Posted on 07/24/2003 9:40:04 AM PDT by kattracks
Tinseltown bigwigs are in a tizzy that the American public is no longer lapping up whatever slop they dish out, and they're finally realizing that the Internet is one cause of their well-deserved woes.
People attending advance screenings are inundating the Internet with their reviews and exposing such duds as "The Hulk," "Hollywood Homicide," "The In-Laws," "Alex and Emma" and the sequels to "Legally Blonde," "Dumb and Dumber" and "Charlie's Angels."
Positive word of mouth has boosted "Finding Nemo" and good low-budget movies not touted by the Hollywood hype machine: "28 Days Later," "Bend It Like Beckham" and "Whale Rider," the Christian Science Monitor reported today.
"Hollywood is pulling its hair out trying to figure out how to market its movies amidst the new world of Internet buzz," said Anthony Kusich, analyst for Reel Source Inc., a box-office tracking company.
"First-time viewers are having much more say in which movies make it and which ones don't, creating potential audiences for stuff they like and killing off audiences for stuff they don't."
Coming up: "Gigli," starring the media-saturated Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez, is being greeted with catcalls, while "Seabiscuit," based on Laura Hillenbrand's outstanding best seller, is generating positive buzz.
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.
Another factor: Many Americans are fed up with and boycotting Hollywood's inane self-appointed political "experts."
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.
The horror....the horror.
I am now totally confused.
:>)
Good thing you knew what I meant.
I wonder when they will start blaming the box office drop on internet downloads...
Red Dawn is a cult classic, it's success is not measured in box office receipts.
A lot of movies in the 80s stuck.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.