Community >> View Post
·
Post By
mtyoung

In Reply To
Trent Trueheart

Subj: Re: Curious to your reasons
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 04:25:23 pm EST
Reply Subj: Re: Curious to your reasons
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:14:41 am EST

Previous Post

> > > 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.

I'm willing to make a concession: overpriced movies certainly can fail to recoup their costs.

>
> > 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.

You're absolutely right. And I know nothing about the Golden Compass. It could be a good story, it could be a good script, but the critics don't like it. And honestly, I question spending what they did on something that seems rather unproven. His Dark Materials is no Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings or Chronicles of Narnia.

>
> 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.

And it hasn't even opened in a lot of foreign markets. And when you add it DVD sales, I'm sure it will make money. Maybe not a lot, but it probably will end up in the black.

>
> 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.

Actually, the games on NBC have done nowhere near what those CBS games have done. And chances are, in primetime they would have not done as well. But we'll never know.

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

Desperate Housewives. Nuff said.

>
> > 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.

That wasn't what I said, but whatever.

>
> 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.

But not if it airs on a Saturday night. Those games average like 7-8 million.

>
> > 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.

I don't really see what length has to do with anything. Unless you're saying people are more likely to not watch an entire football game.

>
> > > 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.

You're forgetting one thing, football is the only sport that really pulls in these big ratings. And given that December and half of January is usually rerun city, there's really nothing that different so far. By the time most new episodes of scripted television are exhausted, do you really think people will turn to basketball and hockey? Obviously some will, but most will still be missing their scripted shows.

- TT

> I'm willing to make a concession: overpriced movies certainly can fail to recoup their costs.

If you are still not willing to believe that the statement "6 out of 10 movies fail to recoup their costs" then apparently you aren't going to be convinced here. I'm not saying that this statement is 100%, since I don't have proof in front of me, but I am willing to believe its true.

> > But no one knows what makes a good movie. If we need, all movies will be good.
>
> You're absolutely right. And I know nothing about the Golden Compass. It could be a good story, it could be a good script, but the critics don't like it. And honestly, I question spending what they did on something that seems rather unproven. His Dark Materials is no Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings or Chronicles of Narnia.

You can always question spending money on a failure in hindsight, but I'm sure those making the movie had its best interest at heart and were trying to create a blockbuster.

> > 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.
>
> And it hasn't even opened in a lot of foreign markets. And when you add it DVD sales, I'm sure it will make money. Maybe not a lot, but it probably will end up in the black.

I don't really think it will be a DVD success, since its probabily not a movie you can rewatch easily. And I also don't think it will have success in the foreign markets either. But thats really just my opinion, and I can't back it up with facts. On the other hand, I don't really care that much about it either.

> > 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 you at least agree here?

----

> Actually, the games on NBC have done nowhere near what those CBS games have done. And chances are, in primetime they would have not done as well. But we'll never know.

I'm still going to think that nightgames get much higher ratings. When you look at the football schedules, the better games are usually at night. The NFL even changes its schedule week to week so that the most popular teams playing play at night. For instance, the NFL would constantly reschedule the Patriots to play night games instead of afternoon games. From this, I would think that the same game played at both the afternoon and night, will have higher ratings at night.

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

Counter-programming. Desperate Housewives fans are probably not the same ones that are big football games. Regardless, it doesn't matter.

> > 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.
>
> That wasn't what I said, but whatever.

You are saying that football is not the highest rated show week in and week out. For the week of Dec 3-9 (a week I picked randomly cause it was the first one I found), football was also the most watched show, and it wasn't one of the previous games listed here, though it was a Patriots game. Also in that week, of the top 7 shows, 4 were football shows.

I'm not going to say that football is always the number one show each week, but that sports games (and more specifically football) are highly watched shows, usually taking up a number of top ten spots. Agree?

> > 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.
>
> But not if it airs on a Saturday night. Those games average like 7-8 million.

Not understanding the point. I simply meant to say that if there wasn't a College Bowl game on at the same time as the recent Patriots game, the viewers would have been even higher.

> > 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.
>
> I don't really see what length has to do with anything. Unless you're saying people are more likely to not watch an entire football game.

I am saying that I think its alot harder to get someone to watch a single program for 3 hours than it is to get someone to watch shorter shows during that same time. Those MNF games can go to midnight, and people aren't less likely to stay that late.

> > 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.
>
> You're forgetting one thing, football is the only sport that really pulls in these big ratings. And given that December and half of January is usually rerun city, there's really nothing that different so far. By the time most new episodes of scripted television are exhausted, do you really think people will turn to basketball and hockey? Obviously some will, but most will still be missing their scripted shows.

But my point was that people aren't missing scripted shows because there are other things to watch. Fall/Winter is really the height of sports seasons, with football, basketball, and the ending of Baseball. It would have been far more of an advantage for the WGA to make sure new shows weren't being shown starting after winter. As it is, new shows will continued to be aired into the spring and further for some shows.

But theres really nothing left for me to say here.


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