[I Are Baboon]

Or buy 5 pounds of it at Costco. Whoops. :

Yeah but you have a small army to feed.

 

[SkaredShtles]

Yeah but you have a small army to feed.

No - it was supposed to go on the *grocery* list, not the Costco list. :

 

[JRogers]

Some of the movies in 5-10 slots were Benji, Return to the Planet of the Apes, and The Groove Tube; which are all pretty forgettable today. There are bad and good movies in every era.

At the time, The Sting starred two of the top 5 actors of all time at the peak of their careers. It is a funny, fast-paced movie which had a total of 3 gunshots, and it still highly regarded 30 years later. I am going to watch it again next week, and I recommend it to you as well.

I just saw Mr. and Mrs. Smith, which have two of the most popular actors today. It has all the action and special effects requisite for a summer movie, but it also took away from the interaction between Pitt and Jolie. While I have no crystal ball, in 30 years people won't be discussing that movie.

Robert Evans, an old time producer and executive, commented how in his day (the 60's and 70's), 2 people made decisions on 20 films. Today, he said, 100 people decide on 2 films.

The point that he was trying to make was that there are too many accountants and marketing executives involved with the film making process.

Obviously, great movies still get made. I noticed that The Pianist was also made in 2002, and it is an amazing film. I checked, and it failed to make to make a profit (just $35 mil).

Would have it done better if Spiderman, MIB2, and Scooby-Doo did not exist? You know it. And movies as good as the Pianist get harder and harder to make. But it is good business to create easily marketable movies, and that is humorous action genre.

First of all, I'd just like to say that Spiderman is a really good movie. Sure, not really profound or anything, but it has more going for it than most movies. Minority Report was also good.

Anyways, I think Mr. Evans might have a little too much of the good-ol-days-syndrome. Making money is why studios make movies. If they can make more money by changing something, chances are that they will. It's always been like that. A lot of older movies now considered classics were not made for some grand artistic purpose or for posterity: they were made by manipulative, controlling, money hungry studios. Today, the par might have gone down some, but that just means you have to look a little harder for the good stuff. It's always there, you just need to find it.

 

[genpowell71]

Did anyone see the Hostage? I've been waiting to watch to find out if it was any good or not

 

[Skookum]

blah blah blah good points

You do raise some good points but you also have to factor in some major changes in movie watching.
Star Wars actually was a phenonenom that created the "summer" blockbuster. Whatever you feel about it, that movie captured the imagination of everyone and created the staple of future "kid's" movies that adults can watch too. Much the same of which Toy Story kind of brought animation to be more acceptable to an adult audience as well.
Also even more important is that there was absolutely no pirating online, no dvds, no vcr's, no PPV, and there was no Cinemax-Showtime-HBO so on and so forth. If you wanted to see a movie you HAD to see it at the theaters, or you didn't see it period.
And finally factor in the fact that the theater experience didn't have surround sound either. That goes a long way in making a decision in seeing a movie. Nowadays if you go see a Sci-fi thriller it can be like a amusement park ride.
i agree the Pianist was an outstanding movie, but i rented it on dvd. But i saw Spider Man and bought the dvd to enjoy the experience on my surround system at home.
Anyways thought i thought i'd add to the discussion with my own extended blather.

 

[sanjuro]

First of all, I'd just like to say that Spiderman is a really good movie. Sure, not really profound or anything, but it has more going for it than most movies. Minority Report was also good.

Anyways, I think Mr. Evans might have a little too much of the good-ol-days-syndrome. Making money is why studios make movies. If they can make more money by changing something, chances are that they will. It's always been like that. A lot of older movies now considered classics were not made for some grand artistic purpose or for posterity: they were made by manipulative, controlling, money hungry studios. Today, the par might have gone down some, but that just means you have to look a little harder for the good stuff. It's always there, you just need to find it.

All movies are trying to make money. No one puts out a stinker on purpose. An art film might have low financial expectations, but even they are trying to make money.

The point that Evans was trying to make was the more people involved with the creative decision-making process, the worse the film gets. Which is why only the truly great directors receive full creative control.

Another point is how you can make a film using very formulaic plots and characters,and still make a lot of money. A comparison can be made to radio stations. In the 70's and before, radio stations programmed their own music, which was usually left to the DJ's. Now, with the exception of college stations, most stations use a programming service to tell them what songs to play. That's why you hear the same songs on the radio, no matter what the genre.

 

[sanjuro]

You do raise some good points but you also have to factor in some major changes in movie watching.
Star Wars actually was a phenonenom that created the "summer" blockbuster. Whatever you feel about it, that movie captured the imagination of everyone and created the staple of future "kid's" movies that adults can watch too. Much the same of which Toy Story kind of brought animation to be more acceptable to an adult audience as well.
Also even more important is that there was absolutely no pirating online, no dvds, no vcr's, no PPV, and there was no Cinemax-Showtime-HBO so on and so forth. If you wanted to see a movie you HAD to see it at the theaters, or you didn't see it period.
And finally factor in the fact that the theater experience didn't have surround sound either. That goes a long way in making a decision in seeing a movie. Nowadays if you go see a Sci-fi thriller it can be like a amusement park ride.
i agree the Pianist was an outstanding movie, but i rented it on dvd. But i saw Spider Man and bought the dvd to enjoy the experience on my surround system at home.
Anyways thought i thought i'd add to the discussion with my own extended blather.

I like big blockbusters. I saw every LOTR film on opening day. But lots of crap (like TV remakes) gets made every year because it makes money, where something original might not because they are no guarantees.