What it said .

  Early reviews of Johnny's newie that I've seen have NOT been good , with the San Francisco Chronicle's Mick LaSalle giving it that paper's equivalent of zero stars.........

Views: 1175

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

...Could someone find/link to the cited Trib article , too , please ?????????

  I didn't understand , for a person coming from " opur " corner , anyway , John Carter to be that bad a flick , BTW...

Here's the Tribune article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-mov-0705-talk...

I liked John Carter okay, especially after my expectations had been lowered into the sub-basement by all the reviews. Interestingly, many of my Facebook friends thought it was one of the greatest movies ever made.

I thought the characters weren't very interesting, but it worked okay. They didn't make me want to see them again.

BTW, Richard Roeper reviewed TLR for the Sun-Times. I can't read the review unless I pay for it, but in the lead, he calls it an "unholy mess" and says it should appeal to "no  one."

Most reviewers' biggest problem with it is that it tries to be a Pirates movie with light-hearted banter and a villain who's so sadistic and gruesome that the two can't mesh.

I've seen that many times, and the Trib article above refers to the "gritty" feel they wanted. I think that applies to Superman, too. As with comics, "fun" seems to be out and "gritty" seems to be in. OTOH, Despicable Me 2 seems to be cleaning TLR's clock at the box office this weekend, and they're expecting Disney will lose money on TLR.

-- MSA

...Does Hollywood EVER LOSE money on big releases ???

  At least very often ?

  I have seen that doubted ~ described as " Hollywood's dirty little secret " .

  Anyway . Thank you . I , too , was/am I guess technically still am in a pro-JOHN CARTER FB group tho I ended up being unable to catch it theatrically .

...Is it a bad sign when a " genre ?adventure/pulp character's film/play gives someone else the first billing ?

  Though I haven't checked this again right now , not only do I believe the Depp movie bills , exactly that , Johnny Depp - as Tonto - first , the Clooney BATMAN AND ROBIN billed Arnie S. first - and the 1966 Hal Prince-presented IAB...IAP...SUPERMAN ! Broadway musical billed Jack Cassidy (David and Shaun's father) as Max Mencken first !!!!!!!!!!!

Superman: The Movie had Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman billed first.

Emerkeith Davyjack said:

...Is it a bad sign when a " genre ?adventure/pulp character's film/play gives someone else the first billing ?

 

Not necessarily. Christopher Reeve was third-billed behind Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman for the first Superman movie; you barely saw his name on the movie posters. At the time, Reeve was best-known for a soap opera, and Brando and Hackman were bigger stars than he was. Brando got then-astronomical $5 million for two weeks' work that amounted to about 20 minutes of screen time.

More recently, Terence Howard was the highest-paid actor in the first Iron Man movie, and the first one cast. 

The fact is, Johnny Depp is the star in The Lone Ranger, not Armie Hammer; he's the one who has made Disney something like a billion dollars from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Hammer seems like a decent enough fellow, so maybe the stink of this movie won't rub off on him.

Mr. Silver Age said:

Here's the Tribune article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-mov-0705-talk...

I liked John Carter okay, especially after my expectations had been lowered into the sub-basement by all the reviews. Interestingly, many of my Facebook friends thought it was one of the greatest movies ever made.

I thought the characters weren't very interesting, but it worked okay. They didn't make me want to see them again.

BTW, Richard Roeper reviewed TLR for the Sun-Times. I can't read the review unless I pay for it, but in the lead, he calls it an "unholy mess" and says it should appeal to "no  one."

Most reviewers' biggest problem with it is that it tries to be a Pirates movie with light-hearted banter and a villain who's so sadistic and gruesome that the two can't mesh.

I've seen that many times, and the Trib article above refers to the "gritty" feel they wanted. I think that applies to Superman, too. As with comics, "fun" seems to be out and "gritty" seems to be in. OTOH, Despicable Me 2 seems to be cleaning TLR's clock at the box office this weekend, and they're expecting Disney will lose money on TLR.

-- MSA

When I tried to open the link, I got a pop-up window asking me to register. Try this one: "Where's a Technician When a Script Throws a Rod?"

I've run into that with the Tribune other times, so I usually pull the link from Google rather than the Trib's site directly. The one I linked to let me read it, when the Trib site wouldn't, but maybe I was registered on whatever page that was.

It's getting harder to read every newspaper and magazine in creation for free on the web any more. It's like they're realizing that's not a sound business model or something.

-- MSA

Mr. Silver Age said:

I've run into that with the Tribune other times, so I usually pull the link from Google rather than the Trib's site directly. The one I linked to let me read it, when the Trib site wouldn't, but maybe I was registered on whatever page that was.

It's getting harder to read every newspaper and magazine in creation for free on the web any more. It's like they're realizing that's not a sound business model or something.

