- June 29th, 2017, 8:48 pm#4895142
There's no such thing as a blockbuster anymore. Extinct... just like the video chain.
featofstrength wrote:There's no such thing as a blockbuster anymore. Extinct... just like the video chain.Actually there's still a few Blockbuster stores around.
Commander_Jim wrote:Really makes you wonder what Feig did with all the money.I'm sure that Aykroyd pocketed a nice amount from the budget for his role as executive producer, of which he's publicly stated that he did little real work on the film.
Commander_Jim wrote: effects and huge period and fantasy sets.While they weren't period, the reboot had some substantial set builds for the production:
Demon Vice Commander wrote:An executive producer's role is to finance the film. They basically fund the production and/or make sure it doesn't go over budget. EPs usually make around $1mil on a movie. Dan probably made more for his forced cameo, and certainly makes more in royalties and merchandising. I doubt he would be shoveling the movie's budget into his pockets while rubbing his hands together, seeing as how he helped fund the thing to begin with, and obviously was hoping the movie was a success.Commander_Jim wrote:Really makes you wonder what Feig did with all the money.I'm sure that Aykroyd pocketed a nice amount from the budget for his role as executive producer, of which he's publicly stated that he did little real work on the film.
Kingpin wrote:You don't work in the Hollywood industrial machine, so it's understandable if decisions like filming in Boston over New York don't make as much sense to you as they did to Feig, Sony or the beancounters. Still, it's not a fact that's going to change so it's time really to make your peace with that decision.I seem to understand movie making more then those people it seems. There's no reason just to film because it's cheaper, it's about utilising the budget effectively. I don't need to make peace with anything. The end result speaks confusion as to where it's shot.
Dr.D wrote:Scripts mean very little in the grand scheme of filmmaking, especially once active production begins. And this is coming from a guy who is a screenwriter and wants to write for a living.I'm also a budding screenwriter and I'd like to think that production doesn't come first and a script second. That's a terrible mentality to have. If you have a good script that has requirements you make it work!
timeware wrote:I don't think anyone here will dispute that.I'm sure the people who liked ATC will defend the soundtrack as being great.
JurorNo.2 wrote:It's a real flaw in the Hollywood formula that movies are so reliant on their initial box office. It's far too Old School when you think about it, harkening-back to the 1930s when the only place to see movies was a theater. There are so many movies throughout history that didn't make money initially, but then became huge favorites later on, on TV or home video. Those movies deserve sequels as much as anything else, but will never get them, purely because of an out dated formula.Well you know my opinions on ATC so it doesn't bother me it failed but to add to what you're saying what I dislike is Hollywood's lack of treatment of older films based on original Box Office revenue. It seems as though we get proper treatment of a film on blu-ray only if it was successful at the Box Office which to me is a joke. I guess I won't be getting that extras packed blu-ray of Stay Tuned this year.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Drama has a way of showing up on screen, if that makes sense.But that's just it, no drama appeared in screen but poor comedy.
Alphagaia wrote:You should read IDW's GB101 comic!I've heard the writers had big trouble making the ATC team likable next to the original team so might give that one a miss.
Dr.D wrote:Perfect example is what just happened with the Han Solo movie. Producers suddenly saw the finish line of production and realized it wasn't the product they wanted.To be honest I don't think it's a film anybody wanted.
JurorNo.2 wrote:ATC wasn't treated like a blockbuster. It was treated like a comedy.ATC was pretty much treated like every other Paul Feig film which is a gross-out movie with pretentious comedy. That gets Box Office revenue if the budget is small but on a large scale of course it's going to flop.
Commander_Jim wrote:Really makes you wonder what Feig did with all the money.He spent the rest of the money on more pointless dance numbers and improvisational comedy it seems.
Alphagaia wrote:I wish we could all just stop pointing fingers to either Feig or Dan as only seeing this as a paycheck.I haven't heard from anyone saying that. Who do you speak of? I'm sure Feig and Dan believed in it but it's how Feig went about reviving the franchise that was misguided.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Now this is interesting, ABC7NY news mentioned Dan Aykroyd's birthday this morning on Facebook, and referred to him as "one of the original Ghostbusters." Maybe ATC has left its mark after all.I don't get it Juror. He is one of the original Ghostbusters along with Ernie, Murray and Harold. So what's to get upset about?
Oh yeah, there was also some bitter Pecker in the comments calling him "liberal scum," lol. Ah, social media.
pferreira1983 wrote:I don't get it Juror. He is one of the original Ghostbusters along with Ernie, Murray and Harold. So what's to get upset about?No you misunderstood, that part was fine.There I was just observing that pop culture seems to be acknowledging ATC's existence. I was only upset about that commentor's "liberal scum" remark." And not even upset, just bemused at the insanity that is social media.
