Slashdot Mirror


2017: The Year That Horror Saved Hollywood (qz.com)

A reader shares a report: If there's a silver lining in any of that for America's film industry, it's that the horror genre is still plugging merrily along, seemingly immune to the financial troubles that have befallen most studios. As the rest of Hollywood flounders in 2017, horror is in the midst of its highest-grossing year ever. On the backs of huge hits like It and Get Out, the horror genre has combined for a record $733.5 million in the US this year, according to box office data compiled by the New York Times (paywall). The year has proven that horror films are more than just cheaply made movies for niche audiences and can still cross into the mainstream to become bona fide successes. Ticket sales during the 2017 summer movie season, billed by Variety as "The Summer of Hell," were down nearly 11% from last year due to a series of epic flops, namely King Arthur: Legend of the Sword and The Dark Tower. Arguably the only saving grace was It, the adaptation of the novel of the same name by Stephen King that became the highest-grossing horror film of all time in September (not adjusted for inflation). Today, it has made a very fitting $666.6 million (seriously) worldwide, according to Box Office Mojo. Following a solid first half of 2017 with Dunkirk and Wonder Woman, It helped Warner Bros. rebound from the disastrous King Arthur and the disappointing Blade Runner 2049 -- to say nothing of this month's box office catastrophe, Geostorm.

156 comments

  1. Horror not immune to studio woes by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    for America's film industry, it's that the horror genre is still plugging merrily along, seemingly immune to the financial troubles that have befallen most studios

    The horror genre is not immune to the studios' problems, there just happen to be some very good horror genre movies this year. The studios should be ignoring any trends like these and simply make good movies. Entertaining movies nearly always do well at the box office. If Get Out or It were bad movies, they would have done bad at the box office regardless of being horror movies.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    1. Re:Horror not immune to studio woes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      Hollywood has a horrible habit of traveling down the well-trodden path when there's a minor success to be seen in the wake of other failures. See how kids movies all traveled the path of 3D animation after Toy Story. Or how the comic book movie genre has suddenly turned into a "almost every other movie coming out" phenom. Or eighties cartoon properties getting huge budget fail-fests that somehow still rake in money.

      I honestly can't believe Geostorm was made as a large-budget production. Even the trailers made it look like a midnight scheduled sci-fi original from the Sharktopus vs Giant Gator era.

    2. Re:Horror not immune to studio woes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      simply make good movies

      More over the top cgi and unpossible physics.

    3. Re:Horror not immune to studio woes by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      But telling if a movie is good is hard. Telling if a movie follows the current trends is easy!

    4. Re:Horror not immune to studio woes by tomhath · · Score: 1

      there just happen to be some very good horror genre movies this year

      More like one big and one okay hit. Take away "It" and the numbers are mediocre.

    5. Re:Horror not immune to studio woes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust me. It's not hard to tell that 'King Arthur' was a steaming pile of monkey poo.

    6. Re:Horror not immune to studio woes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with that is although we say "following", what we actually mean and want is "leading".

      Telling if a movie leads current trends is most definitely not easy.

    7. Re:Horror not immune to studio woes by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      You're underestimating "Get Out". "It" made 18 times its budget - which is fantastic. "Get Out" made 55 times its budget - that's phenomenal. For comparison: Beauty and the Beast returned a bit less than 7 times its budget, Logan returned 5.4x, Wonder Woman returned 4.5x, and Guardians of the Galaxy 2 returned 3.3x. Yeah, "It" grossed more than "Get Out" (though Get Out's gross of 253M is hardly something to sneeze at), but executives look at return on investment at least as much as gross when making decisions about what to green light.

    8. Re:Horror not immune to studio woes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, I'll bite.

      Why brake cleaner?

    9. Re:Horror not immune to studio woes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The studios should be ignoring any trends like these and simply make good movies. Entertaining movies nearly always do well at the box office.

      The problem is Hollywood has no idea what's a good movie.

      There have been good movies, and usually they try to just copy those and expect them to work. Or they use a committee to tell you what a movie looks like. They probably have computer algorithms to tell you what's a good movie, which gives you a formula for how exactly that movie should go.

      And then they'll make an endless stream of movies which suck, but otherwise check all of the boxes of what they think a good movie should be. I strongly suspect that in much of Hollywood, good movies occasionally get made despite their best efforts, not because of them.

      This is why they keep making sequels, or rebooting things which have already worked. They just keep flogging that dead horse.

      The actual studio system in Hollywood hasn't really got the faintest idea of what is needed to make "good movies", they just know what other good movies did, and they try to copy it ... and often miss the point completely and make crap.

      Like everything Tom Cruise does these days or the fucking Emoji movie or yet another goddamned Transformer movie. And somehow nobody ever seems to realize internally it's a terrible movie before or during the making of it.

    10. Re:Horror not immune to studio woes by gmack · · Score: 1

      Your logic makes my brain hurt.

      Return on investment is not number of times the investment, it's another word for profits. So Beauty and the best cost $300 million to make but pulled in $1.263 billion. That's $963 million and minus whatever expenses are involved in that (royalties etc) it's still a much larger return on investment than $253 million.

    11. Re:Horror not immune to studio woes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad movies do well at the box office all the time.

      Get Out is only a horror movie to a millennial. For the rest of us who have seen a horror movie, it was some un-funny race related crap.

      IT was a shitty retread.

    12. Re:Horror not immune to studio woes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair computerizing the animation also saved money over the old pen and paper ways, even with the impressive amount of rendering power involved.

    13. Re:Horror not immune to studio woes by xevioso · · Score: 1

      Most of the Marvel movies follow a specific formula. And it turns out that their movies get consistently high aggregate reviews on RT. And they also consistently do well at the box office. What their movies have in common is complexity. Almost all of them have a pretty complex plot with a fair amount of twist and turns that require you to pay attention if you want to get anything more out of the movie than explosions and super hero fighting.

    14. Re:Horror not immune to studio woes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh?
      Your RoI is absolutely pegged to the initial investments and the risk you are taking to produce a particular return.

    15. Re:Horror not immune to studio woes by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 2

      "To calculate ROI, the benefit (or return) of an investment is divided by the cost of the investment, and the result is expressed as a percentage or a ratio."

      You are are incorrect. Return on investment is intended to differentiate the quality of an investment, not a total number. Someone who invested 1,000,000 in "Beauty and the Beast" would have earned back 7,000,000. Someone who invested 1,000,000 in "Get Out" would have earned back 55,000,000. "Get Out" was a far greater return on investment, even if "Beauty and the Beast" earned gross profit. And you'd better believe executives - regardless of the industry - pay attention when one product outperforms other similar products in ROI by a fact of 8.

      Now, there is an argument to be made that it's okay to get lesser returns on greater volume. I wouldn't dispute that. But it doesn't change the fact that "Get Out" was a huge hit, and that it had a massive Return on Investment.

    16. Re:Horror not immune to studio woes by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Geostorm is really just another in a long line of action movies, the fourth that this particular director has been involved in. He was Roland Emmerich's partner for a long time, and that guy made tons of disaster movies. Geostorm looks like your typical "let's destroy some landmarks" movie.

    17. Re:Horror not immune to studio woes by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I don't want to know.
      But I kindof do.

