A-List Stars Flailing at the Box Office

[FarCenter]

Published: August 20, 2009 - NY Times

LOS ANGELES — The spring and summer box office has murdered megawatt stars like Denzel Washington, Julia Roberts, Eddie Murphy, John Travolta, Russell Crowe, Tom Hanks, Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell.

A-list movie stars have long been measured by their ability to fill theaters on opening weekend. But never have so many failed to deliver, resulting in some rare soul-searching by motion picture studios about why the old formula isn’t working — and a great deal of anxiety among stars (and agents) about the potential vaporization of their $20 million paychecks.

“The cratering of films with big stars is astounding,” said Peter Guber, the former chairman of Sony Pictures who is now a producer and industry elder statesman. “These supertalented people are failing to aggregate a large audience, and everybody is looking for answers.”

Mr. Guber added, “Even Johnny Depp” — starring in the drama “Public Enemies” — “didn’t exactly deliver a phenomenal result.” (The A-list results may be damped partly because Will Smith, a regular summer powerhouse, had no movie open this season.)

Mr. Ferrell bombed in “Land of the Lost,” a $100 million comedy that sold only $49 million in tickets in North America. Ms. Roberts missed with “Duplicity,” a $60 million thriller that attracted $40.6 million. “Angels & Demons” (Mr. Hanks) was soft. The same for “The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3” (Mr. Washington and Mr. Travolta).

“Imagine That,” starring Mr. Murphy, was such a disaster that Paramount Pictures had to take a write-down. Mr. Sandler? His “Funny People” limped out of the gate and then collapsed. Some of these may simply have not been very good, but an A-list star is supposed to overcome that.

<SNIP>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/movies/21stars.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

---

The fact that the movies suck might have something to do with it.

[XemaSab]

1. You said it

Last year I looked at the projected movie openings a year out. Of the 50 or so movies, about 3 looked original.

[aquart]

2. I was about to say: the vehicles were wretched.

[Buzz Clik]

3. That's the obvious conclusion -- people thought the movies sucked. Alternatively...

... people weren't spending as much on entertainment.

The only one in that list that I saw in the theater was "Funny People", and I liked it.

[Yehonala]

156. Stupid Casting Directors

They should stop putting pop stars in films and turn down what are obviously just vehicles for pop/rap singers. Then stop the unneeded gore and stuff that is only there for cheap, sick attempts at thrills. Then stop putting teenagers in adult roles. They're not even trying anymore. The movies with the best love songs aren't even Disney anymore. Disney isn't even trying, just coasting on the name. They are concetrating more on merchandising and creating toys to sell to children.

[Curtland1015]

4. Megawatt stars like Eddie Murphy?

Say what?

:P

[Wickerman]

10. hey, he was funny in 48 hours

what was that, 20 years ago?

Do any of his movies actually make money?

[DefenseLawyer]

21. According to this he is #1 all time in total box office revenue

http://www.examiner.com/x-9207-Baltimore-Movies-Examiner~y2009m4d28-Top-10-actors-Eddie-Murphy--1-on-total-box-office-revenue-list

Go figure.

[Curtland1015]

22. Must have been Pluto Nash that put him over the top...

:D

[eyepaddle]

56. Zing!

:)

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. He's been in a lot of hits, but also a lot of bombs

[DefenseLawyer]

31. I think it is the Shrek movies that put him up there at or near the top

but the Beverly Hills Cop movies and the Nutty Professor movies made a boatload also.

[SidDithers]

34. According to this, it's Samuel L Jackson...

with Eddie in at 4th.

http://www.the-movie-times.com/thrsdir/actors.mv?actors+ByTG

Sid

[DefenseLawyer]

35. I'm guessing that comes down to whether they count the Star Wars movies

for Jackson or not. Either way they are all making some jack.

[Yavin4]

45. I Was Offered A Free Pass To See "Imagine That" and I Turned It Down

Yes, it has come to this. You have to pay me to see an Eddie Murphy movie.

[Echo In Light]

5. Perhaps movie makers should cease re-cycling the same canned shit over and over and over

There's no shortage of good ideas, screenplays and writers out there.

[Orsino]

16. And perhaps theaters could try to make the moviegoing experience cheaper...

...during a severe goddamned recession. If they really want to fill seats, they should price tickets and concessions accordingly.

[NashVegas]

42. Friday Night At the Movies Is a $21 Date - MINIMUM

Throw in popcorn and sodas ....

Where $40 used to be able to get you a good dinner for two, it still can.

[petronius]

53. Exactly! We saw District 9 at the mainstream theater here, and the late-morning

matinee price was $8.50 a ticket. Another $8-10 for snacks and we're in a range where none of those star-vehicles is worth the price. I'd rather spend the money on something else, like the good dinner, and then netflix the brain-candy movie in six months (when I can watch it without the ringing cell phones - except my own - and hit pause when I want to fill my glass)...

[NashVegas]

92. $8.50 For a Matinee is Fucknuts

It's up to $7.50 here.

I went to see Harry Potter in July; there were 5 people in the theatre when the lights went down. Another 10 trickled in late. The previous two times I was at the movies, runtime from previews set back the main feature start 20 minutes past what it was advertised to be. People are arriving at the theatre later and later to avoid the commercials - not previews, but commercials.

District 9, btw, had a $37 million opening with no stars - but massive trust in Peter Jackson.

[Mike Daniels]

112. A few years ago one local branch of the AMC or Regal started listing the real start times

vs. the "trailer" start time.

I think they were paid a visit from the corporate office shortly thereafter as they went back to the standard M.O. shortly thereafter.

Either way it was nice to know how you could avoid the trailers without risking missing any of the movie.

[KakistocracyHater]

127. commercials should be forbidden. Instead show local events with date &

location. I wouldn't mind that but I do not want to see a damn suv ad.

[NYC Liberal]

133. "Up to $7.50"

Here in New York I pay $12.50 for a single ticket. A small soda and popcorn costs around $9 most places. :wow:

[NashVegas]

135. Wow.

Can you get a whole pizza for the price of a regular admission ticket?

[Captain Hilts]

161. $8.50 is the first showing, 'discount' price here in DC. Makes you think twice about going. nt

[Touchdown]

149. That's more than the DVD 4 months later, and the same as a blu-ray.

And with those, you get to keep them. Anymore, I'm just waiting for the disc.

[krispos42]

73. That's why I very glad the Twin Cities has 2 drive-in movie theatres

One shows a triple features, $7.50 for adults, free for kids, and one shows a double features, $7.50 for adults and $3.00 for kids.


And you can bring your own refreshments.

:headbang:

[NashVegas]

93. Awesome!

Our closest drive-in is something like 100 miles.

[Captain Hilts]

160. Right. CD prices have gone down. Why not these? nt

[nyc 4 Biden]

6. "The fact that the movies suck might have something to do with it."

I was about to post the exact same response until I read yours. lol I still want to see Public Enemies though. I also hope District 9 doesn't suck.

[lunatica]

24. Actually it's a good movie

A good solid science fiction story that takes it time telling the story in a unique way. You forget that it's CGI because the special effects are seamless and totally believable. I liked it.

