h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So each person is stupid, but even more stupid in a group????


I wouldn't say a person is dumb for going to see a film if an advert shows some things that people like.

Night of the Living Dead is considered good. What is it? people getting attacked by zombies.

Resident evil. Utter rubbish. People getting attacked by zombies.

I would say that in the case of series involving time travel it does make a difference, yeah. A prequel, as I've always understood it, is about what the character(s) did earlier in their lives.

I would say continuing characters are also required, or else Carry On Up The Khyber is a prequel, which it so obvious isn't meant to be...

er... but the Carry On films are all individual films with no relevence to what has been or what will come.

Sequels don't have to have the established character so why does a prequel.

Urgh, do we have to codify in quite that much detail the differences between prequels and sequels, with appendices specific to time travel films? HPB, are there any films you're particularly unsure as to the status of that we can clear up for you?

No.



Oh, I see... POTA doesn't count because it is a narrative plot which becomes a paradox because the events before the final film are the ones that get created from the events that have went before and then will happen!

Why didn't you just say!

I thought I did!

(Same goes for Back to the Future 3.)

That's irrelevent though because that paradox is confined to the third movie!

Okay i wasnt being clear my mistake.
i meant dumb as in dumb selection. The media and the advertising makes the choice easy (as in your example)

"But that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be any good! The point I'm trying to make is that some films are more open to a sequel than others."
Both true, but like ive already said, if a company believes they'll make money off it then they'll do it unless its a totally stupid or improbable idea (titanic 2, independance day 2). IIRC independance day was a book and titanic's a true story (bar the old woman)

"Consider the number of out-and-out turkeys that've come out and got theatrical releases recently - Gigli, The Sin Eater, to name but two."
Yeh but would you seriously call them block busters. Block busters are ones that get the advertising like LOTR, Matrix 2+3, Star wars, Star trek, Spider man etc.

"Really? I don't consider myself an exceptional cinemagoer. I suspect most of the people who read the Post would call themselves 'average cinemagoers', whatever that means. Are you happy calling us all dumb?"
Dumb as in choices. The average cinema goer will go to see what he or she has been told to see by the media. Hype is generated through the media and through word of mouth ('heard about that film?', 'yeh tv said it was good'). The opening weekends make the most money as everyone rushes to see this film. Then one of two things happens
a) success, everyone loves it and goes to see it. A sequel is already being written (see spider man, pirates of the carribean)
b) Failure, people dont like it, but many still go as they dont believe the critics and want to form there own opinion. This mainly happens as a fall-out of the hype.

"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? Subtitled kung fu film with a very atypical plot and structure? Took $128 million in the US."
Yes good example. Give me four more big foreign hits like it. The only ones remotely similar are all british (Billy elliot, east is east) and they didnt do as well.

"have you any suggestions why all those 'dumb' people would do that, other than because they're not actually just sheep under the hypnotic sway of ad campaigns?"
Yes because they liked it a lot. They told there friends, who tell there friends. But there arent many cases of this happening (there have been a few this year), as most movie-goers watch a film mainly on the back of its promotion.

"Word-of-mouth is as important as advertising for a film to be *really* successful, and (other than the last two Star Wars movies) I can't think of a really inept, utterly worthless picture that's done mega-business recently, so word-of-mouth is a lot more discerning than studio advertising."
Two of the biggest blockbusters of recent times have been star wars, and they had as much promotion as lord of the rings and matrix 2+3 had.

"Anyway, your argument seems to boil down to: People mainly go to see films that have been heavily advertised, regardless of whether they're any good or not." - see above example

"As HPB said, how do you decide what movies to see?"
Most of the films see are pirate, so i get to see them before massed hype and advertising gets its act together. Donnie darko is one example, along with collateral damage. More recently ive watched alien hunter and a good colin farrell film.

"Carry On films are all individual films with no relevence to what has been or what will come."
Correct, so it can be totally flogged to death without fear of reprisal.

(I cant keep up with your posts! give me a chance to reply please!)

ooh ooh erm.... Billy elliot... Four Weddings and a Funeral... The Full Monty... Life of Brian....

all British all english speaking. Four foreign films (non english speaking) that have been major.

matrix 2/3, star wars, star trek??? Apart from lord of the Rings the rest are sequels.

I don't remember the advertising for Fellowship being that big. it was hype at the books being converted mainly.

The Pianist??

The original Ring?

there is the fact that most people are put off by subtitles and dubbing.

jackie Chan movies?

Considering how incredibly hard it is for a subtitled film to get any kind of half-decent release here or in the states, you're setting an impossible task there. However - Crouching Tiger, Amelie, Spirited Away, all did big business in the States. The fact remains that for many years now there have regularly been films that have consistently over- and under-performed studio expectations (which, according to your theory, would dictate the advertising given them and the numbers of 'dumb people' who would blindly stagger in to see them).

Anyway - so now you're saying, we're not all dumb, we just all consistently act that way. Arrogant and a bit patronising, isn't it? (What's the difference, by the way?)

