Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:54 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
October 18, 2009: "Staying Home" 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3118
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
Click here to read topic.


Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:00 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
You're not seeing Astro Boy with Nicolas Cage?!

NOOOOO, how can I make Nicolas Cage jokes without it!


Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:41 pm
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
Great article. For many of us, the economic factors, plus the growing sense that everything "seems the same" is enough to make us more choosy when it comes to movie-going. But I'm noticing something a little different when it comes to movies vs. TV.

Judging by my friends' facebook status updates, TV has stolen movies' thunder. There's this ridiculous double-standard where we LOVE drama and multi-layered plot and characters on our TV shows, but all we want from movies are mindless action and stupid comedy. Does anyone else notice this?


Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:01 pm
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
Thanks James, very informative. I imagine that your Toronto trip puts you in the negatives as well. Since you get a press badget it isn't terribly harsh on you, and I'm sure a part of it is just a nice vacation for yourself, but still, would be nice if those reviews would bring in the money to buy the plane ticket.


Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:38 pm
Director

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:28 pm
Posts: 1537
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
KRoss wrote:
Great article. For many of us, the economic factors, plus the growing sense that everything "seems the same" is enough to make us more choosy when it comes to movie-going. But I'm noticing something a little different when it comes to movies vs. TV.

Judging by my friends' facebook status updates, TV has stolen movies' thunder. There's this ridiculous double-standard where we LOVE drama and multi-layered plot and characters on our TV shows, but all we want from movies are mindless action and stupid comedy. Does anyone else notice this?


Yes, it's the same people who like Transformers 2 and GI Joe, It's ok for a film to be different from tv and I want my money's worth for those two hours or more. I learned this lesson the hard way after walking out of Transformers 2 a couple of months ago. I olny fear that my cousins want to have this film on DVD, I'll do everything in my power to stop this.


Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:03 pm
Profile YIM
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
It's very disappointing to read how economics and profitability will affect the types of movies you will be reviewing. Very disappointing.


Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:05 pm
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
corpen11 wrote:
KRoss wrote:
Great article. For many of us, the economic factors, plus the growing sense that everything "seems the same" is enough to make us more choosy when it comes to movie-going. But I'm noticing something a little different when it comes to movies vs. TV.

Judging by my friends' facebook status updates, TV has stolen movies' thunder. There's this ridiculous double-standard where we LOVE drama and multi-layered plot and characters on our TV shows, but all we want from movies are mindless action and stupid comedy. Does anyone else notice this?


Yes, it's the same people who like Transformers 2 and GI Joe, It's ok for a film to be different from tv and I want my money's worth for those two hours or more. I learned this lesson the hard way after walking out of Transformers 2 a couple of months ago. I olny fear that my cousins want to have this film on DVD, I'll do everything in my power to stop this.
Well I can't that I like familiairity, that's not a crime is it? I watch what I feel like seeing, I'm not going to see a film because talk about how thought-provoking cereberal, intelligent, captivating it is, etc, etc. Like James said, i've also been picky about what films I see in theaters, for example I rarely feel the need to see comedies in theaters, as most of them look like something that is better suited for home viewing, Next Day Air being one example, it waas enjoyable, but it definitely wasn't something I would've payed 8.50 to see. I only see films that sound enjoyable to me, and art films needlesly to say do not fall into that category. As for the TV comparison, well I hardly ever watch TV anymore, so I really don't care how similar movies are becoming to TV, and remember, not everyone finds the jokes stale or the plot's uninspired. I know i'm probably the token undemanding movie-goer that people resent for paying what most people call "Hollywood garbage" well you know what? I really don't care, go ahead and insult me for it, i'd rather have fun watching a critically reviled film I know i'll enjoy rather then be miserable sitting through a critically acclaimed film I know i'll hate, i was already forced to do the latter several times in my high school class, and i'm damn sure not going to do it voluntarily.


Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:14 pm
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
I always like these number crunching Reelthoughts.

