This is topic Is Hollywood losing it's touch? in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000188
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 03-20-2001, 10:06 AM:
Has anyone read this article in todays USA Today?
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20010320/3155270s.htm Comments anyone...
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-20-2001, 10:41 AM:
I don't know why they were expecting Hannible to do more than what it has done. It is R rated and is not going to get repeat busines. Hollywood needs to look at the top twenty films that have been made. The majority of them are PG or PG-13 rated. But most importantly look at the type of stories they tell. People are interested in good quality films with good stories. Event pictures are just that events. All special effects and week plots. If done right will attract an audience. (Twister) Hollywood has a habit of taking a formula and running it to death. My feeling is the best movie of this past year is Gladiator. We all know the reasons for screen closings. I don't think that investing a lot of money into digital projection is the answer right now. If the movie does not get good word of mouth or reviews or has a story to attract people no one is going to come anyway. Exhibitors will lose their pants and hollywood will keep making pathetic films.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-20-2001, 01:16 PM:
This is just another typical industry bashing article from a writer who had a deadline to meet. Same thing happens every time there's a business downturn.The dumbest part is this:
quote:
...the idiotic addiction to remakes (Planet of the Apes), adaptations of smash hits in other media (Harry Potter, Tomb Raider) and sequels (Hannibal).
This is silly! Since the beginning of movies, they have been adapted from other media! And sequels have been ever more numerous ever since the first Star wars movie came out. And remakes? 1957's "The Ten Commandments" was a remake of a 1920s film! Not exactly a new phenomenon.
And:
quote:
Scary Movie boasted detailed images of male genitalia usually reserved for porn films rated NC-17.
Come on....it was raunchy yes, but it had ONE three-second shot of an obviously fake, giant male genital going thru a guy's head. The movie's INTENDED audience would know this was a JOKE, along with the other sex-related scenes! This article makes it sound like the movie featured full-on sex shots.
And of course this article contains the standard bitch about "staggering" movie prices. I would just like one of these idiot writers to tell me, WHAT SHOULD IT COST to go to a movie? A buck? Four bucks? Where do they get off telling us how much we should be charging when they have NO IDEA what it costs and takes to run a theatre with all the amenities people are increasingly expecting?
OK, rant mode off. I'm not saying the industry is the picture of health, but it is a cyclical industry. Just watch...we'll all be riding high again at some point in the future, with or without digital projectors.