#76 Re: Chris On Screen » Fanboys » 25 Feb 09 :: 22:25

Looks like an increase from 34 to 46 theaters. That would make it the largest distribution so far (it opened at 44).

1) 44
2) 41
3) 34
4) 46

Looks like it's gone from New York as well as Philly. Closest to me now is Baltimore. Annapolis and Hanover are each about 2 1/2 hours away.

#77 Re: Chris On Screen » Choose Connor (a.k.a. The Politician) » 24 Feb 09 :: 22:40

I added a bit to my post above.

It was actually two different producers. At the first screening was Luke and one of the producers and at the second screening was another one. I also talked about it with Aaron (who is another producer).

Probably best to keep all this amongst ourselves, by the way.

#78 Re: Chris On Screen » Choose Connor (a.k.a. The Politician) » 24 Feb 09 :: 22:35

Luke, his producers, Michael, and I all talked about the scenes being on the DVD extras. I guess the deal with Strand didn't give them any say. Sound familiar?

I know we all wanted them on there.

The piano scene was hilarious. Michael is a total transvestite, all done up in a dress, wig, and makeup, prancing around like a complete flamer. He plays piano and sings. It's especially funny because the dress is all open in front and his chest is pretty hairy. It's a very disturbing image lol. He just has that evil look in his eyes like in Beautiful Ordinary in the van scene, especially. 

The scene where he's on the guy's lap is scary, too. Owen looks over Caleb's shoulder and Michael is staring right at him, burning a hole into him with his eyes. He's just this evil, perverted character.

But we all agreed that it gave away too much too soon. Luke wanted to really drag it out until Chris' tape. That becomes the moment instead when Owen and the audience discover what is going on (if they haven't already).

So, ironically, it was cutting Michael out that made Chris' scene so much more powerful, because that is the big reveal instead of Michael's scenes.

#79 Re: Chris On Screen » Choose Connor (a.k.a. The Politician) » 24 Feb 09 :: 22:21

I just pulled out the DVD to give you the exact time and guess what? They cut it out of the DVD. I'm just floored. I saw the film twice at festivals and it was there.

I can tell you exactly where it was, though. It was at 42:37. It wasn't even one second. But it was a pivotal moment.

Okay, here's the deal. Obviously this is all a spoiler...






















Caleb goes to hug Owen as he is leaving the party. But the hug is just a bit more than friendly. Although Owen has had doubts in the back of his mind about Caleb's intentions, this is the very first moment where Owen starts to grasp what Caleb wants. You can see that in the look in Owen's eyes.

Now...at that very same moment when Owen realizes Caleb may want something sexual, at that EXACT same moment, as he is looking over Caleb's shoulder, off in the distance he sees Michael sitting on the lap of one of the old men like a baby in his daddy's arms. So at that same exact moment when he starts to realize something sexual might be going on with Caleb he also realizes there may be something sexual going on at these parties. It's like a double whammy.

Originally that was the first defining moment in the film when Owen figures out what is going on. Michael's clip at that moment was originally longer but they cut it to just a few frames. Blink and you miss it. But it looks like they cut it out of the DVD altogether, which just prolongs that moment when Owen figures out what the parties are all about.

There was originally another scene where Michael is in a dress playing the piano. Owen walks in and is like, WTF? He's a total queen. It just drives home to Owen that these are not normal parties.

Luke cut those scenes out because it was like hitting the audience over the head with a hammer. He wanted Owen's discovery about the parties (and the audience's) to come later and be more subtle. Taking Michael out prolongs the suspense both for us and Owen.

I had actually seen Michael's scenes before seeing the film, so once I'd seen the film I realized how much the scenes would have changed it and as much as I care about Michael I completely agreed with the decision to make the cuts. Luke, his producers, and I talked about it at length afterwards and we were all on the same page. They were very happy I'd seen the scenes first, then the film, and saw what they saw. As soon as I got back to Michael's we talked about it and he was totally in agreement too. 

BUT there was a frame or two left in of Michael on the guy's lap, and I see that was totally cut out of the DVD now.

#80 Re: Chris On Screen » Choose Connor (a.k.a. The Politician) » 24 Feb 09 :: 20:57

Nice!

Maybe you can catch the one frame Michael is in it lol (it is, almost literally, one frame).

#81 Re: Chris On Screen » Fanboys » 24 Feb 09 :: 18:59

Illinoisguy1 wrote:

There are a few cases where a movie that flops/under-performs at the box office does well enough to make a profit. It's also sometimes possible that it makes enough to make a sequel.

