This is an excellent point, even though I expect most people in the business will only read point 1:6. Lack of choice. Box-office tracking shows that the bright spot in 2011 was the performance of indie, foreign or documentary films. On many weekends, one or more of those titles captures first-place in per-screen average receipts. Yet most moviegoers outside large urban centers can't find those titles in their local gigantiplex. Instead, all the shopping center compounds seem to be showing the same few overhyped disappointments. Those films open with big ad campaigns, play a couple of weeks, and disappear.
The myth that small-town moviegoers don't like "art movies" is undercut by Netflix's viewing results; the third most popular movie on Dec. 28 on Netflix was "Certified Copy," by the Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami. You've heard of him? In fourth place--French director Alain Corneau's "Love Crime." In fifth, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"--but the subtitled Swedish version.
Big-budget movies have learned one lesson in the last 10 years following Lord Of The Rings: You need to go big, you need to go serial, and you need to be able to merchandise the hell out of your movie if you want to make back what you spent. The more money you spend trying to get that one hit, the more expensive it becomes if it flops (The Golden Compass, anyone?) and so you need to go for things you already know people love. Except people have already seen those, so how do you get them to see it again? 3D. Do people actually want 3D? They better, or the industry is fucked. Or worse, it'll have to start thinking. Possibly even reading point 6.1. Obviously, the absence of a must-see mass-market movie. When moviegoers hear about "Avatar" or "The Dark Knight," they blast off from home base and land in a theater seat as quickly as they can.
Hard to defend genre without sounding like a geek, or immature (but I'm usually guilty of both anyway), but I've always felt HP wasn't too bad as a whole. Writing-wise not terribly strong, but I've always put a little more emphasis on story than craft. And as I'm getting older, I like stories with a definite conclusion, good or bad - not some neverending ride.I have found the two volumes I read -- last and first, in that order -- better than I would have expected from all the derision. Readable and interesting.
1. Wow. That's like 240 bucks my money. But it'll cost 2.5 pounds if you watch it over here.1. Money - Family of 4? £50 without blinking.
2. 90% of the films end up being disappointing.
3. (Some) TV shows are much better these days at selling the story, holding your attention, and packing an emotional punch.
Actually I'd think it'll increase the number of poorer quality, less risky films. As bg made the point earlier in the thread about the number of sequels topping the charts...joderu95 said:I think the problem may have been worsened over the last three years because of the credit crunch, at least in terms of increasing the amount of films made. So it'll probably have an an echo at the theaters for a few years more.
Actually I'd think it'll increase the number of poorer quality, less risky films. As bg made the point earlier in the thread about the number of sequels topping the charts...
I think the problem may have been worsened over the last three years because of the credit crunch, at least in terms of increasing the amount of films made. So it'll probably have an an echo at the theaters for a few years more.