The 10 Biggest Problems With Modern Day Cinema - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-30-2011, 07:18 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
When a film like HUGO or J. EDGAR does $350 million in the USA and $1 Billion world wide . . . Call me will you.
Lee Stewart is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-29-2011, 12:40 PM
 
lwright84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Roger Ebert weighs in on why movie revenue is dropping:

http://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs....ARY/111229973/
lwright84 is offline  
Old 12-29-2011, 01:47 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

Roger Ebert weighs in on why movie revenue is dropping:

http://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs....ARY/111229973/

He's a little too "nostalgic" when he weighs in on big must see movies. There were none in 2010. 2009 had AVATAR and 2008 had THE DARK KNIGHT.

As a matter of fact, the difference between 2010 and 2009 was $30 million:

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

The problem IMO for 2011 - just too many damn sequels. Hollywood's current "cross to bear." Along with too high ticket prices for the crap Hollywood is making. Something about paying more to see less rankles people.
Lee Stewart is offline  
Old 12-29-2011, 01:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

He's a little too "nostalgic" when he weighs in on big must see movies. There were none in 2010. 2009 had AVATAR and 2008 had THE DARK KNIGHT.

As a matter of fact, the difference between 2010 and 2009 was $30 million:

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

The problem IMO for 2011 - just too many damn sequels. Hollywood's current "cross to bear." Along with too high ticket prices for the crap Hollywood is making. Something about paying more to see less rankles people.

Agreed.
Also, the recession has been rough and folks are trying to cut down on spending (as in Entertainment).

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
Old 12-29-2011, 03:38 PM
 
lwright84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

He's a little too "nostalgic" when he weighs in on big must see movies. There were none in 2010. 2009 had AVATAR and 2008 had THE DARK KNIGHT.

As a matter of fact, the difference between 2010 and 2009 was $30 million:

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

The problem IMO for 2011 - just too many damn sequels. Hollywood's current "cross to bear." Along with too high ticket prices for the crap Hollywood is making. Something about paying more to see less rankles people.

As discussed in the "2011 movies" thread, it was actually a decent year for quality films, as long as you weren't looking solely at the Box Office. If you're talking solely about revenue though, 2011 really only had the Harry Potter finale, Transformers 3 and the latest Twilight film.

As for your remark about 2010, it had Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1, in addition to Toy Story 3, Inception, Burton's Alice in Wonderland, TRON: Legacy, Iron Man 2, and Twilight: Eclipse. Many would consider at least a few of those as tentpole, must-see-in-the-theater type films.
lwright84 is offline  
Old 12-29-2011, 03:39 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
gwsat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 14,785
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 282 Post(s)
Liked: 555
I am inclined to agree with Ebert's central thesis, which is that a trip to the movies is so expensive and fraught with potential distractions, people hesitate to go see anything short of a certified, Avatar like, blockbuster. I agree with that as far as it goes. Add our current bad economic times and poor consumer confidence to what Ebert says and it's easy to understand why 2011 wasn't a great year for movies.
gwsat is offline  
Old 12-29-2011, 03:45 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

As discussed in the "2011 movies" thread, it was actually a decent year for quality films, as long as you weren't looking solely at the Box Office. If you're talking solely about revenue though, 2011 really only had the Harry Potter finale, Transformers 3 and the latest Twilight film.

As for your remark about 2010, it had Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1, in addition to Toy Story 3, Inception, Burton's Alice in Wonderland, TRON: Legacy, Iron Man 2, and Twilight: Eclipse. Many would consider at least a few of those as tentpole, must-see-in-the-theater type films.

But none of them did $500 million or more which is what Ebert fixated on. And that is why I disagreed with him because 2010 had none, yet it came within $30 million of the biggest BO year the studios ever had in 2009 with the biggest movie of all time - AVATAR.

2010 just proved Ebert is wrong. You don't need a $500 million or a $750 million super blockbuster movie to get people into theater seats.

You just have to stop taking pigs and adding eyeliner and lipstick and proclaiming how good they look.
Lee Stewart is offline  
Old 12-29-2011, 04:07 PM
 
lwright84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Ok, I see what you mean. I think we're of the same mindset. Clearly 2010 did alright with the films I mentioned, none of which were insane Avatar-like blockbusters. I think Alice in Wonderland ended up making that much with overseas\\home video sales though.
lwright84 is offline  
Old 12-29-2011, 04:10 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

Ok, I see what you mean. I think we're of the same mindset. Clearly 2010 did alright with the films I mentioned, none of which were insane Avatar-like blockbusters. I think Alice in Wonderland ended up making that much with overseas\\home video sales though.

The International Box Office is doing well. It's the Domestic North American Box Office that is down almost $500 million this year. Studios don't make as much money from international ticket sales, as they do for domestic ticket sales. More companies in "the food chain" internationally.
Lee Stewart is offline  
Old 12-29-2011, 04:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,026
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

The problem IMO for 2011 - just too many damn sequels.

Didn't 2011 have more sequels than any other year previously?