[Scout]

48. i liked District 9 too n/t

[TommyO]

105. After reading your message about forgetting the CGI in District 9 (spoiler)

You're absolutely right. At no point in the movie did I even think about any of the CGI used in the story telling.

What I did notice was how audio was used, and how well the surround worked in the theater I was in, not to mention how effectively deep bass was used when the mothership was started up.

[cherokeeprogressive]

113. HA! The surround sound...

I saw it Tuesday afternoon and there were maybe 15 people in the theater. At one point I turned around ready to shush someone behind me... no one was behind me!

Excellent audio. Excellent CGI. Refreshing to see actors I'd never seen before. It made it all the more believable.

[TommyO]

115. My brother and I saw it on Monday

The theater had more people than that, but the first time I heard voices coming from behind (off screen, of course), I did the same thing, then realized it was part of the movie's audio.

[leftstreet]

7. So they blame the stars instead of the crappy movies

LOL

[cabluedem]

85. What about Brad-Jolina? They dont count or this is the +40 crowd?

[tridim]

8. More room for Apatow style movies.

This is a good thing.

This is the first summer in a long time that I'm excited about the films coming out.

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. Funny People WAS an Apatow movie

Disaster.

[anigbrowl]

41. well played :-D

[tridim]

54. Guess it's a good thing I haven't seen it yet..

I liked everything else he has done.

I'm talking more about District 9 and Extract. Two movies I don't want to miss.

[gatorboy]

57. District 9 was a great film and should be a lesson to Hollywood.

It's budget is probably equivalent to the price of catering for your average big budget film (It cost $30 million) but still had some of the most impressive FX work I've seen in awhile, especially when you consider the cost. Plus no-name actors that did incredible work.

Great film. See it. NOW.

[gatorboy]

9. It's been a long while since Julia Roberts was a major draw.

The only star still capable of opening even the shittiest of films is Will Smith (Hello Hancock!)

Oh, and Optimist Prime.:P

[Captain Hilts]

17. Women, in general, are just not the draws that men are. They have FAR fewer spoken lines in film now

[gatorboy]

19. I was thinking more along the lines that it's her long absence from film that is the real reason.

But it's true that very few women other than, say, Angelina Jolie are even given the chance to open a blockbuster these days.

[Captain Hilts]

25. You sit through a pile of previews and hear practically no women speak on screen.

KHH: Wow, that sucks!

[theHandpuppet]

75. A Katharine Hepburn or Bette Davis wouldn't have even been given the chance

... to push a broom at the studios these days. Used to be that quality writers would fashion screenplays for women, including mature women of astounding talents, and there was an eager audience for good films. Today, unless the movies are totally male-centric, with a bunch of guys running around in comic-book style body armor and titanium codpieces, carrying weapons the size of small cannons, with non-stop explosions substituting for dialogue, they've not got much of a chance of even seeing the screen. Even the animated movies are less-violent versions of what's happening on the big screen. Meanwhile, the "comedies" seem to be aimed at those whose sense of humor stunted when they reached the age of 10.

And it's BORING AS HELL!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. You said it

I went to see the Star Trek movie because some of my friends had said it was fun, and it was, but all the previews were of films designed to appeal to not-very-bright teenage boys. Explosions, metallic monsters, actresses in skin-tight cat suits, gross-out scenes.

No thanks. I'll stick to my art house and film festival selections, which, even when they're bad, are at least bad in original ways. Special effects are OK, but they shouldn't be what the movie is ABOUT. I want to see stories I haven't seen before with actors who look and act like real people.

It's like what happened with TV miniseries. Back in the 1990s, there was an article about how audiences didn't respond to TV miniseries like they did in the days of Roots. In fact, the article said, only two miniseries that season had achieved respectable ratings: a biopic about Judy Garland and an expanded story of Anne Frank.

As I commented to an acquaintance, "So it was only a coincidence that those were the only two miniseries that weren't based on potboiler novels and the only two that featured excellent writing and acting?"

[theHandpuppet]

116. Oh don't get me started on the ST movie

What spoiled it for me was the fact that the ONLY MAIN FEMALE CHARACTER in the freaking movie was turned into little more than a love/lust interest for the main boys, complete with a strip scene in which Kirk, hiding under the bed, gets his jollies off watching Uhura undress. Really pissed me off and it's why I didn't return to see the movie a second time.

[Captain Hilts]

123. Same here. They had opportunities to show women as leaders in other roles in that film

on the board of review/jury, the starship captain in the very beginning, etc. and chose NOT to do so.

Women just weren't a part of the film.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

125. It's part of the teenage boy mentality that filmmakers strive for

I remember once being in a discussion with other women faculty at the college where I was teaching, and we were discussing some of the encounters we had with male students who had attitude problems.

Sometimes more than one of us had had negative experiences with the same students, but our male colleagues were always puzzled when we asked if so-and-so showed a bad attitude in their class.

One of the women, who had done a lot of work in developmental and organizational psychology, cited research that said that immature males were comfortable with only two types of women: mother-figures and one dimensional, overtly sexy young things.

It sounds as if the film makers know their demographic...and that's why I am disinclined to patronize any movie that is geared to teenage boys.

[Captain Hilts]

126. Yep, when I was a TA and later, faculty, there was always one guy who would

sit at the front of class with his hands folded across his chest as though you had nothing worth writing down. One tried to read a newspaper and I put a stop to that.

I had one male student all over my ass with a series of grievance suits. Ends up, the U told me that 75% of grievances filed were young male students against young female faculty. Go figure.

But I know from being in polling that young men are the least likely to answer a landline, be at home at night and to watch television. So, most television is geared toward getting them to tune in. Women and older folks will watch television no matter what. Hence, 7o9's shrink wrap outfit.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

142. There were a couple of real smirk-faces in one class,

kids with a real attitude problem.

They went on the study abroad program to Japan and came back raving about the Japanese teacher over there. They didn't say anything about her teaching style, no, they raved about the fact that she invited them to her home for dinner and let them play with her kids, and brought them treats on special occasions. In other words, she was the Mom type.

[texastoast]

147. Do you remember that scene between Paul Newman and Elizabeth Taylor

in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (the bedroom scene)?

Wasn't it about 15 minutes of dialog and acting with not one cut, the camera on both of them? Can you imagine any of today's stars having the wherewithal to act talking and relating on camera for 15 solid minutes with no break? I don't think there's one among them who have that skill now. Well, Streep, of course.

Those kind of movies would really challenge today's attention spans.

[anigbrowl]

43. What long absence from the screen?

She does 1 or 2 major films every year except for 2005. Half of them are successful, the other half bomb (but tend to do better overseas).

[gatorboy]

47. I didn't consider the voice acting a "major film" part.

But here is her film work since 2005. Not a lot of work there.

Fireflies in the Garden (2008) .... Lisa Waechter

Charlie Wilson's War (2007) .... Joanne Herring

Charlotte's Web (2006) (voice) .... Charlotte the Spider
... aka Schweinchen Wilbur und seine Freunde (Germany)

The Ant Bully (2006) (voice) .... Hova

[anigbrowl]

59. Ah, so it's low output rather than long absence

but the thing is, every second film she does makes quite a lot of money...that sounds bad but it's actually pretty decent. Which is what she gets hired for.