This could be the case where quite a number of people are interested in seeing the movie, but it's not playing anywhere near them. Or it is, but not close enough. So these people could be waiting for the dvd release to either rent or buy it out right.

There are actually a LOT of cases where this is true. A couple of years ago I got into a debate about this (during the Alpha Dog days) and I did some research. I don't know where it is now (IMDb gutted their boards) but I put together a list of dozens of recent films that bombed at the BO but have made a ton since then.

One example I like to use is the David Duchovny/Anton Yelchin/Robin Williams film House of D. Its lifetime theatrical gross was $388,532. But it made something like $20 million in DVD rentals alone. That doesn't count DVD sales or TV rights, and it's been shown hundreds of times on cable.

Alpha Dog took in $15,309,602 domestically. But it made an additional $22 million in just 3 months of DVD rentals. Again, that doesn't count sales or TV.

There are literally thousands of examples.

About final cut rights in general, another topic which I've written about extensively, it is extremely rare for a young director on a low-budget, independent film to have final cut rights. They deliver their cut to the producers or distributors by a certain date and then it's out of their hands. In the majority of cases the studio is then free to recut it however they want.

It's similar to the movies themselves in regards to actors' pay. Only a handful of powerful actors have a stake (points) in their movies. Most get paid a salary -- a flat fee -- and make no more than that regardless of how well the picture does.

Their decision was, of course, governed by greed. They just didn't have a clue what to do with the movie, didn't know the first thing how to market it and how to sell it to the audience it was intended for.

Very very well said.

I can honestly say that this applies to the overwhelming majority of independent films ever made. It's one of the main reasons so many never see the light of day. If I had a nickel for how many times I've written or spoken this statement...

#82 Re: Chris On Screen » Fanboys » 24 Feb 09 :: 03:56

irina wrote:

i get it. thank you guys.

ps : i will be a little off topic here. but i just wanted to say that i feel like a stalker of larry on imdb ( i can assume it's not a huge coincidence and it's the same larry ). following larry's posts i got to know about lots of not so well know movies and watched them and really enjoy them. so i guess, thanks larry smile

Oh, you're too kind. Thanks so much for reading my posts. Mostly what I hope to do is turn people on to terrific movies, and if I do that for just one person it's all worth it. Most people won't take the time to give feedback, so I truly appreciate it. You're a star!


Illinoisguy1 wrote:

The amount I hear most often is that a film has to make about double it's budget to make a profit.

That's to cover the cost of making the movie, prints & marketing costs.

Now lets say that Fanboys cost 5 million to make (including the reshoots), the cost of making the prints plus the little marketing costs. Let's say 6.5 million.

Right now the box-office looks like it'll be lucky if it breaks 1 million.
There is no merchandise, so nothing from that.
It really looks like the only way that it could make a profit is DVD sales and tv rights. But time will tell.

That's correct.

For anyone who's interested in such things it is true that, especially for studio films, P&A (promotion & advertising = marketing) is generally about equal to the film's production budget. A film with a listed budget of $40M, let's say, might end up costing close to $100M or more when you factor in marketing and prints and other ancillary costs.

Some say that no film ever makes back its money on box office. There are exceptions (Juno, Twilight, Slumdog) but most of the time a film doesn't go into the black until DVD rentals and sales, TV/cable deals, and merchandising kick in.

#83 Re: Chris On Screen » Fanboys » 23 Feb 09 :: 23:29

Hi irina. The other folks here are much more closely connected with the film and its history and probably know more about the budget than I do.

What I can tell you is that no budget has been officially revealed publicly.

I'm sure some of the ladies here can answer your question (if they are allowed). wink

#84 Re: Square Eyes » Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies) » 23 Feb 09 :: 20:21

CappuGirl wrote:

The movie didn't look that much different that my torrent, but I noticed there was 10-20 seconds in the kissing scene that was missing from the torrent; and the final credits of course.

That's interesting. I wonder if you saw an earlier cut, because after the film was "finished" they did some recuts (just a few weeks before it was released!) and one of the things they did was to extend Rob and Kristen's kissing scene.

#85 Re: Chris On Screen » Fanboys » 23 Feb 09 :: 18:55

For those who are following it, another decent weekend at the box office. Of the films that dropped, Fanboys had only the 4th smallest drop out of the top 39 films. It took in another $62K for a total so far of $395K. All this on only 34 screens, which is not bad.

P.S. I wasn't watching for Sean either but I definitely will next time I see it.

#86 Re: Chris On Screen » Fanboys » 22 Feb 09 :: 17:15

This is cool. We had nothing like this at the theater I went to, even though it was opening night in Times Square, where people dress like this on any normal day lol. Maybe that's why.

