User Information

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Alien: Covenant Box Office Performance  (Read 91574 times)


Biomechanoid
Nov 05, 2017, 07:22:48 AM
Reply #1651 on: Nov 05, 2017, 07:22:48 AM
Q
Powered by, all right, but "reason" wasn't the word I had in mind. . . .  ;)

Once you can counter my arguments, then you make such assumptions.

There's nothing for me to counter. You already admitted error and apologized you can't even keep up with the conversation between you and I. I made no such mention regarding studios breaking even. But now somehow you have convinced yourself in your mind I'm disagreeing with that. You're arguing with yourself now.  :laugh:


adambeyoncelowe
Nov 05, 2017, 11:19:36 AM
Reply #1652 on: Nov 05, 2017, 11:19:36 AM
Q
I disagree that SF always has to cost a lot. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. But the creative industries in general are about risk. Many movies, books and so on, lose money. It's worse in publishing, but only about 51% of films make money (https://stephenfollows.com/hollywood-movies-make-a-profit/).

The problem is that Hollywood is increasingly unwilling to take risks. That's why we see endless sequels, more and more superhero movies, and a glut of same-ness on-screen. In theory this should mean an Alien film would be a good decision--but the last few outings haven't been the cash-cows studios wanted and studio vacillation means loads of money is wasted (look at Alien 3 and how much they wasted before they even started filming).

Also, you simply can't discount the fact that Ridley isn't producing his best work any more. The script for Prometheus was awful, and the script for Covenant felt like two films squashed together. Why didn't he realise this at any point? It makes me question his judgement. The visuals were still good but he's apparently got no sense for story, which is concerning for a director.

Fresh blood might be what we need. But then again, what the studio wants and what the audience wants are two entirely different things. Maybe it's that that's the biggest problem? Until we're on the same side again, we might continue to get naff Alien films.


SM
Nov 05, 2017, 08:06:07 PM
Reply #1653 on: Nov 05, 2017, 08:06:07 PM
Q
They took a risk with the first film before sequels followed.  Hollywood aren't "increasingly" making sequels - they've been doing it for decades.


monkeylove
Nov 06, 2017, 03:03:48 AM
Reply #1654 on: Nov 06, 2017, 03:03:48 AM
Q
There's nothing for me to counter. You already admitted error and apologized you can't even keep up with the conversation between you and I. I made no such mention regarding studios breaking even. But now somehow you have convinced yourself in your mind I'm disagreeing with that. You're arguing with yourself now.  :laugh:

I never admitted error, and my apology is a figure of speech. You did not refer to breaking even, but there is no difference between that and a minimal gain, which is your argument.

Companies don't shelve projects because the competition has something better. Minimal gain across many minor projects still leads to a minimal gain for the company because profitability is measured using a percentage. And just because a company will work on projects that earn less in parallel with those that earn more doesn't mean it will accept minimal gains overall in the long run.

Ultimately, as we explained earlier, for-profit businesses work to maximize profits, and the reasons are obvious: they are competing with other companies and want to gain market share by expanding operations (among others), and their investors want the best returns on their investment. None of these can happen given the perception that their main goal is simply to attain a profit, no matter how small it is.



They took a risk with the first film before sequels followed.  Hollywood aren't "increasingly" making sequels - they've been doing it for decades.

Exactly, and even that is connected to the points that we've been raising. Sequels, prequels, reboots, remakes, spinoffs, etc., for established franchises generally have faster development time. Hollywood hasn't been engaged in such simply because it wants to make fans happy, or break even, or even make a small profit. Large amounts of money are up for investment and studios are competing with each other several times a year, which is why they have to spend large amounts to peddle tent poles on a global scale, with smaller projects released during dump months. Obviously, the goal is to maximize profits.


« Last Edit: Nov 06, 2017, 03:11:38 AM by monkeylove »

Biomechanoid
Nov 06, 2017, 03:30:23 AM
Reply #1655 on: Nov 06, 2017, 03:30:23 AM
Q
I never admitted error.....
Yes you did. You don't have to say the words when evidence in your posts...... ;D

my apology is a figure of speech.
I think the logic in your arguments are impressive.

(Btw, when I say impressive, it's just a figure of speech. It's real meaning is not the praise you might think it is.........;) )

Hint: Your posted apology is EVIDENCE you were admitting ERROR.......Catching on yet?