[gatorboy]

62. The last group of films that did very well for her was the Ocean's series.

But that success was based more on the entire cast. Not saying she doesn't bring in some people. But she has taken time off to be a mom and I think that's her major priority now. Which is good. She still does a film here and there (The voice work probably took a day or two) but none are as successful as her 90's work.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

66. Charlie Wilson's War was a very good movie.

Funny as hell too.

"Congressman Wilson has a saying. He says you can teach 'em to type but you can't teach 'em to grow tits".


:rofl:

Charlie Wilson used to be the Congressman in my district. A raging populist and often conservative but always entertaining - crazy as hell.

Now I've this pasty-faced beady-eyed Cretin:

[Captain Hilts]

124. One of the best movies about DC EVER. nt

[onager]

151. "CWW" was too soft, and we can thank Tom Hanks for that.

According to various sources (available with a Google), the original script for Charlie Wilson's War hewed much closer to George Crile's great book.

Crile drew a direct line from Wilson's actions to the Taliban, and from that directly to 9/11. IIRC, Aaron Sorkin's original script started with scenes of 9/11.

Tom Hanks, Mr. Movie Good Guy, had all those references removed. That was a condition for Hanks taking the part of Charlie Wilson. Rich right-wing kook Joanne Herring, played by Roberts, refused to cooperate with the movie at all and, IIRC, threatened the studio with a lawsuit.

As Crile's book repeatedly pointed out, Wilson & Co. were actually a bunch of bumbling and dangerously ignorant amateurs. Which becomes pretty obvious when we see Herring trying to sell Pakistan...Pakistan!...as a shining beacon of democracy in the region.

[Retrograde]

83. That's a weird translation

Charlotte's Web becomes "Piglet Wilbur and his Friend" in Germany. Talk about disappearing women in modern movies!

[cabluedem]

88. Julia Roberts has officially moved into hagdom. "Pretty Lame" is her next box office hit. nt

[texastoast]

148. How do you do that?

How does a great actress get to "hagdom"?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. A look at what's doing well:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2009&p=.htm

[Vidar]

12. Might help more if they paid for decent writers.

[Javaman]

68. Quiet you! why spoil a good actor bashing session with common sense?

don't make me come back there!!!

[lukasahero]

13. Well, I haven't considered most on that first list A-list in years. eom

[anigbrowl]

51. 'A list' isn't a matter of opinion actually (FYI post)

The 'a list' 'b list' etc. aren't just Hollywood agent-speak, there are actual lists. This grew out of something called 'the hot list', where actors (and nowadays, directors too) are ranked based on objective criteria like how much money was made by other movies they're in, how many interviews and stuff they do to promote a given movie, what percentage of positive vs negative news stories there are, and so on. It's kind of like a credit score for actors, and it's (partially) published once a year (to get the full thing you have to pay a few thousand - that's OK, it's aimed at professional producing companies).

So you have A list B list and C list, and it's kind of like a log scale. Producers and investors use this to decide whether to finance a movie. Most people imagine that someone writes a cool script, then someone says 'I'm inspired, and I just met a great young actor who'd be perfect even though nobody has ever heard of him/her' and so on. This does happen to some extent (indeed, you'd be surprised how many bi-name actors will work for minimum wage on a small project if they like it personally), but more often what happens is this:

You hear about or read a great story - maybe in the news, maybe a fiction book, whatever. You run, don't walk to whoever would have the rights and offer them a tiny amount of money to option the story. IF you manage to get the deal put together and cameras rolling, the person in question may get paid quite a lot. But optioning the rights (for a year or 2) often costs as little as $1000. OK, now you have the rights to the story, you run around looking for a screenwriter and make a somewhat similar deal if you can (it gets complex here). Now you have some kind of a script and the rights to make it into a movie.

Next you need money. A lot of money. Well, you could try and raise money from people based on what an awesome story it is. This sometimes succeeds, but my god it's fucking hard work. Ever hear of films that take 10 years to get made? That's why, film revenues are extremely unpredictable. You're asking people to give you several million bucks even for a simple movie, so unless you have an outstanding track record they probably won't. Shit...but wait! There's the Hot List.

With this list in hand you can quantify the percentage chance that your movie is going to make money if it has a star in it, and indeed estimate how much it might make! This is what an investor wants to hear - that there is (say) a 75% chance they will get their money back and a 50% chance they will get double their money back. This is way, way, WAY more reliable than someone's gut feeling about how This Is An Important Story or how funny it is or any of that - taste is important, but one man's meat is another man's poison so nobody trusts their instincts above a certain amount of money.

So what happens next is you take your script and your rights and start calling agents and saying 'Yo, I have a script that would be perfect for Tom' 'Tom who? Cruise or Hanks?' 'Well, which one is free today? This is hot hot hot' and so on. You try desperately to get a meeting with the actor. you tell them it's the best script ever. They point out that it isn't. You say that you'll hire William Goldman or some other shit hot screenwriter to rework it. Hmmm, OK. IF you can get the actor interested, they give you a Letter of Intent - it's not a contract, but it says that they'd be open to making a contract with you. 'OMG I got an LoI from Wesley Snipes!' 'Wait, I thought you wanted Tom' 'Oh he has commitments'. Now with your letter of intent you run around calling more actors telling them Wesley snipes is already involved and so on.

When you have enough letters of intent (and the bigger the star the fewer you need) then you can go to a studio or film financer and say look, I have all these letters of intent, if you give me $42 million then my calculations say you can expect to get $87 million back within 2 years'. 'Well what if I give you 35?' 'Well then we'd lose So-and-so...' and so on.

And that, kids, is how Hollywood movies get made. There are exceptions, and everyone remembers the exceptions, but the exceptions are themselves exceptional for being successful - most films made outside the system die a quiet, unnoticed death because they simply don't grab the attention of the public, and (generally) nobody is willing to risk the money to heavily advertise a film which doesn't have any well-known actors in it.

[lukasahero]

64. Thanks for the education

Let me rephrase my previous post then - I think most of the actors in the first list are over-rated has-beens. Just my opinion. :)

[Kievan Rus]

14. There's no originality in Hollywood anymore

Virtually every blockbuster this summer was either a rip-off, adaption, re-make or sequel.

The blockbusters of the late 1970s, 1980s and early to mid 1990s, were original.

Now, they're remaking RoboCop. Red Dawn. Total Recall. Those movies aren't even that old and they're already remaking them. And that's only the ones I know about.

Why can't the make ORIGINAL movies anymore like they used to?

[PM Martin]

140. I have laugh when I think of these people

such as the directors with their aviator sunglasses yelling commands on the set of who should do what when all you have to do is watch the original to see what has to be done.
:D

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. "These supertalented people..."

Ah, see, there's the source of the problem.

[cabluedem]

94. Puke, gag, & hack. The story plots are rehashed garbage. Wake up, Hollywood! nt

[WolverineDG]

18. I want to see "Shorts"

It looks fun & :gasp: original.

dg

[Warpy]

20. Maybe they need to spend more money on writers

and less on headliners. It's just a wild guess, but somehow I think good story lines would get the butts into the seats a lot more than the same tired old remakes and formula garbage with one or two glittering names on the marquee have been.

