half of that total gross. So right there, you are looking at the studio with a net loss of $235M.
>
> The question is, could they have shot Golden Compass for less? I get that there's a lot of CGI and special effects in it, which there's not much you can do about. But there's also a lot of big names in it. Could those actors have been paid less or could they have gotten lesser known (and thus cheaper) actors? And let's face it, the more money you put into something, the less likely you are to see it again. You can't just throw money at the screen and expect it to be successful.

That's not really a valid question. No matter what, the studio lost money on it, when they expected to make money on it. But just to argue...

Or maybe the writers could have asked for less money? Or gotten lesser known (and thus cheaper) writers. And I could argue the point about more expensive movies get bigger profits. Just look at any blockbuster. People want to see expensive visuals, be it dinosaurs, superheroes, or robots. All of the highest grossing movies of all time have been really expensive (at least non animated ones which are just expensive as well).

This is really a needless arguement.

> > The strike would have worked better if they just waited till the summer. Then they would have the SAG on their side, and most importantly, television writers wouldn't get upset.
>
> I'm not understanding the last part of that.

Misspoke, television viewers wouldn't get upset since the season would have already ended, and any strike delay would merely delay the start of the new season months later. But then the viewers wouldn't care during the summer (since it didnt affect them) and the WGA really seems to be trying to use public sentiment as their number one weapon.

> > But I just saw this. For the current TV season, I assume beginning in September, here are the most watched programs.
> >
> > 1) Patriots vs Giants
> > 2) Patriots vs Colts
> > 3) Patriots vs Steelers
> > 4) Patriots vs Cowboys
> > 5) Seasons premiere of CSI

> 1) Please show your work.

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/12/30/34-5-million-viewers-for-patriots-giants/#cont
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-nfltv29dec29,0,2239810.story?coll=la-headlines-calendar
etc.

Do I win? JK.

> 2) Is that Saturday's Pats/Giants game?
Yeah

> 3) I heard about 34.5 million people watched said Pats/Giants game. Which means about 275 million people didn't.

303 population in the US. So subtraction gets you 268.5M (calling you out on the exaggeration). And you can't use that thinking when looking at television ratings for various reasons. Needless to say, it was the most watched television show this season.

And then you have to consider that the game last several hours.

> I'm not saying that sports can't pull in big numbers, I'm saying that more people watch scripted television than sports. Meaning if you took a poll of the 300 million people living in the US, more people have watched at least one scripted show in the last week than a sports game.

Total, well of course. There are simply much more scripted shows on television.

And I would question your hypothetical outcome of that poll. If more, it would not be by alot. I would think somewhere around 70% have watched some sort of sports game, while about 80% have watched some form of scripted show. Especially during football season.

I'm really just trying to make by best guesses here, but I tried not to be bias.

> As for the Super Bowl, I could have sworn I read something that said about 50% of the people watch simply for the commercials. Which still means a lot of people are watching for the game, just not as many as the ratings indicate.
>
There's really no way I beleive that. There might be a small percentage that only watches it for commercials (under 10%), but there has to be a very large percentagte that watches for a combination of commercials and the game if not just for the game itself (over 90%).

One quick search shows a gallup poll that says 66% of people enjoy the game more, while 33% shows they enjoy the commercial more. Its not hard to beleive that out of that 33%, most of them do enjoy the game somewhat, just that it's just not their primary reason for watching.

Just tell me I am both awesome and right. \:\)

> > > But look at Golden Compass, a recent movie flop. $250M budget, $60M in marketing, and will probably only make $150M in theater gross. Then the studio probably only gets half of that total gross. So right there, you are looking at the studio with a net loss of $235M.
> >
> > The question is, could they have shot Golden Compass for less? I get that there's a lot of CGI and special effects in it, which there's not much you can do about. But there's also a lot of big names in it. Could those actors have been paid less or could they have gotten lesser known (and thus cheaper) actors? And let's face it, the more money you put into something, the less likely you are to see it again. You can't just throw money at the screen and expect it to be successful.
>
> That's not really a valid question. No matter what, the studio lost money on it, when they expected to make money on it. But just to argue...

How is that not a valid question? Most flops are flops because they cost so damn much. If they made the same exact movie for cheaper, the movie still could have flopped, but it wouldn't have been as bad.

