Great big budget movies never flop in theaters

Tools    





aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer
Never have I seen a great big budget movie flop in the theaters. All the so-called good big budget movies that flopped in theaters have a similar problem. They are either poorly paced or their level of sophistication is merely a work of an imitator and not an original. However I can't explain the contrary as to why some poorly paced movies are hits. But as much as people say it is a very tight rope walk to make a big budget original movie that is also a hit, the problem is never when the movie is great. It's always when the movie doesn't have common sense in understanding the expectations of audience. By big budget I mean 80 million +



I’m not sure what the actual substance of this statement is, since it seems to be entirely backwards looking. If it made money it was great, but if it didn’t it must not have been? Also, what conclusion is being drawn and why is it meaningful?
__________________



This went over my head!!
__________________
My Favorite Films



aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer
Iím not sure what the actual substance of this statement is, since it seems to be entirely backwards looking. If it made money it was great, but if it didnít it must not have been? Also, what conclusion is being drawn and why is it meaningful?
no..what i meant was...if someone truly makes a great big budget movie then it will be a hit. So people can't complain that certain big budget movie flopped because those movies aren't good enough to be hits.



Okay, but how is this statement supported? As I noted, it's backwards-looking. It seems like an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, where you advance a definition of a thing, but any contrary examples will be excluded from it. How would you test this claim, except by saying, any time someone advanced a seemingly great movie "well, I guess it wasn't great, because if it was it would've been a hit"?



So the more money a big budget film makes, the better it is? No thank you. For example, Pacific Rim (the first one, not the second) was a great big budget action film, and more than good enough to be a huge hit, and yet it flopped. I struggle to see the logic.



aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer
Okay, but how is this statement supported? As I noted, it's backwards-looking. It seems like an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, where you advance a definition of a thing, but any contrary examples will be excluded from it. How would you test this claim, except by saying, any time someone advanced a seemingly great movie "well, I guess it wasn't great, because if it was it would've been a hit"?
what I am saying is something of rule to look into any big budget movie that flops. People often say, blade runner 2049 was too good to flop. But that's not true. I didn't deserve to be a hit. We are okay if a terrible big budget movie like jupiter ascending or valerian flops because it is bad and people don't want to watch it. But it is movies like blade runner 2049 that create this illusion that great big budget movies flop and it's simply not true. Because that movie lacks common sense regarding what is needed in a big budget movie. Same is true for master and commander or miami vice.



aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer
So the more money a big budget film makes, the better it is? No thank you. For example, Pacific Rim (the first one, not the second) was a great big budget action film, and more than good enough to be a huge hit, and yet it flopped. I struggle to see the logic.
Pacific rim should have asked a simple question before being greenlit - "Is the monsters in this movie too similar to godzilla". If they knew the answer to that question then either they would have cut back on the budget or not make the movie at all. There is often a mistake in these movies that people don't find out. For example, casting someone like john david washington(a relative newcomer) in a movie like Tenet is more commercially profitable than casting someone like Jake gyllenhaal(with his baggage of flops/mediocre movies) because no matter how big a director is Nolan, audience will look at it as Jake gyllenhaal movie and not Nolan movie. Maybe not all of them but significant portion of them to make a difference in box office. Same can be said about a movie like first man. After getting cerebral epics like interstellar and gravity and fun space movies like martian, how can you expect audience to go to a space movie that is anything but wondrous ? i can get a sappy family drama in any genre. I don't want to go to a space movie to feel sad about life.



