movies

[33anda3rd]

The Nightcrawler example sticks. It's showing one time today in all of Chicagoland, at 7601 S Cicero, a place that you need a car to get to. It's a film for educated, bougie, hip urbanites and no one will bother to go see it because it's way the hell out in the middle of nowhere. It might as well not be an option. That's distribution.

That movie was released 2 months ago. That's hardly a valid example. [expletive], Interstellar isn't even playing at my megaplex now and it was released more recently than Nightcrawler.

I can pick from 9 Interstellar showtimes rest of the day today that are within very easy access to my place.

Back to distro/production real quick. If Columbia or Warner or whoever big had Nightcrawler as a horse in the Oscar race, do you not think that Nightcrawler would be getting a massive Jake Gyllenhaal For Your Consideration push in the trades? And that the film would not have a larger release right now? It's release wasn't great two months ago. I wasn't aware of the film until it had been in theaters for 10 days or so and all the kids who work for me were telling me to go see Nightcrawler. Then I had to figure out how to get myself in to see it around my schedule.

[slide_into_first]

American Sniper is only playing in Hollywood, Dallas and on Broadway.

[Famous Mortimer]

Despite quite enjoying the LOTR films, I've never had a second's desire to watch any of the Hobbit movies. Partly because it's a short-ish book, more aimed at kids, and stuff that gets a passing mention in the books is now blown up into an hour of screen time (apparently).

Re: filler in those movies, it's stuff which is fundamental to the films that were made. Like the battle at the end, for example. If there was a reason for making three movies out of the Hobbit that wasn't "because it will make more money" then I'd probably give it more time.

I don't know, I think I'm just repeating what other people have said. I can only vote with my wallet when it comes to modern multiplex fare, and we all should. I'd way rather have a "which was the best martial arts franchise of the 80s or 90s?" conversation than yet another multiplex film X vs. multiplex film Y debate.

[Jocephus]

did you know that rocky 4 is 91 mins total, 23 mins montage?

[The Third Man]

I live in Olathe [expletive] Kansas and I can still see Nightcrawler at at least three theaters around here. Anecdotes aren't too terribly useful here.

[ghostrunner]

I don't understand why the big studios don't aim for the $30 million range and just put a little more effort into finding the right script/director. Skip the big name actors. Its more work, but hard to believe it's any less certain given all the big budget flops out there. I guess you gamble big and hope for a big win.

I posted recently on the glut of r rated thrillers back in the 80s, but I'd kind of like to see some modern takes on that genre. Seems like you could do all right profit wise and give competent young directors a chance to prove themselves. And maybe you get lucky and make something awesome.

[lukethedrifter]

Nightcrawler showing at Keller for four bucks. Sounds like going a Cat Power concert though. One review said they never turned lights off. Another said movie only displayed on 1/3 of screen.

[33anda3rd]

I live in Olathe [expletive] Kansas and I can still see Nightcrawler at at least three theaters around here. Anecdotes aren't too terribly useful here.

I see two on Fandango. One theater you can only see it at 11pm and the other is not in Olathe. It's only conveniently accessible if you want to go at 11pm or you want to drive to another town.

It's in 2 theaters in Manhattan. 9 total screenings today.
It's in 1 theater, 4 screenings today, in LA proper, and same for Seattle.
1 theater, 2 screenings in Portland.
Zero theaters in SF and Boston.
1 theater, 1 showing in Chicago.

For a film with a Best Actor Golden Globe nom, and that's only made like 10 mil at the box office so far, and that's not yet available on VOD, and that has some of the best buzz of the year, that's a very small amount of exposure to many millions of people. If I lived in those cities above and I heard all the buzz and I wanted to see a great performance I'd have to do a lot of work to see it, if it were available to me at all. Interstellar is younger by a week and people can see that virtually at will.

That tells you something about distribution, but also a lot of something about what people want to go pay $11 for.

[lukethedrifter]

Can I complain about the crazy movie theater prices here? $5 for 10 ounces of soda? I saw this small woman carrying a large popcorn when I went to see Gone Girl. It was comical.

[ghostrunner]

Also should be said that TV is probably drawing specific types of filmmakers away from 90-120 minute movies. I was just reading an interview with David Webb Peoples (writer on Unforgiven, 12 Monkeys, Blade Runner) and he said he'd probably be more drawn to TV if he were coming up now. There's a pretty awesome variety of stuff out there these days, and channels willing to air it. Back in the 70's it was the opposite in many ways - more personal and challenging fare at the cinema, lots of lousy TV. And of course there was some degree of good and bad in both. It's easy to forget all the lame disaster movies that came out in the 70's, which amounted to a whole lot of people just cashing checks.