You'll believe a what now?

[andrewducker]

Yes.

They spent $200m on a Battleship movie.

Yes.

The board game.

more

Comments

[innerbrat]

You know they've made a Rock'em Sock'em Robots movie as well?

[crm.livejournal.com]

that actually does look like fun.

[innerbrat]

It are VERY SERIOUS BOXING MOVIE.

Just like the one Christian Bale made.

OSCAR FODDER, in fact.


(with robots)

[andrewducker]

La la la la I can't hear you.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

This is a better film than the Monopoly one will be. (or is, I can't remember if it came out already)

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Well, having seen the trailer, I think we may have a contender for turkey of the decade.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

When I first heard of this project, I thought it was an Onion piece someone had picked up and mistaken for real news.

Now I just wish it was.

-- Steve will be staying way the heck away from this themonuclear bomb of a flick... unless the reviews are very, very different from what he expects them to be.

[crm.livejournal.com]

this looks fucking awesome.

[strawberryfrog.livejournal.com]

That could be bad, or it could be awful.

[hano.livejournal.com]

Large flying alien robots and a US Navy CVBG? Man, I'm sooooo there

The Real Thing

[nojay.livejournal.com]

There's only one real "battleship" movie:

http://yamato-movie.net/index.html

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

What would you say is better: spending $200m on a film based on a boardgame, so they can make up a story around it, or spending $200m on a film based on a book, where they basically just use the title and premise, then go do their own thing so it's really nothing to do with the original book?

Also, it looks awesome. AWESOME

[andrewducker]

I'm fine with them doing either. I'm just amused.

I think they should spend $200m on movies that will make $200m back (and I'd prefer them to be good, but what do I know?)

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

I think they should spend $200m on movies that will be good, regardless of whether they make money back.

Ideally I would like good movies to make money back, but that doesn't always happen.

But I'd rather watch a good movie, than a movie made to make a profit. Sometimes the two are the same, sometimes not. When they're not the same, I prefer the former.

[andrewducker]

Studios that don't make their money back cease to exist. I'd rather they made enough profits to pump out lots of movies. That way some of them are found to be good. By random chance, if nothing else.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

If a studio makes one enjoyable film then ceases to exist, I would enjoy their film more than watching six films that I don't enjoy but made money. There have been some fairly amazing films made by loss-making studios.

My enjoyment of a film is generally unrelated to its budget, its money-making potential or what the makers claim to be doing next. If I really like a director but when I pay to see his latest film, the bulk of the money is pocketed by people other than the director, that doesn't really encourage me to think in those terms.

If all the films in the world are made for other people, that's great for them. But not for me, and I'm me, and I like to watch films that I enjoy.

However, I liked that Bubba Ho-Tep was made in order to finance a further film (which HASN'T FUCKING BEEN MADE YET YOU BASTARD COSCARELLI) but was actually a good film in and of itself.

[dalglir.livejournal.com]

<3 Bruce Campbell movies :D

[andrewducker]

Aaaah, I misinterpreted your "better" as "better for them". If you meant "Better for me" then yes, making awesome movies would be lovely. If they want to make $200m awesome movies about Battleship for me then that's fine though.

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

That used to be the model. In the 1930s and into the 1940s the Studios used to use block booking, selling packages of films. That way the profits from one film could subsidise the losses from another. This was then outlawed by anti-trust legislation.

Even in the 1970s and early 1980s there were filmmakers like John Carpenter who were happy making modestly budgeted B-movies that would reliably turn in a profit. But what happened with Spielberg and Lucas was that it became easier for the studios to make fewer films, with bigger budgets and just concentrate on marketing them.

[dalglir.livejournal.com]

Of course they'll make $200 million back. It has LIAM NEESON in it to lend this serious arthouse piece some fucking GRAVITAS. Think English Patient with Samuel L Jackson in it. And zombies.

(It is my belief that _any_ movie can be improved with the addition of more zombies)

[steer.livejournal.com]

Unrealistic as the woman in the trailer was deployed diagonally which is not allowed in battleships.

[call-waiting.livejournal.com]

Exactly! It's not canon!

*tries to think up a terrible canon/cannon pun, then thinks better of it*

[mb2u]

I have nothing to say about this. Really.

[dalglir.livejournal.com]

Hmmm.

Needs moar zombies.

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

I heard there was going to be a Rock, Paper, Scissors movie but the rights are so deeply in dispute it's not worth the investment.

WTF?

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

Did you see the missiles the aliens were firing? Pegs.

They're certainly sticking to the franchise.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

I can see why they would want to make a movie with battleships, but was it really necessary to licence the boardgame? I'd love to know how much they paid Milton Bradley for the rights to the boardgame.

[andrewducker]

I know. Who on earth is going to see the movie _because_ it's based on the board game?

[bracknellexile.livejournal.com]

This film needs a 10-second cameo from James Earl Jones.

JEJ walks onto the bridge, flashes his ID and says, "And I... was never here... because this film is so goddamn f*cking awful!!"