 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3  Previous Next
|
|
Disney Drops Third Narnia Film |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 489 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting VibroCount: Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
I know it wasn't part of the Narnia series but my favorite C.S. Lewis book has always been "The Screwtape Letters".
Lewis is one of the finest Christian apologists who ever wrote. The Narnia series was okay (for him), the SF trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, etc.) slightly better, but The Screwtape Letters avoids the problems of molding fiction to fit the premise -- he writes with authority and precision here, and it is the best of his best (and his worst is much like the worst of the Marx Brothers movies: still better than anyone else). I am Jewish and I have read almost everything Lewis wrote. I even have such works as 'Surprised by Joy" in prestige gold leafed type editions. I have made it a policy to give those I know who suffer a tragedy, (Death, Fire, etc.) a copy of The Screwtape Letters to try and help them get through their hard times. And if you can still find it John Cleese did a wonderful audio version a few years ago. It also included the brilliant "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" on the unabridged version. In my not so humble opinion,(and when it comes to humility I'm the greatest  ) no copy of Screwtape that does not include "Proposes a Toast" piece is incomplete. And when you consider the origin of the letters it packs so much more to the piece. I even quoted Lewis when at the age of 35 I finally had my Bar Mitzvah. I discovered how Space Trilogy at age 8, and it was not till I reread it in my teens did I finally see the allegory. My favorite work he ever penned is "Till We Have Faces", just the way he infused the story with meaning & emotion still gets me when I reread it every few years. Bobb | | | | Do Cheshire Cats drink evaporated milk? |
| | Registered: March 29, 2007 | | Posts: 158 |
| | Posted: | | | | I hope the series does continue. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader leaves Peter and Susan Pevensie behind but introduces Eustace Scrubbs, perhaps the best of the child characters in the series, introduced approximately "There once was a boy named Eustace Scrubbs, and he almost deserved it." And The Magician's Nephew, the late-19th-Century origin story, could be fantastic. I would be fascinated to see whether The Last Battle, the most theological of the books, could be made into a good movie.
Finally, I hope Lewis's other works could be considered. Screwtape would need serious re-thinking for the cinema. Till We Have Faces, Lewis's least known and best novel, would also be a great candidate. |
| | Registered: July 31, 2008 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 2,506 |
| |  | kemper | | Vodka martini... shaken.. |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 402 |
| | Posted: | | | | I remember back in the dark ages as a communications major, we were taught that a film had to gorss 2 to 2.5 times its production budget in order to make a profit. So looking at the "high end" Narnia 1 made $295m profit which would of course trigger a 2nd film, #2 lost $81m.... given this economy, I wouldnt take a chance either.
My math is based on boxofficemojo data..... |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 223 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting kemper: Quote:
I remember back in the dark ages as a communications major, we were taught that a film had to gorss 2 to 2.5 times its production budget in order to make a profit. So looking at the "high end" Narnia 1 made $295m profit which would of course trigger a 2nd film, #2 lost $81m.... given this economy, I wouldnt take a chance either.
My math is based on boxofficemojo data..... Yes, but is that taking into account dvd and blu-ray revenue? |
| | Registered: January 5, 2008 |  Posts: 61 |
| | Posted: | | | | hm, interesting news. The last Narnia movie was terrible, a real disappointment. Too much anticipation. Weird they dropped it even if they made twice as much back as they put in. A doubling of my money is still a profit in my book.  |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 1,380 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting screwed: Quote:
hm, interesting news.
The last Narnia movie was terrible, a real disappointment. Too much anticipation.
Weird they dropped it even if they made twice as much back as they put in.
A doubling of my money is still a profit in my book. Just watched them myself a few weeks ago, never read the books. I thought the second movie (and the first) are one of the best movies ive seen in a looong time. |
| | Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | I quite liked both of them. My biggest problem with it is the actor playing Caspian. He'd be fine for the next film (Voyage of the Dawntreader) but for Prince Caspian he's supposed to be around 13-14. By the looks of it they decided to do away with the time difference between the two films. |
| | Registered: May 27, 2007 | | Posts: 175 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting kemper: Quote:
I remember back in the dark ages as a communications major, we were taught that a film had to gorss 2 to 2.5 times its production budget in order to make a profit. So looking at the "high end" Narnia 1 made $295m profit which would of course trigger a 2nd film, #2 lost $81m.... given this economy, I wouldnt take a chance either.
