What Movie Taught Hollywood the Biggest Lesson in 2009

What Movie Taught Hollywood the Biggest Lesson in 2009

  • Avatar: You have to spend money to make money

  • District 9: Then again, you don't have to spend all of it to make an effective sci-fi action flick

  • The Hangover: R-rated comedy starring mostly unknown but truly funny actors can lead to great things

  • The Hurt Locker: Iraq-themed movies work and work best with a female director handling the reins

  • Ice Age 3: Don't underestimate the power of the non-U.S. box-office(it made almost 700 mill WW)

  • Inglourious Basterds: QT and Harvey Weinstein are a lethal duo

  • Paranormal Activity: Actually, you don't have to spend any money at all, really

  • Precious: Sundance can still generate buzz

  • Sherlock Holmes: Never underestimate star power, even in Victorian garb

  • Star Trek: Truly fresh reboots can reignite a franchise, pulling in new and old fans alike

  • Taken: Liam Neeson is a viable action star

  • The Twilight Saga: New Moon: Vampire fever is only beginning

  • Up: Pixar always for-the-win

  • Zombieland: Indie actors vs. the undead = Fanboy delight


Results are only viewable after voting.
District 9: Then again, you don't have to spend all of it to make an effective sci-fi action flick
Effectiveness depends on how you market movies and how those movies perform at the BO. D9 success was part due to PJ's name and part due to a very effective marketing campaign.

But mainly to do with it being a brilliant film...

The Hurt Locker: Iraq-themed movies work and work best with a female director handling the reins
No.

I don't get this...The Hurt Locker is EASILY the best movie based on the Iraqi conflict. ****, it's the best war movie in years.
 
I don't get this...The Hurt Locker is EASILY the best movie based on the Iraqi conflict. ****, it's the best war movie in years.

I haven't seen Hurt Locker so i can't fully comment on everything. However the statement that Iraqi films work best with a female director directing them is something i don't agree with. By that logic people like Karyn Kusama or jodie foster could churn out the greatest iraq movies ever told
.
Kathryn Bigelow may be the only female drector who can direct excellent action movies. And from what i've read in reviews etc , Hurt Locker is more about following an eilte bomb squad. Pretty much every Iraqi movie that's been out tend to focus more on the moral tales like how war screws up families , children seeing people being blown apart , girl being raped by soldiers etc. instead of the action. Which is what Hurt Locker seems to do. Just soldiers doing their job.


As for District 9 , i'll agree that a good film ( don't quite get the hype but w/e) however because many people were interested in seeing the movie , WOM spread quickly. Had the marketing failed , the movie wouldn't have found an audience. Look at Hurt Locker. It's only because of the awards talk that people are focusing on it. However when the movie came out critics like Ebert ( i think) were pissed that people weren't flocking to see it. Instead of watching quality entertainment like Hurt Locker , people were spending their money to see stuff like Revenge Of The Fallen.
 
I have to pick District 9. For it's $30 million budget, it looked like it was made for 5-7x that much. For a director to have a tiny budget like that and make the movie look so good, I think it's more impressive than Avatar (which had James Cameron and a grossly higher budget behind it).

I think more sci-fi and fantasy movies could afford to be made that way, below the $100M mark. It forces directors to be more creative and put out better movies.
 
Agreed. When a film has a budget of 150 million plus great SFX should be EXPECTED. It's not really an achievement.

But with peanuts? Now THAT is an achievement.
 
I think something Hollywood can learn from a lot of those movies is that you dont need the biggest star(s) in the world to make a huge profit
 
Here's my take;
Avatar: You have to spend money to make money
Well haven't seen it yet, but everyone's raving about it for the effects, but that's because it's something new, Hollywood learned this lesson with the Matrix and will screw up like they did with the Matrix, by putting it in every movie.

District 9: Then again, you don't have to spend all of it to make an effective sci-fi action flick
Have a big name producer and actually hire a writer instead of chaining a chimp to a typewriter is the real lesson.

The Hangover: R-rated comedy starring mostly unknown but truly funny actors can lead to great things
American Pie anyone?

The Hurt Locker: Iraq-themed movies work and work best with a female director handling the reins
Won't comment, since I haven't seen the movie

Ice Age 3: Don't underestimate the power of the non-U.S. box-office(it made almost 700 mill WW)
Harry Potter anyone? Chronicles of Narnia? There are plenty of examples of this.

Inglourious Basterds: QT and Harvey Weinstein are a lethal duo
As long as Tarantino makes an homage movie to a genre people care about it'll be gold, no one cared about Grindhouse movies to start, Nazis and WWII usually have a good track record

Paranormal Activity: Actually, you don't have to spend any money at all, really
Blair Witch taught us this 10 years ago

Precious: Sundance can still generate buzz
Oprah can still generate buzz

Sherlock Holmes: Never underestimate star power, even in Victorian garb
Star Trek: Truly fresh reboots can reignite a franchise, pulling in new and old fans alike

Bolding them both since it's the same thing a reboot that has a fresh take on the source material. I don't think Sherlock Holmes' success is star power, it's intial franchise name recoginition in new shiny packaging.

Taken: Liam Neeson is a viable action star
Liam Nesson was a large part of the action in Phantom Menace

The Twilight Saga: New Moon: Vampire fever is only beginning
This is a very fast burning candle, Twilight = The Backstreet Boys, 'NSync, New Kids on the Block....

Up: Pixar always for-the-win
That's a new lesson? Hasn't every Pixar movie been a hit?

Zombieland: Indie actors vs. the undead = Fanboy delight
The three younger leads in the movie are working hard to become non-indie actors, it was also released at exactly the right time, a somewhat fresh take (since Shaun of the Dead really did do it first) on the horror genre around Halloween, perfect timing.
 
I'd say Star Trek followed by D9. Just further proof that "reboots" done properly are very effective, and in D9's case that a good film doesn't always need a big budget.

And as for Avatar....I wouldn't dare call that film original in any means if you do your research; its just hackneyed and typical Cameron fluff. If anything it proves that you can always count on the massive GA to go googoo over eye candy and nothing more; similar to RoTF.
 
avatar - original properties can make money

A lesson that was already taught by Taken, The Hangover, and Paranormal Activity all making insane money. I think the real lesson is taught by these three movies. Smaller budget, original properties with no major stars can compete.
 
Terminator Salvation.

Lesson Learned: We still didn't need another Terminator movie.
 
amen to that with the terminator comment. just let it be.
 
nobody has mentioned how hollywood made the mistake of firing blomkamp from Halo..lol

id say thats a big woops on their part
 
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"