|
Post by bancroft on Jul 10, 2023 18:56:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Jul 10, 2023 21:31:02 GMT
Hollywood allegedly held back its release for years and it is based on a true story about child trafficking. "Allegedly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Angel Studios are a tiny, independent company who - crucially - don't have distribution contracts with the major cinema chains (they sell their product either through their streaming platform or on disc). Chains will pick up such product (very cheaply, usually) on a case by case basis, when there's a suitable gap in the release schedules - which there is right now, because the Blockbusters rule summer (Indiana Jones, followed by Barbie, Oppenheimer, Mission: Impossible, etc), and cinema's always want something they'll make a better percentage on than the the biggies that'll also draw the Blockbuster Refusenik audience. Announcing that it's "taken more money than Indy" is a good bit of hype - but it's a "faith-based" affair. That's an audience who will turn out on opening weekend, but drop off VERY quickly. Faith Movies make their long-term income on christian tv. The makers claim it was "turned down by several major studios". Well, boo hoo. Show me almost ANY movie that WASN'T turned away by every production executive in town before it finally got made. One film I'd done a bit of tweaking on was one of the most successful releases last year. I did my tweaks on it in 2013.. Last year, I was introduced to one filmmaker who's just got the go-ahead for a project he's been trying to make for about fifteen years. Not that he was cracking open the champagne just yet - he's started preproduction twice before, only to have it cancelled each time. The greatest single mystery in this business is "how does anything EVER get made?" Yes, this is a good news story - but it's also a bit of hype from Angel Studios' PR wonks - don't take it at face value.
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jul 10, 2023 21:44:20 GMT
Hollywood allegedly held back its release for years and it is based on a true story about child trafficking. "Allegedly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Angel Studios are a tiny, independent company who - crucially - don't have distribution contracts with the major cinema chains (they sell their product either through their streaming platform or on disc). Chains will pick up such product (very cheaply, usually) on a case by case basis, when there's a suitable gap in the release schedules - which there is right now, because the Blockbusters rule summer (Indiana Jones, followed by Barbie, Oppenheimer, Mission: Impossible, etc), and cinema's always want something they'll make a better percentage on than the the biggies that'll also draw the Blockbuster Refusenik audience. Announcing that it's "taken more money than Indy" is a good bit of hype - but it's a "faith-based" affair. That's an audience who will turn out on opening weekend, but drop off VERY quickly. Faith Movies make their long-term income on christian tv. The makers claim it was "turned down by several major studios". Well, boo hoo. Show me almost ANY movie that WASN'T turned away by every production executive in town before it finally got made. One film I'd done a bit of tweaking on was one of the most successful releases last year. I did my tweaks on it in 2013.. Last year, I was introduced to one filmmaker who's just got the go-ahead for a project he's been trying to make for about fifteen years. Not that he was cracking open the champagne just yet - he's started preproduction twice before, only to have it cancelled each time. The greatest single mystery in this business is "how does anything EVER get made?" Yes, this is a good news story - but it's also a bit of hype from Angel Studios' PR wonks - don't take it at face value. I am amazed sometimes by the knowledge you have acquired from your industry and how cynical it has made you about it.
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Jul 10, 2023 21:50:29 GMT
A "Healthy (and Constantly Amused) Cynicism" is my default position, I'm afraid. Sunny Optimists and Sensitive Aesthetes don't traditionally "thrive" in the biz.
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jul 10, 2023 22:18:07 GMT
I don't have a problem with it, I just find it an interesting perspective on what you have learnt from it.
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jul 11, 2023 9:29:17 GMT
I saw several articles about this from US sources, the Mail was the first one I recognised.
If the film is poor then we will know the reason why it was not released earlier.
The other angle is whether this is seen as politically undesirable in these times.
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Jul 11, 2023 15:47:10 GMT
If the film is poor then we will know the reason why it was not released earlier. The position of poor films seen in Europe is subtly different to those shown in America. We're likely to see fewer of them, because they'll probably have already embarrassed themselves Stateside, and no one's about to throw a few million dollars more on the bonfire by risking a European release (to an audience who've already seen just how badly it did a few weeks earlier..). And "poor" is often in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I think the streets-ahead-WORST things I've seen for a long time are "Avatar 2" (literally a 3+ hour cartoon dominated by a 100 minute battle..), and Top Gun 2" but they both did terrific business at our cinema. On the other hand, I got to see the infamous "Batgirl" that was pulled, last year, from release by Warner's, and actually enjoyed it far more than their universally screened "The Batman". The other angle is whether this is seen as politically undesirable in these times. It's generally true that a socially (though certainly not financially) liberal business like tv and film will generally give projects seen as "conservative" a swerve. As for things seen as "Christian" - that's actually a pretty small audience. In America, they're often found in communities lacking a conveniently close "First-Run" cinema (ie a multiplex that's part of a chain), and even when they are, this audience aren't notably great moviegoers, as a rule - preferring to watch new films at home. That's why a "Christian/Conservative" film that DOES get a mainstream release will typically see an opening weekend spike, a quick drop off, and go on to make the bulk of its profit on home screens. Consequently, that's not an enticing business model for a Major Studio. Keep your project within a certain (low) budget, and you'll see a (probably healthy) profit from your target viewership. Make something with Hollywood overheads and marketing (often between a third and a half of the total production budget added onto the top!), and you'll never work in this town again. In the case of this particular film, I rather suspect that, rather than being "politically undesirable", studios weren't going to be exactly falling over themselves to back a project based on a somewhat controversial character - for whom "truth" seems to be an elastic concept, and who, along with the film's star, has been a popular fixture on the QAnon circuit, spreading all manner of bonkers nonsense. The last thing a major film company wants is a cosy little sofa chat on breakfast telly ending up in claims that Hilary Clinton has been eating babies in the secret dungeon beneath a pizza restaurant..
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 12, 2023 12:22:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 12, 2023 12:36:18 GMT
I don’t know anything of this ‘other’ film
I saw Indy and the Zimmerframe Of Doom the day after its outside london premiere. I found it a reasonably entertaining romp. I expected it to be so, and it met those
I note the critics have panned it but not for the first time i have come away from a cinema feeling critics know nothing.
A colleague of mine says there is only one real test that matters and that is on the way out can you day you were entertained, or do you feel it was a waste of two or three hours of your life you’ll never get back.
‘Indy’ for me anyway met the test conditions
The last but one Star Wars however… Jeez what a waste of time.
|
|