Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer think that kids will love them because they are making fun of the same thing we hate.
I'm afraid they are right . On the bright side , at least you will see just how many people who hated twilight were complete assholes by seeing how much money this movie makes.
"Twilight"? Okay, sure you have the first one making money due to the "Anticipation" aspect. But when the movie is released and is BAD... people start to put money on the failure of the SEQUELS because of the first movie.
You have people who want to see it, but the "Failure" bets are an indication that the quality of the film needs to be tweaked. We might have still gotten that really shitty first movie, but when the sequel was made hopefully the "Failure Bets" would help to make the sequels be BETTER than they were/are in the future.
As far as the "Tastes" of people? Yes, it's true that their tastes do change.
But it's not like football where you are betting on a single team (movie) winning this week against another team (movie). You are betting on the "over-all" performance (Box-office run).
Example: No Country for Old Men. Released originally in only 28 theaters. People put money on it's "Failure" because of the limited release would loose because of it's success as it eventually expanded to more and more theaters until it took in $74 Million overall.
People who put money on it's "Success" would ride out the first few weeks where it expanded from 28 theaters to around 140 the next week, 800 the week after, 1000 the next week. As the movie got out in wider release, critics came back with good reviews, word-of-mouth happened... the people who placed money on the "Success" would have been happy.
The biggest thing to work out, is where the "success/failure" point is reached. Is it based off of simply making a profit or not? Or will it be based on specific numbers (rounding up)? Say a movie that makes 3dollars being a "success", or a movie that makes $55Million but not $56Million? That is something that I have no information about.
Word of mouth will be just as important to the "Future Trading" movies as it is to the ones today. The people who see the movie and talk about it to friends will still tell them to go see it. In fact, not only will the "word of mouth" be a factor, but after the movie is released (or at least after it's been sneak-peek previews) if people are talking about it, AS WELL as putting money on it's success (In other words "Raising it's stock") people will generally be interest in what's going on and probably see it. In fact, people putting more and more money on the movie being successful will actually help draw people into the theaters that might dismiss the "word of mouth" aspect.
Good example happened this week with Kick-Ass. People sort of had Ebert's some-what lack-luster review of the movie, but the people were still talking about it. Well, if you could go to see Ebert's review and then turn the page to look at the "rising stock price" you might be willing to disregard Ebert's review and see what the movie is really like. However, something like "Southland Tales" where some critics were falling over each other to praise the movie (for being "Genius") and the "general public" hating it? We would have the "stock price" plummet and let us know that the potential of the movie isn't there.
In fact, I find the "Future Trade Option" something that would act as a "secondary indicator" for people more than just "A sign of the times". If that many people were to put that much on Harry Potter, you would have JUST as many people who put money on it being a failure. When everyone went to the Jim Carrey movie, some people would actually EARN more money for placing a bet against Harry Potter.
But remember we are talking about the "Box-office" figures, which could take 4-8 weeks to play out. So a good movie will stay and earn, a bad movie will fail and fade.
Slumdog in 08 got a ton of nominations. Look back at the Best Director, Best Picture, Best almost-everything....
Which one was the "Better made film"? That's a matter of personal taste. But when Slumdog started racking up the nominations it was sort of given that it was going to get a win or two... but as many as it got was a surprise.
District 9 however, got roughly 4 nominations, and Best Picture without Best Director nomination basically locked it out of Best Picture win.
Yeah, but remember one very important fact. Once the actress that played Newt died, the concept of keeping her around as the "next Alien fighter" got trashed. Which sadly, also included trashing the Hicks character as well.
My understanding for what was originally suggested was going to be having Hicks and Ripley become a bit of "adopted parents" to Newt, and teaching her how to fight and take care of herself. Only Ripley was going to be killed (As originally seen in the 3rd movie) in a way of protecting Newt from getting emplanted with an egg. Only that whole story got tossed at the actress's death, and the film that BECAME Alien3 was made instead by the Studio going "Do this to make and make it scary, but do that to make it Science-fiction-like".
Alien 3 really is a case of "too many cooks ruin the soup" sort of situation. Why the director allowed it was because he was too inexperienced to stop it, and too cowardly to stand up to all the Studio brass cause he knew he would get fired.
Alien 3 is a HUGE disappointment... just not one I can blame on one particular person.
Yeah, but remember. The Oscars are just Hollywood's way of saying "good job" to each other. They don't really mean a thing to anyone other than the people inside Hollywood. They are respected because it's seen as the industry's "Thumbs up".
Well, let's be fair to poor ol' Mitch. He's also going to use Micky Rourke too. So, clearly it's a case of "let's use the old actor trying for a comeback mixed with the hottie-of-the-week" mindset too.
I don't know. I think that it's funny that they want to use Megan Fox as the appeal to the movie, when she's going to be playing opposite of Rourke and in a movie whose very plot sounds laughable.
Well, you have to remember that a couple of months ago there were stories circulating the internet about how Megan Fox was going to replace Jolie in roles that normally would go to Jolie first.. simply because Fox was the "Younger version" of Jolie, and that Jolie should start to worry that she'll loose her roles.
I found that whole argument silly, because you have to look towards the TYPES of roles that Fox was given and Jolie was given. Fox is still getting those "pretty girl" roles that relies on her looks to sell the character. I mean, let's look at 2 different upcoming movies.
Jolie is supposed to be in Salt. A CIA agent that gets accused of being a spy by a Russian defector. Jolie is the "Star" over the movie and has been cast in what IMDB calls an "Action/Thriller" type of movie.
Fox is supposed to be in Passion Play. An angel under the thumb of a ruthless gangster is saved by a trumpet player down on his luck. Writen/Directed by Mitch Glazer (His first directing job). Again, Fox is being cast as the "Angel" because of her looks in what is being called by IMDB a "Drama/Thriller".