Populist Internet Infuriates Hollywood Fatcats

NewsMax.com ^ | 7/24/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[jordan8]

The answer is obvious. Clearly these bad amateur internet reviews are costing Hollywood money, so let's drop a few nickels in Orrin Hatch's collection cup and outlaw them. We can call it economic cyber-terrorism and sabotage. Maybe we'll get to blow up a few hundred thousand of their computers.

[weegee]

I've known Harry and his dad for years. That site has its good points (and played a role in seeing that Lord Of The Rings didn't lose it's financing) and has altered the production of some films by leaking problems they have with a script or roughcut screening.

I think what some people need to realize at that site is everyone's opinion of what is a "good" movie is different; lately Harry has been giving some "favorable" reviews to some questionable films (like Charlie's Angels II) but at least he explains (in terms that no "serious" critic would every use) why he likes the film, albeit as a guilty pleasure of self-indulgence.

What keeps that site "honest" is that all articles have a forum discussion that lets grumpy fanboys slag an undeserving glowing review.

I trust that site more for new release movie buzz than anyplace else. The libs there wear their politics on their sleeves (especially regarding Bowling For Columbine and now Buffalo Soldiers) but such commentary also lets me know what films to steer clear of.

I go to FR for political discussion, I go to AICN for "entertainment" news/discussion.

[Nick5]

Wow -- I stand corrected on Red Dawn. I actually knew people connected with the movie at the time and they were moaning about how badly it did. I guess that was relative to their expectations. Thanks for the correction!

[GSWarrior]

You mean people don't want to see a Charlies Angels sequel!!!

The horror....the horror.

[xzins]

too many negatings in there. (Let's see - negating a negative means a positive. Negating and then renegating a negative means a negative. If I suspend believing reality then I'm accepting non-reality. If I suspend believing non-reality, then I'm accepting reality.)

I am now totally confused.

:>)

Good thing you knew what I meant.

[weegee]

The box office has fallen 3 to 4 percent from last year

I wonder when they will start blaming the box office drop on internet downloads...

[GSWarrior]

Runaway Train was pretty good, although it could have been subtitled Runaway Metaphors.

[Nick5]

No, they blame it on their subordinates and then fire them.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Unfortunately Red Dawn was a huge flop, one of the biggest box office flubs of the 80's, so you'll wait a long time. If only it had been a good movie...

Red Dawn is a cult classic, it's success is not measured in box office receipts.

A lot of movies in the 80s stuck.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

stuck = stunk

[grapeape]

I am one of those boycotters. I have been sick of Hollywood liberal programming for so long. I am just glad that there is a place where people like me are gathered. Does anyone have the attendance figures and trends over the last ten years or so. I know they are around somewhere but I lost them.

[Libertina]

No doubt hollywood will respond by backing big internet taxes and censorship.

[mvpel]

The box office has fallen 3 to 4 percent from last year, the Monitor reported. Second-week attendance has plunged especially steeply as people who failed to heed advance word of mouth and unwittingly paid to see terrible movies quickly told their friends to stay home.

This is not at all surprising since ticket prices here in San Jose have climbed to $8.75 a pop plus a dollar online booking fee if you take that route - it costs easily $40 for move and popcorn for a couple, even more for a family.

The financial risk involved in seeing a rotten movie is a lot higher than it used to be. An evening at the movies represents a non-negligable financial investment in entertainment these days.

[Houmatt]

Have you seen any of the films mentioned?

I have seen Hulk and Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (crappy title; should have stuck with the original: HALO) and they are not nearly as disappointing as some would make them out to be.

But you are right about the pointless, unnecessary remake of The In-Laws.

And I would never see Legally Blonde 2 no matter how attractive Reese Witherspoon is. For one thing, the character of Elle Woods is an animal rights wacko. For another, if anybody tried the stunts she apparently pulls in DC to get a bill (that she wrote) introduced, let alone passed, they would be out on their aft so fast they wouldn't even know what hit them.

[weegee]

Or patent the "movie review process" and only license it to people they like?

Well they try to do something like this by only inviting critics they think will give them a positive review. When a movie opens and the critics haven't been permitted to see it in advance (especially a big movie) generally it is because they don't trust the critics to be gung ho.

Some studios have even been caught hiring their own "critic" to manufacture positive review quotes. I think that Sony was the last one stung.

[Nick5]

what they were caught doing was even sleazier -- using fake viewer quotes in ads

[SVTCobra03]

It was Colorado, not Texas and the Soviets were closing off a strategically important pass in the mountains.

[jimt]

Put any politicized actor in it and I'll be thinking more about how much I hate the dude's politics than what's happening on the screen. I just can't suspend belief when I see these people.

Amen to that. After the stupid putz who plays Gandalf in Lord of the Rings began shoving his sex life in our faces, all I've been able to think of is him buggering hobbits.

They need to keep their personal and professional lives separate, and recognize that professional success doesn't force us to like their personal proclivities.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

would see "Nemo" if I had little ones

Go see it anyway. I guarantee you'll love it. A friend and I went to see it (we're both adults) and we loved it. It's visually stunning, and there's a lot of humor in it. The ending is hilarious.

[weegee]

Beyond anything else Ive ever read, this proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Hollywood machines are driven almost exclusively by agenda.

Certainly genuine politics is a factor. "Office politices" also plays a role (investors beware).

When a studio buys out another studio, some projects have already been given the greenlight and contracts are inked, etc. Some people don't like some other people (and this can be producers, not just actors/writers/directors). Sometimes it is someone who doesn't like a genre of movie.

Personal grudges and vendettas will come into play to sink someone's film from within the company.

Even when a smaller film succeeds, it can end up being a "loss" for the studio by being made to shoulder some of the written down expense for another film (say someone else's pet project bombed; if he's a favored staffer, his loss may be written down under someone else's film).

All of this sounds like cooking the books (the original Batman didn't produce a "profit" even though it took in over a quarter of a billion dollars; just so happened that the screenwriter was to see share of the "profit" which never materialized).

Hollywood is into vanity. Some will cut off their nose to spite their face. If they were interested in running it as a "business", they would support films that the public is supporting. They'd rather be tastemakers pushing their own agendas and attempting to squash dissent.