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
Old 12-29-2011, 08:22 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

Didn't 2011 have more sequels than any other year previously?

You Sir . . . are correct!

2011 Will Break The All Time Record For Movie Sequels

Quote:


By the end of 2011, Hollywood will break their record for most sequels released in a calendar year. According to Box Office Mojo, 27 films released in 2011 will be sequels, up from 24 in 2003.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2011-break-...movie-sequels/
Lee Stewart is offline  
Old 01-07-2012, 09:19 PM
 
lwright84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Fantastic article on "What Ails Hollywood", with many relevant articles linked inside it as well. Worth reading, imo.

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/articl...ts-weigh-34020
lwright84 is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 07:15 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

The problem with modern cinema.

1. Most movies suck.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 12:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

Fantastic article on "What Ails Hollywood", with many relevant articles linked inside it as well. Worth reading, imo.

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/articl...ts-weigh-34020

That is a good article. I think the comments show more insight than the quoted "experts" (it's not a good sign that none of the "experts" acknowledge Hollywood is making bad movies). The best comment is from "Elie". That person summarizes everything very well.

Quote:


1. Most movies suck.

Movies have always followed Sturgeon's Law. But the percentage of badness seems even higher lately. I find myself hard pressed to get excited about new releases. My reaction to almost every trailer I see is "meh".
RobertR is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 01:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 4,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Liked: 172
A lot of these media companies are running on out of date business plans from a past century. Some of them, particularly in radio, are having bad financial problems. I expect that Hollywood companies unless they swing with the economy will become history too.
Brian Conrad is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 02:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: California
Posts: 6,244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 235 Post(s)
Liked: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

A lot of these media companies are running on out of date business plans from a past century. Some of them, particularly in radio, are having bad financial problems. I expect that Hollywood companies unless they swing with the economy will become history too.

My fear is that they'll spend as much time lobbying Congress for protection from change as actually dealing with it.
RobertR is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 04:18 PM
 
lwright84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Why the Industry cannot innovate, and the result is SOPA:

http://steveblank.com/2012/01/04/why...esult-is-sopa/
lwright84 is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 05:06 AM
Blues In Thirds
 
javry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 2,524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

Didn't 2011 have more sequels than any other year previously?

Not a lot of original thought going into mnovie making anymore. I guess it has something to do with the overall cost of making the movie vs the ROI. They want a sure fire thing and making a sequel gets them there with less risk than an original. Its likely that this will get worse before it gets better.
javry is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 10:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,026
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by javry View Post

Its likely that this will get worse before it gets better.

If people would stop seeing them, then the studios would stop making them. I don't think the studios are exactly blameless for taking a cutthroat business approach to filmmaking, but audiences are the reason these things are making money in the first place.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 10:18 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
Liked: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

If people would stop seeing them, then the studios would stop making them. I don't think the studios are exactly blameless for taking a cutthroat business approach to filmmaking, but audiences are the reason these things are making money in the first place.

Please stop confusing our conversation with FACTS!

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 12:27 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by javry View Post

Not a lot of original thought going into mnovie making anymore. I guess it has something to do with the overall cost of making the movie vs the ROI. They want a sure fire thing and making a sequel gets them there with less risk than an original. Its likely that this will get worse before it gets better.

And yet Disney is spending HUGE money on films like JOHN CARTER and THE LONE RANGER.
Lee Stewart is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 12:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 4,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Liked: 172
So what explains the big box office last weekend for a movie "The Devil Inside" that cost less than $1 million to make with no A-list actors? Oh, and is not a remake.
Brian Conrad is offline  
Old 01-11-2012, 02:31 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

So what explains the big box office last weekend for a movie "The Devil Inside" that cost less than $1 million to make with no A-list actors? Oh, and is not a remake.

Quote:


Underpinning The Devil Inside's strength were younger moviegoers, who have been largely absent from the multiplex. Nearly 60 percent of Friday night's audience was under the age of 25, and 85 percent of the audience was under the age of 34.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...-inside-279481
Lee Stewart is offline  
Old 01-25-2012, 07:26 PM
 
lwright84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
A great article comparing the infamous Katzenberg memo of 1991 to the state of the industry today:

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opi...hould-care.php

As we begin a new year two decades after this memo was written, it’s critical to look back at the points Katzenberg made to see that his period of great danger is now our period of great danger, to note that the same events unfolding within and without the industry still threaten the entire studio system in 2012, and to predict our future based on the past.

My favorite quote: The answer isn’t more explosions; it’s characters we care about running away from more explosions.
lwright84 is offline  
Old 01-27-2012, 04:09 AM
Blues In Thirds
 
javry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 2,524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Conrad View Post

So what explains the big box office last weekend for a movie "The Devil Inside" that cost less than $1 million to make with no A-list actors? Oh, and is not a remake.

Don't know. You'll get one of those every once in a while - kinda like "Blair Witch".
javry is offline  
Old 06-23-2012, 06:38 AM
Senior Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede 
The problem with modern cinema.

1. Most movies suck.
Hehe couldnt have said it better myself mate!
Dude111 is offline  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off