Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

wegotthiscovered.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 323 posts

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#311

Post by goto11 »

zizee wrote: post #269
goto11 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quality CGI is certainly not free. Pixar movies are all CGI but are still quite expensive productions because it require a lot of work by many highly skilled professional. Just take a look at the credits at the end of a blockbuster movie to see how many specialized skills are required.

Sure thing, I get that. There are around 1500 people listed as being involved in the making of the matrix resurrections. That is a lot of people. But I'd bet that the vast majority of them did not work on it full time, for over 6 months each: From Wikipedia: > Filming started in February 2020 but was halted the next month by the COVID-19 pandemic. Wachowski toyed with the possibility of shelving the project and leavi…

The largest crew is during "principal photography" which is when the live action scenes are filmed (i.e. involves actors on sets or location). This takes a few months for an average movie, longer for a complex shoot like the Matrix. It seem to have been four months according to the your quote. But the whole production takes a lot longer. Pre-production with storyboarding, planning, casting, set-design, costume design etc. starts a long time before filming. The Matrix was probably in pre-production for at least a year. And after principal photography we have post-production (editing, music, sound, color grading etc.). Traditionally CGI was applied in post-production, but todays blockbuster movies are basically CGI throughout with the live action scenes composited into the CGI. Post-production seem to have takes about a year for the Matrix.

In short, a lot of people work a long time on a movie on this scale. The credit roll are the names they have to mention due to contracts or union regulations, but a lot more are involved in various support functions or as sub-contractors.

And of course salary is not the only expense. You need soundstages, workshops, offices, administrative functions. Movie equipment is extremely expensive. Set building can be expensive - for Matrix Reloaded they literally built a two-mile stretch of highway in the middle of nowhere in order to film the car chase scene.

If you need on-location shoots, there is a lot of logistics involved. Transporting a large crew and equipment to some inconvenient location and establishing the necessary infrastructure.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#312

Post by lliamander »

InitialLastName wrote: post #199
andrew_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the best and most well-written SciFi movies of late

^ Something that can only be said because the only competition is the latest set of horrific Star Wars movies.

I think Tenet could stand on its own regardless (plus Star Wars is really more in the Fantasy genre).

But I whole heartedly agree that the new Star Wars films are an absolute travesty.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#313

Post by npunt »

boxmonster wrote: post #218
npunt wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing wrong with taking away what you want from art, but uh.. you're exactly describing the 'blue pill' (the comforts of escapism), so there is some irony in that with regard to the Matrix in particular. That's one of the reasons the original was so smart; it worked on multiple levels, letting you have your cake (escapism/fantasy/action movie) and eat it too (the message that makes you think long after seeing it).

It ebbs and flows with what is happening. Escapist fantasies are popular when times are hard. I feel times are hard now. Philidelphia and Leaving Las Vegas are two of my favorite movies, but I saw them when times were pretty good. However, I would enjoy an interesting movie about social issues being debated these days, just not with a Matrix backdrop and theme.

Makes sense, times are indeed hard.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#314

Post by brailsafe »

nominated1 wrote: post #299
brailsafe wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty tenous connection imo. You might as well pick any arbitrary thing you think is declining, financially I guess, and point to wokeness or the CCP as the cause. Is there something specific you saw in the older movies that you think is missing because of that stuff, therefore the movie is bad and wokeness is responsible?

I claimed censorship is the cause followed by identifying the censoring parties. I can imagine areas where censorship could lead to increased profitability. Just as I can imagine where it can lead to losses. The Film industry I put firmly in the losses category. Due you think continued/increased censorship will be good/profitable for the film industry?

I have no opinion on the latter, there haven't been any movies except Bond that are in theaters and I'd like to see. You could have just referred to more specific instances of CCP censorship with regard to previous Marvel releases, because I don't follow it and it just comes across as fear-baiting rather than having substance. With respect to those things like Eternals not being released in China, and Hollywood probably wanting to court their audience, afaik it was not released there and I also don't think it looks very good, so I wouldn't necessarily attribute it to censorship because obviously it didn't work to get into that market. Every superhero oriented movie I've seen, or seen a trailer for, looks awful, but unfortunately they often do sell quite well in the North American market and make up disproportionately large amount of released movies over the last decade.

In summary, the movies I've seen that suck tend to just suck. Usually it's because they're way too long, or they don't tell a story very well, or the plot is just rehashed and contrived. James Bond was great, 1917 etc, but others just seem uninspired. To make a case that censorship is the reason, I think you'd need be annoyed with specific aspects of a production, rather than the entire thing.

