Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
Posted on: Mar. 04 2014,08:11
It was critically acclaimed...until audiences saw it.
It also made a ton of money, but I attribute that to it being the first of its kind. There were people who saw it who honestly thought the found footage angle was real. I wish I was kidding.
The proof is beyond the numbers for that film. For example: It still gets mocked throughout pop culture.
Further, two sequels were immediately green lit. The first bombed and was critically panned. The second was dropped, and never even got made.
Ditto for the two video games they made based on the movie.
The Matthew Broderick Godzilla made a fuckton of money in its first weekend, breaking records. However, that film isn't seen as a success, but exhibit A is how badly Hollywood can fuck up an existing property.
Vince I make sweet, sweet love to my legally licenced copy of Microsoft Vista.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 5016
Joined: May 2004
Posted on: Mar. 04 2014,08:20
(Leisher @ Mar. 04 2014,10:11)
QUOTE
Further, two sequels were immediately green lit. The first bombed and was critically panned. The second was dropped, and never even got made.
I actually liked the sequel better than the first Blair Witch. I read that the original idea was to do more of a mocumentary. But the comparisons to The Last Broadcast made them change directions and just release the movie as the raw footage. I don't know if that's true, but I hope it is. Otherwise these guys just suck really, really bad.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
Posted on: Mar. 04 2014,08:42
QUOTE
I read that the original idea was to do more of a mocumentary. But the comparisons to The Last Broadcast made them change directions and just release the movie as the raw footage.
Their marketing campaign was brilliant. Not taking that away from them.
The movie? Not so much.
I don't think the movie was awful, and in fact, believe parts of it were smart. However, they weren't the first folks to do found footage, and their movie did draaaaaaaaaaagggggggg on for the majority of time on screen. It was 90 minutes of cursing and snot for a payoff shot that lasted two seconds?
They needed an element of danger throughout the film to explain the snot and the cursing. Random noises and people getting lost in a forest doesn't equal horror.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
Posted on: Mar. 04 2014,11:25
Is Hulu in the same league as the other two?
Netflix streaming is $8 a month, and that's practically free. Amazon Prime is "free" when you pay for amazon prime shipping, which almost everyone I know already does, so it is essentially "free" as an added gift with something else that already has value.
With Hulu plus you pay for it and STILL get commercials, and last I heard none of it was HD.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 22951
Joined: May 2004
Posted on: Mar. 04 2014,11:39
(Leisher @ Mar. 04 2014,14:34)
QUOTE
QUOTE
which almost everyone I know already does,
I do not. Explain to me why I would. I'm not being sarcastic, I've just never signed up for it or researched it. Why would I need it?
We've had Amazon Prime for a few years now. the first year was free. We order tons of stuff off of Amazon. Prime means lots of fast shipping for presents, households items, consoles to resell, etc. so you get them fast. The video is a mild bonus, but needs more content.
The no minimum order size, and no weight limit stuff are nice.
That, and every time they are late, you get a free month of Prime.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
Posted on: Mar. 04 2014,11:45
Last I heard it was $70/year, and it got you free shipping on almost everything they sell. Yes, they had "super saver" shipping once with most orders over $30, but do they even do that any more? With the free "super saver" shipping they would basically fill your order when they had time... I remember waiting a couple weeks on some orders. Amazon Prime shipping is usually 2-day, for free.
To me, just for the christmas shopping in October/November, that was worth the cost of $70/year. Then they started their streaming service, and made it free to amazon prime peeps, and that was just like a free gift they added for free. AND..... when they first started the streaming service, they often had blu-rays that you ordered available immediately on their streaming service. Order the blu ray, pay for it, leave the computer, turn on amazon streaming in your living room, and the movie you just bought is there right now to watch. I am not sure if they still do this.
So, I didn't know you didn't have it. I retract my statement.
Here's the official amazon perks page. There is also a lot of kindle stuff I don't personally use.
Vince I make sweet, sweet love to my legally licenced copy of Microsoft Vista.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 5016
Joined: May 2004
Posted on: Mar. 04 2014,12:17
(Leisher @ Mar. 04 2014,13:34)
QUOTE
QUOTE
which almost everyone I know already does,
I do not. Explain to me why I would. I'm not being sarcastic, I've just never signed up for it or researched it. Why would I need it?
I have it and like it. We're in the process of getting rid of the TV side of Uverse now and streaming everything we watch if possible. Should be able to cut a good % of that bill out by doing that.
Honestly, if you don't order a lot from Amazon I'm not sure it would be worth it for you. Especially if you still use regular cable with a DVR.
There are a number of free movies every month. Some pretty old. Some maybe a couple of years. I'll usually flip it on when I have time to watch something, but need something other than the recorded shows me and the wife both watch. Watched Galaxy Quest and The Avengers (Marvel) in the last 2 or 3 weeks.
But I consider the streaming a good supplement to our new non-cable life.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
Posted on: Mar. 25 2014,15:50
(GORDON @ Mar. 04 2014,14:45)
QUOTE
Last I heard it was $70/year, and it got you free shipping on almost everything they sell. Â Yes, they had "super saver" shipping once with most orders over $30, but do they even do that any more? Â With the free "super saver" shipping they would basically fill your order when they had time... I remember waiting a couple weeks on some orders. Â Amazon Prime shipping is usually 2-day, for free.
Coincidentally, just after we had this conversation Amazon bumped the price of Prime up to $99/year. Considering there is also the "free" shipping, Amazon Prime video streaming alone is worth that $8.50 per month. And I think for all of us here, $8.50 per month isn't even a blip in our monthly budgets, so. I think it's still worth it at $100.
Update: Nemecek has posted a rebuttal of the original report, saying he never stated there were ongoing talks about a new Trek series on Netflix. Apparently there have been “overtures” in the past, but as far as he knows nothing is happening right now.
?
-------------- Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
Posted on: Jun. 30 2014,08:35
Google it. Everyone is talking about this story, but as of right now, it's "rumors".
With Hollywood, rumors mean either wild speculation or there is something going on that nobody is publicly discussing.
We've past the wild speculation part as people are confirming at least one conversation has taken place.
This could make a lot of sense for Paramount, and I'd do two series, not just one. Sign the deal with Netflix, but also sell the syndication rights. Syndication gets the episodes one per week six months after Netflix puts the show online. Netflix gets a percentage of the Syndication fees.
For the first series, you use the actual crew. Have 10 episodes written and ready to be shot when the next movie begins. It's a short season, but it won't take long to shoot.
For the second series, just make it TNG in this new universe.