-- MSA

Not to threadjack, but I always thought the problem of newspaper revenues is misstated. It's not so much that the articles were made available free on the web; it's that advertising on the web, for a variety of reasons, doesn't bring in revenues at the level it does on the print side. 

That's' certainly true (and I'm not sure where all that money for print ads has gone--maybe website maintenance?). But publications are a combination of subscriptions and advertising revenue, so if one falls off, the other has to rise. About two years ago, the Chicago Tribune made a big deal of adding content to the newspaper (marking some pages as "New Content!) and doubling (or in some cases tripling, depending on the previous rate) the home delivery cost.

They also put up that digital wall on its website, but most of the stories can be read by going through Google anyway. So you have to really want to have a paper on your doorstep every morning to pay the cost. And even that assumes I really want to read the  Tribune's version of each story--which often is coming from AP or Reuters anyway.

Of course, the Tribune just came out of bankruptcy, and the Sun-Times just fired its entire photography department to save money, so they may not be the best examples of what works. OTOH, maybe they are.

Certainly, not having to print and distribute newspapers or magazines is a big cost-saver. But getting people to pay online is tough, and ads don't bring in that much revenue. Although more sites are figuring out how to make some money, which is apparent through all the popups and ads we have to watch before we can get to the page. The Youtube ads that are longer than the video I was directed to are a bit much, though.

-- MSA

Right. The thing is, in the old days, publications charged what they wanted for ads, because nobody really knew how effective they were. As the founder of the old Wanamaker's Department Stores in Philadelphia once said (at least, I think it was he who said it), half the money he spent on advertising, but the problem is, he couldn't know which half. On line, advertising can be tracked more closely, if not more accurately. 

Newspapers always were heavily subsidized by advertising; the subscriptions and over-the-counter sales traditionally brought in something like 20-25% of the revenues, but that fact was sold to advertisers who ponied up the other 75-80%. But when online began to take shape, nobody knew what to charge for it, and I firmly believe the rates were set too low at the start. 

I realize it's not totally that simple; there are lots of factors at play. Of course, it took time for the size of the online audience to grow, and for technology to facilitate that growth -- in an environment where the ethos was "Information wants to be free." But the print product wasn't supported mostly by readers paying for the newspapers; it was supported mostly by advertisers paying to get the attention of those readers paying for the newspapers.

As I understand it, newspapers and magazines offer heavily discounted subscriptions so they can show advertisers a guaranteed circulation number to justify their ad rates.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Groups

Latest Activity

Travis Herrick (Modular Mod) replied to Wandering Sensei: Moderator Man's discussion What Comic Books Have You Read Today?
"X-Cellent #2-5 - This is the follow-up series to the Milligan/Allred series X-Statix. There is…"
8 minutes ago
Jeff of Earth-J replied to Jeff of Earth-J's discussion Swamp Thing
"ISSUE #134: Swamp Thing finally realizes Abby is missing. Jo-Jo tells him where to find her. Carl…"
34 minutes ago
Lee Houston, Junior replied to Steve W's discussion A Cover a Day
"I know the tradition dates all the way back to "Punch and Judy", if not earlier, but are…"
50 minutes ago
Travis Herrick (Modular Mod) replied to The Baron's discussion Movies I Have Seen Lately
"Oops, and since I didn't say, Prey is the new entry in the Predator franchise, which I'm…"
50 minutes ago
Jeff of Earth-J replied to Jeff of Earth-J's discussion The Eighth Doctor: Stranded
"GET ANDY: "The Doctor resolves to make a difference and save one life in particular. But…"
1 hour ago
Jeff of Earth-J replied to Cavaliere (moderator emeritus)'s discussion What are you watching right now?
"OUR GANG: After watching the first three sets (comprising the years 1929-1933) in reverse order, we…"
1 hour ago
Jeff of Earth-J replied to Jeff of Earth-J's discussion Swamp Thing
"Old expression, actually. ;) ISSUE #133: Tefé's cration "thinks" of…"
1 hour ago
Richard Willis replied to Jeff of Earth-J's discussion Swamp Thing
"Swamp Thing makes his way home shanks' mare, through Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Tennessee In…"
2 hours ago
Captain Comics replied to Captain Comics's discussion This Week in Comics: Aug. 15-21, 2022
"I have so many books in my house that I bought because of a Jeff of Earth-J recommendation that I…"
4 hours ago
Philip Portelli replied to Steve W's discussion A Cover a Day
4 hours ago
Sorna is now a member of Captain Comics
6 hours ago
Peter Wrexham replied to Steve W's discussion A Cover a Day
"Killers at the Carnival. Hmm.  Perhaps we should call in someone with a personal interest in…"
6 hours ago

© 2022   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service