I keep visiting this thread to see if it eventually arrows into something resembling clarity, and I continue to be disappointed haha

What is the common sense that Blade Runner 2049 lacks?



what I am saying is something of rule to look into any big budget movie that flops. People often say, blade runner 2049 was too good to flop. But that's not true. I didn't deserve to be a hit. We are okay if a terrible big budget movie like jupiter ascending or valerian flops because it is bad and people don't want to watch it. But it is movies like blade runner 2049 that create this illusion that great big budget movies flop and it's simply not true. Because that movie lacks common sense regarding what is needed in a big budget movie. Same is true for master and commander or miami vice.
This is really just repeating the initial claim. I don't think it addresses any of the questions I asked:

Okay, but how is this statement supported? As I noted, it's backwards-looking. It seems like an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, where you advance a definition of a thing, but any contrary examples will be excluded from it. How would you test this claim, except by saying, any time someone advanced a seemingly great movie "well, I guess it wasn't great, because if it was it would've been a hit"?



aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer
I keep visiting this thread to see if it eventually arrows into something resembling clarity, and I continue to be disappointed haha

What is the common sense that Blade Runner 2049 lacks?
now that you have visited this thread..you can suggest a name that resembles clarity.

Reg. your question, It's common sense knowledge that blade runner 1 flopped hard. How can you expect to make a sequel for insane budget and expect to turn in profit ? online buzz alone can't make a movie hit. The pacing of the movie is horrible and R-rating ? are you kidding me ? R-rating on a movie at that budget ? It is either made so that one of the investors need not file for taxes by showing losses on this movie or everyone involved in the movie especially Denis lacks commercial common sense in filmmaking.



aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer
This is really just repeating the initial claim. I don't think it addresses any of the questions I asked:
are you really asking me to compare transformers 4 with master and commander or blade runner 2049 ? Transformers or many of the garbage pre existing IP movies are made solely to make money with no intention of artistic excellence. So they make sure that the IP is extremely popular and recognizable to the demo they target to come to the movies.

But that doesn't mean artistic movies at that scale shouldn't have commercial sense. They should and movies like blade runner 2049 lacked the commercial sense even in its quality.



are you really asking me to compare transformers 4 with master and commander or blade runner 2049 ?
Er, no? I'm asking you the questions I asked you. I have no idea how you've mutated it into this.



Blade Runner flopped because of market saturation, it was the dawn of the multi-plex and studios were trying to find the next Jaws.


Blade Runner was released in 1,290 theaters on June 25, 1982. That date was chosen by producer Alan Ladd Jr. because his previous highest-grossing films (Star Wars and Alien) had a similar opening date (May 25) in 1977 and 1979, making the 25th of the month his "lucky day".[91] Blade Runner grossed reasonably good ticket sales in its opening weekend; earning $6.1 million during its first weekend in theaters.[92] The film was released close to other major science-fiction and fantasy releases such as The Thing, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Conan the Barbarian and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, which affected its commercial success.[93



I'm trying to understand this thread, I really am...... but I just don't.

A great movie is great and will make great money and therefore will not flop. And if a great movie flopped then it's just not a great movie.

That's what I got out of it (which makes no sense overall)



I'm trying to understand this thread, I really am...... but I just don't.

A great movie is great and will make great money and therefore will not flop. And if a great movie flopped then it's just not a great movie.

That's what I got out of it (which makes no sense overall)
My take is that it's just a normal subjective opinion being dressed up as some kind of objective principle. That seems to be the case with most of these threads, most of which are strangely preoccupied with box office and trying to find some sort of alchemy with which to convert it into a quantifiable measure of quality. They usually project this preoccupation onto all creative professionals, too.



Blade Runner flopped because of market saturation, it was the dawn of the multi-plex and studios were trying to find the next Jaws.
He means the new one, Blade Runner 2049.



He means the new one, Blade Runner 2049.


Reg. your question, It's common sense knowledge that blade runner 1 flopped hard. How can you expect to make a sequel for insane budget and expect to turn in profit ? .

Was saying you were





aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer
I'm trying to understand this thread, I really am...... but I just don't.

A great movie is great and will make great money and therefore will not flop. And if a great movie flopped then it's just not a great movie.

That's what I got out of it (which makes no sense overall)
If this is your philosophy then this thread is not for you. Which is okay.