You did not refer to breaking even, but there is no difference between that and a minimal gain, which is your argument.
LOL! He just can't stop putting words in my mouth. Not only did I not mention breaking even, you are in ERROR I made any mention about "minimal gain."

(I think I will just sit back and watch monkeylove argue with monkeylove until he blows himself out.  :P)



monkeylove
Nov 07, 2017, 01:32:38 AM
Reply #1656 on: Nov 07, 2017, 01:32:38 AM
Q
Yes you did. You don't have to say the words when evidence in your posts...... ;D

It's a figure of speech. Also, why do you keep ignoring my point that a minimal gain is just as bad as breaking even?

Quote
I think the logic in your arguments are impressive.


(Btw, when I say impressive, it's just a figure of speech. It's real meaning is not the praise you might think it is.........;) )

Hint: Your posted apology is EVIDENCE you were admitting ERROR.......Catching on yet?


Oh, the irony.  ::)

Quote
LOL! He just can't stop putting words in my mouth. Not only did I not mention breaking even, you are in ERROR I made any mention about "minimal gain."

(I think I will just sit back and watch monkeylove argue with monkeylove until he blows himself out.  :P)

You finally get to address at least one of my counter-arguments.

Here's what you wrote in

http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=57436.msg2255180#msg2255180

Quote
But....I was also involved in hundreds of minor projects. Small profit gain projects, but in reality, their accumulative return as a whole, was the bulk of the corporation's annual income. From mini-projects that required less than a week of work, to mid-size projects requiring more time....and various levels of minor projects in between.

That's what I mean by "minimal gain," but let's use your term.

The problem with this argument is that profitability is measured by a percentage, which means it doesn't matter if there are hundreds of small profit gain projects, the sum is still a small profit gain.

Given that, if a studio makes, say, a 1-percent profit margin on average for all of its projects (major and minor), then it makes only a 1-percent profit margin as a whole. If half of the funding for these projects came from investors who were promised, say, a 7-percent return, what happens now?

And don't forget the corporate tax.


Biomechanoid
Nov 07, 2017, 02:44:38 AM
Reply #1657 on: Nov 07, 2017, 02:44:38 AM
Q
I see.

So.....how about an update. Who's winning the argument between monkeylove and.......monkeylove?

You?.......or....You?  :laugh:



Biomechanoid
Nov 07, 2017, 12:01:10 PM
Reply #1659 on: Nov 07, 2017, 12:01:10 PM
Q
It takes two to tango, kiddo.

If you're not going to bother reading the conversation and see where he's making up crap just so he can argue with himself, then you stick your nose in here and dish out a lame irrelevant quote, it's your own fault you now have crap on your shoes, junior. . . . . ;)


Corporal Hicks
Nov 07, 2017, 12:48:36 PM
Reply #1660 on: Nov 07, 2017, 12:48:36 PM
Q
Gentlemen...this isn't a playground.



Corporal Hicks
Nov 07, 2017, 01:49:20 PM
Reply #1662 on: Nov 07, 2017, 01:49:20 PM
Q
If he wants to argue with himself, let him. There's no need to respond to him.


monkeylove
Nov 08, 2017, 06:57:34 AM
Reply #1663 on: Nov 08, 2017, 06:57:34 AM
Q

Well, now in all fairness, you can see earlier I advised him to just let it go.

Let go of what? How many times does this have to be explained to you? There is no difference between Alien: Covenant breaking even and make a small gain because the arguments used to counter the claim that Fox Studios is happy enough to break even is the SAME as those to counter the claim that Fox Studios is happy enough to earn a bit.

Given that, I didn't apologize or admit that I made a mistake in what I've said. If any, I've countered every point you raised. But you keep responding, first by claiming that I apologized (which I didn't), that you didn't mean to argue that the studio is happy enough to make a small gain (which you did, and based on wrong reasoning), and now that I'm simply arguing with myself, which even one member countered for me. Not only have you FAILED to address any of my points, you are now attacking others.

That's it: adding you to my ignore list.



Biomechanoid
Nov 08, 2017, 07:25:51 AM
Reply #1664 on: Nov 08, 2017, 07:25:51 AM
Q
If he wants to argue with himself, let him.

Good point. He's still rehashing his arguments no one is disputing but himself.

There's no need to respond to him.

I know first hand moderating forums can be a dark road of nightmares at times, so I will honor your request. Good luck in dealing with trolls in the future.


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed