ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Apr 17 12 9:49 AM
back lot charlie wrote: Michael Elliott wrote: The Stooge idea has been kicking around for a while. If anyone goes back and reads this thread it was clear that this was a horrible idea from the very start so at least the film did prove them wrong. The problem is that you have two busy directors, three busy actors and a lot of other busy people. It's going to be hard to get them together for a sequel let alone time for a short. The problem with the shorts in today's world is that there's just not that big of a market. In fact, zero market outside of Pixar who include them with their features (I think Disney does ever so often). Then there's the money issue of getting everyone together, how are they going to "sell" the movie, where they're going to get the money back and so on. If they spend $500,000 (a very low sum) on a two-reelers then how are they going to get the money back? They would have to show it before another Fox movie and you have to wonder if people would buy a ticket to another movie just to see this short. Back to the cast and crew, they have people to pay, they have other offers, other offers for more money and so on. Not too many people are going to be willing to pay $10+ for a 15-minute short. Especially if they don't want to see what it's playing with.Perhaps they did do a few bonus things that will be shown on a DVD release at some point.I guess I'd ask how did Columbia make money off the original Stooge shorts? Or how did Warner Brothers make money off Looney Tunes? Or the DePatie-Freleng PINK PANTHER cartoons I used to see in the theater as a kid? If Fox would spend $500,000 to make a 10 minute short, somebody's gotta go. I could make 10 of 'em for that!
Michael Elliott wrote: The Stooge idea has been kicking around for a while. If anyone goes back and reads this thread it was clear that this was a horrible idea from the very start so at least the film did prove them wrong. The problem is that you have two busy directors, three busy actors and a lot of other busy people. It's going to be hard to get them together for a sequel let alone time for a short. The problem with the shorts in today's world is that there's just not that big of a market. In fact, zero market outside of Pixar who include them with their features (I think Disney does ever so often). Then there's the money issue of getting everyone together, how are they going to "sell" the movie, where they're going to get the money back and so on. If they spend $500,000 (a very low sum) on a two-reelers then how are they going to get the money back? They would have to show it before another Fox movie and you have to wonder if people would buy a ticket to another movie just to see this short. Back to the cast and crew, they have people to pay, they have other offers, other offers for more money and so on. Not too many people are going to be willing to pay $10+ for a 15-minute short. Especially if they don't want to see what it's playing with.Perhaps they did do a few bonus things that will be shown on a DVD release at some point.
Apr 17 12 9:57 AM
Michael Elliott wrote:back lot charlie wrote: Michael Elliott wrote: Those days are long over and they're not coming back. Especially with the talent here coming back to do shorts.
back lot charlie wrote: Michael Elliott wrote: Those days are long over and they're not coming back. Especially with the talent here coming back to do shorts.
Michael Elliott wrote: Those days are long over and they're not coming back. Especially with the talent here coming back to do shorts.
Apr 17 12 9:56 PM
Apr 18 12 12:57 PM
Apr 18 12 3:16 PM
Tim Hammell wrote: Do you guys get a "Pre Show" before the movie? Up here in Canada it's about twenty minutes or so to "entertain" the early arrivers and consists of plugs and sound-bite interviews for movies, music and new tech gear, sometimes with a trailer or part of one thrown in, hosted by hip dj/vj types. When show times arrives its 10 commercials, mostly for different mobile phones, then the trailers. Trailers I like, but gawd would I ever prefer to watch some cartoons or a short than the "Pre-Show".
Apr 18 12 4:32 PM
Apr 18 12 9:27 PM
Apr 19 12 3:08 PM
Michael Elliott wrote: It's good that they put it on before anything else just to keep those entertained while eating their popcorn.
Apr 19 12 3:21 PM
Apr 19 12 3:39 PM
Apr 19 12 4:37 PM
Apr 19 12 8:50 PM
Apr 19 12 10:34 PM
From the moment I picked up your book until I laid it down, I was convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend reading it -- Groucho Marx
Apr 19 12 11:49 PM
Apr 20 12 12:05 AM
The "don't try this at home" admonition at the end by the Farrelly Brothers was probably a smart idea to forestall the type of criticism from parents that I used to hear about the Stooges as a kid growing up and absolve them of any future blame. However, the buff brother who likes to show off his build struck me as just a wee bit creepy.
Apr 20 12 12:25 AM
Apr 20 12 1:31 AM
Apr 20 12 9:13 AM
Rick wrote:I laughed in the theatre when Farrelly bro #2 started twitching his pecs. But when nobody else laughed, I got a little concerned. I had a moment of doubt myself...maybe those are the Farrellys? Nah, couldn't be. But, just to be safe, I stifled any further laughter.
Apr 20 12 11:08 AM
Apr 20 12 11:27 AM
Rick wrote: The "don't try this at home" admonition at the end by the Farrelly Brothers was probably a smart idea to forestall the type of criticism from parents that I used to hear about the Stooges as a kid growing up and absolve them of any future blame. However, the buff brother who likes to show off his build struck me as just a wee bit creepy. Well, this is a joke that evidently didn't work. Unless there's been some major changes lately at the plastic surgeon and a lotta work in the gym -- those weren't the Farrelly Brothers. Those were two dashing, buff actors that the Farrellys probably took great delight in casting. I'd suspect that this joke worked with the insiders better than anything else in the movie.
Share This