Article

2005-10-11 Home Front: Culture Wars

Survey: Hollyweird Plunge into Doodoo Deepens

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2005-10-11 07:57|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Gee who'dathunkit.

Maybe Hollyweird ought to look at the population and target the groups that are NOT enamoured of video games and hi-tech DVD stuff, but still have money. You know, that demos that Hollyweird wrote off years ago, Adults 45 & up.

That group has money and is not as tied to the new tech stuff, their kids are grown and they'd probably be interested in movies targeted at them.

Whadda y'all think?

Posted by AlanC">AlanC 2005-10-11 08:53|| 2005-10-11 08:53|| Front Page Top

#2 Of course Hollywood will claim its because of all the 'pirates'. Anything to avoid the fact that, for the vast majority, their movies suck rocks.

And Congress will take their money and pass even more restrictive laws.

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-10-11 08:54|| 2005-10-11 08:54|| Front Page Top

#3 The last movie I went to a theater to see was "The Green Mile". I haven't seen anyhting that interested me since. I'm 53

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2005-10-11 09:12|| 2005-10-11 09:12|| Front Page Top

#4 Hollywood needs to go the way of the dinosaur, since it is one. Big budget productions on a sound stage will and are being made obsolete by cheap and powerful computers and software. You can make a really good, CGI rich movie for pennies on the hollywood dollar nowdays. Some of the fan films from Star Wars have amazing, movie quality CGI (acting is always iffie, but the effects are wonderful). I expect to see more and more lower budget with unknowns and edited in the producer's basement movies coming out in the future.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-10-11 09:13|| 2005-10-11 09:13|| Front Page Top

#5 males aged between 13 and 24, are opting to stay home to watch DVD and play video games.

Let's see bro. We can spend several hours worth of pay to see a Chick Flick or a crappy message movie that's no different than the rant the teachers or profs in school put out and stock up on way overpriced junk food with bratty kiddies and cell phones going off. Or we can wait six months and numerous buddy reviews later to see if its worth the same cost on wide screen DVD. Or..we can skip the passive viewing crap and engage ourselves interactively in a game in which we have some participation in the story line. Decisions, decisions, decisions. I'll take 21st Century Male Pastimes for 100, Alex.

Posted by Angomoque Ulirt9319 2005-10-11 09:14|| 2005-10-11 09:14|| Front Page Top

#6 Some of the fan films from Star Wars have amazing, movie quality CGI (acting is always iffie, but the effects are wonderful).

Pretty much the same as the official Stars Wars films. The most charming character in the 6 films was a robot, probably because he didn't have to recite any of Lucas's "dialogue".

Posted by Spons Omineting7374 2005-10-11 10:49|| 2005-10-11 10:49|| Front Page Top

#7 mm821, your perspective is a large part of Hollyweird's problem. CGI is fine for the shoot em up, fantasy stuff that they keep trying to lure in the young'uns in with.

It won't work with the old farts >45 cause that's not a big part of our (55 meself) want list!

If you want to put some Fx in with CGI, fine, but CGI ain't the answer. What I want are thoughtful, funny adult (no not THAT kind) entertainment. They don't have to be "great works" just realistic and aimed at where I am in my life now.

Master & Commander was a farce because the idiots didn't follow the story!! The whole set of books are action / adventure AS SUPPORTS and CONTEXT FOR A VERY REAL HUMAN STORY. Instead we get action for the hell of it, Star Wars in 19th century drag. If they'd made the book along the lines it was written it could have bee a very great epic (think GWtW). THAT's where the old studio model can excel!

Posted by AlanC">AlanC 2005-10-11 10:49|| 2005-10-11 10:49|| Front Page Top

#8 Gee, let's see what got released in 2005, shall we?

http://www.movieweb.com/movies/releases/year.php

Posted by mojo">mojo 2005-10-11 10:50|| 2005-10-11 10:50|| Front Page Top

#9 AlanC, Have you seen the top 200 movies made before 1962? Join Netflix and you'll be good for quite a while.

Posted by Ebbaiter Thurong6434 2005-10-11 10:52|| 2005-10-11 10:52|| Front Page Top

#10 Serenity

And only because I gigged onto the DVDs for Firefly and I really like the reviews coming from bloggers. Meant to go 2 weeks ago but other stuff got in the way.

53 too ....

Posted by lotp 2005-10-11 11:04|| 2005-10-11 11:04|| Front Page Top

#11 They should rename this site Oldfartburg.

Posted by Snoluck Wheregum4529 2005-10-11 11:06|| 2005-10-11 11:06|| Front Page Top

#12 I would agree Alan. CGI supports the story and fleshes out the background. Just like supporting characters. However, Hollywood has made it the leading roll and most people over 13 don't go just to see pretty lights. We want story damnit!