JurorNo.2 wrote:No you misunderstood, that part was fine.There I was just observing that pop culture seems to be acknowledging ATC's existence. I was only upset about that commentor's "liberal scum" remark." And not even upset, just bemused at the insanity that is social media.Yeah but I don't understand why they made that liberal scum comment. If your quote is accurate and complete it makes sense as Dan is one of the originals. What you quoted makes no reference to ATC so not sure how that could offend anybody. In other words I don't get what triggered them.
pferreira1983 wrote:Ohhhh, ok. Well I can't be positive, but it just felt like the typical "Hollywood celebs are all libs and I hate libs" blah blah blah.JurorNo.2 wrote:No you misunderstood, that part was fine.There I was just observing that pop culture seems to be acknowledging ATC's existence. I was only upset about that commentor's "liberal scum" remark." And not even upset, just bemused at the insanity that is social media.Yeah but I don't understand why they made that liberal scum comment. If your quote is accurate and complete it makes sense as Dan is one of the originals. What you quoted makes no reference to ATC so not sure how that could offend anybody. In other words I don't get what triggered them.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Ohhhh, ok. Well I can't be positive, but it just felt like the typical "Hollywood celebs are all libs and I hate libs" blah blah blah.It is a bandwagon Hollywood celebs recently have been quick to jump on rather easily. On the other hand from what you've said I see no reason for them to be triggered like that especially since ATC isn't even mentioned. There's stuff that celebs do that is reason to get frustrated. What you said doesn't sound like one of those times.
pferreira1983 wrote:I seem to understand movie making more then those people it seems. There's no reason just to film because it's cheaper, it's about utilising the budget effectively. I don't need to make peace with anything. The end result speaks confusion as to where it's shot.1. How do you seem to understand movie making more than those actually doing it?
pferreira1983 wrote:I seem to understand movie making more then those people it seems.With all due respect, you clearly don't. I'm not an expert in movie making but I can see why Boston was the juicier option. At this point in time I would suggest you write some letters to the state, municipal and city governments of New York if you still feel the need to air your grievances, as New York did not provide a shiny enough apple to film the majority of the location sequences - as has been pointed out several times already.
pferreira1983 wrote: I don't need to make peace with anything. The end result speaks confusion as to where it's shot.There's no confusion about where it's shot, you're just being pedantic.
pferreira1983 wrote:I'm also a budding screenwriter and I'd like to think that production doesn't come first and a script second. That's a terrible mentality to have. If you have a good script that has requirements you make it work!World War Z and The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy are great examples of good stories ruined by their respective productions. As long as studios are more keen on profits than telling a good story, making sure you have a good and enjoyable script will always take less priority.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Plus I just heard the Blues Brothers are performing at a July 4th event on PBS.Just saw the Blues Brothers on PBS, it was great. They were with Sam Moore for a song and that was really cool. Also the Four Tops and the Beach Boys performed, all really good stuff. Happy fourth, everyone!
Sav C wrote:Glad you enjoyed it too! I was watching it live streaming on my phone, while also watching fireworks on my vacation (Yay technology! )JurorNo.2 wrote:Plus I just heard the Blues Brothers are performing at a July 4th event on PBS.Just saw the Blues Brothers on PBS, it was great. They were with Sam Moore for a song and that was really cool. Also the Four Tops and the Beach Boys performed, all really good stuff. Happy fourth, everyone!
pferreira1983 wrote:The irony of this statement is kind of funny to be honest. There's absolutely no confusion whatsoever about where the movie takes place. This is like saying that scenes shouldn't be shot on a stage because it's not "really New York and confuses people."Kingpin wrote:You don't work in the Hollywood industrial machine, so it's understandable if decisions like filming in Boston over New York don't make as much sense to you as they did to Feig, Sony or the beancounters. Still, it's not a fact that's going to change so it's time really to make your peace with that decision.I seem to understand movie making more then those people it seems. There's no reason just to film because it's cheaper, it's about utilising the budget effectively. I don't need to make peace with anything. The end result speaks confusion as to where it's shot.
Doctor Venkman wrote:pferreira1983 wrote:There is so much I could say about the lever of arrogance and basic misunderstanding of how the film industry works in this statement. First and foremost, screenwriting is essentially the lowest man on the totem pole and I say this as a screenwriter. Scripts are living documents that are constantly changed on and off set and usually not by the writer. It doesn't matter where you set your movie because at the end of the day once the script is purchased and unless you're also the director and you are a name that any person of the street will recognize (Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola) your script is going to change and location is usually one of the first things to go.
Kingpin wrote:
You don't work in the Hollywood industrial machine, so it's understandable if decisions like filming in Boston over New York don't make as much sense to you as they did to Feig, Sony or the beancounters. Still, it's not a fact that's going to change so it's time really to make your peace with that decision.
I seem to understand movie making more then those people it seems. There's no reason just to film because it's cheaper, it's about utilising the budget effectively. I don't need to make peace with anything. The end result speaks confusion as to where it's shot.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Nice! I was switching between the Capitol Fourth and the Macy's Fourth. Therefore I initially missed the Four Tops, and had to rewind live TV (which is new for me), yay technology is right! It's nice the fireworks shows are staggered so I watched both.Sav C wrote: Just saw the Blues Brothers on PBS, it was great. They were with Sam Moore for a song and that was really cool. Also the Four Tops and the Beach Boys performed, all really good stuff. Happy fourth, everyone!Glad you enjoyed it too! I was watching it live streaming on my phone, while also watching fireworks on my vacation (Yay technology! )
Doctor Venkman wrote:The irony of this statement is kind of funny to be honest. There's absolutely no confusion whatsoever about where the movie takes place. This is like saying that scenes shouldn't be shot on a stage because it's not "really New York and confuses people."Yeah, I'm pretty sure that if someone didn't understand it was taking place in New York, they probably weren't paying attention.
Sav C wrote: Nice! I was switching between the Capitol Fourth and the Macy's Fourth. Therefore I initially missed the Four Tops, and had to rewind live TV (which is new for me), yay technology is right!Oh did you know Dan Aykroyd once performed with the Four Tops? Start at 24:14:
At some point, probably just better off opening up[…]
Preview for #2 on DH's page. https://www.darkhors[…]