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

'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

variety.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 201 posts

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#71

Post by the_real_cher »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #31

All they had to do was simply hire a talented person who knows how to make compelling narrative art. This is lost on the movie industry, though Hollywood has been treading water for over a decade now, failing to examine its failures and coasting on inertia. In general, there is sooo much free money on the ground for large, hierarchical American corporations to do the following 1. Give young talented people resources…

You idealize young people. There's talented people of all ages. I just want talented people to get money...in general.

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#72

Post by cheschire »

peteforde wrote: post #23
ChrisArchitect wrote: post #17

The what? Horror something? ....started on 4chan? Yeah, immediate aboutface here. And reading wiki articles about it that throw around words like "creepypasta" like that's widely understood? Liminal spaces I get. Reminds of Severance . And anyways, how is this worth going to a theater for? A24 has done well. Is 81M considered breaching 'mainstream'? Because these niche horror things being portrayed as part of the gre…

This is not the reaction of someone trying to keep an open mind, especially given that this isn't your usual cup of tea. If you can get over your preconceived notions, I'd bet that you'd really enjoy this movie. It's extremely well executed and genuinely unsettling without ever getting gory, comedic or stupid.

I must be the weirdo for not wanting to feel unsettled like that. Doesn’t reality have enough unsettling stuff? Why pile onto that?

Give me comedy. Oh how I miss the 90 minute comedy movie.

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#73

Post by simonbw »

slg wrote: post #62
simonbw wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are saying that you can buy movies online, but I think they're missing the key point of putting lots of movies on massive discounts and promoting the movies that are currently discounted. Like sure you can buy basically any movie on Amazon or Apple's store or wherever, but I know that wherever I go, it's going to cost $4 to rent a movie, except every once in a while when it's on sale and I get it for $3, and b…

I just opened the Apple TV app on my phone and "$4.99 Essential Movies" is listed prominently just under the top charts and new releases. I'm not trying to be rude, but this whole thread has people just speculating on stuff with limited self-awareness. The reason you aren't building a big film library is probably because you aren't that passionate about films, it isn't because no one is providing you a list of cheap…

You might be right. I think the other thing is that there are a ton of free things for me to watch on various streaming platforms.

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#74

Post by atleastoptimal »

the_real_cher wrote: post #71
atleastoptimal wrote: post #31

All they had to do was simply hire a talented person who knows how to make compelling narrative art. This is lost on the movie industry, though Hollywood has been treading water for over a decade now, failing to examine its failures and coasting on inertia. In general, there is sooo much free money on the ground for large, hierarchical American corporations to do the following 1. Give young talented people resources…

You idealize young people. There's talented people of all ages. I just want talented people to get money...in general.

I single out young people because they tend to be significantly undervalued with respect to their ability to contribute, especially in many industries which heavily gate on experience and connections.

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#75

Post by yobid20 »

omg my family we all went to see this today and we were all raging at the end. this is one of the dumbest movies any of us have ever seen. no plot. no point. complete waste of my life that i will never get back.

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#76

Post by lmm »

arusahni wrote: post #57
righthand wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you use the app you’re only streaming from Apple servers. That Apple server copy can be revoked at any time. And 60% is not 100%, my point stands you need an expensive device just to purchase and watch it. Probably multiple expensive devices if you want to actually watch it on your TV. When can I download my movie onto my Linux laptop and play it through an HDMI cable?

A "Steam for Movies" service (as expressed in an ancestor comment) is basically that, though. One doesn't own their Steam games.

But you can run Steam on Linux. You don't have to worry about whether they're going to discontinue the cheap Steam Box you were relying on. And they have built up credibility from decades of not pulling the rug, in a way that Apple hasn't and probably can't.

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#77

Post by gcr »

ramenat2am wrote: post #12

That really shows the hunger for original stories and IC among cinephiles. Major studios were too afraid to produce something fresh instead of numberless sequels and reboots in the last decade or so.

Between this, Iron Lung, and The Amazing Digital Circus finale getting a cinema release, I think this is shaping up to be a great year for small movie productions

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#78

Post by asmodeuslucifer »

thrance wrote: post #54
peteforde wrote: post #2

I'm a long-term "OG" Kane Pixels fan. I took a friend to see the opening night preview and we both loved it. Anyone not familiar with Kane - who was 16 when he started making his "found footage" films in Blender - the guy is a truly brilliant mind. Listening to him talk... you can close your eyes and he speaks like someone middle aged. It's almost uncanny. Anyhow, in addition to his genuinely excellent Backrooms vide…

The Oldest View is really great. And it's surprisingly deep if you care to look into it a little.

It's amazing how scary an obvious puppet in a grocery cart can be.

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#79

Post by legitster »

darth_avocado wrote: post #28
ramenat2am wrote: post #12

That really shows the hunger for original stories and IC among cinephiles. Major studios were too afraid to produce something fresh instead of numberless sequels and reboots in the last decade or so.

Matt Damon talked about this somewhere. The risk aversion stems from the move away from DVD sales. Historically a lot of low and mid budget movies relied on DVD sales to recoup costs even if theater releases didn’t get you as much money as you expected. With the safety net gone, studios don’t want to take the risk. They make big budget movies with massive marketing budgets that rely on known IP and established fan ba…

I think this explanation is incomplete. There were still plenty of mid-size movies after the DVD era that still had profitable theatrical releases. The prototypical example to me is Baby Driver.

Pre-Covid there was simply not enough major weekends to release a big movie. They end up competing with each other.

Sure, Baby Driver made $300m on a $40m budget. But for pure profit maximization you are better off making a billion dollars on a $500m budget.

Re: 'Backrooms' Stuns with $81M Debut

#80

Post by dcrazy »

hangsi wrote: post #66
darth_avocado wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matt Damon talked about this somewhere. The risk aversion stems from the move away from DVD sales. Historically a lot of low and mid budget movies relied on DVD sales to recoup costs even if theater releases didn’t get you as much money as you expected. With the safety net gone, studios don’t want to take the risk. They make big budget movies with massive marketing budgets that rely on known IP and established fan ba…

This is from the interview on Hot Ones (released August 5, 2021): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaXma6K9mzo&t=816s > Sean Evans: > I think a scenario lots of viewers can relate to is sitting on the couch on a Friday night, going through the streaming services, cycling through the movies and thinking to themselves "they're not making movies for me anymore". As somebody who's been intimately involved in movie making…

I thought Behind the Candelabra was a direct to HBO release.

Edit: yes, it was direct to HBO. So maybe Damon was just using it as an example because he knew the production cost off the top of his head.

Post reply on HN