TODAY I WATCHED (TV-series, Movies, Cinema Playlists) 2013

TCM 2 is great! The humor is more obvious in that one. "Lick my plate!"

tohostudios wrote:

TCM 2 is great! The humor is more obvious in that one. "Lick my plate!"

I haven't seen that one in a long time either, I'm gonna have to try 'n' track it down now. Independent Film Channel showed it a while ago and I meant to record it but forgot

The last time I saw it was back when I was in college, on a whim my buddies and I went out & rented all three TCM flicks (there were only three at the time, anyway), bought a bunch of beer, and had an all night "Chainsaw Fest" that lasted till the sun came up. Ahhh, youth.

Watched "Brave" last evening with my grandaughter Clodagh. She walked into my den and said, "poppa J-dog (that's what her momma taught her to call me) we are gonna watch this cause granmama said you needed to laugh" Okay then

Quote :

Clodagh

Beautiful Irish name.

SpectreFate wrote:

Quote :

Clodagh

Beautiful Irish name.

Her granmamma is already teaching her Gaelic words. It freaks me out cause that language gets my imagination going to town. Sounds like they are casting a spell on you or something.

Looney Tunes
Amish Mafia
Lemmy
Family Feud

nevermore wrote:

Looney Tunes

I have all the Warner Bros. remastered box sets of Looney Tunes. They did a great job cleaning 'em up.

Merlin

Animal Cops Houston
The Drew Carey Show

Night Court Season 7

Django Unchained (cinema premiere) - 100%

John Carter - actually liked it, not the mess it was made out to be

thejokeriv wrote:

John Carter - actually liked it, not the mess it was made out to be

My library has got that one, I've been meaning to check it out.

That dude Taylor Kitsch needs a new agent. After being in two high profile bombs in the same year - "John Carter" and "Battleship" - he may never work again!!

Fat Freddy wrote:

thejokeriv wrote:

John Carter - actually liked it, not the mess it was made out to be

My library has got that one, I've been meaning to check it out.

That dude Taylor Kitsch needs a new agent. After being in two high profile bombs in the same year - "John Carter" and "Battleship" - he may never work again!!

LOL - yeah, no joke! It's worth it to check out for free from the library

thejokeriv wrote:

John Carter - actually liked it, not the mess it was made out to be

I haven't watched it yet, but I know several people that really enjoyed it.

I've heard more discussion about the fact it was a notorious bomb than the actual merit of the film, at least 15 people at Disney lost their jobs over this fiasco which lost around $100 million.

From what I've been able to gather, "John Carter" failed not so much due to the quality of the film, but due to the marketing department at Disney dropping the ball.

The generic title certainly didn't help. Most contemporary movie goers didn't know who or what "John Carter" was. They probably thought it was a feature starring Noah Wylie's character from "ER."

The original title was supposed to be the slightly-more-descriptive "John Carter of Mars," but apparently some genius at Disney told them to take the "...Of Mars" off of it since they had just lost a ton of money on the animated "Mars Needs Moms," and from that they assumed that the word "Mars" had bad connotations. Duuuuuhhhh.

John Carter was actually listed as "in development" for 79 years, plans to make a film version of the novel date back to 1931. The original budget for the film was $100 million, by the time it was completed that had ballooned to 2 1/2 times that amount. I'm sure someone will write a book about the failed production, I find the development troubles a more interesting premise than the film itself.

Fatal Attractions: Famous last words-"Hey, I have an idea! Get a wild animal that has never been domesticated with only a rudimintary knowledge of animals and I will be the first to successfully do it."

S.D. wrote:

John Carter was actually listed as "in development" for 79 years, plans to make a film version of the novel date back to 1931. The original budget for the film was $100 million, by the time it was completed that had ballooned to 2 1/2 times that amount. I'm sure someone will write a book about the failed production, I find the development troubles a more interesting premise than the film itself.

I wonder how much of the development cost factored into the over-sized budget. I am guessing if they had kept the budget to $100 million, left the "Of Mars" in the title and did a better job marketing it, it would have made more money. $250 million budget is nothing but high roller bet in Vegas, with the movie industry execs placing the bets with someone else's money. If you win, you win big. But you can also lose everything too.

thejokeriv wrote:

I wonder how much of the development cost factored into the over-sized budget. I am guessing if they had kept the budget to $100 million, left the "Of Mars" in the title and did a better job marketing it, it would have made more money. $250 million budget is nothing but high roller bet in Vegas, with the movie industry execs placing the bets with someone else's money. If you win, you win big. But you can also lose everything too.

From what I understand the ballooning budget happened after the cameras started to roll. It was a problem plagued production, one of those cases where you run out of your initial budget and then the studio is forced with making a decision. Either cut your losses and halt production...or keep throwing money at it hoping for the best. It's the old "throwing good money after bad" in action.

There is always gambling in making these big budget monstrosities, that is why you see so many "safe" decisions being made. Sequels, remakes, book adaptations with large a large built-in fanbase. That is why there are 27 sequels/prequels coming out in 2013, much less risky to throw your money behind a "known property" than risk it on a completely original script.

To be considered profitable in Hollywood a movie needs to make 2.5x the amount of the negative cost. So John Carter cost $250 million + $100 million in advertising. That makes the "break even" point on the film $875 million.

I could be way-off base here, but I think it failed from lack of advertising. I only saw a handful of ads for this big-budget escapade compared to the 450,000 ads I've already seen for "Mama". Maybe the studio thought word of mouth would get butts in the seats? Maybe in 1960 that would have worked, because a ton of kids were reading the John Carter stories, but now you'd be hard pressed to find a kid who reads anything.

SpectreFate wrote:

I could be way-off base here, but I think it failed from lack of advertising. I only saw a handful of ads for this big-budget escapade compared to the 450,000 ads I've already seen for "Mama". Maybe the studio thought word of mouth would get butts in the seats? Maybe in 1960 that would have worked, because a ton of kids were reading the John Carter stories, but now you'd be hard pressed to find a kid who reads anything.

True, I saw very little promotion for the film, yet they still somehow spent $100 million on the advertising campaign which is astronomical even by Hollywood standards.

Goon

I was entertained. And I typically find Seann William Scott annoying. But I thought he did a good job of playing the innocent simpleton who can fight. Much better flick than I thought it was going to be.