Quote:
Originally posted by M. Krass
Can you show me numbers?
I think you're wrong. While every movie doesn't make a profit, nevermind an enormous profit, most movies do manage to scrape by. To suggest otherwise is kinda ludicrous. Are they making everyone wealthy? Probably not so much.
Even if domestic box office grosses don't appear to be profitable, most movies go on to do six times that amount in worldwide ticket sales. Video releases, reissues, and other nifty marketing tricks (like Director's Cut DVDs) ensure that movies make money.
The movies are, after all, an industry. Even if one doesn't make money, it gets maid on the coattails of other box office successes. That said, though, you've got to have more movies that float than sink if anyone expects to make money.
A movie about FIRST, in any case, would probably be the most boring thing ever put to film. Television, movies, radio, or any other major media exposure is a bad thing for FIRST, across the board. What FIRST needs, and what we're doing a poor job with, is a real grassroots movement that reaches out to individuals and ropes them in. We need to be a presence in every city, if only for one weekend a year, so that people are exposed to what we do in the flesh.
We do not need a stylized presentation that glosses over the dramatic reality that we experience as participants of FIRST. When we get the word out on our own and when people are aware that FIRST participants surround them, then we can start exposing them to more stories of FIRST. Until then, keep the television and things out of it -- particularly those, as they represent interests that are not our own.
In any case, I'm interested in learning more about the majority of movies that don't seem to turn a profit.
|
I really don't want to get into numbers, nor do I really care. Without getting too off-topic here, a majority of movies do all right, but some accumulate a loss. The big blockbusters like T3, Finding Nemo, Matrix, etc. usually has a high profit margin that the producers usually use that profit to cover the debt from other non-successful movies.
I disagree with you however on that a movie/tv/other media is bad for FIRST. I believe it is good for FIRST, and if it was watched by a good majority of people, it would expose them to what FIRST is. You have to remember that the average guy doesn't know much outside of what he sees on TV.
Everytime I do a demonstration of FIRST with my team, I
always get some reference to Battlebots by a person who wants to know more information about it. Even when I try to explain it to a couple of strangers briefly, they still think it is some kind of Battlebots. Know why, because that is what they see on TV.
FIRST has the disadvantage of other sports in the fact is that the average person, that is not in FIRST, doesn't know what the heck FIRST is. I mean you can talk about it until you are blue in the face, and people would still wouldn't know what the heck you are talking about.
I also disagree with you that a feature film movie on FIRST would be boring. There have been many movies about sports/clubs in a one person narrative that have been successful. I am sure you can recall a few. Most directors usually know how to make even the most dry subject, worth while for people to see. And since we all experienced that FIRST is very exciting for us personally, it would probably wouldn't be that hard for a director to produce a decent movie.