For the record I'm 33 and don't think I qualify for the oldfartburg catagory.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-10-11 11:11|| 2005-10-11 11:11|| Front Page Top

#13 Awhile back I saw a movie(taken from a sieries of books,"Deathlands",if your looking for high literary art this ain't it.pure action/adventure)on SciFi.Acting was ok at best,special effects minamil.But the use of film and light and shadow was great.

Posted by raptor 2005-10-11 11:14|| 2005-10-11 11:14|| Front Page Top

#14 mm821, 33? That's okay, you can be an honorary oldfart. ;^)

I am not a great example of a movie goer since I have a limited taste in that sort of entertainment. Basically, I don't go much for serious drama. If I want serious I do non-fiction. Now, the epic drama is another thing as are mysteries and other sub-genre.

It seems when most people talk about adult entertainmnet (No NOT that kind, I told you) they mean dark, search the human soul, tragic ending kind of stuff. This is fodder for the snobs, like "art" aimed at the art critic, not the public.

I believe that movies with attitudes similar to the musicals, mysteries and epics of the 30's - mid 60's could find large audiences. Hollyweird lost the audience in the '60s cause us oldfarts were, at that time, the young'uns looking for relevance, sex and fantasy; and TV took away the adults (Exercize: what current TV shows would compete with the must sees of the mid '60s?). Now, we're still the largest demographic, but, Hollyweird is still trying to play up our juvenile tastes.

Where are the movies (NOT re-makes) comparable to Singin' in the Rain, GWtW, The Thin Man, Maltese Falcon, etc?

Posted by AlanC">AlanC 2005-10-11 11:41|| 2005-10-11 11:41|| Front Page Top

#15 Alan, Odd you should mention the 30's to mid 60's. That was the period of censorship of movies by the Hayes Office. Man and woman couldn't be on the bed at the same time, etc. It forced the movie makers to make good movies as opposed to the junk we see today. It all got started because in the late 20's early 30's Hollywood was starting down the road to the kind of movies we get today. The establishment said no, thanks. By 1964 someone read the constitution and said "you can't do that." and they were right. So we got libertinism. It will keep going till it stops selling. Or Osama wins.

Posted by Ebbaiter Thurong6434 2005-10-11 11:55|| 2005-10-11 11:55|| Front Page Top

#16 I think the trouble is less the price than what a theater offers you for the extra price. Nothing.

Boxy generic multiplexes that are not particularly stylish, have classroom style "pack 'em in" designs, are no good for dates, and otherwise are utterly devoid of personality, just have no attraction.

Often you see advertisements before the movie about "how you can rent this theater" for some other function. But very few people ever do that. If they *want* to do that, they seek out a really old venue that still has a stage up front, extra lighting, etc.

So why not design a theater like they used to? They would all cite "up front" costs, saying that it would be too expensive. But how expensive is a theater that nobody goes to? There is no reason not to have a "cheap seats" section down front; a "mezzanine" section above, at a higher price; and box seats for groups who want to be together or away from the crowd.

Theaters could also have live entertainment between movies, morning and matinee shows, everybody and anybody who would take to the stage, entire live shows, small concerts, etc. If designed for it ahead of time, their additional overhead would be minimal, and they would get a hard corps of people who would *expect* their entertainment there.

A theater name would again mean something, not just "the closest one where the movie we want to see is playing at the time we want."

I know of an old, old venue that is the only survivor of this kind of theater in a major metropolitan area. It is packed every night of the week, and everybody in town knows its name. The place is crumbling, it is so old.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-10-11 11:56|| 2005-10-11 11:56|| Front Page Top

#17 ET. I think that you nailed a big point.

Think back to TV. Can anyone name a better Sit-com than the Dick Van Dyke show? Yet Rob and Laura had to sleep in single beds!! Where'd Richie come from? (And you wondered why they had a shag rug in the living room.)

Contrary to conventional wisdom, I think that arbitrary limits on certain activities INCREASES the creativity, and inventiveness of human occupation.

In my own area of expertise, those who had to code on a machine with 64K available space tended to write much better code than those with, compartively, unlimited space. The constraint stimulated the creative juices.

By showing all, the movies not only remove this creative stimulation from the writers, directors and actors; they remove it too from the viewing audience. What DID happen in scene 2 when the light went out, hmmmmm?

Posted by AlanC">AlanC 2005-10-11 12:08|| 2005-10-11 12:08|| Front Page Top

#18 You're seeing the "antique" phenomenon. (i.e. the expensive, well-made stuff holds up over time & the cheap stuff from the past ends up as garbage of interest only to urban archeologists)

However, even the schlock movies of the past generally have a plot and aren't actively offensive to the intellect and soul. That's because the old movie makers literally put their names on the product and had to have SOME self-respect. (Warner Bros. was really run by the Warner Brothers, for example)

Take even a goofy movie like PLAN 9 and compare it to a similar film from the 80's that laughs at its own incompetence and tries to pass it off as "camp." The old movie is still more entertaining!

