The Meg DESTROYED Crazy Rich Asians At The Box Office... Why's The Latter Getting So Much More Love?

[jx820]

wut

It's almost always the story and themes that interest people. Just because people love mindless entertainment too, doesn't mean they don't ever love anything else.

Mindless entertainment makes up an overwhelming majority of the market. It's staggeringly disproportionate. The Meg has made nearly 500 million dollars. It's about an animated shark fighting The Transporter. Don't get me wrong, when I was 8 I would have thought a Jabber Jaws / Speed Racer mashup was amazing but that audience can't all be 8-year-olds. Meanwhile, 3 Billboards made about 160 million with 7 Oscar nominations and 2 wins in highly influential categories. Blue Ruin is a goddamned modern masterpiece (sporting a 96 on Rotten Tomatoes to boot) and it made 258k in theaters. The hurt locker made 49 mil. Drive made 76. Combined 4 of the best movies in the last decade made less at the box office than a cartoon shark vs the mechanic. So, the numbers back me up.

For the average person, if a movie turns out to have a story or themes like some of the Marvel movies or the Harry Potter series, then that's a nice perk. It's not a driving force in consumer choice.

 

[shunyata]

Your point? A movie costing more doesn't mean more people will go see it.

You are clearly a very ignorant person (when it comes to the film business) that has no idea what a marketing budget is if you actually believe what you wrote in this quote.

 

[LockardTheGOAT]

You are clearly a very ignorant person (when it comes to the film business) that has no idea what a marketing budget is if you actually believe what you wrote in this quote.

What I said was fact. Just because something costs more to make doesn't automatically mean more people will go see it.

 

[shunyata]

What I said was fact. Just because something costs more to make doesn't automatically mean more people will go see it.

You poor simpleton. MARKETING BUDGET is a substantial part of the cost of movies.

To rephrase, a substantial part of the final budget to make a film and bring it to market is all the money spent marketing it.

All the ad buys, all the billboards, the PR tours, getting actors or a director to do interview after interview plugging the movie.

All of that costs a massive amount of money.

If you don't advertise it at all it doesn't sell very well regardless of the product or the non marketing costs of its production.

I guarantee you there is an entire economic science behind how much money is spent in which specific ways to get the best return on investment of the production cost.


The Blair Witch Project spent ~ $60,000 purely on production but over $1.1 million on marketing.

In the industry that was referred to as "low cost marketing".

It never would have been a hit without spending a million on marketing.


Marketing budgets matter. You cannot win an ad war without resources.

 

[LockardTheGOAT]

You poor simpleton. MARKETING BUDGET is a substantial part of the cost of movies.

To rephrase, a substantial part of the final budget to make a film and bring it to market is all the money spent marketing it.

All the ad buys, all the billboards, the PR tours, getting actors or a director to do interview after interview plugging the movie.

All of that costs a massive amount of money.

If you don't advertise it at all it doesn't sell very well regardless of the product or the non marketing costs of its production.

I guarantee you there is an entire economic science behind how much money is spent in which specific ways to get the best return on investment of the production cost.


The Blair Witch Project spent ~ $60,000 purely on production but over $1.1 million on marketing.

In the industry that was referred to as "low cost marketing".

It never would have been a hit without spending a million on marketing.


Marketing budgets matter. You cannot win an ad war without resources.

Yeah, marketing matters. No shit. That doesn't refute anything that I said. A movie having a high budget doesn't guarantee that audiences will go see it - You can hype a lot of things to the moon and it'll sell, but not everything, and not always to the extent that you want it to either - and a film having a lower budget doesn't mean people won't see it. Marketing matters, but the amount you pour into any given film isn't everything.

And there's no way to quantify what your marketing cost should be right down to the very last dollar. Best you could do is a general estimate and even that would probably be accompanied by the marketing people's own subjective intuition.

 

[Polish Machine]

Mindless entertainment makes up an overwhelming majority of the market. It's staggeringly disproportionate. The Meg has made nearly 500 million dollars. It's about an animated shark fighting The Transporter. Don't get me wrong, when I was 8 I would have thought a Jabber Jaws / Speed Racer mashup was amazing but that audience can't all be 8-year-olds. Meanwhile, 3 Billboards made about 160 million with 7 Oscar nominations and 2 wins in highly influential categories. Blue Ruin is a goddamned modern masterpiece (sporting a 96 on Rotten Tomatoes to boot) and it made 258k in theaters. The hurt locker made 49 mil. Drive made 76. Combined 4 of the best movies in the last decade made less at the box office than a cartoon shark vs the mechanic. So, the numbers back me up.

For the average person, if a movie turns out to have a story or themes like some of the Marvel movies or the Harry Potter series, then that's a nice perk. It's not a driving force in consumer choice.

I never heard of Blue Ruin. I'll check it out this week. Excited to have something to watch. Thanks

 

[MicroBrew]

I haven't seen either film and I don't mean to belittle the success and relevancy of Crazy Rich Asians, but it seems to be getting almost all the attention and people are saying it was the ideal movie to end the Summer blockbuster season on, yet The Meg was the more successful one. Drew a much bigger audience.

The Meg: 475 million in four weeks
Crazy Rich Asians: 149 million in three weeks

Why is The Meg being so underrated?

Because....Meg is just another brainless action/monster movie . I haven't seen Crazy Rich Asian. It looks like it has gotten more focus because it has an Asian lead cast . There aren't any other Hollywood movies with Asians taking the lead roles, but there are tons of Monster movies. Any Hollywood movie with an Asian cast, usually casts the Asian person/s in a supporting role or co-lead , and does focus on everyday Asian life.

 

[Madmick]

C'mon man. I am asking a legit question, respecting that you think James Bond is James Bond. I am asking you if it matters that the time frame (lets say when the first movie was supposed to take place in the 60's or 70's) and the same James Bond apparently is still youthfulish in 2010. That doesn't bother you?

I mean I am not saying there has to be a black James Bond, but if we are going to say James Bond is James Bond and that is it. No questions asked. Should it not stay in the exact same time period?

Because it's his character's established identity. His identity is independent of the setting/time.

It's such a plain, simple, and irrefutable fact that opponents to the notion deliberately ask a billion dumb questions just so people don't notice they got a profoundly rational answer, ending the debate immediately, but didn't like it, and so they ignore its fundamental truth. Watch, I can do this, too:

Why not have a woman play Bond? Why not a transsexual? Why not make him homosexual? Why make him British at all? Why even human? Why are you so close-minded? Putin probably wants Bond to represent them. After all, the Russians have been unfairly maligned, historically, by Bond movies, according to the postmodernist ethos. We must consider the source! Let's make him Muslim, too, and give him plenty of Muslim wives. He arrived here on a spaceship. We shouldn't be so species-centric. Just so long as we don't fuck with the "spy" or "007" parts.

So a transsexual female, pansexual in partner preference, Russian, black, half-dolphin, alien, android, polygamist, Muslim Bond...why not? Makes as much sense as just changing his race on a whim. If one established inert biographical fact is malleable, then they all are.

 

[Hog-train]

BTW guys - all this debate was basically pointless because the Crazy Rich Asians movie overtook the top spot over The Meg. That was just the opening weekend.

 

[eternaldarkness]

It is bullshit. Taste is subjective and to me its shit of the bull. If your film has racial undertones simply for the sake of viewership, its lame to me

political correctness has destroyed movies for years now.

 

[Thai Otoshi]

Saw Crazy Rich Asians with my ole lady, and it led to her letting me bang, bro.

She had no idea what the movie was about, and was pleasantly shocked when she realized it was a rom com.

 

[Pugilistic]

As a crazy poor asian (manlet), I have no interest in seeing that movie.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

BTW guys - all this debate was basically pointless because the Crazy Rich Asians movie overtook the top spot over The Meg. That was just the opening weekend.

Only Domestically.

Worldwide The Meg has earned $535M compared to $219M for CRA

 

[Hog-train]

Only Domestically.

Worldwide The Meg has earned $535M compared to $219M for CRA

Ahh didn't know that. Well The Meg also cost much more to make as a summer blockbuster.

The original intent of this thread was started kind of complaining about SJW shit and how they are pushing "more Asians" yet the Meg did better.

However, the Meg specifically cast more Asians in roles to target more viewers from the Chinese market. So the whole original point of the thread is moot.