  2. Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    I mean yes obviously, those reduced millions are still coming in from somewhere.

    But I haven't heard anyone I know - in years - saying they were going to go to a theater and watch a movie. I think the last thing I personally saw in a theater was the first half of Kill Bill. None of my friends have said anything about going to a movie since I can't remember when.

    I've considered that maybe I'm just getting old and I don't go out as much, and that's skewing my perception of things. But I have nephews and other family that are younger. And babysitters and neighborhood kids that come over to hang out with my kids.

    Nobody seems to talk about going to the movies anymore.

    Do people actually go to the movies these days? I can't think of anyone that does. Whatever it is that you want to see - it'll be on blu-ray in a month and you can watch it at home, without the sticky floors and ten dollar popcorn. A gigantic LED tv doesn't cost all that much, and you have one for your XBox already anyways.

    Who the hell goes to the movies these days?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by grub · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some movies just have to be seen on the big screen. I saw Blade Runner 2049 twice on IMAX and was blown away (granted I'm a huge BR fan and oozing with bias). Our home theatre setup is no slouch, but even when I get BR2049 in 4K, it won't be the same experience.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      But I haven't heard anyone I know - in years - saying they were going to go to a theater and watch a movie.

      And I have quite a few friends who have gone to the theater a few times this year to see something, including myself. Your circle of friends might not be representative of society in general, and instead be a group of people of similar interests, possibly mainstream, possibly not. Box office receipts aren't exactly jumping, but it's not like the number of tickets sold has completely nosedived.

    3. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      I go to the movies now more than ever. Alamo Drafthouse-style theaters have been a game changer. Even if the movie itself is mediocre, its still more fun than the usual bar night with friends.

    4. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      I take my kids to the real IMAX in NYC a few times a year. Worth it for the $22 average ticket price if you reserve good seats. Rarely just go to a regular theater

    5. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      I go less since we had the kids, but I'll make an exception if it's something I really want to see. There just hasn't been as much I really wanted to see, and most of the 4-6 maybes came in with really bad ratings this year. I still *like* the theater, but I've got to be more tempted than before--used to be, I'd just go out to a megaplex on a whim, not even knowing what was playing, and just assume something good would be available.

      As you say it does help that the home theater is well supported these days. At one time, I sort of felt if I didn't catch a movie in the theaters I might never see it again. Now my problem is if the kids like it, it's a struggle to avoid seeing it less than a dozen times off Netflix, half a year later. And of course Redbox really cuts down on the impatience of waiting for public release.

    6. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Agreed, I could tell BR2049 was going to be worth the big screen given my personal tastes. Something like Geostorm cited in the summary? I doubt I'll even watch that in 3 years when it is on Netflix.

    7. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      I take my kids to the real IMAX in NYC a few times a year. Worth it for the $22 average ticket price if you reserve good seats. Rarely just go to a regular theater

      I have a Showcase Cinema Deluxe near me and in a lot of ways it's better than the local IMAX. The only thing the IMAX has over is the larger screen and the rumble seats. With 4K digital projectors and Dolby Atmos in upgraded theaters, IMAX has lost much of it's edge.

    8. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by Salo2112 · · Score: 1

      Yes - but I do understand why so many people have stopped. I am now retired, so I can catch shows in a matinee - and...treading lightly here.... I have a nicer theater nearby that attracts a better demographic. I don't have to deal with a messy venue, people talking, people texting, knife fights in the parking lot, ect. My only complaint with the experience is the 20 minutes of commercials before the movie starts. Not a whole lot that interests me, but when something does, I am there. BR2049, It, American Assassin and Jigsaw in the last month. Going to watch Star Wars: Killing the Last of the Original Characters 2, when it comes out. The theater experience should not be as bad as it has become, and it isn't just crap movies that has killed the movie industry: it's the refusal of the theaters to make sure bad behavior is dealt with so that other customers do not suffer for it.

    9. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      I don't have to deal with a messy venue, people talking, people texting, knife fights in the parking lot, ect.

      You might try an experiment. I have experienced that, but it hasn't been the trend doomsayers said it would be, IMO.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    10. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I live in a small mid-western town, every Friday and Saturday the theater is packed with high school students. It also make seeing a movie suck if you really want to watch it because a lot of them hang out and socialize as apposed to actually watching the movies. It's not surprising it's one of the few places they can hang out and socialize.

    11. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      knife fights in the parking lot

      In which forsaken third-world hell of a country do you live in?!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    12. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by Salo2112 · · Score: 1

      North Charleston, SC - the Detroit of the South.

    13. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Early 40's, my wife and I go a few times a year. I also take my kids a couple times a year - new star wars or marvel movie or something. So does pretty much everyone I know of the same age.

    14. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have hundreds of "all time favorite" movies and there is not a single one of them that I would pay $22 to see.

    15. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blade Runner 2049 is indeed one of the most beautiful films that I've seen in years, definitely had to be seen on a big screen.

    16. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by antdude · · Score: 1

      I know a lot of people who still go to theatres, but a lot less though. Even my people and I go out way less than we used to do. This year, I only saw Dunkirk and Rogue One. Last year was Finding Dory. So, basically one or two per year. It's hard to watch in theatres for me because of my health issues because I have to take time outs to pee (my bladder sucks now). :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    17. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BR2049 bod office has barely exceeded its huge budget. Especially when advertising figured in. A failure for studios.

    18. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but you sound like a loser as does the rest of slashdot wanking it over the big screen (and shitty food in your case).

    19. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      It's because it's slow and kind of thoughtful. Unfortunately non stop action is what sells. Look at the Marvel movies, Transformers, new Star Wars, new Star Trek and so on. I'd rather see a film like Blade Runner 2049 but it seems like I'm in a minority.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    20. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by grub · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it will do well in DVD/Bluray sales. To be honest, a selfish part of me is hoping it makes enough to show a profit, but not enough where the studios will opt for more sequels. Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 are a great duos, a third one is not necessary.

      Think Aliens, Godfather 2, Terminator 2.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    21. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have hundreds of "all time favorite" movies and there is not a single one of them that I would pay $22 to see.

      Cool story, bro.

    22. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I have hundreds of "all time favorite" movies

      Er, no you don't. By definition you can only have one all time favorite.

      It's like you can't say "the best video game is Quake and Zelda and Call of Duty and..." It's not logically possible.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re:Does anyone even go to the movies anymore? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      knife fights in the parking lot

      In which forsaken third-world hell of a country do you live in?!

      Clearly not the US or it would be gun fights in the parking lot.

      *runs for cover*

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  3. Blade Runner 2049. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its opening weekend was only $31M but that was still something like 2x the number two spot that weekend. I absolutely loved it (and saw it four times thus far), but it's a tough movie for many: thinking person's sci-fi running close to 2 3/4 hours. If there's any justice, Roger Deakins will get his Oscar.

    1. Re:Blade Runner 2049. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's hope he doesn't get an Oscar for creating a rerun of some old movie. If you can't come up with an original story, stop creating movies. Nobody visits the theaters anymore, anyway.

    2. Re: Blade Runner 2049. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's the cinematographer, not the director. The fact that it's a sequel has no bearing on the quality of his work.