Posted by Ernest Brown 2005-10-11 12:17|| saturninretrograde.blogspot.com]">[saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2005-10-11 12:17|| Front Page Top

#19 Kingdom of Heaven's out today on DVD - rent it - I recommend it

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-11 12:18|| 2005-10-11 12:18|| Front Page Top

#20 You guys don't get out much, methinks. Why there are classics galore, such as:

Analyze These
Bat Dude and Throbin
Boobarella
Breakfast With Tiffany
Buffy The Vampire Layer
Cheeks & Thongs: Up In Stroke
Clockwork Orgy
Das Boob
Dial E For Enema
Dun Hur
Erectnophobia
Girlz N The Hood
The Good the Bad and the Wicked
Hell On Heels
Honey, I Blew Everybody
Intercourse With The Vampire
Leave It To Cleavage
The Long Ranger
Miracle on 69th Street
NYDP Blue
On Golden Blonde
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Breast
Planet Of The Babes
Pulp Friction
Rebel Without A Condom
She Got Game
Sheets Of San Francisco (ick!)
Snatch Adams
Spankenstein
Swinging In The Rain
The Wild, Wild Chest
Waiting To XXXhale

I mean geez, youze guyz are picky!

Posted by .com 2005-10-11 12:22|| 2005-10-11 12:22|| Front Page Top

#21 Gee .com, all available on the adult cable/satellite channel. And better on 'small' screen cause you don't get an inferiority complex from the creative photography close up. 'OMG, look at the size of that thing' is unlikely to be expressed at home. Plus, no sticky floors, etc.

Posted by Angomoque Ulirt9319 2005-10-11 12:30|| 2005-10-11 12:30|| Front Page Top

#22 When our daughters were young, yes, I too am an oldfart, we went to a local theater that showed pre-1962 movies only. They grew up on them and love them. One benefit of being able to go to movies youngsters can watch with parents was they stimulated a lot of discussions between parents and children at the ice cream parlour down the street about growing up issues, why adults behave they way they do, etc. without the graphic presentation getting in the way.

One of their favorite films is the Philadelphia Story. When one daughter had a bunch of her high school friends over for a slumber party she wanted to show them her favorite film. It lasted 10 minutes. "It's so boring." "All they do is talk." This is Hollywood's problem with resurrecting "good" movies. They and Sesame Street have trained an entire generation to have the attention span of a hummingbird.

Posted by Ebbaiter Thurong6434 2005-10-11 12:51|| 2005-10-11 12:51|| Front Page Top

#23 I rarely go to the show and if I do I go early for the matinee prices (hey I'm cheap, get over it). But when I do go it is for the movies that I want to see and feel they are not done justice on the small screen. I thought "Master and Commander" was very good as it was not all about the action but the core of the story the freindship between the captain and the surgeon. Another recently was "Open Range". Costner I can care less about but Duvall is great. It is an example of a movie done justice by the large screen. But a lot of the crap out now you're just as well off to wait for the DVD or cable release

Posted by Cheaderhead 2005-10-11 13:17|| 2005-10-11 13:17|| Front Page Top

#24 You left out RoseMia's Boo Boo .com.

Posted by Shipman 2005-10-11 14:07|| 2005-10-11 14:07|| Front Page Top

#25 Ship - heh, I edited LOTS of 'em out of the list, lol.

Posted by .com 2005-10-11 14:10|| 2005-10-11 14:10|| Front Page Top

#26 #14 AlanC

One of my favorites whose name alone pays tribute to one of the best films ever. "The Usual Suspects" could easily match up with "The Maltese Falcon". Sadly, I can't think of any others.

Posted by Dark Wing Duck 2005-10-11 14:15|| 2005-10-11 14:15|| Front Page Top

#27 Movies I liked this year:

Sin City - uber violence, not for everyone
Cinderella Man - maybe best movie of the year so far
March of the Penguins - excellent family film
War of the Worlds - good FX movie
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Johnny Depp at his best
A History of Violence - excellent drama, in running for best movie

Posted by Steve">Steve 2005-10-11 14:26|| 2005-10-11 14:26|| Front Page Top

#28 When the best movie on your list was made in France, you can tell how far Hollywood has sunk.

Posted by Chick Omeling3931 2005-10-11 14:38|| 2005-10-11 14:38|| Front Page Top

#29 Hollywood is not in danger, the theater distribution system is. There are not many movies I wouldn't wait 6 months for them to arrive on DVD. There are even fewer that I wouldn't wait a year for HBO/Showtime.

