Posted on 07/04/2005 4:12:15 PM PDT by timsbella
War of the Worlds" conquered the box office as easily as the movie's aliens overpowered Earth, but it did not have enough firepower to overcome Hollywood's prolongued box office slump.
Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise's sci-fi tale took in $77.6 million over the long Fourth of July weekend, lifting its total since debuting Wednesday to $113.3 million, according to studio estimates Monday.
That fell well short of the all-time high held by "Spider-Man 2," whose $180.1 million haul in its first six days led Hollywood to a record Fourth of July weekend last year.
The top 12 movies took in $160.1 million, off 25 percent from that 2004 record weekend.
It was the 19th straight weekend that domestic revenues were down compared with last year's, extending the longest slump since analysts began tracking detailed box-office figures. The worst downturn previously recorded was 17 weekends in 1985.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
Not to quibble but Dickens was a Brit who pre-dated movies.
I didn't mean their work was bad. Just that the way they worked doesn't fit our contemporary ideas of great artists striving to give posterity their all. They were scribblers wokring against a deadline. I wouldn't say Dickens is sliding away. Anyone who wants to know anything about the English novel can't avoid him. And some movies have already been around almost a century without losing much of their repuation. 'Intolerance' and so forth.
"Two of the best films of the last 30 years."
De gustibus non disputandum est. We'll see if they stand the test of time. Personally, I don't see how they could. There's no "there" there.
"The statement about everything produced by lefitsts being suspect"
You're applying a statement made about a non-fiction essay to fiction.
"Dickens, Stienbeck, Shelley, Faulkner... The list goes on and on."
Shelley managed to write some decent poetry, and I read Steinbeck and Faulkner (their comlete works) as a college student. Thirty-some years later, it doesn't look like genius to me. In contrast, my appreciation for Shakespeare just continues to grow.
Me? You talking to me, Mrs. Haversham? Then who the hell else are you talkin' to? Well, I'm the only one here, Mrs. Haversham?
If you were to make a list of the 30 or so best writers to use the English language for fiction, Faulkner would have to be on there. Astonishing body of work.
"Not to quibble but Dickens was a Brit who pre-dated movies."
My initial mention of Dickens was intended to be a mildly humorous and self-deprecating segue into bucking the accepted wisdom.
If Winnie and Emperor Doug can badmouth Dickens, I can badmouth, etc. etc.
Guess it didn't work.
I am quite aware that Dickens died in 1870.
There must be more survelliance of attendance now because, to me, the movie theaters are about as empty as they were ten years ago when Bubba was in bed with Hollywood.
"The point of art is to transcend politics, even when it's political, i.e. Richard III. But you'll never convince some people of this fact"
Art can have several points. One of those is to say something true about the human condition. Politics is a part of the human condition. Ergo, it is not necessary that art always and only exclude politics.
You brought up Steinbeck, and some of his works are blatantly political.
All the competing movie stuiods get the same numbers. They are all fiercly competitive of their own movies and cry bloody murder if they think another studio is overestimating. It works out well that way to insure accuracy.
You're talking about a $50 million+ budget that would have to make a good percentage of its profits from international sales. That means India, South America, Europe, etc.
You do know there's a film version of Ender's Game coming?
"Faulkner would have to be on there. Astonishing body of work"
I just do not agree.
Actually, I didn't bring up Steinbeck, at least I don't believe I did.
But I still stand by what I say, at its best art transcends politics. If mentioned at all, politics is a plot element.
I brought him up!
You agree with Nabokov then..."If Faulkner's corn cobby chronicles are to be considered 'great books' then the term loses all force." Or something like that. :-)
Any time there's a strong cash business afoot, you can be guaranteed dishonest people will find a way to misreport the cash.
Good, I thought I was having a senior moment. I'm much more likely to bring up O'Hara than Steinbeck.
Nabokov was a moron. He should have stuck to butterflies.
"Me? You talking to me, Mrs. Haversham? Then who the hell else are you talkin' to? Well, I'm the only one here, Mrs. Haversham?"
Sorry, I have no great expectations of Dickens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.