  4. Hollywood woes not just financial by bugs2squash · · Score: 1
    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:Hollywood woes not just financial by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      It was released on Google Play for free and opened in 10 theaters for one day. I've never even heard of it, and most limited 1 day releases do terribly.

  5. 2017: The year that a fad replaced another fad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.

    1. Re:2017: The year that a fad replaced another fad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Only if you get the complete Battlestar Galactica Blu-Ray set. So say we all.

  6. The horror.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is Harvey?

    1. Re:The horror.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the best horror story of all time. A fat ugly (fugly) asshole that thinks wealth gets him some.

  7. Indeed by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Lots of Hollywood horror stories about sex predators masking as producer and directors.

    1. Re:Indeed by Kohath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, sexual harassment and rape are big news topics now that the Clintons’ political viability no longer needs to be protected.

    2. Re:Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you just just piss off and die..

  8. Greed killed Blade Runner 2 by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was considering going to Blade Runner with my wife. However it had been so long since I had last seen the first one I thought it would be nice to see it again before seeing the new one. So I checked the usual retailers - in my case Best Buy, Target, WalMart - and couldn't get it there as it was not available. I can't stream it on NetFlix either. I checked Barnes and Noble as well, no dice. I checked Amazon; they couldn't guarantee it either (only available through third parties).

    Disney did the same thing with Tron when they released the new one a few years ago. If you shut out the fans who want to see it, you'll end up getting less money for the new product. In my case I just simply gave up and figured it's not that important. I can go spend my money on something else.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Greed killed Blade Runner 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was (and still is) available on iTunes.

    2. Re: Greed killed Blade Runner 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I picked it up in the $5 Walmart bin. First place I looked. What is probably more likely is the local retailers algorithm showed there wasn't much of a demand in your area so it didn't get stocked.

    3. Re:Greed killed Blade Runner 2 by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      its available to rent or buy on amazon prime video

      --
      Nullius in verba
    4. Re:Greed killed Blade Runner 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS! It's available everywhere, just not in disk (physical) format. Welcome to the 21st century, pal!

    5. Re:Greed killed Blade Runner 2 by grub · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Blade Runner seems to be available all over here. In fact they recently released a 4K UHD BD.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    6. Re:Greed killed Blade Runner 2 by nsre · · Score: 1

      Local library had several copies of BR (Final Cut).

    7. Re:Greed killed Blade Runner 2 by antdude · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why companies don't bother to offer the previous releases so viewers can rewatch them from buying, renting, etc. I know a few theatres would reshow them before the new one for the hardcore fans.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    8. Re:Greed killed Blade Runner 2 by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Do watch the new one, though. It's really good.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    9. Re:Greed killed Blade Runner 2 by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      One theater near me had a special Blade Runner double feature on the night of the release of the new one.

  9. But wait.. by A5un · · Score: 2

    Are we going to talk about the abomination called Mother! ? Is that horror too?

    1. Re:But wait.. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Oh she's always been. Fortunately she just went overseas and can't figure out how to work Skype on her laptop so I'm free of that horror show for a while.

      Oh ... Just noticed the exclamation mark. ... A movie called Mother!... okay carry on.

  10. Horror better fits today's oversimplified formula by Khopesh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Modern movies all fit a very tight formula, which is admittedly very powerful and compelling, but it prevents certain types of creativity from shining. Atop that, movie studios refuse to take risks on new material, instead making adaptations, reboots, remakes, and encores. This further limits what a movie can do.

    This is an arena that televisions series have stolen from movies; most episodes are designed to fit that tight formula while advancing a larger arc (better yet, multiple larger arcs!) while a few can break the mold with minimal risk to audience retention (for example, instead of the plot twist being half to three-quarters through, it can be elsewhere, or even a build-up for a larger surprise in the next episode).

    Horror movies are rarely heavy in sophistication. They just go in for emotional investment so they can lead you to a series of surprises, some of which will startle you and others that might haunt you. This adapts to that oversimplified formula very very well. Additionally, horror has its own tight formulae, so audiences get what they expect and are only disappointed when there wasn't the anticipated level of startles, eeriness, or innuendo. There's no risk to the hook being problematic since it's pretty much always shown in full force in the movie's trailer.

    (Also note that It is a remake (and an adaptation), though Get Out is not.)

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
  11. Geostorm - who didn't see this coming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does a movie like geostorm even get made? Who looks at that script/plot and thinks "this is a winner - let's spend 120 mil on this pronto!"

    1. Re:Geostorm - who didn't see this coming? by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Global Warming Climate Change Day After Tomorrow, the media scares everyone, so let's make a movie to capitalize on it, and toss in some government weather conspiracy stuff!! All the boogeymen in one. And it probably started out as a Scy-fy script, but those Nadosharks are popular too, then you got some big name stars and the budget went crazy.

    2. Re:Geostorm - who didn't see this coming? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I have only seen the trailer, but it looks like a decent plot for a 1970~1980's era James Bond movie.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Geostorm - who didn't see this coming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does a movie like geostorm even get made? Who looks at that script/plot and thinks "this is a winner - let's spend 120 mil on this pronto!"

      It makes more sense if you think of it as "propaganda from the oligarchs". See, a common way of hiding the fact that you are a kleptocratic oligarch who is trying to use FUD to funnel tax dollars into your corporations is to pretend that you are a fighter against those people.

    4. Re:Geostorm - who didn't see this coming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but a 1970's era Bond movie would have more style and less PC.

    5. Re:Geostorm - who didn't see this coming? by Quirkz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I saw the trailer for Geostorm the other day and said, "Gee, that looks exactly like Day After Tomorrow." And my friend remarked, "No, it reminds me of 2012." We eventually agreed we were both right.

    6. Re:Geostorm - who didn't see this coming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It requires a certain shallowness of vision on the part of the producers.

    7. Re:Geostorm - who didn't see this coming? by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Lol, only this time no one else made almost the exact same movie. Stormbringer would be a good name.

    8. Re:Geostorm - who didn't see this coming? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I saw the trailer for Geostorm the other day and said, "Gee, that looks exactly like Day After Tomorrow." And my friend remarked, "No, it reminds me of 2012." We eventually agreed we were both right.

      Well, they were all made by Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin, so there's a reason for that. After working together on Stargate, Independence Day, and Godzilla, they went their separate ways, though clearly they're still making like.. the same kinds of movies that they were when they were together.

  12. Spare me "the disappointing Blade Runner 2049" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hollywood should accept the fact that many people don't go to film theatres anymore. I'm one of them. Reasons are multiple: theatres are too noisy, too cold, with too many annoying patrons crunching popcorn and texting. Blade Runner 2049 is a sequel that I've been waiting for 35 years and I'm not going to compromise that pleasure by watching the film in a Cineplex. Instead, I'll wait for the digital release and I'll purchase it on iTunes; and then in BluRay, to make sure that I can watch it again, anytime and anywhere I want, without downloading the 30+GB again. Savvy?

    1. Re:Spare me "the disappointing Blade Runner 2049" by xevioso · · Score: 1

      By not "compromising that pleasure" you are doing just that; the film is meant to be seen on a huge screen. It really is a masterpiece, and I don't care how nice your system is, it just won't be the same. Trust me.