>
> Or maybe the writers could have asked for less money? Or gotten lesser known (and thus cheaper) writers. And I could argue the point about more expensive movies get bigger profits. Just look at any blockbuster. People want to see expensive visuals, be it dinosaurs, superheroes, or robots. All of the highest grossing movies of all time have been really expensive (at least non animated ones which are just expensive as well).

Can you hear my eyes rolling? First of all, the director Chris Weitz was also the writer. I don't know how much he got paid, but in this case, yes, he probably could have been paid less, but being the writer/director, he probably got a few million. Had he been just the writer, he would have got much less.

And let's not forget that expensive visuals isn't enough. You also need to make a good movie. The Golden Compass has a 42% rating at Rotten Tomatoes.

>
> This is really a needless arguement.
>
> > > The strike would have worked better if they just waited till the summer. Then they would have the SAG on their side, and most importantly, television writers wouldn't get upset.
> >
> > I'm not understanding the last part of that.
>
> Misspoke, television viewers wouldn't get upset since the season would have already ended, and any strike delay would merely delay the start of the new season months later. But then the viewers wouldn't care during the summer (since it didnt affect them) and the WGA really seems to be trying to use public sentiment as their number one weapon.

Ah, okay.

>
> > > But I just saw this. For the current TV season, I assume beginning in September, here are the most watched programs.
> > >
> > > 1) Patriots vs Giants
> > > 2) Patriots vs Colts
> > > 3) Patriots vs Steelers
> > > 4) Patriots vs Cowboys
> > > 5) Seasons premiere of CSI
>
> > 1) Please show your work.
>
> http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/12/30/34-5-million-viewers-for-patriots-giants/#cont
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-nfltv29dec29,0,2239810.story?coll=la-headlines-calendar
> etc.
>
> Do I win? JK.

YES! Have a cookie.

And looking closer, I noticed one thing they failed to mention, the Colts, Steelers and Cowboys games were all afternoon games, not in primetime. Had they been in primetime, would they have done as well?

>
> > 2) Is that Saturday's Pats/Giants game?
> Yeah
>
> > 3) I heard about 34.5 million people watched said Pats/Giants game. Which means about 275 million people didn't.
>
> 303 population in the US. So subtraction gets you 268.5M (calling you out on the exaggeration). And you can't use that thinking when looking at television ratings for various reasons. Needless to say, it was the most watched television show this season.

Let's not forget, it was on a Saturday night when nothing else was on. And it was on 3 national channels. And the Pats were 15-0 coming into the game. This was not your average football game.

Also, I think it's easier to get football fans to watch a single football game then to get 30 million people to watch an hour of House (well, except for when it airs after the Super Bowl). Football fans like football, but not everyone who likes scripted television will watch a single show.

>
> And then you have to consider that the game last several hours.
>
> > I'm not saying that sports can't pull in big numbers, I'm saying that more people watch scripted television than sports. Meaning if you took a poll of the 300 million people living in the US, more people have watched at least one scripted show in the last week than a sports game.
>
> Total, well of course. There are simply much more scripted shows on television.
>
> And I would question your hypothetical outcome of that poll. If more, it would not be by alot. I would think somewhere around 70% have watched some sort of sports game, while about 80% have watched some form of scripted show. Especially during football season.
>
> I'm really just trying to make by best guesses here, but I tried not to be bias.

I would say it's higher that 80%, but that's just me.

>
> > As for the Super Bowl, I could have sworn I read something that said about 50% of the people watch simply for the commercials. Which still means a lot of people are watching for the game, just not as many as the ratings indicate.
> >
> There's really no way I beleive that. There might be a small percentage that only watches it for commercials (under 10%), but there has to be a very large percentagte that watches for a combination of commercials and the game if not just for the game itself (over 90%).
>
> One quick search shows a gallup poll that says 66% of people enjoy the game more, while 33% shows they enjoy the commercial more. Its not hard to beleive that out of that 33%, most of them do enjoy the game somewhat, just that it's just not their primary reason for watching.
>
> Just tell me I am both awesome and right. \:\)

Well, however many people watch for the commercials, I wish they would stop inflating the ratings.

- TT


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.11 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software