My math is based on boxofficemojo data..... Dunno if anyone is still watching this thread, but your math is faulty. The production budget is listed as a whopping 225 mil, but worldwide box office gross is 419 mil. Even taking into account the massive outlay for promoting the film (often in excess of 50 mil for big budget movies), Disney still made a good profit on the film. Also, post-release media sales and merchandising is NEVER counted by the studios so that they can maintain the illusion they are losing money. According to this site : http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2008/NARN2-DVD.php DVD sales alone have accounted for an additional 76 mil. You can then add many millions more from pay-per-view, satellite, blu-ray, VHS, airline, hotel, movie rentals, netflix, normal network TV, and the dozens of other legal ways people can see movies these days, and you will start to understand that virtually every movie makes money for the studios. However, when they whine about how piracy is killing them, they only ever show declining box office receipts. Consider this, according to "The Big Picture", only 20% of a movie's revenue is expected to come from it's domestic theatrical release. So if you multiply the 141 mil the movie pulled in at the US box office by a factor of 5, you will have a good idea of how much money Disney pulled in. Even though we are talking about an absurd amount of money, Disney bases most of their decisions on the US box office draw, regardless of how much money they make after the fact. If you take into account that 3rd movies in franchises usually do the most poorly of the 3, 141 mil for the second film was simply not enough to justify a 200-mil gamble for the third. R. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,819 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm very pleased that Treader is going ahead (something I knew from my issue of Total Film this month).
Treader and prequel The Magician's Nephew have always been my favourites in the series.
I've been reading these books every year since I was nine (it's kind of a ritual with me...a bit like Pete's Halloween Horrorthon!) and I think they did a great job with the first 2 films.
What was changed/added greatly benefited the films IMO.
They're great, adventure-filled, family films that truly do recreate the magic of the books.
Although, if I'm honest, I don't particularly want The Last Battle to be made. It's a real downer of a book and I don't think it would make a particularly good conclusion to the series.
If I had any say in the matter I'd do The Magician's Nephew after Treader and leave it there. Kind of like making The Hobbit after LOTR. |
| | Registered: March 8, 2009 | | Posts: 864 |
| | Posted: | | | | Most people seem to forget that movie theaters get to keep a good chunk of the box office gross (usually about 40-45%). They're not showing these films for free. That's why you cannot do a direct budget vs. gross comparision, and is why the 2X gross vs. budget rule of thumb was devised.
Of course, these days there are a lot of ancillary avenues for additional grosses after the film leaves theaters (home video, cable, pay-per-view, etc.). |
| | Registered: May 27, 2007 | | Posts: 175 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Mixmaster_Mal: Quote:
Most people seem to forget that movie theaters get to keep a good chunk of the box office gross (usually about 40-45%). They're not showing these films for free. That's why you cannot do a direct budget vs. gross comparision, and is why the 2X gross vs. budget rule of thumb was devised.
