Whenever I look to a movie on Wikipedia, I like to look at the reception section. The first thing I do is scroll past the endless paragraphs of budgets, costs, revenue, global markets. I look at...
Whenever I look to a movie on Wikipedia, I like to look at the reception section. The first thing I do is scroll past the endless paragraphs of budgets, costs, revenue, global markets. I look at what viewers said, because to me a movie is an artistic experience and the financial transactions that necessitate it are outside of that. I understand that this is an article about the economics of making and selling a movie, so my comment is largely sidestepping the content.
I guess I'm taking a shot at the word flop meaning financial loser, but that might be me making up definitions for words. I just have a hard time calling a much-loved movie a flop, which I think the author touches on when discussing Waterworld and its legacy.
Just being a good creative and leaving the rest to chance is not good enough anymore because we live in an environment where everything has to be good.
I understand the definition of "good" here to be financially marketable, not all people want to watch.
It should be a given too that not all studios are created equal. Whereas Disney and Warner Bros. may need an event each quarter to generate value for shareholders, A24 and Neon can afford to take more swings and let the value and appreciation for these films grow over time.
To me, this reads as Disney/WB being in the business of making money, and A24/Neon in the business of making art with the hope that it brings money. If a business has cornered itself into a Sisyphean task of always producing massive budget blockbusters, doesn't that force them to eschew risk (like recreating movies from a few years ago, or squeezing IP for sequels) and limit their capacity to produce art?
I don't know what I'm adding to the article, if anything. If a flop is truly just about the money, then I guess I mostly don't care (no shade to people who do). If it's open for discussion, then I want a flop to be a movie with high expectations that people didn't enjoy at release. If it was a major value loss for the company, but much loved, I'd call it a gamble that paid off for the everyone except the investors/producers.
I agree on all points. A financial success doesn't say much about the actual movie. However, from a purely selfish perspective I like the movies I like to continue being made, so of course it can...
I agree on all points. A financial success doesn't say much about the actual movie. However, from a purely selfish perspective I like the movies I like to continue being made, so of course it can become a problem if they are consistently a financial flop and thus fewer will be made in the future.
Whenever I look to a movie on Wikipedia, I like to look at the reception section. The first thing I do is scroll past the endless paragraphs of budgets, costs, revenue, global markets. I look at what viewers said, because to me a movie is an artistic experience and the financial transactions that necessitate it are outside of that. I understand that this is an article about the economics of making and selling a movie, so my comment is largely sidestepping the content.
I guess I'm taking a shot at the word flop meaning financial loser, but that might be me making up definitions for words. I just have a hard time calling a much-loved movie a flop, which I think the author touches on when discussing Waterworld and its legacy.
I understand the definition of "good" here to be financially marketable, not all people want to watch.
To me, this reads as Disney/WB being in the business of making money, and A24/Neon in the business of making art with the hope that it brings money. If a business has cornered itself into a Sisyphean task of always producing massive budget blockbusters, doesn't that force them to eschew risk (like recreating movies from a few years ago, or squeezing IP for sequels) and limit their capacity to produce art?
I don't know what I'm adding to the article, if anything. If a flop is truly just about the money, then I guess I mostly don't care (no shade to people who do). If it's open for discussion, then I want a flop to be a movie with high expectations that people didn't enjoy at release. If it was a major value loss for the company, but much loved, I'd call it a gamble that paid off for the everyone except the investors/producers.
I agree on all points. A financial success doesn't say much about the actual movie. However, from a purely selfish perspective I like the movies I like to continue being made, so of course it can become a problem if they are consistently a financial flop and thus fewer will be made in the future.