http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809426687/info
I can't believe someone went to a Hollywood studio with this idea, and they threw millions at him to get the film made. Well look at it this way, your worst date didn't even come close to DENTATA!!
Can you believe that this product was invented:
http://www.rapestop.net/
----------
----------
Speed Racer looks terrible. Another entry in the "pillage childhoods of the 80's" line of movies. Next up (I hear Michael Bay's going to do it!):
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/07/04
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/07/06
90% of everything is terrible, and the further in the past it is the less likely we are to remember the terrible stuff. Most of the movies of the 70's and 80's were awful as well. Star Wars was a once-in-a-generation kind of thing, and the more recent once-in-a-generation trilogy (lotr) did pretty well as far as holding the nation's attention.
Also, do not disparage Snakes on a Plane. That movie had everything: dramatic tension, a fat video gamer landing an airplane, Samuel L, and a chick getting a snakebite on her boob. Are you not entertained?!
----------
----------
I remember a TON of great movies that came out recently to semi recently (the 90’s still feel recent to me!) And there are plenty of non blaxplotation/B movies that sucked in the 70’s. The difference is that they had free love and COKE! Who needs movies! And I generally really like CG. CG didn’t make Snakes on a plane bad, or make it exist. In fact, there are very few movies out today that don’t at least SOMEWHAT use CG, if nothing else just to add something small to a background or some such thing. And movies like toy story and shrek did a great job I thought. I thought X-men did a great job, and pretty much any comic book movie requires CG in my opinion.
All that aside though, I think movies are in a tough place right now. People have a lot more TV to watch, the internet (youtube and googlevideo) and video games to take their time. Movies just aren’t the source of entertainment they used to be. People have so many other options. And with DVD’s and such creating a pretty nice theatre experience, the money is just harder to get.
Also, for your entertainment, some good movies of the 00’s
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon
Reqiuem for a Dream
Traffic
A Beatiful Mind
Memento
Shrek
Minority Report
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Garden State
Million Dollar Baby
Crash
LotR
City of God
Spirited Away
Sin City
Lost in Translation
I’m sure there are more, but some of those are damn good movies.
----------CG is like a handgun. In the hands of a skilled user it can be a positive, but for all the other morons out there, it will put your eye out (or worse). It's up to the director. Yes Snakes was bad all around, but the CG contributed to the suckiness with ridiculous moments (snakes eating the annoying guy, slithering out of orifices, and biting the private parts). One of the best recent comic book movies, "Batman Begins", barely used CG, or at least obvious, deliberate CG. It had a great cast, great story, great film work, and great acting. CG monsters and laser beams flashing everywhere like X-Men/Spider Man would have ruined a good thing.
"Money harder to get" - are you kidding me? The top 25 inflation-adjusted highest-grossing films worldwide were made after 1995 (besides E.T. and SW Ep 4) according to Wiki. From IMDB, only 7 of the top 30 top grossing domestic films were made before 1990. Crap like "Meet the Fockers" and "War of the Worlds (Spielberg version)" grossed more than "Gone with the Wind" or "Jaws". The moviegoer is becoming stupider and less discriminating as we speak! Foreign markets are shrinking (or not growing commensurate with the economy), maybe due to TV or bootlegged/legit DVDs, so Hollywood relies on us stupid Yanks (mostly teens with Daddy's cash) to pay $10 to see "Saw IV". There are fewer movie screens in all of China (20% of the world's customers, but of course few of them can afford movie tickets) than Regal Entertainment Group alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films
http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-02/08/content_415987.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regal_Entertainment_Group
--------
I liked a lot of the movies on your list, but just to be a hater (what I'm good at):
(seriously though... all these films don't even match up to "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" (a top-100 AFI), AYAH... WAH WAH WAH!!
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon - FOREIGN-MADE! And Zhang Ziyi didn't bear all! I hate to admit that I've always had a thing for Michelle Yeoh (Police Story 2!).
Reqiuem for a Dream - basically a D.A.R.E. commercial on steroids, made me hate needles even more
Traffic - memorable but over-rated, Del Toro saved the film from Michael Douglas. "Fuck me?... FUCK YOU!!"