<"Consider the number of out-and-out turkeys that've come out and got theatrical releases recently - Gigli, The Sin Eater, to name but two."
Yeh but would you seriously call them block busters. Block busters are ones that get the advertising like LOTR, Matrix 2+3, Star wars, Star trek, Spider man etc.>

We weren't talking about blockbusters, we're talking about films which even the studio can see are rubbish and which get a theatrical release to claw back what little money they can. These weren't blockbusters, they could never be blockbusters, that's the point. If your theory was right then all the studio needs to do is massively hype any film and 'dumb people' - sorry, 'average people acting dumb for reasons best known to themselves' - would flood to see it. Gigli was *meant* as a blockbuster - $57 million-ish budget, two big name stars. The studios know that not all films are salvageable and only bother promoting ones with a decent chance of making their money back. They know it's down to more than just advertising.



'many still go as they don't believe the critics and want to form their own opinion'. How stupid and sheeplike of them, wanting to make their own minds up about a film.

So now you're saying that the ultimate success or failure of a film has in fact got nothing to do with advertising but is instead based on the judgement of the people who initially go to see it? Can't you see you keep contradicting yourself?

<"Word-of-mouth is as important as advertising for a film to be *really* successful, and (other than the last two Star Wars movies) I can't think of a really inept, utterly worthless picture that's done mega-business recently, so word-of-mouth is a lot more discerning than studio advertising."
Two of the biggest blockbusters of recent times have been star wars, and they had as much promotion as lord of the rings and matrix 2+3 had.>

Well, if you actually read what I wrote, I specifically excluded the last two Star Wars movies as their massive fan(atic)base and cultural clout make them a special case. *Other than those two* can you think of an objectively bad film that's done mega-business?

<"But that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be any good! The point I'm trying to make is that some films are more open to a sequel than others."
Both true, but like ive already said, if a company believes they'll make money off it then they'll do it unless its a totally stupid or improbable idea (titanic 2, independance day 2). IIRC independance day was a book and titanic's a true story (bar the old woman)>

Yes, and? I know that film companies have a history of making stupid sequels for cash (classic example, Highlanders 2-4!!!). My point was that some sequels are inevitably going to be rubbish simply because of the nature of the original story. The avariciousness and stupidity of film producers is irrelevent.

Arrogant: aggresively assertive or presumptuous; haughty, overbearing.


Patronise: (1) Treat condescendingly.

The original ring was a cult hit, but the new hollywood one was designed to introduce it to the west properly (so yes a foreign idea, but an american film)

"the numbers of 'dumb people' who would blindly stagger in to see them"
Im trying to make a clear point about advertising but i dont think your getting it.
People are not dumb. Dumb as in stupid, idiotic, brain dead. People are dumb in that the choices that they make are mostly governed by advertising rather than any other factor. Yes people have free will and on the whole are quite clever, but conversely its easy for them to follow the advertising. I used Phantom menace as an example because its the best one. I agree many fans of the series went to see it, but you cant simply turn around and say that a film that made in the region of $500,000,000 at the cinema and $400,000,000 on video rentals made it all through the cult fans. The film stunk, the promotion worked. Like it or not (and believe me even i dont like it) its the promotion that will make films work, whether there good or not. Clones did similar buisness, even though the film before was a bad film. Showing how it is advertising that influences audiences decisions.

My main point is this - Audiences will often decide for themselves, and this has been proven true in many cases like ameile, Crouching tiger, Billy Elliot, Donnie Darko etc. But the films with more promotion do better, a lot better. Whether there good or bad a well promoted film will always do a lot better at the box office.
Now i can sit here a say its because people choose dumbly (due to the advertising) you can sit there saying that they choose freely and never go with the current trends or flows. But the very fact remains, that for the most part they actually do go with the flow.
Yes there are many cases where people will not go the current 'in' film (the ones that are being heavily promoted) and there are instances where these films have been big. The thing is films like Donnie Darko and Billy Elliot make there money mainly through video, rental, and DVD sales. But with the bigger films making an even amount of money across the board (in cinema and in shops), they will always do better.


"Well, if you actually read what I wrote, I specifically excluded the last two Star Wars movies as their massive fan(atic)base and cultural clout make them a special case. *Other than those two* can you think of an objectively bad film that's done mega-business?"
Yes i did read what you put but i ignored it for a few simple reasons.
Those two are the best examples, and the sucess cant be placed simply on the fan base. Because if you did that, then star trek, matrix, harry potter and lord of the rings would all have to be excluded, as they all have giant fan bases. Star trek got its fan base over a long time, matrix got it for one film. By excluding two films, you must also excluded the others. Not only that but if it was down to just its cult base then that doesnt explain the original lord of the rings' failure.
Lord of the rings was the biggest film gamble in history. AOL Time Warner was basically going broke. It missed out on the broadband boom and AOL was dragging the other two down. The budget for Fellowship was similar to that of the first matrix - a megre $93,000,000. That fact that it made back over triple that from the cinema in america alone, with another $650,000,000 coming from rentals world wide shows that a heavily promoted film will do extremely well. And lets face it fellowship wasnt that good when it came to its structure:
'Yes sit there for three hours while we tell you a story that most of you know nothing about based on an old english book for three hours. Theres elves and dwarfs and magic that are all fantasy ideas designed for little children but we've made it in a historically accurate way for all the mums and dads. Not only that but then you have to wait a year to watch another three hours, then wait another year to watch the last three hours."
Now to sell that to a member of the public, without giving him the title, would get a quick smirk and he or she was walk away. But the sheer amount of promotion that went on changed that. Okay you could possibly put some of that down to its reputation as a good story, but making nearly $1000,000,000 overall shows how good it is. Being honest it would have made half that if it hadnt had been promoted, as people arent willing to sit there to watch a film with no ending because they simply dont like it (hence the many reveiws of reloaded saying it wasnt as good as the first one). The profit on lord of the rings, combined with its rival harry potter (also produced by AOL Time Warner mysteriously, wonder why...)

