Summer movie box office sales down 20%

[squarecut1]

I don't buy the "anything new or fresh in it" deal, are you saying a truly great movie has a plot than can only be discerned after 25 watches?, maybe some films were meant to have multiple meanings to different people but Shawshank clearly wasn't in that category.

Plot? Who cares about that? That is only for cheap thriller flicks.

By new or fresh, it means many things. Plot isn't one of them at all.

 

[zinfamous]

Ok, I've seen Departed mentioned here. Departed!!

1. Not an original creative work. A remake.

like nearly every movie, ever. And the original was embarrassingly bad. stupidly bad. It shouldn't even be mentioned...it was so bad. (worse than Shawshank, bad)

2. Scorsese. He made a handful of good movies in his time, but for the most part, his movies are unbearably pretentious. The guy is so far up his own ass it is not funny.

lol. talk about being so far up one's own ass...that is a hilarious thing to say about, quite possibly, America's greatest film maker and certainly it's greatest film historian (next to Ebert, of course)

3. DiCraprio. How many actors have been as annoying and one dimensional as him? The same kind of facial expressions, the same annoying voice, the same everything in every movie. His overall persona does explain why Scorsese has fallen in love with him, and can't seem to make a movie without him.

Honestly, your lips are moving, your fingers are typing, but nothing is making sense.

NO WONDER you bitch about today's films--you honestly wouldn't know quality if it ran you over in a freight train.

Hey--at least you were correct a few posts up about the problem with the IMDB list, and how it is essentially meaningless wrgt quality.

 

[squarecut1]

...that is a hilarious thing to say about, quite possibly, America's greatest film maker

I am left speechless!

 

[zinfamous]

Why is any 'best of' list always riddled with old stuff? I like the classics as well but they can't be the best forever, right? If so then.. well... that's pretty sad for all of us.

that is exactly why they are so good. I'm sure you've heard the expression "timeless"?

Anyway, I'll mark you down on the list of "people never allowed to complain about Hollywood, or anyone, 'remaking/ruining old shit.'" ....because that's basically what you're advocating with that concern.

 

[zinfamous]

I am left speechless!

finally!

 

[squarecut1]

finally!

Ha...yup, you can take credit for that!

 

[BUTCH1]

I am left speechless!

Err, I didn't post that, did you mix someone else's quote with mine?

 

[zerocool84]

Not sure I agree on that markup, I typically can stomach paying about $3.25 for a 12 oz. beer somewhere, anything above that and I'm probably drinking something else.

Wow that's cheap. To even get that price for a beer at a dive is a mission to find.

 

[McLovin]

Damn, guess NS1 better start looking for a new job!

 

[Fingolfin269]

that is exactly why they are so good. I'm sure you've heard the expression "timeless"?

Anyway, I'll mark you down on the list of "people never allowed to complain about Hollywood, or anyone, 'remaking/ruining old shit.'" ....because that's basically what you're advocating with that concern.

I've heard the expression timeless but that doesn't mean the expression means that newer films cannot also be timeless. I do enjoy most films that are considered to be classics. But what is annoying to me is that some (many? most?) film snobs tend to think that no films made in the last x number of years can possibly hold a candle to films made in the past. That in my opinion is simply a sad perspective.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I've heard the expression timeless but that doesn't mean the expression means that newer films cannot also be timeless. I do enjoy most films that are considered to be classics. But what is annoying to me is that some (many? most?) film snobs tend to think that no films made in the last x number of years can possibly hold a candle to films made in the past. That in my opinion is simply a sad perspective.

I wouldn't say "no" films made in the past few years, but there's been a shifting priority in Hollywood over the last few decades to move away from solid scripts and into spectacle and huge effects. Ultimately, Hollywood is a business, and if they are going to break earnings records with rehashed nonsense like Transformers or Avatar, there's not a big financial incentive to invest in a good script. But that does have the effect of making the films less timeless, since once the novelty of the special effects wear off, the fact that the story basically sucks becomes a glaring issue. Meanwhile, classic films that rely on lots of dialogue probably wouldn't be made in today's Hollywood. Casablanca? No way. Chinatown? Maybe, but with more car chases and shootouts. Hell, even The Godfather, possibly the best film of all time, is basically three hours of dialogue punctuated with very brief shootouts; you don't see that in most films today because they've decided there's no money in it.

 

[ultimatebob]

Piracy. Piracy. Piracy.

Prosecuting 12 year olds just isn't helping. We need to start raiding the homes of these little bastards,...

Yeah, but the 12 year olds are probably the only people interested in seeing yet another Spiderman or Superman reboot.

 

[Mursilis]

Thinking about it rationally, it's a wonder anyone goes to the movies anymore. We're a family of 6, so at $8/person for a bargain matinee, seeing a movie at the theater costs $48, and that's with no snacks/drinks/etc. If I wait a few months, I can buy the DVD/Bluray for ~$20 at launch, and we can watch the movie as many times as we want for half the price. Even if the movie is awful, I'm out far less money, and I can even trade it in for something else at some places. Renting the film is even cheaper.

With a 60" TV and a decent surround system, it's not the full "theater experience" at home, but it's close, and I can pause the movie, eat/drink whatever I want for much cheaper, and not have to put up with obnoxious idiots. There's really almost no reason to go see a movie at the theater at all.

 

[squarecut1]

Thinking about it rationally, it's a wonder anyone goes to the movies anymore. We're a family of 6, so at $8/person for a bargain matinee, seeing a movie at the theater costs $48, and that's with no snacks/drinks/etc. If I wait a few months, I can buy the DVD/Bluray for ~$20 at launch, and we can watch the movie as many times as we want for half the price. Even if the movie is awful, I'm out far less money, and I can even trade it in for something else at some places. Renting the film is even cheaper.