Shoot em ups will always sell well. However, combine them with a decent story line and they'll likely sell a hell of a lot better.

[anigbrowl]

52. Nobody goes to see a film based on who wrote it

OK, a few people do, but they're the same sort of film nerds that read all the credits. The vast majority of people only care about who's in it.

[Warpy]

55. No, but they do see films based on how good the story is

Second in box office gross for the year is "UP," led only by the adolescent fantasy "Transformers."

The story is what sold "Up."

You're right that a writer's name isn't much of a draw. You're wrong to assume a good story isn't a draw.

[anigbrowl]

69. Not really

I'd like that to be true (not least because I write screenplays) but it's of distinctly secondary importance overall. I loved up and agree it has an awesome story, but there is only room for a few movies like that each year. Although it has come in 2nd so far (it'll be 4th-5th by year end), it's not a race, so there's no special prize for being near the top. What I mean is, you need to look at how much it draws in proportion to the total box-office draw for the year. Story-driven films (ie no big stars, attempt to do something really original) usually pull about 10-20% of the market.

The fact is most people are very happy with formula stories and characters they already, which is why there are so, so many franchise movies. Think about transformers, for example...remember that was an animated tv series way back in the day? There was something 120 episodes of animated vehicles-that-turn-into giant-robots. If you can get people to sit down in front of the tv every week for that many episodes, it's pretty much a given that they'll go see a loud expensive movie along the same lines every couple of years, and it doesn't even need much of a plot. Just think, every powerful-looking vehicle you see might be a space robot in disguise!

This year escapism is in because of the recession, which is why you're seeing so many sci-fi films and romantic comedies. by contrast, funny people is about a guy with cancer...sounds like a downer, because people are too worried about their own future to risk helping the character (and the film) out.

[dem629]

79. Excellent point about "Up." You're right.

It's a shame that more people don't realize that strong characters people can relate to, and a good storyline, make for a good movie. Same as a good book.

The problem is that we've become a celebrity-obsessed culture, with millions of people enchanted by "stars" who wouldn't know what to do without someone writing down things for them to say.

[Lorien]

131. It's the only draw for most everyone I know

Pixar got it while the rest of Disney still doesn't. Everyone I know reads reviews before shelling out $8-12 per ticket. If the review says things like "Lackluster, boring, predicable, meandering, (etc.) plot" we put it on the "maybe a rental" pile. People have gotten savvy to the fact that a bad script is REALLY bad these days.

[dem629]

63. People who recognize good writing do.

If these studios would make movies with good characters and interesting stories, they'd make money.

Maybe, finally, people are moving away from going to movies just because a certain actor is in it. Although, in this celebrity-obsessed culture, it might take a while to complete the process.

[anigbrowl]

71. ...and such people are in the minority

honestly, if you need proof of this, go to one of the many script-sharing websites out there and read unproduced scripts. Most of them are hideously, horribly bad and should have been burned immediately. And this is from people who supposedly love writing.

[dem629]

77. In this celeb-obsessed culture, it's not surprising.

Writers and good writing get very little respect and recognition.

It's all about the glitz.

Sad.

[gatorboy]

78. I'd say an A-List director's name also goes a long way.

I'll see a film based on the director's name before any actor (Except for maybe Paul Rudd, my secret Bromance :P ).

[dem629]

80. I'd agree. But it all starts with the writing.

[anigbrowl]

101. It does, which is why they have their own list. But not as far as actors.

Star actors have always been more popular than the playwrights and so on. Shakespeare got his start as an actor even though we remember him now for his plays.

[LanternWaste]

86. i think a lot of people would see a movie simply due to

I think a lot of people would see a movie simply due to Neil Simon's writing credits in it.

[WI_DEM]

23. Meryl Streep delivered with "Julia & Julie"

[Captain Hilts]

26. Yes. And her box office numbers have been flat. This will turn that around. nt

[WI_DEM]

27. While critically dissed "Mama Mia" was a hit for her last summer, too.

[Captain Hilts]

32. It was an esemble piece more than a Streep flick, but, yes, you're right. nt

[NashVegas]

97. Pretty Much Everyone Agreed Transformers 2 Sucked

Most of the people who went to Transformers knew, going in, that it was bad but they still went so they could see Giant Robots Smashing Things.

Just like a lot of people going into Mamma Mia knew it was going to be bad, but they like ABBA.

A bad movie can be critic-proof; in Mamma Mia's case, it wasn't Meryl Streep's fault - the stage musical where the script came from was godawful and insulting, but that was a hit, too, thanks to ABBA.

[Greyhound]

29. The basic truth that the MBAs and accountants that run Hollywood have forgotten,

is that it is always about the story. You can occasionally slide a new film onto the list with "awesome" FX, and a cast of Big Stars will usually guarantee a minimum attendance, but people go for the stories.

There's nothing coming out of the industry, mostly sequels and remakes. People are broke and have many more alternatives in entertainment.

I've been a film nut all my life and have only seen two films in the theater in the last three years, Sicko (which I can watch again for free) and Star Trek (which was surprisingly good, it had a very high suck potential). Dropping a C-note for dinner and a movie with a couple of friends is not the meaningless gesture it was a few years ago.

These movies either suck outright or are nothing special, bring back the writing (and pay the writers better).

[anigbrowl]

58. Not true - everyone loves a well-written story

but getting people to fork over several million bucks for a good story is hard. Even great stories are not an automatic guarantee of a good film. Take Romeo and Juliet, there's been loads of films made on that theme and many of them are entirely forgettable.

To be perfectly honest, people do not really go for the stories. There aren't that many different stories anyway when you go past the superficial stuff. Consider: a beautiful princess is held captive by an evil tyrant, and a handsome young hero must rescue her and then defeat the forces of evil - with the help of some friends! Sleeping beauty, basically. And Star Wars. And too many others to list.

What people really go for are the characters...which is why having a good villain is almost more important than a good hero, and why people quote cool lines of the movie at each other afterwards. Darth Vader is THE best known character in Star Wars for the same reason that 'Mirror Mirror on the Wall' is the best-known line in Snow White and 'Why so serious' is the most-quoted Batman line. And this is also why you see so many comic-books made into movies, they understood this years ago and they know the basic story formulas inside out.

And with very few exceptions, it's far, far easier to sell a character to an audience with a well-known actor. The fact that they're already established means the audience is already interested in seeing them, whereas with an unknown actor any flaws in the script will be interpreted by most people as bad acting. Seriously. It's also true that if the sound is bad most people won't remember it but will say the picture didn't look good.

[Deja Q]

144. ROFL. Look at the popularity of the trek and dr who remakes (and torchwood)

People go there for the awesome fx. Any attempt to analyze the 'stories" and people would realize how frequently they have been insulted. "Brainless sheep", indeed. (I didn't say that... just quoting someone who had, and it's not too difficult to disseminate the scripts...)

[CakeGrrl]

30. It's a combination of contrived movies and elevated prices

Cost-wise, a family of four or five is looking at about $100 for tickets and food.

And I agree with the lack of originality. They're lazy and straight-up remaking movies with new actors: Pelham 1-2-3, The Omen, The Amityville Horror, etc.

It's a rare movie that will get me to the theater anymore, and my family were a group of avid theatergoers.