A Beatiful Mind - RUSSELL CROWE is a douche!! And the story was 180 degrees away from the true John Nash (bisexual, ugly, never reconciled with his wife)
Memento - good call, too bad Guy Pearce's career disappeared along with his short-term memory
Shrek - BS! Why is it always funny when a black comedian talks black as an animated character? Mike Myers Scottish accent is getting OLD!! And like Matrix, they had to ruin the franchise with parts 2 and 3.
Minority Report - need I remind you that this film had TOM CRUISE and COLIN FARRELL in it (plus they had a fight scene inside a futuristic Lexus that was being built concurrently, and then magically driven off the assembly line)!?! And like the whole movie was short in 3 colors: blue, black, white.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - missed it but heard good things.
Garden State - teen movie.
Million Dollar Baby - Clint Eastwood is a great director, and maybe someday he'll get mentioned with the Kubricks and Scorceses of the world.
Crash - BULLSHIT! Racial stereotypes and predictable coincidences for 2 hours, great. Brokeback should have won the Oscar, and I'm not kidding.
LotR - nuff said, New Zealand's greatest tourism ad.
City of God - great film but also FOREIGN. Remember when we saw Tsotsi together (on a DATE haha)? That was a good one also.
Spirited Away - see City of God comments, though Totoro was better (and earned them millions in plush dolls!)
Sin City - this was a really over-rated flick, just full of A-list stars and Jessica Alba pole dancing. Ridiculous violence with no point, no plot, no character redemption, no value. It's sad when MICKEY ROURKE is the high point (though he is really cool and has an awesome Hollywood voice like Walken and Rickman). Frank Miller is a total douche and 300 was crap.
Lost in Translation - good movie and thankfully catapulted Johansen to the mainstream. Bill Murray rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years..._100_Movies
----------
Well in terms of movies that didn't suck, why didn't you guys tell me that "The Simpsons Movie" was so entertaining? I'm surprised so many critics gave it lukewarm reviews, those douches. I haven't seen the show since high school, but the movie was much better with the gloves off, full of clever, INNOVATIVE satire/slapstick! It's amazing what a difference it makes to have a little South Park-style nudity, profanity, and nastiness! They made fun of Disney a few times, but I'm surprised they didn't take cheap shots at Family Guy or S Park too!
"Anyone can pick something when they know what it is; It takes real leadership to pick something you're clueless about."
- EPA Chief to Prez Schwartzenegger
----------
Yes CG usage like in Xmen or Spidey would have ruined batman, but I think it MADE those latter two movies. And I enjoyed them thoroughly for what they were. And YES, MONEY IS HARDER TO GET FOR MOVIE THEATERS! I say this for 2 reasons. 1. I think that movie money making peaked somewhere in the 90’s. 2. Part, or maybe a lot, of the reason that movies make more money now-a-days per movie is that discretionary spending is up since the 70’s, recession in the 80’s, and I think that movie prices for theaters have gone up faster than inflation would dictate.
And don’t get me STARTED on the AFI. There are some fine movies on that list, don’t get me wrong, but the reason the AFI puts them there is different than the reason joe schmoe movier goer would put them on there. I have NEVER met someone who liked Citizen Kane….ever. If you are one of those people don’t tell me cuz im on a good streak here. But the AFI is a bunch of film nerds, its like asking fanboys to make the list. You get weird shit on there. Did anyone watch 2001: a space odyssey? I mean, sure, great for its time, great cinematography, the plot is great. But damnit, there are like 4 words in that movie and its 2.5 hours long! I fell asleep in that shit. The book was better because I could finish it faster! But for me, the cinematography, the innovation in the film style, or other nuances are not intrinsicly good like they seem to be to the AFI. I had a film geek tell me he didn’t like million dollar baby because he “didn’t like the lighting” WTF mate? That story was excellent, and I can’t remember one thing that detracted from the experience. That is what is important to me.
