Who is doing this? And please stop it!

I'm watching the previews before my incredibly overpriced multiplex feature presentation, and what do I see pop up on the screen?

Are you kidding me!? ANOTHER Resident Evil movie? What's this make? Ten now? And seriously, in the theater? Not direct to video? I know they made a bunch of Scorpion King and Dusk till Dawn, turd-laden sequels, but they at least had the decency to toss them straight to the Dollar General $5 DVD bin.

So, which one of you malcontents is paying to see Resident Evil sequels in the theater; and would you PLEASE, for the sake of all that's holy, stop it!?!

Well, I do watch 'em all but I wait until they're on interminable re-run on Starz or WhateverMax every night at 0300....

There's 5 live action movies and I believe one cg. Or it's 4 and 1 for 5 total. Either way, I do watch them, but I don't pay to see them. If it's in 3d I probably will though. I get a total av nerd boner for 3d cinema.

I've never paid to see an RE movie, but since you're going to be a whiny little bitch about it, I think I'll to start.

i read an article on the series which was using them as an example of supply side economics.

Each successive film has done worse at the cinema, but due to CGI becoming cheaper, and Actors wages (at the level they use) remaining rather static each film has been cheaper to make. So they have actually increased profits over successive films despite fewer people seeing them.

DukeofChutney wrote: i read an article on the series which was using them as an example of supply side economics.

Where does supply-side economics appear in the article? The material you mention above is about productivity.

S.

I don't understand how they get theatrical releases. I just assumed they though would go the way of the Starship Trooper sequels. None of the RE have been decent after the 1st one.

According to IMDB, the most recent one cost $60 million to make, broke even in the US, but made almost $300M worldwide.

I think that pretty much explains why they keep cranking them out.

Msample wrote: According to IMDB, the most recent one cost $60 million to make, broke even in the US, but made almost $300M worldwide.

I think that pretty much explains why they keep cranking them out.

The most recent one was wretched even by direct-to-video movie standards. Those numbers surprise the hell out of me...

Msample wrote: According to IMDB, the most recent one cost $60 million to make, broke even in the US, but made almost $300M worldwide.

I think that pretty much explains why they keep cranking them out.

I knew it! It's the Commies fault! I bet they're behind those Underworld movies too!

Never underestimate the overseas appetite for trashy film and culture; that's why Arnie and Sly still crank out movies.

Dogmatix wrote:

Msample wrote: According to IMDB, the most recent one cost $60 million to make, broke even in the US, but made almost $300M worldwide.

I think that pretty much explains why they keep cranking them out.

The most recent one was wretched even by direct-to-video movie standards. Those numbers surprise the hell out of me...

These international audiences keep spending money hand over fist for shitty Ice Age sequels, too...blows my mind. No accounting for taste. Guess French people like to hear Ray Romano whine for 2 hours?

Expect to see "Ice Age 7" or whatever soon enough.