As for the A-List, if they can't muddle through with a $10 million paycheck for a film rather than $20 mil, then boo-freakin'-hoo. I just don't have any sympathy for anyone making that kind of money, as I think they're all vastly overpaid, and many are really not worth that money based on their "talent", IMO.

[Vinnie From Indy]

36. Yep!

There is still a huge swath of America that still believes since they have a job, everything is great. The fact is that MILLIONS of Americans are in dire financial condition because they have lost their jobs. These families are probably staying away from $100. nights out.

I saw FOOD INC. the other day and it was interesting and eye opening. In the last few years, I have spent my movie dollar with independent filmmakers if possible. I wait a few weeks after the big opening and get the "blockbuster" movies at the library and watch for free.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[WeDidIt]

37. Angels and Demons wasn't bad at all

Really pretty godd if you ask me.

Julie and Julia was more fun, though.

[Blue_Tires]

39. note to Hollywood: get some better writers capable of original thought

and quit with the goddamned remakes/real-life cartoons/comic book heroes

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

65. Couldn't agree more

[Cha]

40. Yeah, looks like it's getting to be the

age of the not so superstar.

I read "The Proposal" is making big bucks with Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds. It doesn't make sense to pay one person so much money that the movie has to bring in so much just to make a profit.

[anigbrowl]

61. It does make sense, though

Over the long term, star power is a surprisingly good predictor of film earnings, way outranking all other factors like who the writer or director is. These are factored in, but the people in front of the camera are the best guide to how the film will perform.

[gatorboy]

89. But look at that list we are given.

I think the problem with the current list in the OP's article is there are very few new box office stars being created and Hollywood is relying on star power that's on it's last legs. Is there anyone of the current generation that's guarnateed to open a film over and over?

[anigbrowl]

104. Eh, what?

Of course there are new stars being created. Shia LeBoeuf would be the obvious one, he's in every other thing that comes out these days. Seth Rogen is becoming a very bankable comedy actor. Daniel Craig is the new thinking man's tough guy. Cate Blanchett is doing fine, so is Kate Winslet and Keira Knightley.

The up and coming actors are never guaranteed to open a film by themselves. Practically nobody accumulates that sort of box office power until their 30s.

[gatorboy]

107. But none of those actors have ever gotten the numbers Tom Cruise did.

Or Eddie Murphy or Arnold, Harrison Ford. They're stars surely but they're not STARS. Possibly Shia LeBoeuf but it's still too early to tell. Seth Rogen maybe. Funny People didn't do any business though and "Observe and Report" fell flat. Maybe his turn as the Green Hornet will turn it around. None of those other actors would open a film the way Tom Hanks did in the 90's. There are simply no new huge stars.

Maybe Pixar will CGI us a few more. :P

[anigbrowl]

114. Um, I think you should go back and look at the numbers

Put Brad Pitt in a film about watching paint dry and you'll still make your money back. He is very much a huge star. Johnny Depp is even bigger - the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise alone has grossed over a billion dollars. The only reason he's not ranked as #1 is because he also does quirky art firms that will always have a lower box office (and so lowers his average per film), and because he doesn't cultivate the media darling role more.

Really, head over to box office mojo and spend an hour typing in names of different stars. You'll be surprised.

[gatorboy]

117. Those are stars that have worked for close to two decades now.

Anyone fresh burning up the box office?

[anigbrowl]

119. As I said, now is a good time to be Shia leBoeuf's agent

Two Transofrmers films plus an Indiana Jones movie and that Eagle Eye thing? I'd say he's doing alright, and his first role was only in 2003. Or Daniel Radcliffe's for that matter (Harry Potter...by the time those are finished and he starts taking adult roles, he'll probably be even bigger than LeBoeuf).

You know Harrison Ford had been plugging away for 12 years when he got cast as Han Solo. Clint Eastwood took time to make his mark and so on. There's a saying that overnight success takes at least 5 years. It's like I said earlier, you generally don't get to be really huge until your 30s. Doing so very early is exceptional. Even the stars you mention like Tom Cruise and Tom Hanks had uneven early careers. Remember 'Endless Love'? or 'The Man with One Red Shoe'?

I'm not sure what you're using as your measure of stardom here, but it really comes across like you grew up in the 80/90s and just accepted the stars of that period whereas you're more cynical about the ones coming up now.

[gatorboy]

120. Not being cynical. I just think star power itself is not what it use to be.

Eagle I'll give LeBoeuf. But they could've cast Carrot Top as Mutt and the film would've made dough. Transformers... Eh. People went to see Transformers.

But you could be right. It's possible some of these stars will make their true mark later on. Look how long it took Robert Downey Jr. to become bankable.

[Cha]

128. I also get tired of the same actor being in movie after

movie..like tptb are afraid to jinx their next movie when there are no guarantees, anyway.

And, when one movie scores big then there are a bunch of copycats springing up like mushrooms..and sequels?..please. Has there ever been a sequel that's better than the first flick?

Not that I can recall..in fact, worse. And, the idea should be to make it even BET-TERB-)

[SoCalDem]

44. People are willing to wait for movies to come to tv

Are they surprised? Kids & teens go to movies because they can go with their friends & act silly.. They cannot necessarily do that at home,.

Lots of kids have had to get off the money train now that Mom & dad have cut back on spending.

and a night at the movies is an expensive propostions these days..

Theaters are mostly little more than a concrete box with seats, they're too cold, the sound is too loud, and someone always kicks the back of your seat.. (chaneling my inner-grouch)

[Yavin4]

46. With DVDs, On-Demand, and Satellite and Cable Movie Networks

People don't have a burning desire to see a film in the theaters any more unless the movie going experience is something truly original.

There are several movies that I will wait for it to come on cable to see it. A movie like "Funny People" will probably be on HBO a million times next year. There's no rush nor reason to see it in the theaters.

[jayfish]

87. I Wouldn't Watch Any Of The Listed Crap On...

DVD, On-Demand, Satellite or Cable Movie Networks either. Crap is crap no matter where it's displayed.

Jay

[Missy Vixen]

49. As so many others on this thread have already said

Movies right now aren't worth racing to the box office over. Then again, I've seen "The Hangover" twice. I'll probably buy it when it comes out on DVD. I think it's one of the funniest movies I've ever seen.

I wanted to see "The Proposal"; it'll be out on DVD before we know it, so I'll see it there.

We don't go for horror. I don't like shoot 'em up, blood and guts, so that cuts out a lot of the summer "blockbusters", too.

As a writer, I'm amazed that studios aren't taking a risk on a smaller film and asking the big stars to take points, etcetera, instead of the huge salary. Studios were stockpiling scripts before the writers' strike. I wonder if any of them actually got made, because we're seeing remake after remake after remake right now.

[Prism]

50. HD, online services, price, etc. have their roles

While the theater is a unique experience, I find myself catching most movies once they're on high def DVD. The colors and sound are sharper (without getting your eardrums blown out), you can watch them at home at your leisure (if you're working all the time, sometimes you can't disappear for 3 to 4 hours in a theater), you can get a cheap pizza and feed everyone instead of blowing wads of cash at concessions.

