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 ...
That's one thing they don't get. If they shut up and not try to press their agenda in their movies, perhaps just maybe the average American will care to watch movies again.
Linklater and Kevin Smith weren't rich kids from what I understand. Though you can make the case they were just lucky. Hell, Smith isn't even all that talented!
Art is always going to be political no matter how you cut it. 'Golden Era' Hollywood movies certainly were.
Still, they have to realize that Red states won't care to watch movies if we are insulted in them. A perfect example is Michael Moore's documentary. (F-911)
They were lucky. And Smith had a good ear for pop culture. They also have a very specific niche. Truthfully, most of the guys who start with even a modicum of talent end up doing commercials because it pays so well. Why spend three years or more trying to get a movie off the ground and completed when you can make a couple of hundred thousand in two weeks? Frame for frame commercials are the most expensive film shot.
F 9/11 was neither Art not Hollywood. :-) I believe it was put out by a Canadian Company. Hollywood didn't really like it all that much if the Oscars are any indication.
I have to go -- back in a bit...
But let me say, Moore is doomed to eventual failure. Ideologues, left or right, rarely succeed. And those who "cheat" as Moore did, get ground under. People don't want to be lectured. Really.
That makes sense that a Canadian Company did it. However, I haven't heard anyone in Hollyweird condemning the movie. I have heard actors like Ben Affleck who labeled our beloved President as "stupid" even though he recieved better grades at Yale than John F. Kerry.
"This really isn't a point I can argue effectively, you're just going to have to take my word for it."
I'd recommend a book called "Hollywood Party," by Lloyd Billingsley.
"creative personalities tend to be liberal as a general rule"
I really can't buy that as a general rule. I think, rather, that the kind of crippled personalities that gravitate toward the "creative" bohemias tend to be liberal.
I humbly disagree. I thought the movie was excellent as long as you accept the premise of viewing the "War" from the perspective a one dock worker.
"They say most good writers are drifting to Cable now."
Good, of course, being as subjective as it is relative.
I loved the movie but Cruise had to be the least convincing Dock worker in movie history. Brando was a sex symbol but you bought him in 'On the Waterfront'. But Tom Cruise in working that crane at the beginning elicited titters from the audience I saw it with.
Moore is doomed by his own methods. He can't use that 'normal guy on the street' schtick he has used to get his interviews. His next movie is about health care and Pharmaceutical companies have got the word out that no one associated with them is to give Moore the time of day. Why would you give the time of day when you know the guy is out to get you?
Smith is also very down to Earth with his fans. He posts on the Message Board on his website all the time. His fans are very loyal.
You know, I went to go see "Batman Begins" (Great frickin' movie BTW) and it was a MATINEE. It still cost $7.50, and soda, even a small one, was like $4.00.
People aren't going to the movies anymore not because they're left-wing (movies have always been leftist and that didn't stop movie-goers), but because it's so expensive and disruptive in people's lives. It's so much easier to buy the DVD and watch it at the crib.
Thanks. I'll just buy the DVD. I still think "Independence Day" is probably better anyway. I watch that movie every 4th of July holiday, and it still gives me the heebie-jeebies.
A good number of this year's movies are remakes, sequels, or based on something that's been done before:
War of the Worlds
The Longest Yard
Herbie
The Dukes of Hazzard
Revenge of the Sith
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Batman Begins
Bewitched
Fantastic Four
The Honeymooners
The Amityville Horror
No one is putting out any original ideas anymore. Why do they expect us to spend top dollar to go see something that's already been done?
NEW YORK, July 4 (UPI) -- The U.S. movie industry is gearing up for the latest technological advance in distribution, downloading from the Internet.
The New York Times reports several companies have been working for the past few months to get movies into a digital format suitable for download.
Sony plans to put 500 titles on line, Universal is working on 200 and Warner Bros. told the Times it has most of its 5,000-film library in digital format and plans to start online sales before the end of the year.
Film companies have apparently learned from the example of record producers, who discovered that allowing computer owners to download songs from the Internet for a price could be a profit center. The industry has been spurred by increased online piracy and by last week's Supreme Court decision that companies distributing file-sharing software can only be held liable if they are inducing customers to break copyright laws.
Read the essay by Edmund Wilson, The Wound and the Bow,which pretty much tells you everything you need to know about creative people. As a general rule, happy well-adjusted people aren't creative or risk takers. Happy well adjusted people go into insurance sales or open small businesses.
What is interesting to me, though probably to nobody else, is that the large cities produce very few actors or directors of any note. The great actors of the 20th century, Brando etc., all came from the "heartland." There are exceptions to this rule, of course, but its interesting to note. Paul Shrader, who is a hugely talented writer/director grew up in a strict religious household and didn't even see a movie until he was a teen.
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.