What Have You Bought Recently?

[MacBlayne]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

That's probably why I hated it the first (and only) time I saw it!

I can't hate a film that ends a car chase on a motorway with a speedboat exploding. Or one that has corpses exploding on the highway like pinatas filled with ecstasy.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by MacBlayne

I can't hate a film that ends a car chase on a motorway with a speedboat exploding. Or one that has corpses exploding on the highway like pinatas filled with ecstasy.

I just see it as vacuous and a huge waste of money. However, to each their own!

[Stephen@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

a huge waste of money.

Tbh, you could say that about every film ever made.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Stephen@Cult Labs

Tbh, you could say that about every film ever made.

True, but I think instead of what other films could have been made with that $100 million, or even if the money was spent restoring and releasing 'lost' films (or ones which are only available in cut form) which require TLC and exposure to a wider audience.

[Make Them Die Slowly]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

I just see it as vacuous and a huge waste of money.

That applies to 99% of the films discussed here!

[Stephen@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

True, but I think instead of what other films could have been made with that $100 million, or even if the money was spent restoring and releasing 'lost' films (or ones which are only available in cut form) which require TLC and exposure to a wider audience.

I don't see one film being more worthy of money spent on it than another (unless it's Twilight. Joke!). And after all, it's films like this that most people actually want to see, and make money for the studios, which at the end if the day, is all that really matters to them these days. I was meaning more about the money spent on any film would be better spent on more important things in the world (I know, a strange thing to say on a film forum )

[MacBlayne]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

True, but I think instead of what other films could have been made with that $100 million, or even if the money was spent restoring and releasing 'lost' films (or ones which are only available in cut form) which require TLC and exposure to a wider audience.

Well, we could tell Michael Bay that the missing footage from The Magnificent Ambersons has a topless women brandishing a rocket-laucher, and he probably would spend millions on tracking it down.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Stephen@Cult Labs

I don't see one film being more worthy of money spent on it than another (unless it's Twilight. Joke!). And after all, it's films like this that most people actually want to see, and make money for the studios, which at the end if the day, is all that really matters to them these days. I was meaning more about the money spent on any film would be better spent on more important things in the world (I know, a strange thing to say on a film forum )

It's an interesting point, though, and goes back to the Romans with the 'bread and circuses' philosophy.

Without the blockbusters, would there be any independent/low-budget films made?

[Stephen@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

Without the blockbusters, would there be any independent/low-budget films made?

Probably not. A bit like companies such as Arrow releasing the studio films to pay for the more obscure cult acquisitions.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Stephen@Cult Labs

Probably not. A bit like companies such as Arrow releasing the studio films to pay for the more obscure cult acquisitions.

I meant cinema, rather than the home video market, but I take your point.