I think there's an issue on the internet of people wanting to discuss somewhat contentious issues that are assumed to be followed by everyone, like CCP stuff or immigration or trans issues or whatever, but most people just don't care or aren't in that bubble, so it tend to come across as a bit sus unless you can tie it in together and make a reasonable case for it.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#315

Post by yucky »

ruined wrote: post #206
yucky wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>when it was originally written, the most common estrogen pill on the market was red. As Don Quixote once said "El Oh El"

i know, right. reactionaries will misread anything. literally bootstraps and bad apples.

Are there some sources from the era that the movie was released that make that connection? Or is this just people trying to take back the meaning of the red pill from those scary republicans?

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#316

Post by nsonha »

wonderwonder wrote: post #168
titzer wrote: post #61

I saw it twice. I honestly cannot tell if Lana Wachowski hates the Matrix or not. There was this meta montage of "oh we have to make a sequel to the Matrix because the suits wanted it, everybody pile on stupid crap", which was obviously a middle finger to...someone. I laughed out loud at how over the top that blatant F-U was...but given that the movie proceeded to then actually crap on every single thing that was awe…

I was so disappointed in this movie and I thought the trailer looked amazing. It was just so bad. When they brought back the Merovingian looking like he had not brushed his teeth is 45 years I almost turned it off. Then amazingly it got worse.

the trailer is exactly the same style of the film you get. Scenes included in it like stopping the bullets and dojo explosion look incredibly lame. Then the colors are all over the place. It's fine if you don't do the green tint, that doesn't mean you have to pop everything to 11.

So I don't know why you thought it was amazing.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#317

Post by brailsafe »

Apocryphon wrote: post #302
nominated1 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Woke movie making is super annoying but I didn't get any of that from the new Matrix. New Neo is blue haired girl. New Trinity is tattooed girl. New Neo and New Trinity are not yet lovers (which appeases the CCP) but the final scene shows them embracing behind Old Neo/Trinity. I don’t think I read that wrong and thought it was pretty obvious?

I didn't even notice a tattooed girl

Ya who the hell would, everyone has tattoos

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#318

Post by brailsafe »

nominated1 wrote: post #300
native_samples wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something trans related maybe? Dunno. Woke movie making is super annoying but I didn't get any of that from the new Matrix. Maybe because all the characters were chosen in 1999 before CRT took off, maybe because it just wasn't necessary. As a kid Morpheus/Fishburne was perhaps the coolest black man I'd ever seen, the casting was perfect. The man managed to somehow carry off both radiating gravitas and also this almos…

> Woke movie making is super annoying but I didn't get any of that from the new Matrix. New Neo is blue haired girl. New Trinity is tattooed girl. New Neo and New Trinity are not yet lovers (which appeases the CCP) but the final scene shows them embracing behind Old Neo/Trinity. I don’t think I read that wrong and thought it was pretty obvious?

So your guess is that no movies from here on out are going to feature lesbians because of CCP, and you assumed everyone else would have made this connection and would immediately notice girls with tattoos, blue hair, and connect this with both ultra-left and chinese overlords!? And the apparent lack of these qualities compared to previous movies that might have featured slightly less subtle hints of gay sex is where you draw the line?

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#319

Post by manquer »

mewse wrote: post #256
manquer wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter how they gauge the success internally. They never share viewership numbers to the producers, and they don't pay by the actual viewership , they buy the property and do internal P&L on success of the buy as you say. From the producers perspective it only matters how much Netflix paid for a movie.

Hi. I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick, here. This conversation is about a company that's released their movie to theatres and is simultaneously streaming it via their own subscription streaming service, and trying to figure out how to account for money earned by the movie when some of that money may or may not be coming in via subscription fees on the streaming service. In that specific case (the on…

Netflix was an example of streaming , i didn't mean to say Netflix specifically, my arguments before were for an example of external streaming ( I assumed that even if owned by the same parent they don't share numbers between studio and platform , which may not be true.)

Even if the numbers are available, This way of accounting is too simple to apportion revenue and is flawed.

The power of platforms (or studios / back catalogues) is that sum of the whole is greater than individual property. That is why consolidation happens all time in the industry. Most people are not paying for a subscription because they watch specific content[1].

For example If I watch only one movie this month and 10 next month , isn't it more accurate to split my 2 month fees by 11 rather than giving all my first month fees to first movie ?. Me not watching anything else should not increase the value of the content I did watch based on an arbitrary time period (billing cycle of a month)

[1] ignoring the cases additional cost for a new movie that is direct revenue.

Post reply on HN