You're reading...

Why movies need money

A longstanding argument between people who love film is whether or not a movie is a ‘cash-in’.
The argument always ends in a heated discussion since the term is applicable on a whole lot of different settings.

Take a movie like ‘Clash of the Titans’ for instance.
The 2010 movie suffered from horrible test results with audiences and in a very late stage got ‘post 3D’ effects added to them. This resulted in a movie which had a weak story but even weaker effects.
Basically, the studio decided to make it 3D since they knew the revenue was going to be low, and selling 3D tickets would ensure them of higher earnings.

So that’s one side of the story explained.Finding-Nemo-3D-International-Movie-Poster
The other one is 3D re-releases.
While some of you get all hot and bothered when this happens, calling it a cheap cash-in, it’s actually not a bad thing. While you could argue if Pixar needs more money (trust me, they don’t) bringing a movie like ‘Finding Nemo’ back in theatres isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Young kids can enjoy it again on a big screen, and animated movies lend themselves extraordinarily well for 3D effects and a change in field of depth.

Ofcourse, ‘regular’ 2D movies like ‘Jurassic Park’ are also getting a new release in 2013, and in this case, the effects aren’t guaranteed to improve the picture.
But there is more going on behind this decision then just re-releasing. It’s also used as a means to test interest.
e71ec3bFor instance: if JP3D is having poor ticket sales, studios will conclude that demand for a similar movie like this (or a sequel) isn’t as high as necessary to guarantee the investors that they’ll earn their money back.
So when news came out that Jurassic Park was getting released again, and the internet responded with great enthusiasm, the 4th movie got green lighted.
So is it really such a bad thing?

In all of these cases, you could simply decide not to venture out and see them, but for those who carry a torch for a specific movie, or don’t mind old giants revisiting the big screen, why make all the fuzz.
For those of you who don’t know, every movie is made with money in mind.
It’s still people making art, but behind it is a huge corporate machine trying to get rich off them.

That’s a balance that will always remain, and that’s why movies need money.



One thought on “Why movies need money

  1. Good article, Paul. Very thought provoking. I think I am still on the fence about how many movies are being re-released in 3D in order to milk more money out of audiences. For example, I would go see JP in a red hot minute if just re-released in conventional 2D. 3D isn’t going to do anything for me. I was at the theater in NYC just about everyday when they re-released Jaws back about a million years ago. I also watched a restored print of Die Hard on the big screen recently and loved it! So, like I said, I’m on the fence. I suppose Hollywood could use the extra revenue but sometimes I smell desperation with all the re-releases in 3D.

    Posted by Victor De Leon | January 12, 2013, 18:41

Leave a comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Join 253 other followers

%d bloggers like this: