Atlantic Rim trailer!!

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I understand how it works I'm saying there still is no differance.

Not all of those movies above (and I have about 20 more) we're put into production at the same exact times. Even if the studio did already have a look at the script it's them deciding to do a vaguely differant movie with similar title to confuse people as which came first and get a share of the market. The only differance is they have more money so they can pay for real actors.
 
I understand how it works I'm saying there still is no differance.

Not all of those movies above (and I have about 20 more) we're put into production at the same exact times. Even if the studio did already have a look at the script it's them deciding to do a vaguely differant movie with similar title to confuse people as which came first and get a share of the market. The only differance is they have more money so they can pay for real actors.

Sorta. People might be confused at first, but they'd know the difference between White House Down, and Olympus has Fallen just by the fact that they've been released a fairly far apart.

When it comes to The Asylum, they prey on a certain kind of people. Moms, grandma's, cinematically inept people who go out and buy a film they may have heard their child, or grandchild talk about (say, Transformers), so they go buy "Transformers", despite the film not being out on DVD/Blu Ray (some people really don't understand this concept. It's weird. ) but they're actually buying Transmorphers. And then no one is happy.

So The Asylum is basically tricking people into buying their product. And they know they can get away with it.
 
Yup. All great examples of Hollywood swallowing its own tail.

All of those movies on this list came out within a few months of their counterparts. (Except EdTV, which, if memory serves, I think was held back a while because the producers were afraid to open so close to the Truman Show, which at the time was a big hit.)

But each of these pairs would have been in development and production at about the same time. There would definitely have been overlap. So I don't think it's a question of a studio seeing a competitor's movie make money and then rushing to make their own copy-cat version. It's worse. It's studios hearing about what their competitors have in the pipeline and rushing to copy that.

Yes, they're copying each other constantly, but when they do this kind "dueling asteroid movie" thing they're usually doing it well before either film is released, and certainly before one of them makes any money. When it happens with studios, it's before there actually is a market. It's an industry that seems to be run by frightened lemmings chasing each other in circles until they all fall off the cliff.

But the difference, as I see it, is that at least the studios are competing directly with each other, they're not trying to trick people. That's what I find sleazy about the Asylum business model.

To be clear, though, I am not suggesting that either is a wellspring of creativity, originality or morality! :lol
 
That's ok I get what you guys are saying, I'm just posing this question. If Asylum had enough money to get a legit actor, like just for namesake Michael Fassbender since everyone loves him, would you still feel the same way about it being a cheap cash grab or would it suddenly look a little better? Or at least alot more like those other movies? Because imo that's really the only differance that matters. Trying to trick people sounds a little silly to me, like my Grandfather knew I loved Star Wars growing up, he was 75 and he never bought me a Captain Kirk by accident.

I just think it's a stretch to believe they could recoup everything they spent by people who got confused and bought this by accident, clearly there are just people who watch low budget bad movies like the stuff they put on Scyfy sometimes. And if they did have an actor like that, suddenly it would seem alot more like what the studios are doing. To me it justs seems they don't have the money to compete with real multibillion dollar studios.
 
" Antz " and " A Bugs Life " is a good example. I remember a guy at Pixar being pretty pissed off with them releasing Antz.

Ants.jpg
 
For me it's not about the cast. (Though if Fassbender falls on such hard times that he ends up needing to take jobs meant for Lorenzo Lamas, I will personally start a Kickstarter to help him pay his rent!)

My problem is with their stated business model. They deliberately wait till the big studios release their blockbusters and then they deliberately churn out ultra-cheap copies that are as close as their lawyers will allow. To me, they're like the little fish you always see hanging out underneath sharks, waiting for an easy meal. It's too nakedly parasitic for my taste.

And yes, a big chunk of their audience are people who like terrible movies. Believe me, I'm a HUGE fan of terrible movies. (Mystery Science Theater 3000 is like going to church for me! :lol) There are plenty of people out there who love the unintentional camp of "SyFy movies." There's totally a market for them. But, that's only part of Asylum's market. They also make money off people they trick. It's great that you have a savvy grandfather ... because I'll tell you ... my mom, bless her heart, is not so savvy. More than a few times I've had to awkwardly say thank you on Christmas morning for such DVDs. :lol
 
I don't know who made this, but this one makes me laugh the most lol

J7aRO6y.jpg

j6RShhJ.jpg



this one made me laugh as well:

GdLuAHv.jpg
 
g2-1_zpsbae87175.jpg


These movies are not even close to being the same. One is about revenge and the other love. Both pretty good.
 
Back
Top