    2. Re:Spare me "the disappointing Blade Runner 2049" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too hate people, but the Blade Runner sequel was quite worth the theater experience. Go to a nice expensive theater at an off-time; it shouldn't be crowded at all.

    3. Re:Spare me "the disappointing Blade Runner 2049" by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      A huge screen is not the only component needed to appreciate a movie. Watching something in a theatre is like trying to read a book in a fast food joint at lunch time.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re:Spare me "the disappointing Blade Runner 2049" by xevioso · · Score: 1

      No, but you can appreciate a movie like Bladerunner 2049 *better* on a larger screen. There are certain scenes that evoke a sense of grandeur...and you miss grandeur by definition on a smaller screen.

    5. Re:Spare me "the disappointing Blade Runner 2049" by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the other part of the theater that makes watching movies in them more "real." That is, the sound. If an artillery shell lands closeby in a movie theater showing, you not only hear it, but you hear it loudly and you feel it. That's "immersion." That's outstanding. I see virtually everything in the theater, because I enjoy the ultra-real experience that is more like "being there" than watching it at home on even a 40" screen. Getting a projection TV system in the next year or 2, and aim to use my 90's vintage component stereo 120 watts per channel Pioneer receiver with the Cerwin Vega speakers that weigh 95 lbs each to hopefully partially recreate the movie theater experience. But I'll still see it initially in the theater, nevertheless. Its just that old flicks I want to watch, will be better experience too at home.

    6. Re:Spare me "the disappointing Blade Runner 2049" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can almost guarantee that any theater still showing BR2049 will be practically empty.

  13. The year creative accounting saved Hollywood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... like every year.

    Flops don't kill Hollywood. It's not hooked up that way.

  14. Formula for success by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly, until Hollywood stops trying to shove their alt left agenda down our throat, they will continue to do poorly. The fact about the left is that their ideology is just theoretical, and when they try to apply it in the real world, it is jarring, as in ruin the entire movie jarring (the hero, after killing mountains of henchmen, spares the evil mastermind because he is "better than that" even though the dude murdered the hero's children and made his wife a zombie plaything. Everyone knows that in reality that the villain would be red paste on the wall, or at the very least, beaten within an inch of his life. (This is why The Walking Dead did so well and Fear the Walking Dead spin-off is total garbage, one is a realistic drama about how normal people would act, the other is a liberal jerk off session about how they think they would act in the same situation). That is why the superhero movies did so well, at least at first. They were based on what is by today's standards, a conservative narrative, with a struggle between good and evil. But now even those stories are being polluted by the liberal agenda (Iron Man sequels anyone?) instead of staying true to the original material.

    We need to get back to the classical theorem for our action/epic movies, where there are good guys (albeit still flawed humans) and some evil to overcome (not corporate suits, not CEOs, or other stupid Hollywood retardedness) who do evil things because evil is in their hearts and they want more power to spread their evil. Pick a genre (fantasy, scifi, horror, post apocalypse, apocalyptic, etc.) and away you go.

    I predict that Hollywood knows this, and they will make a few "pandering" movies next year to refill the coffers, then go back to putting out their dog shit laced libtard brownies...

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    1. Re:Formula for success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever I see the phrase, "shoved down our throats" from right wingers it makes me marvel at the power of effective propagandizing.

      Put down the fox news and think for yourself for a change.

    2. Re:Formula for success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is that, too. The trailer alone is enough to tell me to avoid most new Hollywood movies because they're just more SJW garbage.

    3. Re:Formula for success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm kinda sick of the need for "evil" in my movies.

      I rented Frozen a while ago and we had a persistent disk skip issue that forced us to skip the part where Hans was shown to be the "bad guy," the movie was better because of it, in my opinion.

      Hans, trying to do right by the people of Arendel goes out and tries to kill a threat. Anna stops him, and we don't actually need a bad guy, just two opposing people with differing value judgement (kingdom over monarch, vs sister over kingdom). The simple fact is, that no one thinks they are the bad guy, only someone willing to do what they feel needs to be done. This version of Hans was much more consistent to what he had done in the past and avoided the whole, "if that was his plan then he shouldn't be doing what he is doing now, nor should he have done those things in the past" issue.

    4. Re:Formula for success by doctorvo · · Score: 2

      Hollywood is doomed and they know it. Computer graphics and AI is going to replace most acting, animation, and sets. It's probably going to replace a lot of screenwriting too. What does that leave? You might say that viewers might not want to identify with virtual characters, but why not? What does Hollywood have to offer in terms of real humans? A bunch of sex-obsessed, vain, self-absorbed jerks with eating disorders and skeletons in the closet. Do you want to identify with any of the actors you see on screen as people?

      Hollywood is going down the same drain as journalism. Like journalists, they are going to be kicking and screaming all the way, and like journalists, they think they can hold on to power by allying with powerful political elites. But it's not going to work: the outcome is pretty much inevitable. And society will be better off for it.

      Neither acting nor journalism should ever have achieved the kind of obscene power and influence that they had in the 20th century.

    5. Re:Formula for success by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      we don't actually need a bad guy, just two opposing people with differing value judgement

      I will agree such makes a much more compelling and perhaps realistic story. However, the movie maker risks offending those who disagree with the dominant or winning view. Simplistic good versus simplistic evil avoids such alienation. An alien invasion is a good example: conquerors arrive from space to enslave or kill humanity, and we fight back to defend ourselves. Nobody disagrees with defending humanity's existence. (Cockroaches might, but they don't buy movie tickets.)

      I suppose compromise, cooperation, and nuance can be added to stories of differing value judgments, but those tend not to do well at the box office for some reason. Perhaps the right story teller hasn't been given a chance to make movies yet...

    6. Re:Formula for success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact about the left is that their ideology is just theoretical, and when they try to apply it in the real world, it is jarring

      Whereas the retards on the right stick to white supremacy, bigotry, saying "fuck science, I'll just make up my own facts", and propagating the lie about trickle down economics which has absolutely NO EMPIRICAL DATA which suggests it works.

      Oh, that and loudly saying how anybody disagrees with them is an idiot.

      Go back to your nazi rally, idiot. Trump doesn't have any facts either.

    7. Re:Formula for success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's just a dog-whistle for "things that we don't like simply exist in this movie's world." You know, like gays, people of color, women in power, the stories of women who are struggling because they're not in power, etc. Seeing anything that isn't just like them counts as being shoved down their throats (i.e., torture), kinda like any acknowledgement of another holiday in December is persecuting Christmas.

      I'm not suggesting that everyone who's a conservative is a bigot. But I think it starts with the bigots, who invent a dog-whistle like "shoved down our throats" and then other people who just don't spend much time thinking about the world outside their conservative thought-bubble catch on and they're like, "Hey, this really does feel forced upon me, because I never notice it on my own," and then they join the crowd.

      But you know what? Nobody is being tortured by a movie showing someone overcoming their desire for revenge. Doesn't one of the early Lethal Weapons end that way? Is that an example of leftist agenda off the rails?

    8. Re:Formula for success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Computer graphics and AI is going to replace most acting, animation, and sets. It's probably going to replace a lot of screenwriting too.

      Yeah, right .. that is simply not going to happen no matter what the idiot futurists keep saying.

