Hollywood remains the devil’s playground, however. Even the remake of Ben-Hur, with Heston, and one of my favorite films, went easy, they say, on the ‘religious aspect’. And there was no reason for that.
It’s difficult to imagine the truly miraculous being portrayed on a theater stage. The stage is - false. It’s smoke. It’s mirrors. It’s pure imagination. So the true reality that often seems so unbelievable - doesn’t play well on stage, or in film.
To me, this is the value of the printed page, of the biography, of the novel. You can’t translate some of these to the stage, or the screen.
As for the studio system, I appreciate what Katz says about the meetings, about the schools. But couldn’t these be had without a tyrant at the helm? Because the tyrant might put his ‘stamp’ on everything, and miss some great scripts and great actors in doing so.
Could not those with money, and appreciation of the old schools, simply not put together their own new schools, on their own - today?
It’s not as if the contractors don’t have standard agreements, or don’t have huge warehouses of props just as the studios once had. Because of the free market system, these various independent contractors might be BETTER equipped than the old studios.
I don’t think that’s the problem. I think the problem is that the independent producers/directors, executives or private syndication gamblers are simply imbued with the unthinking cultural leftism of today. So they simply wouldn’t fund something like the Sound of Music. They might look for another Jurassic Park. But they’d want even LESS of a ‘religious aspect’ to the next Ben-Hur. I think it might even be their principal concern.
That’s the problem - political correctness. You can produce greatly diabolical films about the underside of life. That ‘plays’ with those given over to the ideas of the leftist establishment. But you can’t talk about reality, about surprising behavior, about even something like, self-sacrifice, or love, or bravery. Because these are not politically correct, particularly if there is that ‘religious aspect’.
And the first drop which frightened those making movies for theatrical release came in the 1950s. And they blamed TV. I Love Lucy was a ‘must see’ program in that day.
Actually, it was precisely the opposite. When televisions moved into homes in large numbers, the end of the movies was widely predicted. In fact, attendance spiked upwards. Almost the same thing happened when VCRs arrived in the early 80s: it’s the end of movies. Movie attendance has ballooned since then.
Ticket prices only reflect that percentage of the curve that pay top evening or Sunday rates in the cities. And these figures will rise and fall per year. But you could find a moving average shows that movie attendance has dropped significantly from its peak in the 1930s and 1940s.
That is, if you find even a peak with the new Century theaters being built in various cities, if that’s partly a reason (like people going to a ballgame more for the park, than the team), then you might conservatively DOUBLE that attendance, today, and probably still not approach the movie audience of the 1930s and 1940s.
This is why the ticket grosses are so prominently touted, and on box office mojo. But again, that doesn’t reflect attendance. It reflects the high end of ticket sales. These ought to be adjusted for inflation, and not just some figures put out by the government, but the specific rate of inflation in the price of tickets for theatrical releases.
Further, this is data from the mpaa. One must consider the source.
The MPAA lies about the box office? Why? To try to look better than, um, those other people representing the entire industry?
And look at the numbers, silly. We’re talking about a billion-plus tickets a year and you and sevry think a few million up and down in the past five years is a “significant decline.”
I still don’t believe you.
I haven’t been inside a movie theater in years...and I’m not going back!
And you can’t make me believe that movies are “doing great” when all they produce are worse remakes of old, bad “B movies” and even those only play the theaters for a few weeks.
Nope. If it’s not on TCM or a DVD of a classic movie from the ‘40’s, 50’s or 60’s, I’m pretty much not interested.
And I think that goes for a big chunk of my Baby Boomer Generation.
Hollywood is in crisis and they are being boycotted by large segments of the American public.
They’re totally dependent on their young audiences and the foreign market now and coasting on the image everyone had of Hollywood in its Golden Years, which is wearing thinner and thinner with every film.
I hear they’re remaking “Barbella...”
Surely the Apocalypse is near.
The MPAA lies about the box office? Why? To try to look better than, um, those other people representing the entire industry?
And look at the numbers, silly. We’re talking about a billion-plus tickets a year and you and sevry think a few million up and down in the past five years is a “significant decline.â€
Yes, I question the numbers. Its a trade group vlad. Its really that simple.
Do I think that a few million make a difference? Why yes Vlad, I do.
Any thing else?
My goodness there are few people in the world I truly despise and I ask God for forgiveness but you sir are truly detestable.
My goodness there are few people in the world I truly despise and I ask God for forgiveness but you sir are truly detestable.
Too true, skip!
If B.O. numbers are so great, how come some films are going (almost) straight to DVD and skipping the theater launch?
And before long (I’m talking 6 months-year) they’ll be available as Pay-per-view downloads on the internet.
I’ve got my AppleTV up and ready.
It wouldn’t surprise me if in 3-5 years time, going to a movie theater will be like making a phone call from a land line, a fading anachronism of our past.
Good thing, too!