Granted, in this economy especially, that sort of thing is a luxury, but I never really hear of people in my social circles going to movies anymore. Everyone's always "Ooh, I got this on DVD. I'm going to watch it tonight. Can't wait." Especially Netflix. Oh my, people do so love their Netflix. Mix in services like Hulu and networks offering large chunks of popular programs online, and I think the big-screen market is being worn away or stagnating.

If executives and theater owners were wondering what the price ceiling was before people would stop bothering, I think they've just about found it.

[dem629]

60. Hey Hollywood, make movies with good characters and stories, not just stars.

Movies suck these days.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. That's because the studios have become corporate enterprises turning out formulaic, pre-canned shit.

Even so-called "indie" films feel like they were done off some stupid indie film checklist.

I guess that's the only way Studio Heads will spend millions of dollars on a movie- if some shithead can do a series of powerpoint presentations showing how Killer Robots + Eddie Murphy = $XXX Million in box office.

[anigbrowl]

76. Now, they haven't. They were always like this.

This is a very common misconception. Well, studios used to make awesome films! Sure, there are a bunch of awesome older movies...which get shown again and again, but you don't have to sit through the vastly greater number of crap movies from the past. Go look at a film history book some time - for every film like Citizen Kane there were 99 forgettable potboilers (some of them also directed by Orson Welles...). Sturgeon's law, the humorous observation that '90% of everything is crap' is just as true for films of the past as films of the present.

Also, as you get older you get more and more familiar with the basic story plots (there aren't that many different ones) and so they cease to have as much novelty, just like you are probably not as excited by pop music today as you were when you were 13. Thirdly, to some extent the studios are being sensible. You won't have the $ to finance that cool little indie flick if you don't invest wisely in some generic stuff that's practically guaranteed to make money. The 'dumb' films help to subsidize the intelligent ones to some extent, and there'll be more of the latter when the economy has improved but right now it's dangerous to risk money on an unknown quantity.

As for this not being new, Greek playwrights were dealing with the exact same problem 2500 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frogs

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

95. I have to disagree in part

There is some truth in what you say about there being mediocrity in any period of film-making.

But in my case, I could watch the old movies on TCM all day. I think there was a greater consistency in the quality of the storylines in older movies than today. Maybe it was because writers were retained in-house under the old studio system, ones who had proven their abilities in coming up with stories that were solid.

After I received my Master in screenwriting from the UCLA film school, I worked for DeLaurentiis Entertainment Group, a minor-major studio back in the 1980s. I sat in on development executive meetings and I can assure you that the executives judging film scripts were barely literate, most of them having MBAs or coming from the ranks of talent agencies. They didn't care about the story but were instead looking for gimmicks or high concepts. The major concern among them was how well the movie would play to young people, teens and young adults.

I think there's no question that the movies made in the earlier days of Hollywood were targeted for the most part to an adult audience. Attending movies was one of the major ways in which adults sought entertainment. More and more, films have become oriented towards a younger demographic in most cases. I remember at DEG that I tried to arrange a pitch meeting for a friend of mine, a two-time winner of the Sam Goldwyn award for screenwriting in his younger days. He had a great story idea on a mature subject matter that didn't involve special effects, mass killing, auto crashes or other visual spectacles. Unfortunately, he was in his late 40s. I was so embarrassed over the fact that he was treated like a dog. No one wanted to give him the time of day because he was old. Besides my work at DEG I also read for NBC and some minor producers. The almost universal attitude back in the late 1980s (and I assume it continues to be prevalent today) was that young screenwriters were capable of understanding the youth culture of the day and that old writers were not. Maybe there's some truth to that, but the result is that stories have tended to become less sophisticated, less involved with profound aspects of the human condition, and involving shallower characters. Visual special effects, quick cutting of action scenes with spectacular blood-letting, and two-dimensional characters have become the norm. Cartoon characters brought to life on the screen don't require deep motivations. I doubt that a director and auteur like Alfred Hitchcock would be able to find much success in today's marketplace making the types of films he made in an earlier Hollywood.

I remember when Dino DeLaurentiis bought the film rights to the Dean Koontz novel Phantoms. I read it and presented my ideas to Dino and the development staff on what I felt could be done with it. I was amazed that they wanted to completely re-do the novel, turning it into something else. I got on the phone with Koontz and asked if he would consider writing the screenplay himself, making the changes the studio wanted to make. He was appalled. They could have hired a veteran screenwriter to write a first draft, based on the book. Instead, they lined up a series of very young writers to come in and pitch ideas, writers who had very questionable track records but who qualified as being very young. They ended up hiring a guy and paying him $150,000 because he had crazy ideas about fantastic visual effects that could put some "umph" into the property, which the executives thought was too dull. What he produced turned out to be incoherent crap that made no sense. Finally, DEG got rid of the property and it ended up being made by another studio.

[anigbrowl]

109. Very very interesting

I see why you're disagreeing and agree with you - it's true I'm speaking in generalizations and trying to explain the business in simplistic terms (then again, you can see upthread where I'm saying that story comes a distinct second to characters and moments for many attendees).

I share your worries about the age thing. I'm 39 and don't like to advertise the fact at all for exactly the reasons you cite. Mind you I don't write towards a wide audience to begin with (or write enough at all lately...cough). On the upside, it is vastly easier to make and market a film these days; if it's harder to get past the guardians at the big studios, it's a lot easier to get it done yourself for a lesser amount of money and sell it afterwards.

Of course, as someone else observed upthread, even indie films these days often hew closely to a tried-and-true formula, not least because the people involved want to get their investors' money back and make another film. I read an article on this 'Indiewood' phenomenon a few years back written by a film school teacher, who had an epiphany when a student pointed out that the only difference between some Terminally Hip indie film and a Hollywood Movie was that while the film ended with a car hitting a tree, in Hollywood the car would also have exploded.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

121. DEG did make some good films

Blue Velvet and Manhunter were two of them. But by and large, they made shlocky and gimmicky films that are now virtually unwatchable, like Leviathan, Date With An Angel, and the worst of the lot: Million Dollar Mystery. Million Dollar Mystery is all gimmick and the movie contained clues to a real million dollar treasure hidden somewhere in the United States (I believe it turned out that the million bucks was hidden in the Statue of Liberty). Date With An Angel was also a gimmick. I believe the studio advertised an open casting call in Variety for auditions for the lead actress, a non-speaking role. I remember seeing young girls lined up for at least half a mile outside of the studio office building, coming from all parts of the country. They ended up hiring a real actress, the beautiful French actress Emannuelle Beart (which didn't help to turn this dog into a good film).

When Dino relied on his own relationships and judgement to personally give the green light to films, he had more success. The problem was that there were too many projects for one man to handle and when he turned over the supervision of development to his daughter Rafaella, she became too susceptible to the influence of the development executive hacks.