I watch many of the films done with heavy promotion because i want to see if it is only promotion that does it. In many cases it isnt and there is a decent film, in many cases theres not, as has already been said. Media studies as i have done it, in some parts, looks at what makes a successful film - from the film itself, to the audience, to its promotion as well as all the other things that i cant bring straight to mind right now.


Okay im going to end this now because were not going to agree on this. I have studied the media as a whole solidly for 18 months now.
I can say without arrogance that i know how it works. I know what the companies do and why they do it. People make choices primarily based on advertising, whether they conciously do it or not. Yes there are occasions when other films do well, but they never do as well or become as popular.

If you're arbitrarily going to wrap up this thread, which is your prerogative, I hope you don't mind if I sum up my arguments as well?

Mr Dark said...

Post 38: 'Your average person isn't that smart.'
Post 59: 'People are not dumb.'

I'm sure there's a way for these two statements not to contradict each other, but I can't think of it.

Your main point seems to be that films that are advertised do better than films that aren't. Well, that's a bit of a truism, isn't it? If advertising didn't work, they wouldn't use it. And naturally films needing to recoup a bigger budget are going to get more promotion. Advertising works - but that revelation is neither particularly surprising nor profound.

It doesn't follow that people are dumb or making dumb choices. The fact that films occasionally breakthrough to become sleeper hits despite having little or no advertising supports this. So does the fact that, in the case of Spider-Man and Hulk, two movies which had very similar target audiences and promotion, the good film broke box office records and the flawed one did relatively poorly.

Most people are forced to rely on advertising to decide what films to see, either becuase they don't have access to pirated films, or have ethical problems with effectively stealing from the film companies. Ad companies are good at their jobs, but they can't completely stop bad reviews or bad word of mouth.

Okay, onto the Star Wars thing. I was making the point that the only two generally weak films to do mega-business, certainly in the last few years, are the two SW prequels. This can't solely be down to heavy advertising. I disagree with you: SW *is* a special case, in that it's a film series with a tremendous cult following as well as great mainstream success. SW virtually marked the start of modern moviemaking (along with Jaws). Everyone knows it, parents would happily take their kids to see it.

The important phrase being 'film series'. Harry Potter is a book adaptation, so is LOTR. Star Trek is primarily TV-based (and it's a long time since a Trek movie did big business anyway). I know of several serious LOTR fans who aren't planning on seeing the films, they're just not interested in adaptations. Star Wars (and possibly the Matrix - but look at the effect two iffy films have had the reputation of that series!) is the only original-to-cinema blockbuster franchise. That has to boost its take. In any case the distinction I was making was not between films with a big fanbase and those without, but films that are good and those that aren't. The Harry Potters, Spider-Man, LOTR, etc, are all (at least) pretty good films.

So it's not surprising that Phantom Menace and Clones did so well, the unanswerable question is - imagine how much money they'd've made if they'd been any good?!?

You make a good point about the failure of the original LOTR movie. Well, putting to one side the difference in the style and sophistication of ad campaigns 20+ years ago, you have to consider that a) it was a cartoon, which even today means kid's film for most people and b) it wasn't a very good cartoon - technically ugly, and without a proper ending (and no guarantee of there actually being one). Are you surprised the LOTR fan base hated it?

You say that pitching a nine hour fantasy film to the average audience would get a chilly response. True, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about *The Lord of the Rings* - winner of the title of book of the 20th century, of which it was famously said 'people have either read it, or they're going to read it' (I paraphrase badly). You fail to factor in the sheer name recognition that LOTR has.

Yes, it was a gamble, but not a inordinately risky one. Set against the outlay (in real terms, not enormous, as film in NZ effectively tripled the budget) you've got to put the huge rep of LOTR (everyone's heard of it), the fanbase, the media interest that any project of this scale would attract. As you've been saying all along, film companies go for safe bets. Unless this another one of those exceptions?

To be honest I can't believe an argument about Highlander bloody 2 has got so prolonged and impassioned. People who actively chose to see Highlander 2 are dumb, that I'll grant you. But it's not a good movie to choose as an example of, well, anything - except how to make a crap sequel.