Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Trent Trueheart

In Reply To
mtyoung

Subj: Re: Curious to your reasons
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:01:06 pm CST
Reply Subj: Re: Curious to your reasons
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 03:25:23 pm CST

Previous Post

> 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.

> > 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 I still feel that most if not all movies will eventually recoup their costs. It may take many years, but I'm sure it happens.

>
> > > 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.

Oh, absolutely. Everybody who makes a film thinks it's great.

>
> > > 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.

Well, it's a Stephen King film, so it probably will be a moderate success on DVD. Not sure about foreign markets though.

>
> > > 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?
>
> ----

Sure.

>
> > 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.

You can think that all you want, but it just doesn't seem to be the case. Since MNF went to ESPN, I don't believe it's pulled in more than 20 million (I could be wrong) and I'm pretty sure NBC's Sunday Night Football hasn't gotten that either (although I think it's gotten close). And yet, 3 afternoon Pats games got over 30 million.

>
> > > 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.

You can't really count Dec 3-9 because a lot of scripted shows were in repeat mode. Obviously football is going to do very well when nothing else is on.

>
> 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?

Sure.

>
> > > 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.

Maybe, maybe not.

>
> > > 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.

But don't forget, people don't watch the whole game. Generally, the ratings go up as the game goes on because people just want to see who wins. Of course, if it's a bad game, the ratings are going to go down.

>
> > > 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 there's always going to be something else to watch. That's the whole nature of television.

The WGA has no control over when the networks decide to air their work. And with the strike, the networks are going to stretch it out as much as they can.

>
> But theres really nothing left for me to say here.

Because you know you're wrong. Thank you. \:\)


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