Of course, these days there are a lot of ancillary avenues for additional grosses after the film leaves theaters (home video, cable, pay-per-view, etc.). Hi, That's a common misconception. The real figure is 10-20% depending on what country you live in. For really big movies (such as Spider Man or any of the Star Wars movies), the percentage is zero. That's right, theaters sign deals to give 100% of ticket revenue back to the studios. That is the principal reason popcorn is so expensive, as it is the theater's prime source of revenue (and sometimes only). Most of the movie releases are on a sliding scale, with the smallest theater % in the first 2-3 weeks of release. That is one of the reasons movies disappear so quickly these days from theaters. Not too long ago (in the 70's and before), there was a set rate which never changed, meaning as long as theaters had patrons, they could keep movies as long as they liked and keep a pre-arranged % of the profits. When I was a kid, I remember movies like Star Wars or ET staying at theaters for months and months on end, sometimes even for a year or more. Not anymore. Nowadays with the sliding scale, there is no incentive at all for the studio after the first few weeks, so they do all they can to limit theaters showing movies after a certain number of weeks. As the % gets better for the theater, the % gets worse for the studio so they pull the plug, and force the theater to show a newer release, resetting the clock at zero. Also, I see the last poster is American. In the 40's, the studios owned all of the theater chains in the US and did whatever they wanted to, left movies for as long as people kept seeing them. But that was considered a monopoly, and was broken up by the courts forcing the studios to sell off their theater chains in 1948. What replaced it was supposed to foster competition, but is more or less the same system with the studios controlling all of the strings. If they decide you need to show one of their new movies, you have little choice but to comply or be denied future big releases. It has made it almost impossible for small independent theaters to continue to exist, only big chains have any chance by virtue of attracting nationwide audiences. R. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 20 |
| | Posted: | | | | OMG. I am laughing so hard right now. I am a theatre owner and if a single studio would ever suggest forking over more than the highest percentage (which is currently 60% over here) they would never ever ever get a movie in theatres again. I remember the discussion that surrounded Godzilla some years ago where Columbia wanted 70% from US theatres and they were forced to go back on that decision.
Popcorn is a very important profit generator, and has higher margins than the movies we show, but 100%? Never in this lifetime, it would be undoable to keep things running. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Not sure where 'over here' is, but TheMovieBlog supports Roosters claim. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: May 27, 2007 | | Posts: 175 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting SvenAN: Quote:
OMG. I am laughing so hard right now. I am a theatre owner and if a single studio would ever suggest forking over more than the highest percentage (which is currently 60% over here) they would never ever ever get a movie in theatres again. I remember the discussion that surrounded Godzilla some years ago where Columbia wanted 70% from US theatres and they were forced to go back on that decision.
Popcorn is a very important profit generator, and has higher margins than the movies we show, but 100%? Never in this lifetime, it would be undoable to keep things running. As a theater owner, I will defer to your professional experience. However, the only conclusion I can draw is that your theater doesn't run American summer blockbusters. What I posted above is from documented sources, most notably this book : http://books.google.com/books?id=1mb4Tj7PODsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Big+Picture:+Money+and+Power+in+Hollywood#v=onepage&q=&f=false The Big Picture - Money and Power in Hollywood Fortunately for the purposes of this discussion, Google Books has scanned in the book in question and the relevant chapter called the "The Popcorn Economy" is there in its entirety. Here is a quote : "The usual arrangement is for the theaters to keep only 10% of the box office the opening week in addition to a house allowance which amounts to a flat rental fee for the theater. With the house allowance factored in, the studio generally ends up with between 70% and 80% of the box office revenue during the first 2 weeks." Also from this site : http://www.themovieblog.com/2007/10/economics-of-the-movie-theater-where-the-money-goes-and-why-it-costs-us-so-much "For instance, 2 movie theatre managers told me that for Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, the studio took 100% of the box office take for the first week of release." It all depends on the movie of course, but the longer a film stays at a theater, the higher the theater's cut becomes week after week. However, there is a downside. The longer a movie stays in the theaters, the smaller the audience becomes (sometimes dramatically smaller after the opening weekend) resulting in a smaller number of people buying popcorn. As a result, the average run of movies in the US is only 3 weeks, the time it takes the studio to maximize their profit before the % given to the theater gets too high. R. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 20 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well, I can not believe it. We show all the major summer blockbusters. SW EP 2 was indeed pricey but never more than 60% for the first two weeks.
I cán tell you that we will néver show a movie of which all the proceeds will go to the studio's. How can that work, with added sales tax a theatre would pay éxtra to show a movie? Popcorn sales do not cover the expenses for personnel, mortgage/rent, etcetera up to that point where you don't need the boxoffice gross.... Just my two cents, ofcourse. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |