|Go back to previous topic|
|Forum name||Pass The Popcorn Archives|
|Topic subject||it's the money (c) josh davis|
5656, it's the money (c) josh davis|
Posted by ricky_BUTLER, Sat Nov-08-03 02:37 PM
in 1975, this film is looked to as having "set the standard for the New Hollywood popcorn blockbuster."
according to the , and
on a $12,000,000 budget, with an average $2.05 ticket price, opening on 409 screens, Jaws made $260.000 million total domestically and was the highest-grossing film of the year.
in 2002, on $139,000,000 budget, with an average $5.08 ticket price, opening on 3,615 screens, Spiderman made $405.85 million total domestically and was the highest-grossing film of the year.
Jaws:$7,061,000 (22 June 1975) (409 Screens)=$17,264 per screen=8,421 tickets per screen
Spiderman: $114,844,116 (5 May 2002) (3,615 Screens)=$40,067 per screen=7,887 tickets per screen
considering that the initial reaction, as a result of the box-office toll of Jaws, could not be seen totally in effect in 1976 (films were already in production or finished by the time it was released), we look at 1977.
on a $11,000,000 budget, with an average $2.23 ticket price, opening on 43 Screens, Star Wars made $322.74 million total domestically and was the highest-grossing film of the year.
the second highest-grossing summer blockbuster (4th of the year) was Smokey and the Bandit, making $126.737 million total domestically.
of the top five-grossing movies still only two were released during the summer.
'78 saw 3 of the top five-grossing movies released in the summer, including the sequel to Spielberg’s picture that set this all off.
the top 3 money-making movies of 1979 all came out in the month of December, although 2 of them, Star Trek: The Motion Picture and The Jerk, would be pushed in the middle months now and were spurred on by a popular television show and a comedian at the height of his notoriety.
THE LAST PICTURE SHOW
it is said by "THEM" that the last great decade of American Cinema exitsed in the 1970's. having fully felt the effect of Jaws, here is what we see-
Empire Strikes Back
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Return of the Jedi
Back to the Future
Three Men and a Baby
T2: Judgment Day
The Lion King
Saving Private Ryan
The Phantom Menace
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Finding Nemo (most likely)
so from 1975 until 2003, of the 29 top-grossing films, 20 were released in the summer.
from 1975 until 2003, of the 29 top-grossing films, 23 either spawned/were sequels, were animated films for the kiddies, were seasonal specialties, or were based on other already established artistic material.
WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS MEAN?!
since 1975, and serving as an ever-present fact now, Hollyw**d has been force-feeding an all-too-willing public escapism and way out of the heat and into the air-condition multiplexes, exhibiting extreme levels of unoriginality to an already accustomed-audience, feeding off the open-pockets of franchise-hungry folks, and generally lead to the dumbing-down of the majority of movie-goers by way of quick edits, loud explosions, and flashy commercials turned into 95 minutes of marketing-tie ins and catch phrases.
is that a run-on?
WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS MEAN TO YOU?!
who do you think they're making the movies for? you! you seeing "scary movie 3" or "bad boys 2." no, i haven't and won't see them, but i'm casting a blind first stone. usually the number one film has some quality, not redeeming, but some. it generally will get positive reviews and some from the fray will frequent over. but let's look at those further out of the number one slot. some i've seen, some i haven't, but i reserve my right to not like them from outward appearances:
T3: Rise of the Machines
Bad Boys II
Bringing Down the House
2 Fast 2 Furious
Spy Kids 3-D
The Italian Job
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle
and it goes along the lines of the whole rap music concept popular on the boards: the record companies push on MTV and the radio what consumer trends are showing demand for. likewise, the movie studios push on the television and the theaters what consumer trends are showing demand for. and if you still wanna see some shit blown up or some half-assed comedian mug over a one-joke premise, that is where the money will be going towards.
if a film loses money, then the worth of that director and cast take a dive.
if a film makes money, then the director signs a three-picture deal and the actor stars in the sequel.
financial success and future go hand-in-hand with artistic merit and intentions being edited out of the picture as a whole.
IN THE END
to quote King_Friday, "movie-making should be totally removed from the profit system."
5657, it's the money (c) Lateef Daumont|
Posted by johnbook, Sat Nov-08-03 03:09 PM
"I listened to most of your cd and really liked it. That was 2 weeks and it is still sitting in the player. CD's, just don't get spun much around here. Anyway I really liked it. I was impressed that it made no attempt to be hip hop in the sense that the beats are not hip hop beats. Instead it is original, melodic and listenable. I should have known, you listen to yourself in your writing and record collecting. It shouldn't be a surprise that you listen to yourself in your music as well." - Dan Berkman of Jump Jump Records in Portland, Oregon, commenting on my HOME album
Posted by ricky_BUTLER, Sat Nov-08-03 03:16 PM
i figured i'd get loop-holed like that.
eff an edit
5659, the entire Solesides crew speak on the album|
Posted by johnbook, Fri Nov-14-03 09:56 PM
Even "L.H." speaks in "Mutual Slump". The only voice you don't hear is his.
5660, RE: it's the money (c) josh davis|
Posted by King_Friday, Sat Nov-08-03 08:45 PM
>to quote King_Friday, "movie-making should be totally
>removed from the profit system."
co-sign. couldn't agree more.
5661, RE: it's the money (c) josh davis|
Posted by benny, Sun Nov-09-03 06:20 AM
>>to quote King_Friday, "movie-making should be totally
>>removed from the profit system."
>co-sign. couldn't agree more.
so the ppl putting up the dough to make movies would be giving away their money "in the name of art" ?
I understand where you're coming from (I live in France, land of the movie critics), but that statement is too extreme in the global scheme of things.
Posted by colonelk, Mon Nov-10-03 05:15 PM
Narrative filmmaking has been inherently tied to profit-making from the very beginning.
Filmmakers weren't always beholden to Wall Street, but as soon Marey got bored with motion pictures (because "interesting as they are, are of little advantage to science") in the 1890s, the medium was dominated by people in search of a buck. I can't see any way around that.
5663, RE: how?|
Posted by King_Friday, Mon Nov-10-03 08:07 PM
>Narrative filmmaking has been inherently tied to
>profit-making from the very beginning.
The film industry has always been about profit. I'm not denying that, and I wouldn't want us to get too nostalgic about the "good old days" of hollywood filmmaking either, because the influence of profit was always there.
But in the middle of all that profit-hunting in old hollywood, there were still many fine filmmakers who were able to turn in some amazing work.
Where are the comparable figures in today's hollywood? Where are the artists as strong as Fritz Lang, John Ford, James Stewart, Marlene Dietrich? They're totally absent!
So we're dealing with two related problems. The growing influence of the people who own the cameras over the people who use them, and the general artistic weakness which is so prevalent in today's film industry.
What kind of social climate has produced so many underdeveloped or downright pitiful artists? It's a point worth studying. I don't know if we could do it here.
>Filmmakers weren't always beholden to Wall Street, but as
>soon Marey got bored with motion pictures (because
>"interesting as they are, are of little advantage to
>science") in the 1890s, the medium was dominated by people
>in search of a buck. I can't see any way around that.
The way around it is to get the means of producing these movies out of the hands of just a few wealthy corporations and into the hands of the actual filmmakers.
Like we've been saying. In old hollywood, there were great artists making some important films. But while signing up with these giant studios gave them the access to all the tools and necessities for making those films, it also limited them by forcing them to conform to certain restrictions and influences from the higher-ups.
So the means of production need to change hands.
Posted by DrNO, Mon Nov-10-03 08:20 PM
do studios just start giving anyone who thinks their a genius millions of dollars on the spot?
And is it that there are no artistic directors making films, or is it that you just don't like what they have to say? because I'm certain people on this site (including myself) could give you a fairly large list of innovative contemporary american directors.
5665, RE: How?|
Posted by King_Friday, Mon Nov-10-03 08:54 PM
>do studios just start giving anyone who thinks their a
>genius millions of dollars on the spot?
No, I wouldn't expect the studios to be especially helpful there.
>And is it that there are no artistic directors making films,
>or is it that you just don't like what they have to say?
My point is that they don't have *anything* to say.
>because I'm certain people on this site (including myself)
>could give you a fairly large list of innovative
>contemporary american directors.
And I'm certain I would disagree with most of them and you. That's okay. You already know that you and I disagree on a lot of these filmmakers. We have different things we like and different definitions of the word "artist".
I think Kiarostami is great. You don't. So what? "That's the fun of the game". I have to give my own opinion.
And by my own definitions and feelings, I think the strongest filmmakers in the world today are *not* coming from the U.S.
5666, RE: how?|
Posted by colonelk, Mon Nov-10-03 08:30 PM
>The way around it is to get the means of producing these
>movies out of the hands of just a few wealthy corporations
>and into the hands of the actual filmmakers.
>So the means of production need to change hands.
Not to quibble, but I would argue that the wealthy corporations do not have a creative stranglehold over the production of movies but, rather, over their distribution. I find the shit to shinola ratio about equal among studio fare and domestic independently produced fare because they're all going to the same set of theaters in the end.
You can produce a great film that is never picked up for distribution, and I do not doubt that this happens. The theatre owners are the ultimate authority in the movie business, not the studios. I maintain that new methods of reaching a different audience are necessary to change the artistic climate, not simply putting the studios in the hands of the artists. I mean, how much did Chaplin, Fairbanks, and Pickford's UA change things?
5667, RE: how?|
Posted by King_Friday, Mon Nov-10-03 09:04 PM
>Not to quibble, but I would argue that the wealthy
>corporations do not have a creative stranglehold over the
>production of movies but, rather, over their distribution.
Right. That too. But they aren't going to invest their money in something unless they know throughout the process they will be able to distribute it. That's when they start sending notes to the set. "A little more of this. . . a little less of that". These ideas of "decency" and "conformity" that they interject into the process. Safety sells.
So they still have that kind of control. It's all tied up together.
>I maintain that new methods of
>reaching a different audience are necessary to change the
Yeah, I agree with this completely. Absolutely.
5668, ^ for the reading is fundamental group|
Posted by ricky_BUTLER, Mon Nov-10-03 04:26 PM
or so i've heard
5669, the real issue|
Posted by colonelk, Mon Nov-10-03 05:28 PM
Starting at the end of World War Two adults stopped going to the movies. In 1946, 70 percent of the entire population who could walk attended the cinema weekly. Now it's less than 9%. And most of that 9% is 12-25 year olds. Teens like escapist shit. They always have. They used to call them B-movies. Now that teens are effectively the only important market, it's all B-movies.
Jaws, Star Wars, and the coming of the blockbuster era was just Hollywood finally realizing that there was no point in marketing films to "everyone" anymore. They've always been whores. Get over it.
"Popcorn pictures have always ruled. Why do people go see them? Why is the public so stupid? That's not my fault." -George Lucas
5670, that's a tired excuse...|
Posted by REDeye, Mon Nov-10-03 06:05 PM
...and one I'm guilty of using.
>Starting at the end of World War Two adults stopped going to
>the movies. In 1946, 70 percent of the entire population who
>could walk attended the cinema weekly. Now it's less than
>9%. And most of that 9% is 12-25 year olds. Teens like
>escapist shit. They always have. They used to call them
>B-movies. Now that teens are effectively the only important
>market, it's all B-movies.
Tired, not because it's wrong, but because it's misleading. It doesn't get to the heart of the issue. There's nothing inherent in B-movies or escapist fare that says it has to be crap. And Jaws, Star Wars, E.T., those movies we all point to as causing the death of creativity in Hollywood, they are very much the height of storytelling.
>Jaws, Star Wars, and the coming of the blockbuster era was
>just Hollywood finally realizing that there was no point in
>marketing films to "everyone" anymore. They've always been
>whores. Get over it.
There's an article on Spielberg in last weekend's NYTimes Magazine that talks about, among other things, how Spielberg and his films.
I'm not a Spielberg fan nor am I defending him against those who don't like him. But like your Lucas quote points out, popcorn pictures have always ruled -- even before WWII.
Of course, everything in Hollywood did change with the advent of the blockbuster. But not because of the quality of those movies.
Ora et labora
5671, oft-repeated, but not tired|
Posted by colonelk, Mon Nov-10-03 06:38 PM
>Tired, not because it's wrong, but because it's misleading.
>It doesn't get to the heart of the issue. There's nothing
>inherent in B-movies or escapist fare that says it has to be
>crap. And Jaws, Star Wars, E.T., those movies we all point
>to as causing the death of creativity in Hollywood, they are
>very much the height of storytelling.
I'm not talking about quality. I'm talking about content. What is "the heart of the issue?" That most films are bad? Most films have always been bad, even when they were aimed at a wider audience than they are now.
And the "death of creativity" in Hollywood is greatly overhyped. The top five grossing films of 1953 were:
The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms
Does anyone really think that 50 years later n the top five will be that much worse? I'm speculating, but these are likely for 2003:
Return of the King
Pirates of the Carribean
The Matrix Reloaded
The public has gotten neither more or less tasteful, and the overall talent pool of filmmaking has remained about the same. Dreck gets made but so does the occasional gem. The only difference is in demographics.
5672, so then why is demos the real issue?|
Posted by REDeye, Tue Nov-11-03 08:07 AM
If the dreck is constant, and the only difference is demographics, what is the result of that difference? What does the change in demos over the last, say, 50 years, mean for the industry or for the type of movies that get made?
Ora et labora
5673, it means|
Posted by colonelk, Tue Nov-11-03 06:30 PM
That the consistency of quality is about the same, but the subject matter is altogether more juvenile. Not worse, just simpler and aimed at younger crowds. But there's still about as much acting/directing/writing talent in the industry as there was 50 years ago.
Posted by DrNO, Mon Nov-10-03 06:31 PM
except for the 70's thats the way its really always been and we still get some great films every year.
Posted by ricky_BUTLER, Mon Nov-10-03 06:48 PM
("yawn" wasn't what i was looking for)
1960s top grossing films:
Swiss Family Robinson
How the West Was Won
The Sound of Music
The Jungle Book
Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid
1990 top grossing films:
T2: Judgment Day
The Lion King
Saving Private Ryan
The Phantom Menace
okay, granted you still have kids being an unbeatable market force. but the need to see shit blown up and other ignorant excuses for celluloid still are making money today. i understand the censorship limits back then were different, but the action film (a generally imperfect and intellectual-inconsistent type) didn't dominate the box-office so heavily before the 70's (Jaws.)
these films have generally little substance and are just shallow excuses to tap into the audience's vicarious and escapist fantasies. but *they* get the financing, because *they* get the crowds. "art house" films are blackballed by big studios and the medium suffers.
Posted by colonelk, Mon Nov-10-03 07:10 PM
What kind of edge does the 60s list have? Less explosions? Other than (repeating myself) the somewhat older demographic focus, I see no difference.
>Swiss Family Robinson
good kids film.
>How the West Was Won
>The Sound of Music
never seen it. doubt it's great.
>The Jungle Book
good kids film.
>Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid
Very good western comedy.
>T2: Judgment Day
good action film.
good kids film. Better than 101 dalmatians.
>The Lion King
good kids film. Better than Jungle Book.
Our Sound of Music.
>Saving Private Ryan
War film made for adults but disturbingly popular as entertainment among kids.
>The Phantom Menace
Art house films have never been mainstream. That's why they get shown in shitty little art houses. Night of the Hunter was a flop. Charles Laughton never directed again. Blackballing ain't new.
5677, action films versus children's films|
Posted by ricky_BUTLER, Mon Nov-10-03 09:03 PM
>What kind of edge does the 60s list have? Less explosions?
>Other than (repeating myself) the somewhat older demographic
>focus, I see no difference.
i was just thinking that back in the 60s there were less action films. action films are generally directed to a wider audience than just kid's films. you can't really (or didn't then at least) have children's movies that had adult humor and interest. they aren't earth-shattering works of art and intellect, but that's because they pander to an audience based solely on intellectual capabilities directly related to age. not really a choice to dumb-down, but a necessity.
action films are marketed to a larger demographic range. the target audience isn't handicapped intellectually due to any lack of world experience. they aren't earth-shattering works of art, and pander to an audience based solely on that audience's desire to turn off the brain and see bright colors for an afternoon.
>Art house films have never been mainstream. That's why they
>get shown in shitty little art houses.
alright, maybe i shouldn't have been so limited in my statement. yes, your typical art house movie will continually get ignored. but you have Miramax-esque films, that have substance and get financed and aren't as limited in potential audience. however, Miramax seems to be the whole studio supporting this, supporting the arts.
5678, uh same thing|
Posted by DrNO, Mon Nov-10-03 07:12 PM
"these films have generally little substance and are just shallow excuses to tap into the audience's vicarious and escapist fantasies"
Butch Cassidey (which came at the start of the 70s "american new wave"), and The Jungle Book. Are the only really good top grossing films of the 60's and not even they are very intellectually stimulating. Saving Private Ryan has more substance than any of those films. So action is big now instead of singing and dancing, not much of a difference. It was all escapism back then as well.
And art films aren't black balled, they wouldnt make them period if they didn't want to, the studios just know that their audience is more limited. You cant blame Hollywood for a public interested in spectacle over substance can you?
5679, yes you can|
Posted by ricky_BUTLER, Mon Nov-10-03 09:14 PM
>And art films aren't black balled, they wouldnt make them
>period if they didn't want to, the studios just know that
>their audience is more limited. You cant blame Hollywood for
>a public interested in spectacle over substance can you?
in a twisted way, i think you have to.
i don't mean for the studios to start making big promotional campaigns to bolster the audiences at showings for The Magdalene Sisters. but there are some "smart" and "content-heavy" films, like Lost in Translation or Mystic River that could potentially draw in a big audience. everything doesn't have to blow up and lead to the cover of People Magazine rescuing and kissing the cover of US Weekly. if we start weaning generations on plot and dynamic characters and realistic emotional content, by showing and promoting such films, then gradually the audience demand will shift accordingly.
so i guess i'm contending that the public has been deadened in someway and Hollyw**d needs to take partial responsibilty for yelling the loudest about the films with the least amount of substance. these films ultimately help create sedated hordes of movie-goers.
5680, they have made money|
Posted by DrNO, Mon Nov-10-03 09:48 PM
Lost in Translation has made 26 million to date. Mystic River has made 37. Those figures are far from shabby and they did have a fair amount of advertising each. These are popular films.
Hollywood is interested in making money, and they do a damn good jobm they aren't stupid. If they could make Titanic figures from a 10 million dollar "art film" instead of a 200 million block buster that could sink them if it flops, don't you think thats what they would be doing?
What do you expect them to do? put out an ad in variety telling people they have to see the new Altman movie or they won't be getting any super heroes next summer?
You can lead a horse to water...
5681, my point was that they DID make money|
Posted by ricky_BUTLER, Mon Nov-10-03 09:58 PM
>Lost in Translation has made 26 million to date. Mystic
>River has made 37. Those figures are far from shabby and
>they did have a fair amount of advertising each. These are
because they DID get advertising and they DID get a large audience.
but this seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
too often the promotion isn't there. so too often neither is the auidience. but it basically seems that if an independent movie gets good reviews then the studio will cop for a larger ad campaign. but good or bad, action movies get pimped on billboards and during primetime televsion.
>Hollywood is interested in making money
i know they are. and i'm saying that this distracts artistic vision and studios then concentrate on money more than the medium.
>What do you expect them to do? put out an ad in variety
>telling people they have to see the new Altman movie or they
>won't be getting any super heroes next summer?
i'm an idealist now, but i'd simply settle for some balance.
>You can lead a horse to water...
you can lead a movie executive to a good, thoughtful script, but you can make him greenlight it unless a big star or director is attached.
5682, i support this post|
Posted by dgonsh, Mon Nov-10-03 08:28 PM
mainly cause everytime ricky post one of these thesis worth posts, i get so much smarter when arguing about the lack of wittiness in comedies, and originality in actions. i just get so much useless facts, that i find useful, and my friends are the first to point out how useless i am.
AUGUST 12/2003---THE DAY THE JU JU JU JU GENERAL DISCUSSION BOARD WENT BLANK.
"anytime i state an opinion i state it's my opinion, and i back up why i stated the statement (time willing). so please folks you got to understand that it's not a good feeling to read a i'm not on his nuts comment. if i need some attention for my nuts i'll call a jawn." -Quest
5683, why do movies suck in 2003....|
Posted by Allah, Tue Nov-11-03 06:03 AM