With a 60" TV and a decent surround system, it's not the full "theater experience" at home, but it's close, and I can pause the movie, eat/drink whatever I want for much cheaper, and not have to put up with obnoxious idiots. There's really almost no reason to go see a movie at the theater at all.

Yes, the movie experience is very cost prohibitive for families now. It is geared more towards couples on dates etc. They guy who has to endure yet another Jennifer Aniston flick in the hope of getting some reward for it afterwards.

 

[K1052]

With a 60" TV and a decent surround system, it's not the full "theater experience" at home, but it's close

I recently had somebody tell me they didn't get the hoopla over Life of Pi. They watched it at home. I watched Gravity the other day at home to compare the experience to what I saw in a 3D Dolby ATMOS house....to say it pales is a significant understatement.

I would not regard most home theater setups as "close" in quality to a good cinema.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I recently had somebody tell me they didn't get the hoopla over Life of Pi. They watched it at home. I watched Gravity the other day at home to compare the experience to what I saw in a 3D Dolby ATMOS house....to say it pales is a significant understatement.

I would not regard most home theater setups as "close" in quality to a good cinema.

Well sure, but you're talking about effects-driven movies. For dialogue-heavy movies by the likes of Tarantino, Scorsese, Wes Anderson or the Coen brothers, you don't need a 140 foot screen to appreciate the film. This gets back to my earlier point about Hollywood skimping on scripts and spending more on special effects; great for spectacle on a gigantic IMAX screen, not so hot for home viewing where the subtle intricacies of exploding debris ripping through space at 20,000 miles an hour can't be fully appreciated on a normal television screen.

 

[K1052]

Well sure, but you're talking about effects-driven movies. For dialogue-heavy movies by the likes of Tarantino, Scorsese, Wes Anderson or the Coen brothers, you don't need a 140 foot screen to appreciate the film. This gets back to my earlier point about Hollywood skimping on scripts and spending more on special effects; great for spectacle on a gigantic IMAX screen, not so hot for home viewing where the subtle intricacies of exploding debris ripping through space at 20,000 miles an hour can't be fully appreciated on a normal television screen.

Effects driven films are about as old as the medium itself. It has been and will always be part of the art. That also ignores that there are films that both have great scripts and incredible visuals. I wasn't terribly interested in the concept of Gravity until I saw that Curon was making it. CoM was one such film with a really good script and visuals that are best appreciated in a cinema.

Nearly all my favorite films from the last year have budgets under 50M and most are 20M or less. There are still MANY good non-effects driven films made every year, lots of people just never bother to see them.

Many films can be appreciated at home on regular consumer setups. However there are a number every year that cannot be.

 

[vi edit]

I recently had somebody tell me they didn't get the hoopla over Life of Pi. They watched it at home. I watched Gravity the other day at home to compare the experience to what I saw in a 3D Dolby ATMOS house....to say it pales is a significant understatement.

I would not regard most home theater setups as "close" in quality to a good cinema.

That's cherry picking your argument

I could also argue that watching Trans Siberian Orchestra off Amazon streaming isn't the same as watching them in concert. But that doesn't mean that every song I listen to needs to be seen live to enjoy it.

There are certainly movies that are not accurately reproduced at home. But those films are a very, very small percent of the overall releases.

 

[K1052]

That's cherry picking your argument

I could also argue that watching Trans Siberian Orchestra off Amazon streaming isn't the same as watching them in concert. But that doesn't mean that every song I listen to needs to be seen live to enjoy it.

There are certainly movies that are not accurately reproduced at home. But those films are a very, very small percent of the overall releases.

Addressed in my follow up post.

 

[squarecut1]

This gets back to my earlier point about Hollywood skimping on scripts and spending more on special effects;

There is a self deprecating but true saying in Hollywood these days: If you can't make it good, make it 3D

 

[mmntech]

There are certainly movies that are not accurately reproduced at home. But those films are a very, very small percent of the overall releases.

This. Films like Gravity and Avatar benefit from the theatre experience because you really have to go as big as possible to fully appreciate them. Same applies to those communal cult films like Rocky Horror and The Room, where part of the fun is going with a big group. Though films like that are few and far between.

I've seen a few of the Marvel films in theatre and at home. Honestly, I didn't really feel wowed by the cinema experience with those. Even Star Trek and Lord of the Rings. Non-action/epic films don't benefit from the theatre experience either.

Going to the movies is a pretty expensive affair. I have a friend who used to manage a theatre so I got in free the last few times. However, if you want to watch a film in IMAX, it's normally $20. General admission is $12.50, $15.50 for 3D. Kids get in to regular films for $9. You've got a family of four, that $43 before snacks or anything. And you're spending that kind of dough when only three of the top ten movies right now have a certified fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

 

[GlacierFreeze]

I boycott remakes/reboots. Not getting my damn money. Come up with something original. Has been way too many of them lately.

I'm definitely not tired of Super Hero movies, though.

 

[vi edit]

This. Films like Gravity and Avatar benefit from the theatre experience because you really have to go as big as possible to fully appreciate them.

It's not so much "as big as possible" as it is access to high end projection equipment..which also tend to accompany big ass screens.

 

[KeithTalent]

It's not so much "as big as possible" as it is access to high end projection equipment..which also tend to accompany big ass screens.

I find the sound also helps. I saw All Is Lost in the theatre and the big screen, but specifically the sound really helped immerse you in the film. I really felt stuck at sea with Redford with the water crashing around me. That is a recent one where I really remember the difference.

I have a big screen and a decent sound system, but it still did not compare to the theatre experience.

KT

 

[squarecut1]

Bottom line. The best days of Hollywood are firmly behind it