      Where do idiots like you come up with such stupid shit?

    9. Re:Formula for success by reanjr · · Score: 1

      You think the hero winning and displaying a good heart are part of the alt-left agenda?

      You're a fucking moron.

    10. Re:Formula for success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did this bullshit got voted +5?

      Also, leftist agenda in the US. Please don't make me laugh, your "left" would be deemed center-right elsewhere.

    11. Re:Formula for success by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      I assume you're still upset that nobody watched "Atlas Shrugged."

    12. Re:Formula for success by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Nobody disagrees with defending humanity's existence.

      I do. You are assuming there is something worth saving.

      In the grand schemes of things, ~13+ Billions years, another dumb animal (homo sapien) that went extinct won't be missed by the other actual intelligent species.

    13. Re:Formula for success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact about the left is that their ideology is just theoretical, ...

      Denmark seems pretty real to me. :)

    14. Re:Formula for success by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Denmark seems pretty real to me

      Denmark is a totally fake country, believe me! Loser MSM made it up, like they always do. Real countries don't start with "D". Their lame cookies also get a "D". So sad.

    15. Re:Formula for success by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I remember cinematographers saying they'd never shoot digital, and would continue to shoot film because 'I shoot silver, not rust'.

      I believe most of those are greeters at Walmart these days.

    16. Re:Formula for success by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      another dumb animal (homo sapien) that went extinct won't be missed by the other actual intelligent species.

      But we may be a favorite delicacy; the galactic escargot. Don't want to lose that.

    17. Re:Formula for success by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Atlas Shrugged, and so did the critics.

    18. Re:Formula for success by schleimkeim · · Score: 1

      Honestly, until Hollywood stops trying to shove their alt left agenda down our throat, they will continue to do poorly.

      Oh would just shut up already.

    19. Re:Formula for success by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      I have never watched it, nor read the book. I don't worship at the altar of Ayn Rand. She was as much an idiot as the alt left is today. Selfishness is not a virtue, but it is a fact of human nature, and any worldview that ignores that fact (socialism, communism) is doomed to fail spectacularly (i.e. murdering over 100M dissidents in the last century) before collapsing or converting to fascist, authoritarian capitalism.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    20. Re:Formula for success by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      fuck off nazi

    21. Re:Formula for success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, you went full conservitard on that comment.

    22. Re:Formula for success by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      The hero winning is not the issue, but the alt left agenda version of a "good heart" is twisted and unrealistic, mostly because to be liberal you must live a life sheltered from reality. Most liberals are created in high school and college, when they are young, inexperienced and stupid. Those that go on to start, own or run a business are quickly cured. Similarly, those that must exhibit significant self reliance are also cured. Those that have everything handed to them by others and do very little for themselves tend to continue in the liberal mindset.

      Strand a liberal on a desert island with cannibals and they either die quickly or become conservative.

      Having a truly good heart does not preclude you from identifying true evil and dealing out just judgement (those last two words are anathema to liberals, but key to a realistic story line). Killing someone who unrepentantly and malevolently murdered your family and tried to kill you is not only rational, it is also just (as in the justice form of just), especially if your movie setting is outside the framework of a just society that can punish the evildoer (i.e. post apocalyptic).

      For maybe 200 years in the US we had a pretty good justice system that removed any risk of revenge and used random citizens to justly punish those who committed evil acts removing the burden from the individual wronged and/or their family. However, the alt left believes that evil acts are a sickness caused by environment and mental state, not free will choices of a depraved and evil heart. Therefore any evil acts are not to be punished, but pitied and the person rehabilitated. That is in conflict with reality (in the US, within 5 years about 77% of violent felons will re-offend). This confusion of evil with illness is at the heart of Liberals confusion and aversion to justice and it makes for a idiotic hero and a shitty, unrealistic story.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    23. Re:Formula for success by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 2

      Penetrating logic from a proud product of our public schools no doubt...

      The only brown shirts in 2017 are Antifa, and they are on your side of the aisle.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  15. Dollars, Yes. Quality? No by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    I talked to a number of cinephile friends who, along with myself, saw Get Out as genuinely abysmal. It pandered, it was predictable, and most importantly it merely kept up stereotypes and fears that are genuinely abhorrent and useless in this day and age.
    It was poorly-directed, but did have a good lead. Everyone else was wooden, beige, and the even the humor wasn't really any good. The only reason it got eyeballs was because it was a social justice issue; what it tried to do has been done elsewhere and better.

    I was embarrassed at the theater, with people yelling and screaming that, "Whitey should DIE! Yeah fuck whitey!" It was a racist, violent movie that has no business in a theater.

    Nice enough sets, though.

    BR2049? Another overpumped piece of junk, it's what a teenager would create if they made bladerunner: It beats the viewer over the head to feel something; it makes the most amateur mistakes in cinema: It narrates instead of illustrating.

    Blech. Those two movies, along with the wooden, strangely emotionless "Lucky" last weekend have now completely put me off modern movies.
    I promised a friend I'd see "Mother" but I've not much hope there, either.

    --
    -
    1. Re:Dollars, Yes. Quality? No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, you and your 'cinephile' friends need to stop watching movies. You obviously hate them, and to be honest most of us are tired of your bitching. You sound like an abused spouse (I really love movies, but they are all so terrible to me... I'm sure they don't mean it). If you don't enjoy something stop doing it, stop going back, stop giving it another chance. Seek help....

      Sincerely,
      Movie Lovers

  16. There's no business like show business by boudie2 · · Score: 1

    Yesterday they told you you would not go far, that night you open and there you are
    Next day on your dressing room they've hung a star, let's go on with the show!!

    You might have to suck a dick or two. That's show business! Woka Woka!

    1. Re: There's no business like show business by PranavMene · · Score: 1

      Http://smartmendhi.com

    2. Re: There's no business like show business by PranavMene · · Score: 1

      www.smartmendhi.com

  17. Get Out = horror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seemed more like a black comedy to me (no pun intended)

  18. Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by Tablizer · · Score: 0, Troll

    Honestly, until Hollywood stops trying to shove their alt left agenda down our throat, they will continue to do poorly.

    I've been hearing this complaint from the right for a long time. The right has very good access to deep pockets such that they can form their own studios and make their own damned movies. You are not held hostage.

    a conservative narrative, with a struggle between good and evil... [hero should have] evil to overcome [besides] corporate suits

    So you define progressive values as "evil"? I don't know what your New Testament says, but mine talks far far more about not being a greedy selfish prick than it does about gays or "evil" unions.

    Sorry, but I see power-grabbing selfish plutocrats and big co's who (now legally) bribe politicians as the biggest current evil. You may personally like plutocrats & monopolies running YOUR ass, but I do not. They are even damaging the planet by trashing climate change science. If that's not evil, then I guess I have no clue what "evil" is.

    And don't even get me started about the Nazi-esque Orange Joker in the Whitehouse.

    1. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you define progressive values as "evil"?

      Progressive, verily. Hollywood has progressed from molesting adults to molesting kids. Such goodness!

    2. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dennis Hastert is a Hollywood actor?

    3. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right has very good access to deep pockets [to] make their own damned movies.

