Nothing like seeing the fact that "Tombraider 2" bombed this weekend to make Monday mornings more enjoyable, huh? I think this summer may be showing us that the studios just can not burn audiences twice with the same stupid movies. "Charlie's Angels 2" cost $160 million to make and market, and is looking like it won't even crack $100 million (which means that's a flop as well), so maybe the mainstream movie-going audience is realizing you need a good story to go with those special effects, as this article points out. Maybe the big studios, in becoming so dependent on big CG special effects to carry their movies, have inadvertently made audiences tune out the big effects and request good stories instead. Man, wouldn't that be refreshing!
Comments (2)
Going back to that e-mail you sent me yesterday about Rick Berman and Brannon Braga deflecting criticism about 'Enterprise' and the 'Star Trek' franchise in general, Paramount execs are blaming poor videogame sales for the most recent 'Tomb Raider' game.
If this is true, those fucking studio execs at Paramount) really don't have a clue (but then again we've worked with them in the past so we know that for sure):
http://games.slashdot.org/games/03/07/29/1210216.shtml?tid=127&tid=186&tid=188&tid=97
Posted by Koganuts | July 29, 2003 8:58 AM
Posted on July 29, 2003 08:58
Man, some people are truly blind to the truth I guess. Trust me, I had to watch that first movie at least 10 times, and I can tell you that I'm quite sure that Paramount killed off most of their Tombraider-going audience with that dreck. Its got NOTHING to do with how good or bad the latest video game was. Anyway, this is all just stating the obvious, I doubt anyone really believes that poor excuse for why the film was a bomb.
Posted by Yams | July 29, 2003 10:32 AM
Posted on July 29, 2003 10:32