But when you talk about back then we had Brando, Kubrick, and Disney. And now you have Jolie and Michael Bay. But there are quite a few directors, producers, actors that you could name that are pretty damn good. The problem, I think, is that their names haven’t been left to posterity yet. Was Kubrick Kubrick after his first film? Second? When did Brando become Brando? I wonder who you will remember if you look at this email 20 years from now. Would be interesting I think.
------------
Well, your opinions on movie profitability are not supported by any data, and I'm ignorant on the subject too. The below article is an interesting glimpse into the shady and confusing world of estimating Hollywood revenues. According to them, even through the rise of home entertainment (pay/free TV, DVD/video), theater sales have steadily risen (inflation-adjusted) from 1985 to 2004 ($3B to $7B), though maybe the trend has reversed recently ( http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/mpa2004.htm). I know they have built more theaters now since 1985, but in terms of total worldwide revenues, Hollywood is doing better now. In terms of market share vs. home media, they are losing ground of course, but are far from the poor house. Theaters may be losing patrons, but they make up for it by raising the prices of tickets/concessions. So we suckers that still haven't woken up have to pay through the nose to make up for all the smart people who passed on "Bring it On 2".
http://www.slate.com/id/2123286/
http://www.arguscourier.com/news/news/movietheater050824.html
I guess movies can be viewed from at least 2 angles: basic entertainment or art appreciation. I mean, a lot of no-name children's book illustrators make more appealing drawings to me than Dali or Picasso, but the latter didn't necessarily intend to entertain with their art. They wanted the viewer to think and even be puzzled, challenged, touched, or elicit some other emotional/cerebral response. They employed risky, unorthodox techniques to deliver a deeper message, and it made such an impact that people have copied them ever since. Any schmuck can make a pretty drawing of a church or haystack, but there was only one Van Gogh. Circus and Vaudeville-type physical/visceral entertainment is just to make the masses buy food, booze, and then laugh, ooh, and aah.
I guess there is room in the world for all sorts of movies, and at different times in our lives we're in the mood for deep or shallow. I know nothing about formal art appreciation and whatnot, but there's probably a reason why "boring" works like "2001", "Kane", and "Casablanca" are great masterpieces, and prettier, more audience-friendly, "shock and awe" films like "SW Episode I" and "Jurassic Park" are forgettable drivel. We probably don't enjoy watching lame stuff like chess tournaments, ice dancing, or steeplechase, but at least we can appreciate the profound skill and artistry that goes into making top performers in those fields. Probably 2001 and Kane are like that for filmgoers, whereas "Spider Man 3" and "Saw IV" are more like baseball's home run derby or American Idol.
Look at the Best Picture nominees and winners of this decade versus the 1970s, and it's pretty pathetic.
Now: Babel (like a worse version of Crash), Departed (a decent copycat flick with good acting and Scorcese degeneracy, but come on – best picture?), Crash (already dissed it), Munich (just because everyone fellates Spielberg, but really this movie was nothing special), Sideways (a wine movie!?!), Master and Commander (stupid is putting it nicely), Moulin Rouge (MTV on absinthe; at least Chicago was a legit good musical). Retch!
Then: Patton, Love Story, Godfather I & II, Clockwork Orange, Chinatown, Jaws, Cuckoo's Nest, Apocalypse Now, Deer Hunter, Star Wars, Taxi Driver, All the President's Men. NUFF SAID? In 20 years, will we remember Crash and Beautiful Mind like these amazing works?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture
As you said, the AFI are whack sometimes, and the only genres they seem to approve of are musicals, historicals, and dramas. There are plenty of great horror, children's, or comedy films that never got a chance at glory, but awards and formal recognition aren't everything. If film students are discussing a movie in class for decades, then they must have done something right. I don't know which contemporary directors/actors will go down as legends in the future, but it seems like a short list.
We pay different prices for cars, meals, and even DVDs, so why not pay different prices for movies, maybe based on critic ratings, cost of production, or how well they do in the box office their first week? Let the market work for F sakes! It's ridiculous that we should pay the same $10 to watch "Ray" or "Terminator 3" (well, it's ridiculous outright that we pay $10 to see a movie, period).