      1. Rambo Jesus: Son of God is packing heat when he aims to take on the sodomistic Romans

      2. Fixback Mountain: Blasting Damned Gays Outta Town

      3. Gun Rack Sex Reel, An Ammosexual Fantasy

      4. EPA Busters: entrepreneurs with toxic slime team up with ghosts to take out the bumbling bureaucratic EPA

      5. Red Dumb: Lost teens blast anything that looks or smells commie-ish

      6. Deliverance II: Piggy-style sex and banjo music in IMAX 3D

    4. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Don't forget "Glockwork Orange"

    5. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Walter Peck from the EPA was a secondary antagonist in Ghostbusters

      http://ghostbusters.wikia.com/...

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    6. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      1. Hollywood has a strangle hold on movie and TV media in the US, and for the most part, conservatives are not interested in playing dress up in front of a camera. This doesn't preclude us from pointing out shitty, trivial garbage that comes out of Hollywood. If you want to see what a good story looks like, there is plenty of content from the 1950s and 1960s, as well as some from the 1980s.

      2a. Unions are not evil, but public employee unions in a democracy are a bad thing (they have cross interest with the country and can sway elections to hire their own boss).
      2b. Most progressives in the US are not evil, and that was not what I said, but rather have a believable story of good versus evil.
      2c. Aside from movies like Erin Brochovich, most "evil CEO/business man/etc." are totally irrational and stupid. Do CEOs screw their employees, the public and customers sometimes? Sure. How many have thousands of armed guards with full auto machine guns willing to die for minimum wage (like OCP in Robocop, a liberal homage to the action movie genre)? Answer: NONE. When white collar criminals get caught, they go quietly to jail, because that shit is pure fantasy.
      2d. You don't like big corporations, that is fine, neither do I (Google, Facebook and Comcast are at the top of my shit list), but that doesn't mean they make a good villain for an action or super hero movie. I guarantee you won't find 10 businessmen in the entire US willing to fire an Uzi into a crowd on the street for $100 million dollars. I bet more than half the current or former population of any jail would go for it though, especially if you backed up an armored truck filled with the cash.

      3. The real list of evil qualified for the bogeyman role in an action/hero movie is:
      Sentient evil: criminals, serial killers, gangs, drug cartels, rogue nations, aliens, etc.
      Natural evil: Earthquake, fire, flood, plague, asteroid impact, technology, AI, etc.

      There are probably a lot more, but notice that there are no CEOs or companies on the list because companies don't kill people on purpose.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    7. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Hollywood has a strangle hold on movie and TV media

      So you seem bothered by oligopolies who use their size to limit outside firms. Hmmm.

      conservatives are not interested in playing dress up in front of a camera.

      I doubt that's statistically true, but assuming it is, I'm not sure what your bigger point is. It's hard to find conservative actors?

      public employee unions in a democracy are a bad thing...can sway elections to hire their own boss

      So can biz. I'd be willing to cut their influence if we ALSO cut biz buying elections. Anyhow, unions are a big side topic.

      Sure. How many [corporations] have thousands of armed guards with full auto machine guns willing to die for minimum wage... that shit is pure fantasy

      Sure, movies are often based on exaggeration. That's not news. Think of it as Wells Fargo's billing scam on steroids: low-level employees pressured to rip off customers to keep their jobs. Concepts and patterns from real life are exaggerated to create drama. Dinosaurs probably didn't roar and bellow very often before eating/chasing their prey, but most people love that movie meme: it's drama.

      If you want to see reality, watch documentaries. They exist, but are not popular with either partisan group.

      gangs, drug cartels

      There are movies about them, but most cannot really relate to them. But, many deal with corporations either at their own work and/or via consumer transactions. Thus, they are closer to everyday life of movie goers.

    8. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7. "Taxes Chainsaw Massacre "

    9. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      "Sure, movies are often based on exaggeration. That's not news. Think of it as Wells Fargo's billing scam on steroids: low-level employees pressured to rip off customers to keep their jobs. Concepts and patterns from real life are exaggerated to create drama. Dinosaurs probably didn't roar and bellow very often before eating/chasing their prey, but most people love that movie meme: it's drama."

      There is an un-bridgeable gap between being pressured to create extra banking accounts (that cost the customer nothing) and murdering random strangers/dying for your job. Show me one instance in the US or any other civilized first world country in the last 60 years where a corporation collaborated internally (more than 2 people working together at the direction of the CEO or board of directors) to kill people. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. EVER.

      I am fine with a certain level of artistic license and exaggeration, but pull it out of your ass BS that has never happened and will never happen ON EVERY SINGLE MOVIE FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS is mental deficiency or derangement. Look at any action movie set in the modern era in the last 20 years. 90% plus of the time the murderous villain turns out to be a businessman...

      As for businesses buying elections, last time I checked, businesses can't vote, and buying elections traditionally means bribery of election officials to help your candidate to win. That doesn't happen and is a felony. Regarding influencing elections (which is what you are actually complaining about), if you properly educate your population and teach them how to think (instead of what to think) in the state run, mandatory schools, it is impossible for businesses to influence elections through advertising unless they have a valid position, but teaching kids how to think would destroy the liberal progressive method of propagation (brainwashing kids in school and college), so we can't do that. Fake news companies like CNN and manipulators like Google and Facebook can definitely sway opinion and potentially can throw elections, so they need to be regulated as public utilities to behave in a fair, impartial and neutral manner, and I am all for making all paid lobbying by companies much more limited and having stricter laws about former lobbyists in the government (Obama had 65 people in his cabinet and close officials who were current or former lobbyists when hired).

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    10. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The plot is no more silly than men in tights with superpowers from a spider bite or meteorite. And biz violence did happen in the mob heyday: it was REAL.

      As for businesses buying elections, last time I checked, businesses can't vote, and buying elections traditionally means bribery of election officials to help your candidate to win. That doesn't happen and is a felony.

      Campaign donations and pro-candidate ads are legal. It's pretty damned close to direct bribery. He with the most money can hire the most shouters.

      it is impossible for businesses to influence elections through advertising unless they have a valid position

      You give the electorate way too much credit. The situations are often nuanced and most won't investigate the nuances such that over-simplified sound-bites "work".

      And the candidate's position can be quite valid, but they can fail to tell you related details that undermine their position. For example, deregulation may indeed make a business more profitable and thus hire more people. However, it may also result in more birth defects. The pro-dereg candidate will NOT tell voters that in their ads. They will only give the up-side to dereg. Cherry-picked details.

      And if Fox "News" is more accurate/balanced than CNN, I'll eat a live toad on TV.

    11. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      No, but Kevin Spacey is.

    12. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Show me one instance in the US or any other civilized first world country in the last 60 years where a corporation collaborated internally (more than 2 people working together at the direction of the CEO or board of directors) to kill people.

      How about the entire tobacco industry? They knew for sure that their product was deadly and killed people, they suppressed any and all research and news that spread that information so people would make their own choices.
      That's as close to murder as it gets without actually dropping a bomb on someone's house.

    13. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      I have known a number of people in my on life who smoked their entire life and died in their 80s, so while I agree that smoking is bad for you, it is hardly the death sentence that the alt left makes it out to be. It largely depends on how much you smoke and your genetics. OTOH, virtually the entire left wing in the US is pro pot and see nothing wrong with smoking pot, which is arguably just as bad for you as cigarettes, if not worse and far more addictive and destructive to your life.