I grew up going to the movies at those divine old picture palaces built in the 1930’s; these mall-centered multiplexes are a disgrace.
Speaking of phones, I hear that people talking on cell phones in the movies aren’t helping Hollywood B.O. either!
Does anyone posting to this thread have any idea of what a segmented market might be? Or are we all going to bow to the monolith that Vlad claims is The Market? The movie going public is now radically skewed in that mostly young people go to the movies, and older people stay home looking after things. Has it always been so? Does anyone care? Is this market segment driving the production cycle? Answer to the last question: You bet! And as for crap such as labeling Hollywood “the devil’s playground” or “right-wing” because production is perforce profit seeking, just grow up and offer a serious argument. What the Hell’s next, quotations from The Man, whoever the Hell he might be? Remember you heard it here first: 1) all enterprise is profit seeking or else why bother, and 2) the devil’s playground is anything and everything that works including false and supercilious virtue. Lastly, the next time any of you see a good movie it’s likely being target marketed to your demographic and may or may not be a money maker. Oh! and that includes any French crap-can of a picture masquerading as an “art film.”
Hollywood is, and always has been, about making money. If you have any problems with what Hollywood is doing, you are critiquing the market.
Hollywood could make boatloads of money on films like Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. Hollywood made boatloads of money on films like the Ten Commandments, Ben Hur and other Bible epic films.
So, why isn’t it cranking them out now?
Why are there always more slasher horror flicks than family films?
If Hollweird was serious about the “market,” they’d get busy and start cashing in on a very popular and proven market niche.
Hollywood is, and always has been, about making money. If you have any problems with what Hollywood is doing, you are critiquing the market.
Hollywood could make boatloads of money on films like Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. Hollywood made boatloads of money on films like the Ten Commandments, Ben Hur and other Bible epic films.
So, why isn’t it cranking them out now?
Why are there always more slasher horror flicks than family films?
If Hollweird was serious about the “market,” they’d get busy and start cashing in on a very popular and proven market niche.
Hollywood makes plenty of “Family” pictures. Still, I’ll grant that it probably doesn’t make enough to satisfy a lot of people.
Technically, “The Passion of the Christ” was not a Hollywood picture in that it was an indy release by Gibson’s production company. He couldn’t get financing nor did he easily find a distributor. Recent family movies: “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe,” Any of the Harry Potter films (albeit English Hollywood), “The Lord of the Rings,” “Charley and the Chocolate Factory,” and the emetic Star Wars series, to name only a very short list, would all quality as family films.
What’s interesting is that you cite only Biblical epics in your list of “Family” movies, Electra. What that says to me is that movies that are not Bible epics probably don’t rise above your radar horizon as family pictures. One of the reasons that this may be the case is that the family movie is a tricky category. Movies such as say “The Legend of Bagger Vance” or “Freedom Writers” or for that matter “The Brothers Grimm (which I didn’t at all like) may or may not be considered family movies. Much would depend on the age of the family, I guess. There are also many animated movies that fall into the family genre, but I tend not to see many of these.
And as for crap such as labeling Hollywood “the devil’s playground”
It’s been nothing less, from the start. It was explained to you, above. Perhaps you could read that, again?
Blank Cheque - 10 July 2007 12:08 AM
1) all enterprise is profit seeking or else why bother
Because an agenda is more important?
Blank Cheque - 10 July 2007 12:08 AM
2) the devil’s playground is anything and everything that works including false and supercilious virtue.
The devil is not about applauding genuine virtue, it’s true. But it’s difficult to argue that the great parasite is capable of producing things that work. You prefer to say, yes, and give the devil his due? The devil doesn’t build - he mocks and tears down. He doesn’t contribute. He destroys.
But if you wish to see, art, in all that, so be it.
Blank Cheque - 10 July 2007 12:08 AM
Lastly, the next time any of you see a good movie it’s likely being target marketed to your demographic and may or may not be a money maker.
Good movies may not make much money. Lousy movies may make a fortune. But it does beg the question, and your perception of the devil, and of evil.
Hollywood could make boatloads of money on films like Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. Hollywood made boatloads of money on films like the Ten Commandments, Ben Hur and other Bible epic films.
Funny you should bring it up, because when Passion of the Christ made hundreds of millions of dollars, it was loudly proclaimed that this was the voice of the people, if you build it they will come. And now we’re hearing that Hollywood just has a leftist agenda that they’re trying to ram down peoples’ throats.
Once again, if you agree with something that’s widely popular, it’s a demonstration of the wisdom of the people. If you disagree with something that’s widely popular, it’s evidence that an evil cabal is brainwashing us.
Funny you should bring it up, because when Passion of the Christ made hundreds of millions of dollars, it was loudly proclaimed that this was the voice of the people, if you build it they will come. And now we’re hearing that Hollywood just has a leftist agenda that they’re trying to ram down peoples’ throats.
Who financed and distributed Mel’s last two epics?
