Pete Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 They cant figure it out. We saw the movies the first time around and dont care for your remakes http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050619/D8AQT3OO0.html
Arkady Renko Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 Some people of the public, though, are missing out on some great movies. The response to Cinderella Man has been underwhelming, but it is really a great movie. I wouldn't always say that the public picks the right movies themselves.
Ramius Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 Some people of the public, though, are missing out on some great movies. The response to Cinderella Man has been underwhelming, but it is really a great movie. I wouldn't always say that the public picks the right movies themselves. 362337[/snapback] thats because the general public doesnt want to think about a movie or anything with good writing...they dont know it when they see it, because it "wasnt filled with enough special effects"...but put some computer generated effects in, and the public will warm their hot pockets and come in droves...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 1. Hollywood hasnt really been producing a slate of good films for well over 5 years. 2. Yes, there is a slump this year but the industry is fine, it is much more of the public's taste in watching films that is changing. DVD sales are doing just fine. Worldwide monies are as big or bigger than domestic, so they are racking that in as well. 3. One good season of films in the near or relative near future, which will come, will spark as many "Hollywood is back!" stories as "Hollywood is slumping!" stories. 4. "Grosses" from films is a lousy way to gauge audiences and has been since they started. There have been as big or bigger slumps before but since they keep raising the ticket prices the "grosses" remained higher and higher, constantly breaking records even with less people going. 5. The industry is in a little transition period trying to figure out the best way to combat numerous outside influences (vidgames as big or bigger than films), DVD players, file-swapping, production costs and directors/actors demanding gross points, etc). It will work itself out and there will be the same terrible slate of big movies there always is, as well as excellent unadvertised movies that you should seek out and see that are your fault if you miss them.
Arkady Renko Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 It is really hard for me to tell how the quality has changed over the past five years. I mean I see good movies, I see bad ones. If I had to hazard a guess it just seems like more epic and deeper big budgeted movies are at times thrown by the wayside for remakes and movies bloated with special effects.
drnykterstein Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 Does anyone else think it has to do with the ads and commercials that they just bombard us with at every movie?
plenzmd1 Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 Can only speak for myself, but just too dam expensive to go to the movies. I know i could go and not by the popcorn and soda, but to me thats like going to a bills game and not drinking beer.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 Can only speak for myself, but just too dam expensive to go to the movies. I know i could go and not by the popcorn and soda, but to me thats like going to a bills game and not drinking beer. 362380[/snapback] That is just another example of the screwy economics of Hollywood. The theatre owners pay such an extraordinary rate for the right to show films in their theatres, the only way to make money is on concessions. A film could sell out a ton of performances and they could still lose money on ticket sales (especially if it's in the first few weeks of its release). So they keep raising the food prices. Now they keep trying new ways and more food and more variety but it's not working very well. There are all kinds of screwy film industry economics but people will be going to the theatres, at least in our lifetimes.
bartshan-83 Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 Can only speak for myself, but just too dam expensive to go to the movies. I know i could go and not by the popcorn and soda, but to me thats like going to a bills game and not drinking beer. 362380[/snapback] I feel that totally. I took my girl to see the longest yard last weekend. 2 tickets 1 large popcorn 2 small sodas 1 candy $38 I mean thats a reasonable price for a date, but for 90 minutes of Adam Sandler.....eh, not quite.
FTW_BillsFan Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 The quality of movies has gone down in recent memory or I'm not as shallow are I used to be. The prices are getting a little out of control, so if someone thinks it's going to be a so-so movie, instead of pay 25 to see it in a movie theatre wait 4 months and the whole family can see it for 5. I also would be that people's pocket money is going more for gas now and don't have the excess cash to take the family out to the movies.
Adam Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 They cant figure it out. We saw the movies the first time around and dont care for your remakeshttp://apnews.myway.com/article/20050619/D8AQT3OO0.html 362335[/snapback] Hollywood is out of touch with what people want- they give us fluff....we want substance- imaginiative storylines that make you think!!!
Puhonix Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 Biggest factor is that more people are staying home for their movies. Home theatres are the hot thing and DVD rentals (Net flix) are high. Why go see a movie with the family for $50 or more when you can see it at home without driving and do so for under $10.
N.Y. Orangeman Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 Hollywood needs to start taking harder looks at quality books again and demand better screenwriters (to either come up with original material or put together workable adaptaions). Also, I wish these studios would realize that not every successful film (monetarily and critically) needs to be a franchise. If I were to see another superhero movie (other than the Spiderman series), I think I'd hurl.
Alaska Darin Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 Some people of the public, though, are missing out on some great movies. The response to Cinderella Man has been underwhelming, but it is really a great movie. I wouldn't always say that the public picks the right movies themselves. 362337[/snapback] They had the same problem with "A Beautiful Mind". Reality: There aren't many movies worth paying the $20 a person it takes to see them at the theater. I can buy the DVD when it comes out for less than that and watch it whenever I want for pretty much the rest of my life.