James Mason Berardinelli wrote:
The economics don't make sense. Reviews of art house films don't generate a lot of unique views so the low advertising revenue (which is tied directly to how many times a review is read) makes it tough to justify writing a lot of those. In 2009, the District 9 review generated the most revenue, about $250. Star Trek and Transformers 2, about $200 each. Most of the other summer blockbusters were in the $150 to $200 range. But what about Easy Virtue? $4. Flame & Citron? $2.50. Paris? About the same. The fact is that most of the art-house films generate between $2.50 and $5 in revenue, making them money-losers.


Very, very interesting. Here's something to consider though: those art house films have a certain intangible benefit. Reviewing films like Flame & Citron does give you some respect. I don't know about everyone else, but when I first discovered Reelviews many moons ago it was because of a popular film. However, what impressed me were reviews of films I hadn't heard of like The War Zone. In short, the popular reviews pulled me in, but it was the art house films that made me into a regular visitor.

JB wrote:
I see a lot more art house films on DVD than I once did and I rarely review movies I see on DVD. This may change.


Great news. I think most of us see those art house films on DVD anyway. Flame & Citron is a good example. Really, did James' review make any of us rush out and see it in a theatre? More than likely one or two of us made a note to check this out on DVD. Publishing a later review for these small films shouldn't hurt too much and, in some circumstances (like when the film is already available on DVD) may actually improve the revenue earned.


Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:27 pm
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
This was a rather depressing ReelThoughts, it reminded me of being 5 years old and starting to suspect that Santa Claus isn't real and then having that suspicion confirmed and being disappointed but ultimately accepting of it. I had a feeling that a ReelThoughts was coming regarding the decrease in reviews on the site recently and low and behold here it is. While its disappointing to read, it's hard to argue with your logic behind it, and arguing about it wouldn't change your mind anyway probably. I gather that this is very much the result of just being "burnt out". The decrease in quality, the increase in home convenience, and the contributing economic factors are all good reasons for seeing less films. I will say that I was disappointed in seeing your reviews decrease, I especially missed reviews of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Black Dynamite, and Pandorum.

However, as someone who has actively tried to increase the number of films I see this year greatly (I'm at 51 as of tonight), I can now empathize with your plight. I've seen some complete and utter crap so far this year, and that trend looks to continue with the release of more crap like The Stepfather. In all likelihood, I wouldn't even be trying to see so many films if I didn't live 3 blocks from a theater that offers $6.00 tickets every Tuesday, but some days that does seem like a good enough reason to walk over there when I could just watch reruns of The Office or pop in the Adventureland DVD in and watch that.


Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:35 pm
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
I'm just glad you reviewed "Where The Wild Things Are"


Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:04 am
Gaffer

Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:54 am
Posts: 25
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
Perhaps it is time for Hollywood to do what it did some fifty years ago when television first began taking away their audience. Back in the 1960's Hollywood kept people in the theaters by changing formats from 4:3 to 16:9 and by producing long, elaborate and involving epic films like Ben-Hur or Cleopatra.

Obviously, Hollywood is trying to change its format again by going to 3-D since Hi Def televisions have adapted the 16:9 aspect ratio and most or all new television shows have followed to fill these new screens. The pseudo IMAX theaters are also an attempt to change formats to tout something new. But really, is seeing a stupid, lowest common denominator film on a giant screen actually worth it?

So perhaps Hollywood needs to brush aside their "lowest common denominator" writers, producers and directors and start finding good film makers who can produce lavish, involving and epic films not unlike what was done with Gettysburg or Hamlet. Or even do what was done with The Lord of the Rings and create multi epic stories across two or three films. These would work perfectly on those pseudo IMAX screens and would justify seeing it at a venue that is larger than your average theater. (Especially since some theater screens now are actually emaciated versions of the regular theater screen. What is up with that?)

Well, that is my two cents on the subject.


Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:48 am
Profile
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
Although I understand the reasoning for limiting arthouse film reviews and being more selective about reviewing mainstream films, this reelthoughts reads a bit as if the cost-return ratio for writing a review would become the decisive factor about whether a film is being reviewed at all. I fear that this would inevitably result in a focus on blockbuster releases, which appear to create more revenue than other movies.

