jdslater

do you ever feel sad/annoyed when big blockbusters don't make their money back. I'm not talking about feeling bad for studios, I mean for the director, actor or the technical crew. The reason I ask this, is that I was slightly annoyed that Starship Troopers wasn't a bigger hit. The special effects were great ( I liked it when the fleet was being attacked and the detail the model makers put into that sequence) and I just think it should have taken more money.

Jackskeleton

How did it do bad? sure it didn't do GREAT, but it made it's money back and then some. With a 95 million budget it made 54 in us take and 65 in oversea's take in's. not to mention the 24 in rentals.. it did pretty good if you ask me. Hell, it did so well they decided to make a part 2 and spawned a fairly cult successful cartoon series. Not bad if you ask me.

Do I feel bad for the actors? No, they can always bounce back and get better roles, if they don't then they really screwed up somewhere. Do I feel bad for the director? He seems to have a string of bad hits so you can't really fly with eagles when you're a duck.. you know what I mean.

the crew, they are the least I worry about because if I know any crew member as I think I know them, they don't care that it bombed, they got there pay and jumped on the next production through the network channels they go through. the movie was done and made, next gig.

Goat3001

No, if the movie is good then the director will find out that people like it. If a movie bombs but people over time end up liking it then its good for the director. Fight Club is a great example, it didn't do to well in the box office but a lot of people love it, so its a movie David Fincher can be proud of, even if he didn't make any money on it.

Besides, if the movie is good, it will usually make money when it comes to DVD.

jaeufraser

In general I don't feel too bad. While it would've been great to see Starship, Fight Club (movies I quite like) be bigger successes in the theaters, both films saw success on video. I feel if it's good, it will more than likely see some sort of success at some point.

To the previous post, Starship was most definately not a successful theater flick. 54 US plus 65 overseas plus 24 in rentals does not pay for a 95 plus advertising budget. Figure te studio pulls in maybe 60% max of the theatrical revenue and so forth.

but the ancillary DVD market has proven to be quite a boon for these types of films (the good ones). Not to mention, it's not like these people didn't get paid. I'd feel bad for Verhoeven or Fincher, but on the other hand, they're millionaires who get to make movies for a living. I mean...yeah I don't feel bad at all.

Jackskeleton

Not sure if I stated that it was successful in theater alone.. but I'm talking about over all, after all is said and done, it made the studio money, and that in itself is good news. Hell, if anything, the franchise over all benefited and was indeed successful for the simple fact of the spin off that it created. Sure it wasn't taking it as much as it made in the first few weeks that it was out, but the marketing for this film wasn't all that great either. It might not have been a theater hit, but it made the studio back it's money and then some. in that respect, it was successful.

Panda Phil

It's more the genre I feel bad for rather than the film crew itself.

For example, Final Fantasy bombed miserably, and we haven't seen an attempt at a serious, non-cortoony CG film since.

Same with The Rocketeer. I loved that film, but since it came and went we've seen very few pulp action hero movies. Which I consider a damn shame.

QuiGonJosh

Well Sky Capt and the World of Tomorrow is a Pulp film...even though it took like what 13 years since Rocketeer to make one...

Jackskeleton

Well final fantasy didn't exactly live up to the expectations the fans of the game series put on it.. then again, the film lacked in any sort of typical magic that the series takes full use of in just about every title.

as for sky captain, I expect it to bomb in box office take. It's not that it looks like a bad movie, but the public really doesn't want to see it.

dave955

No.

I don't even know where to begin. The business model of Hollywood is set up to limit choice and cater to a very limited, undeveloped set of tastes. Am I happy when this business model fails? No. I'm not even going to start with the praise for special effects being the most prominent reason you liked the film.

However, I do think Starship Troopers was more interesting than most Hollywood films.

I recommend Jonathan Rosenbaum's Movie Wars: How Hollywood and the Media Conspire to Limit What Films We Can See. In an amusing coincidence, he discusses Starship Troopers in length, and compares its relative success to the failure of Small Soldiers, a film he found far more interesting for a number of reasons, yet one that failed commercially in large part due to marketing. Whether it could be successfully marketed at all is an interesting question, too.

Jackskeleton

Brought it back from the dead to mention news on starship troopers 2..


http://www.chud.com/news/jan04/jan15troop.php3

Groucho

All blockbusters suck, and deserve to bomb. Bring on the low-budget indies!

Shannon Nutt

I think I get more mad when smaller movies that are really good don't get any attention. I also get really, really mad when HORRIBLE movies make tons of money (insert your own Matrix sequel or Star Wars prequel jokes here).

lesterlong

Agreed.

movielib

Of course many small movies are horrible too.

Horrible (smaller) movies making money:

My Big Fat Greek Wedding
The Full Monty
Waking Ned Devine

Small movies I'd liked to have been much more successful:

Thirteen Conversations About One Thing
The Magdelene Sisters
Shattered Glass

All just my opinion, of course.