Marv Levy Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 Well, when you have movies like "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" it comes as no wonder. Keep making crap like that and you'll have a drop off for sure. Also insert, Honeymooners and The Longest Yard and you have a whole lotta junk up right now at the theatre!
todd Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 I think the quality of movies has gone down. The quality of actors has sunk to new depths. Casting is crap. The movies that they decide to put out are also horrible. I'm sure there are plenty of good scripts out there. For example, it was hard for Peter Jackson to get someone to do the LOTR Trilogy. The idiot producers just couldn't see it doing well. Think they were wrong? If something doesn't fit their formula, they just can't see it doing well. I say screw their formula. Screw their methods. The worst genere these days is the romantic comedy. It's horrible. If you see Hugh Grant or Julia Roberts, you know exactly what their character will be. Hugh will be the bumbling but loveable male lead. Julia will be the beautiful but unlucky in love girl. Both are typecast. As is Richard Gere, who is a horrible actor. The two main formulas for romantic comedies: 1. The unlikely couple finds love, although it almost looks like they wont. Just alter why they are an unlikely couple and rehash the same script and there you go. For example, in Pretty Woman (a HORRIBLE movie), they were unlikely because she was a whore and he was rich. It goes on and on. 2. The Cinderella syndrome. A girl who is poor, ugly, stupid, a social outcast or uneducated falls in love with and marries a rich guy. This one is the worst. Pretty Woman is another good example of this. Maid in Manhattan with JLo and her talentless fat ass is another perfect example. Horrible, horrible movies for stupid people. Whatever happened to the great movies? Movies don't have to be intellectually stimulating to be great. Movies don't have to be dramas to be great. Ferris Bueller's Day Off was great because it was great on many levels. The Graduate was great because it helped put onto film what a generation was feeling. Office Space was great because people could identify with it - and it was funny. Animal House was great because the characters were classic and the casting was brilliant. What's Eating Gilbert Grape was great because the sory, characters and casting were compelling. Princess Bride was great because the story is fantastic. Then there are the movies that everyone thinks is great but suck. Titanic is a perfect example. Horrible, horrible film. There are also adaptations of books that end up being horrible because Hollywood sucks. The Scarlet Letter is a good example. They changed the damn ending of the friggin Scarlet Letter? Ugh. A movie for the mentally inept. Don't get me started.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 They had the same problem with "A Beautiful Mind". Reality: There aren't many movies worth paying the $20 a person it takes to see them at the theater. I can buy the DVD when it comes out for less than that and watch it whenever I want for pretty much the rest of my life. 362441[/snapback] Very true. There's some I'd go out of my way to see in a theater if I feel that the wide screen and sound are going to add something to the experience (Star Wars and Master and Commander - for some reason - most immediately jump to mind. As does the War of the Worlds remake). Most movies, though, don't lose much in being home-viewed these days...as good as Million Dollar Baby was, for example, there's not a hell of a lot that I'm going to miss watching it on my TV in letterbox format.
Horus Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 I think one of the problems is that hollywood feels they have to make a movie that last only 90 - 120 minutes..this a lot of the times takes to much out of the movie and hurries some to much...my favorite movies are usually the ones that last 3 hrs and give me my moneys worth to see..take star wars for instance..the end was all hurried up and i was dissapointed...I think they feel our attention spans are to short for long movies- uhhh what was i talking bout again... oh and I hate haveing to sit in theaters and listen to ppl talk and hearing them going into candy bags and such..pi$$es me off..cant understand why ppl feel they must eat something at a movie
Kelly the Dog Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 I think the quality of movies has gone down. The quality of actors has sunk to new depths. Casting is crap. The movies that they decide to put out are also horrible. I'm sure there are plenty of good scripts out there. For example, it was hard for Peter Jackson to get someone to do the LOTR Trilogy. The idiot producers just couldn't see it doing well. Think they were wrong? If something doesn't fit their formula, they just can't see it doing well. I say screw their formula. Screw their methods. 362471[/snapback] So you're telling me that you would have known to greenlight $200 million dollars worth of three films with Peter Jackson directing who had made a couple cool movies, only one of which was good and the Hollywood one a huge flop? And if it didn't work you would likely lose your job for life?
Dr. Fong Posted June 20, 2005 Posted June 20, 2005 Some people of the public, though, are missing out on some great movies. The response to Cinderella Man has been underwhelming, but it is really a great movie. I wouldn't always say that the public picks the right movies themselves. 362337[/snapback] The problem as I see it with Cinderella Man is that it's playing at the wrong time of year. I want to see it, but can never seem to get myself into the mood to go sit through a serious movie like that. I suspect there are many that are of the same mindset. Plus I think Russell Crowe assaulting that concierge really turned a lot of people off to the movie.
Recommended Posts