I'm not suggesting that all movies today are trash. But I think the emphasis on youth in the hiring of writers, line producers, and directors is misplaced (at least it was in my experience). After DEG folded, I applied for a job as a lowly reader at Disney Studios. When the executive doing the hiring saw me arrive, he kept me waiting for two hours in the hallway outside his office, standing up. Finally, he called me in and spent about five minutes laughing at me because I was in my late 30s and applying for a job where a younger person was desired.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

145. They did cut out the best scene in Manhunter, though

I saw the director's cut in a private screening at DEG. There was a scene towards the end where the manhunter confronts the monstrous serial killer who is about to take his next victim. Instead of killing him, William Peterson stares at him in contemplation and almost appears to enjoy what's about to happen. This is what the story is all about (from the novel Red Dragon): a detective who is able to identify with the serial killers he pursues to the point that he becomes one with him. The backstory made no sense without this scene. In the film, the profiler detective had had a very bad experience with a previous serial killer in which he got into his mind to the point where he began to find a sick fascination in killing and it's why he was so reluctant to get involved in chasing a new serial killer. The previous case had seriously disturbed him. Also, I heard that Michael Mann wasn't happy about the scenes of sunshine and family happiness at the beach that were cut in at the end when the credits rolled. He wanted to end it with that last dark scene where the emotionally overwhelmed detective just stared out at the water from a dock that we see in a terrific and powerful long shot.

I don't know why executives like to manipulate the best parts of films out of a picture in order to make them happier or less controversial. It would have been a much more powerful film with that one scene left in.

[malletgirl02]

141. TCM

I watch a great deal of TCM, because it is a pretty safe bet that it will have something that I haven't seen before, most other channels have CSI reruns. However I have seen some real clunkers on TCM, not all old movies are good like you said. Most of the clunkers on TCM tend to star Ronald Reagan.

[Sentath]

70. I went to 'GI Joe' and all I got was

Hearing Loss

I shit you not, I held my palms over my ears for 90% or so of the movie (shoulders were sore for 2 days), and it just wasn't enough. People sound muffled and the tinnitus has driven me to distraction* more than once.

The theaters have lost a customer, forever as far as I can tell.

*tears of rage

[PM Martin]

146. I could have told you this would happen just by

watching the trailer.

[Blasphemer]

72. Those stars have been circling the drain for awhile... Sandra Bullock did well with her movie...

Still, I've heard they are making everyone take salary cuts. The movies have to be big successes so the actors get money on the backend.

[slampoet]

74. Every one of these actors has done their best work Before 2001.

Sure Hanks is still good and Will Ferrel being the most recent star has only been turning out disappointing movies since 2004,


but each and every one of these people hasn't done anything that i would pay full price to see in a least Four Years.

With Julia Roberts and Eddie Murphy you'd have to go back nearly 20 years for me.

[onenote]

81. generally agree although not as to Julia Roberts

Roberts has not done that much that is notable in the last few years, but you don't have to go back 20 years to find good performances. For example, Roberts' performance in Erin Brockovich may not have deserved the Best Actress award it received, but it was a very good (worth full price) performance. And I thought she did well in Charlie Wilson's War.

As for Eddie Murphy -- I agree, with the exception that his vocal performances in the Shrek movies were highlights of those films.

[Deja Q]

82. People are conditioned to want more of the same, remade prettier and dumber, and

with crowd-pleasing hoo-haahs at the expense of something for their minds to dig into.

Hollywood will take the safe route, what with paying pretty people gross sums of money (which is nothing compared to what the actors' bosses must make.)

Hollywood is a pyramid scheme - the viewers are at the bottom, naturally.

[charlie]

84. The movie experience sucks, for one thing

Getting fleeced for the privilege of sitting amongst cellphones, babies, and jibber-jabberers has lost its charm.

[flvegan]

118. You said exactly what I was going to say.

[sweetpotato]

90. Maybe its not the films or the actors - maybe its the theaters

The theater-going experience has devolved over time.

I don't like going to a multi-plex and hearing the bleed through of the audio of other movies being shown in the same building. I remember a time when the there was only one screen per theater. You didn't have quite as much choice, but if a feature didn't do well, it was easily yanked for the next one. If it played well - HELD OVER - was splashed on the marquee.

The theaters weren't eat off the floor clean, but they weren't quite as filthy as the ones I have been to recently.

And the multi-plex seats just aren't as comfy as the old rocking chair seats were. (do they still have those?)

The crowds weren't quite the same, either. You could always rest assured that you would be able to hear most of the dialog, without running commentary from the other people around you. If someone was disturbing you, you told one of the ushers who was usually able to quiet the disturbance. The ushers walked the theater during the shows so that if you needed help - there they were.

People just aren't as considerate of others at the movies, and I'd rather wait and watch at home in a non-sticky seat without the incessant chatter of my "neighbors."

I get BOTH armrests at home.

[Phentex]

108. I see maybe 2 or 3 movies a year and each time I am reminded why!

for the reasons you mention and the fact that everything is overpriced. Last movie I saw (maybe the first for the year, too) was Harry Potter. Some parents had about 10 very talkative preteen girls and one three/four year old in a group. Seats were limited and we were already there when they set up camp. The younger girl was terrified at the images. She whined and cried throughout. I felt sorry for her! The dad kept shushing the other girls for most of the movie and disgruntled patrons kept huffing off which added to the interruptions.

No thanks.

[distantearlywarning]

96. Um. Newsflash to Hollywood. The Movies Suck Ass.

That's why people I know don't go to the movies anymore.

All the movies out seem to fall into three categories, none of which I am interested in: "chick flick" romantic comedies with plots requiring too much suspension of disbelief, overly-CGIed action flicks with no plot at all, and sophomoric male humor pieces where the plot revolves around fart jokes and making fun of fat girls.

Whoopee.

No thanks. I'll save my money and get old episodes of cool TV shows on Netflix instead.

[KansDem]

98. Julia Roberts

I know she's suppose to be the cat's meow, but I saw her recently in a movie (the only JR movie I've seen) and I wasn't all that impressed with her. The movie was "Knotting Hill." Can anyone suggest a good movie of hers I might watch before cementing an opinion?

[Blasphemer]

103. Well... her character in Notting Hill was thoroughly unlikeable

A character which seems to have been based on Julia Roberts herself - take that as you will. I enjoyed her in Mystic Pizza, Steel Magnolias and Pretty Woman (the early years were her best). I wouldn't recommend The Pelican Brief - nothing to do with her just bad and far too Hollywood-ified. That was the beginning of her comeback after some duds and disappearing for a few years. The New Julia has a more aggressive screen presence - Something to Talk About and My Best Friends' Wedding are good (particularly the latter) but she is not generally as charming as she is in her earlier work. Runaway Bride is a dud of a movie. She was alright in the Ocean's Eleven movies - but again, none of the old Julia charm.

[KansDem]

106. Thanks!

I make a list of the titles you provided.

[gatorboy]

99. The real problem is these actors are close to retirement and there are no new bona fide stars

I think the problem with the current list in the OP's article is there are very few new box office stars being created and Hollywood is relying on star power that's on it's last legs. Is there anyone of the current generation that's guarnateed to open a film over and over?

[LostInAnomie]

100. I wouldn't watch 90% of those movies if they came with an hour long blow job.

That's one good thing about the information age. If a movie is 2.5 hours of shit the word gets out fast, no matter how many reviewers studios pay off.