Posted by rjschwarz 2005-10-11 15:11|| 2005-10-11 15:11|| Front Page Top

#30 Hey .com

You forgot 9021-Ho and Laurence of a Labia!!!

Posted by Yosemite Sam 2005-10-11 15:16|| 2005-10-11 15:16|| Front Page Top

#31 Lord of the Rings

Posted by raptor 2005-10-11 15:24|| 2005-10-11 15:24|| Front Page Top

#32 How do you solve a problem like Maria?

Posted by An Old Nun 2005-10-11 16:10|| 2005-10-11 16:10|| Front Page Top

#33 YS - Heh, I was trying to be sensitive 'n stuff, so I dropped some of the ones I stumbled across... I think Das Boob, Dun Hur, and Leave it to Cleavage are pretty good. Funny thing is, I had never even heard of any of these, much less seen 'em. They're sure as shit not shown on my cable system lol. :)

Posted by .com 2005-10-11 16:37|| 2005-10-11 16:37|| Front Page Top

#34 Just go see "The Work and the Glory II" when it comes out in November. It stars yours truly as the mean, nasty Tavern Muscian. I got to tear up a newspaper office and tar and feather the Editor and his assistant. Then we went to the Tavern for a shot of whiskey and I flirted with the Barmaid.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2005-10-11 16:44|| 2005-10-11 16:44|| Front Page Top

#35 Yeah - they always fall for the piano player. :)

Posted by .com 2005-10-11 16:46|| 2005-10-11 16:46|| Front Page Top

#36 TV is not much better. Example: Over There. Who knew that people die in wars? I was shocked when I found out.

Posted by Rafael 2005-10-11 17:27|| 2005-10-11 17:27|| Front Page Top

#37 DWD - how about Memento?

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-11 17:42|| 2005-10-11 17:42|| Front Page Top

#38 people - there are good flicks - in teh last year I've had favs : Last Samurai (excellent, even Tom Cruise), Open Range, Kingdom of Heaven, Batman Begins, the Spiderman flicks - all were in the theaters for a long time - all made money - all had good messages - if you missed them, it's nothing to brag about

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-11 17:47|| 2005-10-11 17:47|| Front Page Top

#39 finger-wagger.

Posted by .com 2005-10-11 18:20|| 2005-10-11 18:20|| Front Page Top

#40 if you missed them, it's nothing to brag about

Why?Do I have an obligation to support these dirt bags? So they can donate the money to Kerry or which ever moonbat Michael Moore tells them to?

Posted by Ebbaiter Thurong6434 2005-10-11 18:42|| 2005-10-11 18:42|| Front Page Top

#41 I agree with moose, you're crammed into a small box of a theater with no leg room and subjected to watching gobs of advertisements after you've paid the high price of admission. And like E T just mentioned, you're supporting these dirt bags to support the moonbats.
It's more fun to have friends by to watch with your home bar close I'm 53 too, year of the dragon heh

Posted by Jan 2005-10-11 19:06|| 2005-10-11 19:06|| Front Page Top

#42 The future is CPU-integrated households. includ home offices/cubicles, personal wear, and George Jetson's nuclear flying car iff Detroit can ever get its act together- within this context, big studios will decentralize into small studios in order to compete with newbies. I believe, however, that most Americans will still go to community-thespian stage theater to watch SHAKEPEARE. Big Media and Big Hollywood have another 10 years - 15 maxima.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2005-10-11 22:04|| 2005-10-11 22:04|| Front Page Top

#43 ET - no obligation, yet your choice not to sample sez a lot about your credibility - I..e. STFU

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-11 22:11|| 2005-10-11 22:11|| Front Page Top

#44 Gee that's easy. Frank, FOAD.

Posted by Ebbaiter Thurong6434 2005-10-11 22:13|| 2005-10-11 22:13|| Front Page Top

#45 do you brag about what you haven't read, you ignorant POS? Toast to the troll! He's avoided any fun and insight because the rest might be bad!

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-10-11 22:18|| 2005-10-11 22:18|| Front Page Top

23:37 DMFD
23:37 Chaising Thromosh3254
23:32 DMFD
23:26 Vlad the Muslim Impaler
23:24 Barbara Skolaut
23:16 Bardo
23:13 RWV
23:12 Elmeamble Sneatle3802
23:11 DMFD
23:09 DMFD
23:00 Elmeamble Sneatle3802
22:57 Witt
22:56 Comic-book Guy
22:55 Captain America
22:51 Elmeamble Sneatle3802
22:51 Captain America
22:49 raptor
22:48 Witt
22:47 Captain America
22:47 RWV
22:47 JosephMendiola
22:46 Captain America
22:46 Witt
22:43 raptor