Maybe we should try Bollywood? Probably not.
-----------
Haha "Machine Girl" looks like a doozy! Those technophile Japanese - they should have quit while they were ahead with "Ringu" and "Battle Royale". I looks like the schoolgirl version of "Army of Darkness"!
That Slate article was pretty interesting after all, and maybe you guys have heard of the Hollywood downward spiral? As M said, theaters might be hurting these days, but the big studios aren't. Their real cash cow is DVD, which has a much higher profit margin than cinema (it costs about $1.85 to make one), and Pay Per View is even higher (more efficient delivery to customers). In 2004, DVD sales accounted for 48% of film revenues, and jumped to 59% in 2005. No wonder why the writers are striking over Internet royalties. They totally missed the boat on DVDs and it cost them billions, so I guess they are thinking "never again".
Since home entertainment has eclipsed the box office (in 1950 when studios enjoyed almost exclusive cinema ownership, over half of Americans visited a cinema weekly, and now that number is down to 9%), it makes more financial sense for studios to release DVD/PPV earlier and earlier. This of course is poison to cinemas, even the big three who own thousands of screens each (Regal, AMC, Cinemark). Losing a month of screen time on all movies in a year could cost theaters hundreds of millions nationwide. Studios used to grant cinemas a 6-month window of lead time before they released movies in other formats (to avoid self-competition). Now it's down to 4 or even 3 (so summer flicks are on the shelves in time for Xmas). Though I find this a bit hard to believe, since turnouts for most films really taper off after the first month, and new movies are constantly replacing them. So I wouldn't suspect that missing a 6th month of screening "National Treasure 2" would kill a theater, but I guess the numbers are what they are.
Hollywood faces quite a predicament. The glamor and fanfare of the cinema is a cultural experience, and is what they were built on, but the couch potatoes pay the bills. With patronage dropping, studios might want to make it up in home media sales and push up DVD release dates even sooner. Some are considering concurrently selling DVDs at the theater, so moviegoers could take the movie home if they liked it (but you'd have to buy a ticket to get access to the DVD). It's not as simple as new tech killing the old picture show. Even before DVD, studio earnings from the box office fell from 100% in 1950 to 55% in 1980, because lazy, suburbanized Americans preferred to stay home as TV improved. In 2005 the figured dropped to 15% (though I'm sure DVD, Internet, and video games had something to do with it). This shift in consumer habits created a total power realignment in Tinseltown. Now it's all about new, clever strategies to reach more of the home audience, and box office releases are almost an afterthought.
The major studios (Fox, Universal, Sony, Disney, etc.) will get theirs one way or another, but cinemas are sweating bullets. When Hong Kong decided to release DVDs earlier in 2002, movie attendance dropped 70%. Just a 6% worldwide drop in attendance in 2001-2 caused half the world's theaters to fall into the red. Their profit margins are so tight and they really depend on concession sales, so shorter exclusive movie windows are killing them. It may work out best for the studios to do away with cinemas altogether, since home media is much more profitable (studios earn about 50% of ticket sales and the cinemas keep the other half). But culturally they probably couldn't do this, and the heavies like Regal or AMC would fight back. If Sony got greedy and demanded a 60% cut in return for preserving the 5-6 month exclusive window (thereby ensuring more popcorn sales for cinemas), Regal might just boycott Sony movies in favor of rivals like Universal, and the difference in ticket sales, meager as they may be, would ultimately hurt Sony.
So I guess the precarious status quo will persist, and the movie industry will "wait and see" how consumer tastes and technology changes will affect their future. Already you can see the cost-cutting trend with cinemas hiring teen labor almost exclusively, preferring to show date or kid targeted films over indies/foreign/adult dramas, and more aggressively hocking overpriced food to compensate for reduced attendance.
To wrap up, I guess the problem with movies is not that money is harder to come by, so quality suffers. It's that home media is taking over and the box office experience is fading out of relevance. How this affects consumers and the quality of films is not clear, but the issue is obviously a complex one to resolve.
No comments:
Post a Comment