[pitohui]

102. they're getting older, give us fresh faces in non-childish movies

who wants to go to the movies anymore? do i really want to see a movie about julia childs no matter how well acted?

also i don't want to see another fucking comic book hero, how many fucking comic book heroes do we need? and there's a million b movie plots like the taking of pelham 1 2 3 (didn't i read that book in the fucking 1970s????) is it just impossible for these guys w. all their millions to come up w. something new?

movies are just stale...they don't seem to have anything new to show me, and like it or not an over 40 tom cruise is not as beautiful as an 18 year old tom cruise (or whatever he was in risky business) -- the stars are aging, and the plotlines are not just aging they're dead dead dead

we all know what's going to happen before it happens so who cares?

eddie murphy was funny in the 80s, will smith was funny in the 90s, but time moves on, show us something NEW plus adam sandler i don't get him, as far as i know, he was never funny, just sort of a massive scam that carried on for way too many years and way too much money as it was

my theory anyway

[onager]

152. Adam Sandler = Pauly Shore with a better agent.

Anybody remember that asshole? (Pauly Shore, since I'm dealing with 2 assholes here, and hoping Simultaneous Asshole Effect doesn't cause the universe to explode.)

[Yehonala]

158. Pauly is better.

Pauly Shore actually has a fun personality and isn't disgusting. Sandler is also really inconsisent in his films. One minute it's clean and funny and the next it's gross and lowbrow. With Pauly you're dealing with someone who is basically and idiot with a wicked heart and he doesn't try to be some saintly philanthropist.

[Politicalboi]

110. A lot of the movies suck

And they charge an arm and a leg to see it. I want to see the Woodstock movie next week, that one looks good. Other than that I'll wait for pay per view or DVD. They can't even wait till October to release HalloweenII. WTF? Which by the way looks like it will suck too.

[Beaverhausen]

111. "Up", "The Hangover," "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince", "Star Trek"

There have been some great money-makers released this year. They were just not star vehicles.

[zappaman]

122. I've worked in Hollywood for 22 years and

what we are seeing is the fix of something that started in the early 90's-namely giving gigantic paydays to actors. What used to burn me up was a guy like Keanu Reeves being paid 20 million cuz he was in SPEED. Was he the reason anyone saw that film? Doubtful. Same with Vin Diesel after FAST AND FURIOUS was a hit. The early 90's also saw the rise of the agents and publicists on the creative side, as well as the studios being taken over by big corporations who subsequently hired execs out of business schools instead of film schools. Which, by the way, is why you see some many remakes, comic-book crap, and sequels. The guys in charge of the ideas at studios now really don't have the slightest clue on what to do, so they revert to only making movies from something they've heard before.

[Lorien]

132. I've worked for one of the major studios for over 20 years as well

and yep, I couldn't agree more. The suits just go with what they believe is "safe"; something that appears to have a track record. Fresh, original projects don't get so much as a glance.

[NashVegas]

137. It's Really Telling at the Oscars

When someone winning an acting award spends more time thanking their agents and publicists, making sure those names get dropped on tv, than anyone they worked with on set.

[Swamp Rat]

129. Turner Classic Movies

Saw a couple of Joel McCrea movies last night. :)


Tonight (ET):

6:00 PM
Lilith

8:00 PM
Bonnie and Clyde

10:00 PM
The Conversation

12:00 AM
Mississippi Burning

www.tcm.com

[Gabi Hayes]

138. Dr. Strangelove tomorrow

they played Goodfellas a few weeks back, with no edits, AFAICT

lots of crazy late night vids, including a whole night of anti-drug/anti-porn public interest clips

they recently played about 16 hours of Harold Lloyd, including one which had Babe Ruth as a costar

my favorite channel

[Lorien]

130. They still don't and won't get it; the script is the thing

You'll never get spectacular box office with special effects, high concepts and big names alone, but you won't convince a studio suit of that. Everything comes from a formula there. It's amazing that anything worth watching ever gets produced at all!

[onager]

153. Yep, as proven by the Frank Capra anecdote...

The story goes that one day, Capra was in the production office reading a newspaper review of one of his movies.

Capra liked the review so much, he read it out loud to some of his associates.

The review went on and on about "Capra's magic touch" etc.

Finally, screenwriter Robert Riskin got fed up.

"Here, Frank," Riskin said. "Put your magic touch on THIS."

And tossed Capra a blank piece of paper.

[jobendorfer]

134. advertise in saturation, hope for a good opening weekend

The first time I saw this tactic was back in 1977 or 1978 with a film called _Damnation Alley_.
Yeah, the one with George Peppard spitting out the immortal line "Tanner! This town is filled with killer cockroaches!"
(Quite hilarious, since they're driving through the ruins of Las Vegas.)
I think they spent about five hundred thousand bucks making it, and probably half of that went into the Sherman-tank-on-steroids they drove around in the film.
THEN they spent probably forty million bucks advertising it on TV.
I mean to tell you, for three straight weeks, it didn't matter what channel you were watching(*), every 15 minutes, BAM! A _Damnation Alley_ trailer.
And it worked! They got a lot of people into the theaters, for about a week. Then the word got around. But by then they had made their money.

This is one thing that Twitter might actually help. If a new film opens at 7:00pm Friday, by 9:15 everybody in the TwitterVerse will know if it's a clunker and stay away. It might actually force Hollywood to raise the bar a bit.

In my own case: Hollywood is competing with Netflix and its vast library of old movies, old TV shows, the material that makes its way from the premium cable channels to DVD, and of course, foreign films. I'm afraid that Transformers II just doesn't stack up all that well against Hitchcock, Von Stroheim, Welles, Eisenstein, George Roy Hill, David Lean, Norman Jewison, Stanley Kubrick, Peter Weir, Geez, even a complete hack like Brian DePalma is cerebral by comparison.

When Hollywood can make a comedy as funny as _The Goodbye Girl_, or a drama as good as _In the Heat of the Night_, or an epic as good as _Lawrence of Arabia_, I'll start going to movies again.
Until then ... I'll stick to Netflix.

(*) To all those under the age of 35: back in 1977, there were only 3 channels, plus your local PBS station. But EVERYBODY watched them.
And if anybody knows how the hell Dominique Sanda ended up in _Damnation Alley_, I'd love to hear the story.

[NashVegas]

136. Jaws Was Credited With Creating the Blockbuster Movement

And yeah, it did a lot of damage to creativity over the long haul.

Some posters above spoke of the male-centric thing that's happening in Hollywood. I think that's partly - okay, largely - a response to the indie movie movement which is heavily, almost ridiculously, macho. I wouldn't mind that so much but it's making it so much harder for "art" films that appeal to women and gays to get financing, distribution, and marketed.

[PM Martin]

139. They need to invest into their writers.

It makes no sense to pay one or two "stars" so much money regardless of performance.
Is that not the same problem with Wall Street? The few at the top get paid enormous sums of money
regardless of performance. All below be damned!

[RB TexLa]

143. Good, with the current economic conditions people should not be giving their money to them.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ffellini7080]

154. Not surprised

Hollywood has been going down the toilet for some time now.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

155. My solution: Attend film festivals, seek out the art theaters in your area,

and fill the rest of the time by exploring the Netflix catalogue. There are some real foreign gems out there.

[sspeilbergfan90]

157. Not surprised

[Captain Hilts]

159. CD prices have gone down. Time for film ticket prices to go down too. nt

[gk88850]

162. All stars are suffering these days