Why are movies so bad?

[Nostromo]

If you haven't read it yet, here's a piece written by Pauline Kael in the 80s.

I can't quote it here, its nine pages long. But here's an abstract, sort of:

This is one of the angriest rants against business-as-usual in the film industry ever written — and one of the most lethally accurate, I always believed, since it stemmed from Kael's experience in working as a kind of senior development executive at Paramount Pictures in (as I recall) 1979 and '80.

Her piece was seen at the time as a kind of obituary for the golden era of expressionism American movies had enjoyed from the late '60s to mid '70s, which was pretty much killed off by the marketing revolution brought about by the wide release of Jaws in 1975 — i.e., the first big-event film to realize a huge financial killing by appearing in thousands of theaters simultaneously after a big commercial launch — and the growing corporate influence upon the filmmaking process (which was particularly augmented by the swelling numbers of TV executives who began taking power in Hollywood beginning in the mid to late '70s) that followed.

http://www.reel.com/content/reelimages/hollconf2001/kael_0905.html

Discuss

[Wiglaf]

Retarded article. People do not have an inherent need to see the latest Hollywood movies.

[Kuciwalker]

Movies are bad?

[Wiglaf]

To most people buying tickets, movies are good. This author apparently thinks we are all hypnotized.

People just want to go to a movie. They're stung repeatedly, yet their desire for a good movie — for any movie — is so strong that all over the country they keep lining up.

[Wiglaf]

5. The studios no longer make movies primarily to attract and please moviegoers; they make movies in such a way as to get as much as possible from prearranged and anticipated deals. Every picture (allowing for a few exceptions) is cast and planned in terms of those deals. Though the studio is happy when it has a box-office hit, it isn't terribly concerned about the people who buy tickets and come out grumbling. They don't grumble very loudly anyway, because even the lumpiest pictures are generally an improvement over television; at least, they're always bigger.

WTF?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Wiglaf




WTF?

Why is that funny? It's 100% correct.

[Wiglaf]

Studios care if people watch their movies. If a big budget movie tanks, they lose tens of millions of dollars. See Eddie Murphy's crap.

[Nostromo]

Well, its a rant about the studio movies of the 80's, but she makes some interesting points.

Not sure to what extent it applies today. I remember a couple of years ago there was a 'blockbuster crash'. Almost all the blockbuster did really bad one year, mainly because they were total crap. The studios got really, really nervous and started to take some risks. But, of course, there are still a lot of crappy movies being made.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Studios care if people watch their movies. If a big budget movie tanks, they lose tens of millions of dollars. See Eddie Murphy's crap.

Exactly. Pluto Nash tanks, and Eddie Murphy -- makes more movies! Obviously, they'd like it if people came to his movies -- but apparently teh fact that they don't isn't such a big drawback.

The size of the audience in the theater is a tiny, tiny part of the absurdly complex accounting that goes on in Hollywood.

[Tuberski]

Re: Why are movies so bad?

Originally posted by nostromo
If you haven't read it yet, here's a piece written by Pauline Kael in the 80s.

I can't quote it here, its nine pages long. But here's an abstract, sort of:

Discuss

George Lucas named General Kael (Willow) after Pauline Kael.

ACK!

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Exactly. Pluto Nash tanks, and Eddie Murphy -- makes more movies! Obviously, they'd like it if people came to his movies -- but apparently teh fact that they don't isn't such a big drawback.

The size of the audience in the theater is a tiny, tiny part of the absurdly complex accounting that goes on in Hollywood.

From Wikipedia: Pluto Nash's budget was estimated at (U.S.) $100 million, with marketing costs of $20 million and the domestic box office (of which the studio typically receives about half) was $4,420,080 and $2,683,893 (overseas) for a total worldwide gross of $7,103,973.

No matter what kind of accounting you do, that movie was a horrible failure. Studios notice losses of $90 million on one movie, whereas this author (and you, apparently) seem to think they don't care.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Studios care if people watch their movies. If a big budget movie tanks, they lose tens of millions of dollars. See Eddie Murphy's crap.

She's not saying they don't care if people go watch their movies, she says they care a hell lot more about getting their prearranged deals.

[Wiglaf]

Which means what, exactly.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Exactly. Pluto Nash tanks, and Eddie Murphy -- makes more movies! Obviously, they'd like it if people came to his movies -- but apparently teh fact that they don't isn't such a big drawback.

The size of the audience in the theater is a tiny, tiny part of the absurdly complex accounting that goes on in Hollywood.

Yes. The number of DVD's they'll eventually sell is also important.

Seriously, it's an idiotic assertion. They have three sources of revenue: ticket sales, DVD sales, and merchandise. You don't get the third without a lot of the first and second. And their only real concern is revenue.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Yes. The number of DVD's they'll eventually sell is also important.

Seriously, it's an idiotic assertion. They have three sources of revenue: ticket sales, DVD sales, and merchandise. You don't get the third without a lot of the first and second. And their only real concern is revenue.

Read the ****ing article and learn something