      Lung cancer, the number one killer associated with smoking was not well understood for decades, and many of the "evil" tobacco company CEOs smoked themselves, hardly a practice they would engage in if they thought that smoking was deadly and will kill you. It is much more reasonable that science learned over 80 years as both knowledge and science developed that smoking was bad for you and the industry and public lagged behind the science. At worst you can argue that they ignored and stifled early signs and scientists who warned of the long term health problems associated with smoking. But making equivalence between selling cigarettes who no one has to by and which have been used in this country for centuries and hiring goons to murder some innocent is a stretch too far for me, it is not even on the same scale...

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    14. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      You give the electorate way too much credit. The situations are often nuanced and most won't investigate the nuances such that over-simplified sound-bites "work".

      I agree that the current electorate is like this, by liberal progressive design. 150 years ago, people were focused like a laser on politics and far better informed and educated than today. As a result, today the idiots votes can be persuaded with enough air time, and that is the only way the liberal progressives who want to abridge half the bill of rights ever get elected. My point was, eliminate the state run public schools, teach students how to think, and they will no longer be easily manipulated by the media or political ads.

      As far as CNN, you can start with this:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      And this: http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/2...

      Off the top of my head, CNN predicted that Comey would testify that he did not tell Trump he was in the clear regarding Russia, the next day Comey testified that he did in fact tell Trump that he was not under suspicion.

      CNN has played this Trump Russia collusion thing non stop for 9 months, and it turns out the people getting indicted are Democrat operatives and they are being indicted for actions taken before joining the Trump campaign and in collusion with the Democrats... including Hillary Clinton.
      http://www.nationalreview.com/...

      Oh, and you probably haven't even heard about this if you watch CNN (Bill and Hillary's bribery scheme to sell and illegally export 20% of US Uranium reserves to Russia) where they made over $100M for their foundation, that pays for all their living expenses except their house and their meals... http://www.breitbart.com/radio...

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    15. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I agree that the current electorate is like this, by liberal progressive design.

      Suuure it is.

      As far as news controversies, there's also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      and http://www.politifact.com/trut...

      And National Review and Breitbart are known to be biased. They have no cred with me. The GOP can go ahead and put Hillary on trial if they really think there are laws broken.

    16. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Virtually every incident on the Wikipedia link involves either a personal issue for some person not affecting broadcast content, or something that offends liberal sensibilities instead of a factual error on the words reported or spoken, unlike with CNN, or errors by guests and interviewees (who are not affiliated with Fox news) or racking errors (wrong tape with similar content that materially changes nothing in the story gets loaded by some intern and the host doesn't realize it until later). A fair chunk of the Wikipedia article appears to have been written by Politifact shills (I can see their conflation at work between the lines).

      Only fools go to Politifact as what was once a semi-neutral entity has been completely consumed by the liberal progressives and is now just shilling for the DNC. I am just waiting for the news that they are being directly funded by George Soros and the DNC for the circle jerk that is Politifact to be complete. They routinely twist and conflate statements and facts, and almost always build strawman arguments to allow for their desired outcome, rather than going to actual source material and honestly analyzing claims and positions. If you can't see this after reading a few of their articles you are either blinded by your ideology or not smart enough to be involved in political discussion in the first place.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    17. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Only fools go to Politifact as what was once a semi-neutral entity has been completely consumed by the liberal progressives and is now just shilling for the DNC.

      List 3 bad ones from that list of 50.

    18. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      It is simple. As I said, Politifact is a shill for the alt left progressives, and they rely on your weak logic skills, and lack of both knowledge and curiosity. Take a look at the FIRST "LIE"...

      1. "In July 2010 the government said small businesses -- 60 percent -- will lose their health care, 45 percent of big business and a large percentage of individual health."

      Sean Hannity, Nov. 11, 2013

      Yet if you read the actual article here: http://www.politifact.com/pund...

      You will find that:

      By the end of 2013, government analysts said half of all group or employer-based plans would change to the point that they would need to meet the new standards -- which is about what Hannity said.

      Essentially every "lie" is along these same lines, twisting the truth and trying to weasel around.

      Furthermore, virtually every news agency was reporting the same thing, further highlighting the bias of Politifact and John Stewart and their BS, and the reality is that if Obama had not illegally issued waivers and not enforced the letter of the ACA law, that is exactly what would have happened. https://ballotpedia.org/Health...

      NBC News reported that between 50 percent and 75 percent of the 14 million who buy individual health insurance would likely receive a cancellation notice over 2014 because their plans did not meet the requirements of the ACA.[3]

      CBS News reported that more than two million Americans were told they could not renew their insurance policies for 2014.[11]

      According to NBC News, the Obama administration knew in July 2010 that more than 40 percent to 67 percent of people in the individual market would likely not be able to keep their existing policies.[3]

      Health policy consultant Robert Laszewski estimated 80 percent of individual insurance buyers would have to find new policies.[3]

      In order to make their alt left claim that Hannity lied, they ignore the fact that this was widely reported at the time and twist the truth of what he said, and try to infer that Hannity said that these people would permanently lose their health insurance, which from the quote is clearly not what he said, and obviously, anyone with a brain can see that. As a viewer, I know this is not what he was saying, but rather that it would be major upheval, and the new plans would cost more, and people losing their existing plans would also directly make a liar out of Obama, who said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor (proven lie, that they, including the architect of Obamacare knew was a lie from the beginning) and if you like your plan you can keep your plan (same deal, bold faced lie that they knew was a lie from the start). That has always been Hannity's position, not that people would permanently lose their health care and health insurance, but that Obama and the Dims were lying out of their asses the entire time about Obamacare.

      Hannity and we conservatives were right, BTW. Millions of people lost their doctors and lost their affordable insurance plans and the replacements were far more expensive. Suck on this headline for a minute: "Average Individual Health Insurance Premiums Increased 99% Since 2013, the Year Before Obamacare, & Family Premiums Increased 140%" https://news.ehealthinsurance....

      So you can take anything from Politifact and blow it out your ass, because they have no interest in fact, only shilling for the alt left. 95% of the"lies" of Fox news from John Stewart and Politifact are like this, and the oth

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    19. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      A changed plan and "losing healthcare" are very different. As quoted, Sean used the word "lose", which to most English speakers implies one's healthcare outright going away.

    20. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      If you had actually been paying attention:

      Barak Hussein Obama and the Dims: "If you like your plan you can keep your plan."

      Sean Hannity and the conservatives: "In July 2010 the government said small businesses -- 60 percent -- will lose their health care, 45 percent of big business and a large percentage of individual health."

      Reality: A huge majority of small business and individual plans were discontinued and those on it LOST THEIR PLANS (mitigated only by Obama's unlawful waivers and failure to enforce the law). Most of those who lost their plans were forced onto much higher priced DIFFERENT plans. You are attempting to conflate meanings in the same way that Politifact tried to. You can lie to yourself all you want, but I have been paying attention for about 40 years and actually remember what was going on.