Personally, reelviews will lose a lot of attractiveness for me (as it has already), because I usually don't need much information on blockbuster releases in order to make my decision on whether to watch them or not. There is enough information on them out there.

That being said, I'm happy that there may be more DVD reviews to balance things out


Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:24 am
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
James, sometimes critics can get DVDs sent to them for home review. Do you think that's a possibility? You certainly seem respected enough among critics.


Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:58 am
Gaffer

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:21 pm
Posts: 29
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
For families in this economic time, the $$$ for babysitters make going to see a movie a luxury one can do without except for the must see movie. My wife and I have only seen Star Trek this year in the theater so far and we feel we aren't missing anything. Here soon we will be able to see the summer movies via Netflix. WE would love to see more movies in the theater but the total cost keeps us away. You could easily see a hot start to the movie season next year, only to see it slump off as those budget minded folk use their movie money up on the first few good movies.


Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:08 am
Profile
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
a disapointing post


Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:37 am
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
Actually, I don't agree with this. Star ratings have very little to do with weather or not I will go see a movie in a theater.

Reasons for not going to a theater in general aside (asshole patrons, 17yo projectionists), for me to go to a theater these days and spend the money that James was talking about, there needs to be a legitimate reason to see a movie on a giant screen.

Regardless of how god-awful it is going to be, 2012 is the type of movie that needs to be seen on a big screen if you are going to see it. No matter what it will lose something even on a 50+" LCD.

And there's really no reason to HAVE to see something like Before Sunset in a theater, aside from the fact that I wanted to see it immediately.

For me, the only relevance star ratings have is to tweak my interest in a movie. Beyond that, is there a necessary reason to try to overcome all those other things to see it on a big screen with stadium seating and big sound.

Of course, most art films wont be seen that way, so it does come down to the need to see it versus waiting. A good example this week for me is Capitalism. I hope to go see a morning showing of it this week, as I am off work and there wont be many people there. And it is showing in a stadium theater by me, so take that for what it is worth. Do I need to see it now? No, but I have the opportunity and a local 1045am showing has the least amount of hassle, so....


Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:38 am
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
Alot of people are setting up their own home cinema's, especially using projectors which can very replicate a small cinema screen.
Becuase of this there is definately a drop off on the amount of people going to the cinema.
Cinema's cannot complete with home cinemas or TV's in the same way that they did in the 50's and 60's. in the olden days if you had a 20 inch screen you were doing well.
My laptop has a bigger screen that that now.
Screen size is no longer a legitimate reason for going to the cinema.
There is a certain atmosphere that exists when wathcing something with a large crowd. The Passion of the Christ was a good example of this. If I hadn't seen the film in the cinema I don 't think that it would have impacted me in the same way as it does at home.
Now when the atmosphere ruins the cinematic experience then it is time to leave and get a refund and see the film at home.


Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:59 am
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
I've always been sympathetic to Ebert's assertion that the only worthwhile distinction is between movies that are worth seeing and movies that are not. That said, James makes the strongest case I've seen yet for the alternative, even if it is made more from his unique point of view than from that of the typical viewer.

It's worth mentioning that I watch very little TV, so I haven't tested my situational tolerance for "godawful" programming lately. ("Godawful" is such an excellent word.)


Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:24 am
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
James,

I was wondering if you've ever considered balancing this out with a renewed emphasis on Video Views?

In all honesty, I find websites like DvdTalk and TheDigitalBits to be the most compelling review sites around and wondered if you've ever considered partially shifting your focus to dvd and Blu-Ray including not only a review of the film, but of your impression of the home video a/v specs and a possible review of the supplements if you feel they are worth checking out.

And, yes, worthwhile home video supplements are still being produced. They didn'ttotally die along with the mighty laserdisc.


Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:31 am
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3118
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: October 18, 2009: "Staying Home"
SFB wrote:
Thanks James, very informative. I imagine that your Toronto trip puts you in the negatives as well. Since you get a press badget it isn't terribly harsh on you, and I'm sure a part of it is just a nice vacation for yourself, but still, would be nice if those reviews would bring in the money to buy the plane ticket.


I drive to Toronto; it's the hotel bill that's crippling. :)


Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:07 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr