Community >> View Post
·
Post By
mtyoung

In Reply To
Trent Trueheart

Subj: Re: Curious to your reasons
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:22:09 pm EST
Reply Subj: Re: Curious to your reasons
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:33:08 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...

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

> > 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.

I don't think its a valid question because the arguement is whether or not movies could make all their money back, but whether they do. Your question is based off the assumption that studios don't want to make money. I'm sure the movie studios would love to have all their movies make money, but they just don't know how to do that. And sure, you may think you do, but I'm guessing your experience and knowledge of movie making is limited.

You stated that today's movies recoup their costs. I simply provided you with a recent famous example of how that statement is not always true.

> 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.

Sure, they could save money any numbers of ways. A simple principle (though not always true) is the more money you spend on a movie, the more money you are able to bring in. Like I said, sometimes expensive movies flop. I can belive that 6 out of 10 movies don't get back their costs when all the numbers are finally added up.

Don't get snarky cause you are being proven wrong. \:\)

> 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.

But no one knows what makes a good movie. If we need, all movies will be good.

The Mist, costing $18M to make, and lets assume $9M on marketing (couldn't find the figure) only made $28M. It has a 69% rating on Rotten Tomato. So its a "good" movie, but it didn't make alot of money. And the studio probabily lost money on it.

This is still really a needless arguement.

My main point here in this part of the discussion is that neither me, you, or any other television/movie fan has any real idea of the financial side to the WGA strike.

> > 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?

Would the games be more popular if shown at night? I could see why they would be. Afternoon games have traditionally always had lower ratings than night games. Sof if those games were played at night, I would think they would have higher ratings.

I don't think any shows on Monday or Sunday Night have the power to seriously damage those ratings. Cold case and CSI Miami?

> 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.
>
It wasn't. But the result is that 4 of the top 5 shows this season were sports games. You stated that a sports game wasn't the most watched show, and I have proven it was.

Also, ther was a college bowl game on at the same time, and I would think that if that game wasn't on, there would have been even more people watching.

Since I assume you don't know much about sports, there is a large percentage of sports fans who would much rather watch any college football game, than any pro 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.

I understand what you are trying to say. But just as all scripted television fans don't watch House, not all sports fans, or even pro football fans are willing to watch certain games. And remember, football games are significantly longer than a single television show, lasting between 3 and 4 hours sometimes.

> > 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.

Well, I was figuring in people who don't watch television at all, those who are just to busy to watch, those who just watch movies, those who only watch reality television, etc.

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

I would think less than 15% watch just for the commercials, so really its not big deal. Even then, I don't think any other television show comes close to the SuperBowl numbers, unless its another sports event like the BCS Champtionship game, or a NFL playoff game.

My main point in this part of the discussion, is that alot of people watch sports games on television, and that having a WGA strike during the major sports season is a bad idea since viewers will have something else to watch besides scripted television.


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