      The best defense against the alt left propaganda is intelligence and the ability to think rationally, I have both, so take your BS elsewhere.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    21. Re:Make Your Own! [Re:Formula for success] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Lose existing plan and lose HC are very DIFFERENT things. Sorry, but my interpretation is what a jury of normal English speakers would agree with. I'm confident in that and would even bet money on it. Your bias appears to make you read it to fit your preconceptions. Good Day, Sir.

  19. But can horror save hollywood from pedophiles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pedophilia at the highest levels has been running rampant all across hollywood for decades.... that is the real horror

    1. Re:But can horror save hollywood from pedophiles? by schleimkeim · · Score: 1

      Stop watching Alex Jones you idiot.

  20. Re:Horror better fits today's oversimplified formu by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Modern movies all fit a very tight formula, which is admittedly very powerful and compelling, but it prevents certain types of creativity from shining. Atop that, movie studios refuse to take risks on new material,

    Have you seen Victoria and Abdul?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  21. the foreigner was decent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The movie with jackie chan and pierce brosnan was pretty good: it is based on a book so story is pretty good.

  22. Really a surprise to anyone by budsetr · · Score: 1

    Honestly, who wants to see a movie with the prefix 'Geo'?

    1. Re:Really a surprise to anyone by budsetr · · Score: 1

      Except for porn

  23. Re:Horror better fits today's oversimplified formu by Khopesh · · Score: 1

    Have you seen Victoria and Abdul?

    No, and I therefore cannot comment on how soundly it may or may not break "the formula" but there are exceptions to every rule. This does not appear to be one, however, since it is not a Hollywood film (sorry, I failed to quantify my remark by that characteristic). It's also an adaptation.

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
  24. Better than superheroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not a fan of horror but anything to end the superhero glut: no stakes. anyone who dies eventually comes back to life even if they're mortal. friends become enemies who become friends again. Boooooring.

    At this point I'd prefer to watch colonoscopies.

  25. Hollywood? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought they called it Pedowood now.

  26. Death squads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll start with you. I trust you're not going to object.

    1. Re:Death squads by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Nah, I personally taste like chicken.

  27. Re: Horror better fits today's oversimplified form by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you seen game of thrones? They took risks and broke out of the simplified formulas

  28. It's the writers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The writing on blockbuster movies for the past 3 years has been the worst writing I've ever seen.

    In movies like Independence Day 2, Tarzan, and Ghostbusters, normal people don't behave like normal people. Conversations don't make any sense.

    The same problem is/was going on at Netflix, with the writing for the Marvel series, like Iron Fist. That guys dialogue is so inane, if you actually pay attention to it, you'll just turn the show off.

    Not to mention the fact that some random person accuses him of being a drug dealer in a newspaper article, which immediately resutls in the SWAT team breaking in through his roof and windows in full assault gear with loaded weapons.

    Or when, in Tarzan, they burn down the village and the africans just sit there like holy victims.

    Or in Independence Day 2, when a construction worker steals a military aircraft and suddenly becomes the commander of the US air force.

    That's not how the world works.
    That's how an SJW thinks that the world works.

    It's amazing to me that they let these SJWs continue to write. And that they pay them.

    It's not even about accurately representing reality.
    It's about giving a plausible representation of reality, where the viewer doesn't have to suspend his faculties at every god damn turn.

    And then there's the god damn moralizing.
    When Netflix released Narcos season 3, what do you imagine was one of the most used search terms related to the series? It was "Was Pacho really gay?", because people need to check now, whether it was actually so, or if we're being force fed some horseshit again. Because that's a reasonable thing to assume; that you're being fed horseshit.

  29. Trash by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    horror movies are trash, for people with fucked up minds.

  30. Re: Horror better fits today's oversimplified form by Khopesh · · Score: 1

    Have you seen game of thrones? They took risks and broke out of the simplified formulas

    Game of Thrones is not a Hollywood movie either. See my second paragraph. The "multiple larger arcs" was written with GoT chief in mind.

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
  31. News? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Headline!

    Bad movies do poorly at the theater... ORLY? Shocking I tell you, shocking.

    Anyone who's seen the trailer for King Arthur or Geostorm could have told you that they were going to be terrible. I mean really. While I had high hopes for the Dark Tower, the bottom line is they are fitting like 5000 pages of book in one movie, yeah a little might get lost in translation. As for Blade Runner, who knows, I know I wanted to go see it, but just didn't get a chance.

    As for IT, well it did very well because by all accounts it is a very well done movie, same goes for Dunkirk, and Wonder Woman (who also tick off a lot of demos going for it).

    Anyway the whole bad movies doesn't do very well while good movies do isn't exactly all that shocking really. What might be more shocking is that while most horror movies are horrible, every now and again one comes along that is very well done like IT, which is a bit newsie I guess. Descent is another one that comes to mind (however that was like a decade ago). It is pretty rare a horror movie gets an +80% rating.

  32. What Horror Flicks DON'T Do by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    Horror flicks generally don't have fakey car chases with impossible automotive gymnastics done on streets that are always, always, always wet, including inside parking garages, no matter what the weather was 30 seconds before the cut to the car chase. They also usually don't feel the need to introduce seriously fakey CGI that doesn't work, isn't believable, and just destroys my ability to get "into" the movie.

    For me, movies have to make sense. Dark Tower made little sense to me, King Athur made absolutely no sense. Then there's things that happen just because "its in the script", and so those things can't even be attributed to the characters' brainy endeavors. There's lots of idiot stuff such as Clooney dangling from a rope / wire in that space movie "Gravity" and about to "fall." WTF, you can't "fall" in orbit, there's no gravity. All she'd have to have done was give the rope a slight tug and he'd have floated right to her. And then there's King Kong where they somehow get an engine-powered raft from a 1940's fighter plane to go upstream (or something like that) when 1) all the fuel was burned completely when the fighter plane crashed and 2) it was decades ago, and you're telling me if there was some fuel saved from such a crash, it wouldn't have been used for something else in the interim?

    Movies have to make sense to be enjoyable, but, well, horror movies not quite so much since the monsters mostly don't exist and the methods in use don't exist (Jumangi simply requires magic / enchantments - we don't question those...) so,

    Damnit, tell me a good story, don't make things happen just because "its in the script", have stuff make sense, and maybe you'll come up with something plausible and entertaining like Jaw or Jurassic Park. Even a little suspension of scientific disbelief can be tolerated to follow along with Star Wars and Star Trek and so forth. Transformers? Naw, there's too much mass resultant from too small a volume when transforming a car into a 30 ft high robot. But, c'mon, get real... at least mostly.

    Oh, yeah, then there's the upcoming Pacific Rim sequel. Good grief, what a way to attack the problem. You got monsters coming out of the sea? I'm the only one that has ever seen "The Guns of Navarrone?" Shore batteries, lots of them. Any critter that can be defeated by hand to hand combat with a giant robot can have his shit blown to smithereens by an appropriately sized artillery round. Again... get real...

  33. GEOSTORM/Ghost in the Shell RULE !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Geostorm" and "Ghost in the Shell" were awesome. Blade runner 2049 was also awesome.
            It's those who pirate Hollywood movies that hurt Hollywood.
              The horror movie, "It Comes out at Night" was awesome, but the ending sucked