or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › The 10 Biggest Problems With Modern Day Cinema
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The 10 Biggest Problems With Modern Day Cinema - Page 7

post #181 of 206
When a film like HUGO or J. EDGAR does $350 million in the USA and $1 Billion world wide . . . Call me will you.
post #182 of 206
Roger Ebert weighs in on why movie revenue is dropping:

http://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs....ARY/111229973/
post #183 of 206
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.
post #184 of 206
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).
post #185 of 206
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.
post #186 of 206
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.
post #187 of 206
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.
post #188 of 206
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.
post #189 of 206
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.
post #190 of 206
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?
post #191 of 206
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/
post #192 of 206
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
post #193 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

The problem with modern cinema.

1. Most movies suck.

Art
post #194 of 206
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".
post #195 of 206
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.
post #196 of 206
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.
post #197 of 206
Why the Industry cannot innovate, and the result is SOPA:

http://steveblank.com/2012/01/04/why...esult-is-sopa/
post #198 of 206
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.
post #199 of 206
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.
post #200 of 206
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!
post #201 of 206
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.
post #202 of 206
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.
post #203 of 206
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
post #204 of 206
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.
post #205 of 206
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".
post #206 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede 
The problem with modern cinema.

1. Most movies suck.
Hehe couldnt have said it better myself mate!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › The 10 Biggest Problems With Modern Day Cinema