Great pics.

#87 Re: Square Eyes » Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies) » 21 Feb 09 :: 19:32

I hope it's not too soon to start talking about the third movie in the series, Eclipse.

Summit has set a release date of Wednesday, June 30, 2010. It's only seven months after New Moon but the two films will be shot very close together. It's a Wednesday because it is the first day of the five-day Independence Day holiday weekend (July 4th falls on Sunday),

Short synopsis from Summit press release:

"As Seattle is ravaged by a string of mysterious killings and a malicious vampire continues her quest for revenge, Bella once again finds herself surrounded by danger. In the midst of it all, she is forced to choose between her love for Edward and her friendship with Jacob — knowing that her decision has the potential to ignite the ageless struggle between vampire and werewolf. With her graduation quickly approaching, Bella has one more decision to make: life or death."

Also, the titles for New Moon and Eclipse will now add The Twilight Saga's before the names.

#88 Re: Chris On Screen » Fanboys » 21 Feb 09 :: 18:37

Sounds like a terrific experience, Deb! Pretty much in line with mine. Hope you're well-rested by the time you see this.

For anyone following box office, it's still doing pretty well. Once again, on Thursday it had the #3 biggest increase out of all the top 43 films.

#89 Re: Square Eyes » Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies) » 20 Feb 09 :: 20:30

Cool artwork!

BTW the release date was actually announced last December 15 so that's been official for awhile.

I don't think this has been announced anywhere else yet but I am pleased to report that Michael Welch has just officially signed on for New Moon. :applause:

#90 Re: Chris On Screen » Fanboys » 20 Feb 09 :: 04:21

Theater counts are out. I guess we already know this if we count them on the list posted earlier but the film drops 7 theaters to 34.

BTW FWIW generally "theaters" and "screens" are not the same number since one theater could be showing a film on multiple screens, although many use the terms interchangeably. In Fanboys ' case, though, it's a moot point because each theater has been showing the film on one screen so both figures are the same.

#92 Re: Square Eyes » In Praise of Chris's Colleagues » 18 Feb 09 :: 20:49

Sweet!!! I put him in the same general category as Richard Jenkins -- always dependable, the consummate professional. Jenkins, at least, is finally getting the recognition he deserves.

#93 Re: Square Eyes » In Praise of Chris's Colleagues » 18 Feb 09 :: 19:46

OMG Ray Wise is one of my favorite actors. He may very well be one of the most underrated, hardest working actors in the world.

Powder, Jeepers Creepers II, and The Battle of Shaker Heights.

#94 Re: Square Eyes » Twilight (contains spoilers for all books and the movies) » 18 Feb 09 :: 19:30

Excellent!

BTW it's still doing quite well. This past weekend its box office actually went up, even after 13 weeks out (although it did add 134 theaters). In fact, it was the second biggest box office increase of the top 56 films and it moved back up into the top 25.

Domestic take now stands at $188,753,617 with worldwide totals of $357,986,778. Not bad for a $37M film.

#95 Re: Chris On Screen » Fanboys » 18 Feb 09 :: 18:24

It's a shame we won't have it here anymore. Oh well.

BTW the red shirt and watch are gone but the purple shirt & pants are still up.

#97 Re: Chris On Screen » Fanboys » 16 Feb 09 :: 06:38

Yes, a lot of theaters only got it for one week. The same thing happened in NY. Some kept it while others dropped it and new ones picked it up this weekend.

#98 Re: Chris On Screen » Fanboys » 16 Feb 09 :: 06:12

Here is my list:

AMC Century City 15
Mann Chinese 6
AMC Burbank 16
AMC South Bay Galleria 16
AMC Rolling Hills 20
AMC Covina 30
AMC Fullerton 20
AMC 30 At The Block
AMC Magic Johnson Crenshaw 15
Edwards Long Beach Stadium 26

#99 Re: Chris On Screen » Fanboys » 15 Feb 09 :: 23:30

Illinoisguy1 wrote:

I have one question for Larry in regards to movie prints in general.


What do they do with the thousands of prints? I wouldn't think they can store all of them. Do they recycle them?

Yes, exactly. They are usually in awful condition after having been screened over and over at any given theater and really cannot be shown again anywhere. They are returned and recycled (if they are returned at all).

Of course, some are always saved for archival purposes.

#100 Re: Chris On Screen » Fanboys » 15 Feb 09 :: 23:02

LOL I was coming over to post it and decided not to.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB 1.5.11