For the same reason that the Philadelphia Philharmonic doesn't equip the entire orchestra with kazoos, and great painters don't fob off paint-by-numbers. Filmmakers are still artists, and even most studio heads still view their craft as an art as much as a business. The point I was trying to make is that box office receipts aren't as significant of a factor in measuring a film's success as they once were. They don't even constitute the majority of a given film's revenue: Only about a third typically, and that being the case, it is, as I at least intended to convey, not the ultimate measure of whether or not a film is successful in the last analysis. Most made for TV movies these days don't come close to the viewership of a modestly successful major motion picture, so there are still financial incentives behind Hollywood productions as opposed to "ripped from the headlines," cheaped out TV movies. (not to mention artistic freedom, i.e. less stringent censorship).

 

"John Travolta NEEDS the lifting power of a 747 these days to get him off the ground." Is he that fat? Or do you mean that his career is going so badly?

The remark was meant to be aimed at his weight, but it is probably equally applicable to his career.

But saturnwatcher, if the results in the movie theatres don't matter anymore, why such high production costs? Why not keep these films on a regular tv-level - which would come out much cheaper. Sorry, it may sound stupid, but I mean it. Well, it will probably do well in DVD-rental . There are so many people who boycotted the film. I bet they are waiting for the DVD-release-

"John Travolta NEEDS the lifting power of a 747 these days to get him off the ground." Is he that fat? Or do you mean that his career is going so badly?

Its hard to tell what sales will be, but I can virtually guarantee you that it will do well in rentals. Things are almost reaching the point where studios don't particularly care how movies do in their theatrical run anymore. In fact, quite a few of the major studios are looking into the possible benefits of making new releases available on Pay Per View immediately upon release. I wouldn't be surprised if we are seeing that with some frequency within a year or two. And I'm not referring here to "direct to video" disasters that the studio already has flushed. They are seriously looking into this strategy for major releases.

And:"...its an excuse for a mother of a barbeque." I have never heard that expression before. What does it mean?

Its a mean spirited reference to the clearly apparent fact that neither John Travolta, Kristie Alley or some of the other more prominent members of Scientology have missed a whole lot of meals lately. But in this case, I have no personal problem with taking a cheap shot. If I have to listen to their nutty ramblings about a pyramid scheme religion, I don't feel too bad about implying that John Travolta NEEDS the lifting power of a 747 these days to get him off the ground.

Oh.  But I was referring to being a profit in movie theatres.
Do you think its chances for DVD sales are that good?

And:"...it's an excuse for a mother of a barbeque." I have never heard that expression before -- What does it mean?

Originally posted by Queen_of_Toad That is not what I would exactly call a profit now. Am I being wrong here?

Probably, yes. These days, about 65% of the revenue for movies comes from DVD sales and rentals, and broadcast revenues. Merchandise tie-ins can also bring in a load of cash, although that probably won't figure in significantly for MI-III. So far as I know, there isn't a MI-III Happy Meal.

Tom's latest venture most likely won't drown anyone in green ink, but by the time all is said and done, it'll make enough to buy a few meals, even  for John Travolta and Kristie Alley. Scientology isn't a religion...its an excuse for a mother of a barbeque.

Phillip reminds me of another Hoffman, Dustin, who always gives a good performance no matter how bad the movie is. (i.e. Ishtar, Sleepers, Outbreak, Mad City).

I'm the same way. I don't judge a person's movies from his off screen antics. But one bad performance and I'll call you on it! (i.e. Anthony Hopkins in Alexander)

Originally posted by Sanndman228715 Last I checked, Crowe wasn't on the Razzie or Stinkers ballots for either film. He got nominated for a Golden Globe and Screen Actors' Guild Award for Cinderella Man, as well a Golden Globe nomination for Master and Commander. Those performances also got good reviews, so I fail to see how Crowe is a victim of "The Oscar Curse".

Crowe was an option for Most Tiresome Tabloid Target last year, you know. But the voters chose Tom and Katie over all of them 'cause a whole buncha people didn't think TomKat would'nt be together for long, unless there is a better reason for that.