Monday Morning Quarterback Part I

By BOP Staff

November 1, 2010

Where in the world is Randy Moss?

New at BOP:
Share & Save
Digg Button  
Print this column
From a business standpoint, yes, it is all about money (corporations such as movie studios are considered living entities and they have to survive), but I can't imagine turning my back on my own ethics (which in this case would be to put out high quality content) just to make a buck. As a studio boss, you have to keep the studio going, but you also have to look at yourself in the mirror everyday and convince yourself you're trying your best at what you do, which is to entertain audiences and run a business (that may sound a bit dramatic, but we all take cinema seriously). No one said the job was easy. I'm not sure who the head of Lionsgate is, but he/she has lost points with me. Can they honestly say they like the Saw films?

Max Braden: I never saw any of those movies in theater, mostly be cause horror isn't really my thing. But a reliable horror movie at Halloween time feels like the American way, and I wouldn't want to give that up. That doesn't mean I'm looking for any old garbage to fill a spot, but it's like fast food: comforting even if it's never going to be good for you. That doesn't mean there isn't room for other horror entries to compete, and isn't that the way every series starts?

Tom Houseman: I'll jump on the praising Josh bandwagon (Yay Josh!) but I'll point out a few factors that he overlooked. These sorts of franchises rely on setting up a tradition in the minds of moviegoers. Much like every Thanksgiving I watch the Cowboys play, a lot of people go out every Halloweekend to see the newest iteration of their chosen franchise. Studios can keep going back to the well because 1) These movies are very cheap, and 2) They don't rely on star power at all. The fact that new characters keep getting introduced and killed off makes it very easy to round up a bunch of fresh faced (and large-bosomed) youngsters who are eager to work for next to nothing. It's a very effective strategy for making a quick buck.

As a fan of great movies, I find myself disappointed in the strategy, but no more so than I am disappointed in most reality TV from my vantage as a fan of great television. It smacks of laziness, because it's practically impossible to make a great movie in a year, but since I don't care, it doesn't bother me that much. I plan on ignoring the Saw franchise it goes away, which apparently will be soon.




Advertisement



Shalimar Sahota: Already appropriately answered. Yearly sequels appear to have resulted in an ultimate a lack of quality in the later films and fewer audiences turning up, but there's enough of a profit to make another, and another...

On a slightly similar note, it's as if some of these studio bosses are just too lazy, or scared, to fund anything original and are instead finding films from yesteryear to reboot. During the last five years we've seen the resurrection of dead franchises. There have been remakes of A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Halloween and The Hills Have Eyes. The last two have their own sequels too, and there's another Elm Street sequel in the works. I guess the recent releases of The Crazies and Piranha 3D could probably fit in here as well. I don't really have anything against remakes (provided they're done well), but in some of these instances it just feels like a rush to get them out there and make a quick return at the box office. I wouldn't be surprised if Saw ends up with an unnecessary remake in about ten years time.

David Mumpower: I think that Tom's comment of "smacks of laziness" encapsulates the issue. One of the basic tenets of economics is that money today is better than money tomorrow. While I maintain that a better infrastructure would allow for multiple projects to be created simultaneously and the quality of each would improve due to this focus on planning, I'm a realist here. At the end of the day, movies are just a widget of a different sort. The quality of output matters only to people who care about movies. Capitalists are focused on the revenue the products accrue and that logic supports what Josh said. Getting new product out on an annual basis is the imperative. The original Saw is a clever movie comprised of numerous good ideas. The sequels have been lackluster most of the time and truly heinous recently. A worse product is usually met with poorer sales, which is what we saw with Saw VI. Despite this, most horror movies released in October perform well enough to justify the initial investments. We could debate the opportunity cost of making a lousy movie until we're blue in the face - and I do this a lot, probably too often. That's a side issue to the basic one of having revenue surpass investment cost. All three franchises under discussion have managed that, which is more important to the people cutting the checks than the perceived quality of the projects. Right or wrong, that's the focus of the decision making process.


Continued:       1       2       3       4

     


 
 

Need to contact us? E-mail a Box Office Prophet.
Friday, March 29, 2024
© 2024 Box Office Prophets, a division of One Of Us, Inc.