Hollywood just doesn't get it

[reveal]

"Stealth," directed by Rob Cohen ("The Fast and the Furious"), was the second-straight flick from an established action director to flop. "The Island," from director Michael Bay ("Armageddon"), tanked a week earlier.

"Action just doesn't seem to be what the public is buying this summer," said Rory Bruer, head of distribution for Sony, which released "Stealth." "Comedy seems to be king."

That was taken from this article about Wedding Crashers being the number one movie this weekend.

I truely think this sums up why the box office numbers are so far down. Hollywood has no idea what people want to see. Let's look at a list of action films put out this Summer, so far:

Kingdom of Heaven
Unleashed
Revenge of the Sith
Mr. and Mrs. Smith
The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl
Batman Begins
War of the Worlds
Fantastic Four
The Island
Stealth

Now, let's look at the percentage of critics who liked it and then see how much money (US Domestic) it has made so far. I know that critics are not the end all, be all of movie goers but I'm using them to get a general consensus of what people think are "good" movies and what are not.

Kingdom of Heaven - 39% ($47,326,709)
Unleashed - 66% ($24,537,621)
Revenge of the Sith - 82% ($377,118,000)
Mr. and Mrs. Smith - 61% ($178,507,000)
The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl - 21% ($38,230,000)
Batman Begins - 83% ($195,802,000)
War of the Worlds - 72% ($218,332,000)
Fantastic Four - 26% ($136,145,000)
The Island - 39% ($23,956,000)
Stealth - 11% ($13,500,000)

I know The Island and Stealth were released very recently, but it still points to a trend: If the movies suck, no one will see them!

Does Hollywood not see this? Look at the numbers above. Aside from Fantastic Four, every movie that has had low critical ratings has had a low take at the box office. Are they blind? If they continue this trend, I don't see any hope of the box office take going back up and movies are just going to become more expensive to make and more craptacular to watch.

 

[Wombat]

I think part of the problem here, much like with music, is that there is not a single genre that is going to appeal to a truly broad market anymore. Instead, Hollywood (et al) has to start focusing on smaller budget films that will appeal to a specific niche of the market, none of which will bring in as much money as the big blockbusters, but each of which has a decent chance of recouping the cost, albeit on a lower level.

The major studios have gotten very forumlaic (again). This sort of thing goes in cycles -- have a success with one film, everyone else tries to make the same thing. Yet people who watch such trends will tell you that there are some many mini-markets out there just waiting to be targetted and who feel that they are not catered to. Sure, make action films and three-hanky tear jerkers; these will always have at least a fair amount of market share. But within these break away from the strict formula to cater to individual, smaller groups. Equally, provide a few thought-provoking films in the summer, something beyond simple (yet tasty) popcorn fare; this also means providing action films in the winter.

In other words there is not One True Way out of this "film crisis", but a need for opening up markets in general and experimenting a bit. The problem is that the film industry in this country has gotten too conservative (not in the political sense) in its vision of what is "acceptable" and "wanted" and is afraid to stretch its wings. Even many of the indies have fallen prey to this rigid structuring.

Take a chance! You might find a new hit!

 

[Ranger REG]

Does Hollywood not see this? Look at the numbers above. Aside from Fantastic Four, every movie that has had low critical ratings has had a low take at the box office. Are they blind? If they continue this trend, I don't see any hope of the box office take going back up and movies are just going to become more expensive to make and more craptacular to watch.

Are you saying critics should lower their criteria standards of what makes a good movie so that you don't waste an hour-and-a-half of what little free time you have? That they should be careful what they say or else the mainstream will take them as gospel?

Ask me if I care about them critics. I'm a genre fan, not one of their targeted mainstream.

Action movies are considered "porn" to Hollywood's mainstream film industry. They don't want to acknowledge them for their creativity but they do rake in money for them. And rarely do we see an action movie win any of the top Academy Award categories (Best Leading Actor/Actress, Best Film, etc.).

 

[Hand of Evil]

I think there are more factors at work. We are to be blamed too, for years we have gone to the same cookie cutter movies, some good and some bad, add to that the every growing buget of movies, the move to DVDs, the cost of going on a date...this was to be expected.

 

[reveal]

Are you saying critics should lower their criteria standards of what makes a good movie so that you don't waste an hour-and-a-half of what little free time you have? That they should be careful what they say or else the mainstream will take them as gospel?

Ask me if I care about them critics. I'm a genre fan, not one of their targeted mainstream.

Yes. I'm suggesting that the critics word is gospel. :\

I use critics because it's the only guage I have as to how a movie fairs in the eyes of the general public because, a lot of times, the critical numbers reflect how the mainstream audience likes a movie. I'm not suggesting that you, personally, listen to critics. Do what you want to do, I don't care.

What I'm suggesting is that the mainstream audiences, using the critics as examples, has not liked the movies that Hollywood has put out and has told Hollywood this by not buying tickets. But Hollwood, for some reason, blames it on "audience tastes" rather than picture quality.

 

[Ranger REG]

I think there are more factors at work. We are to be blamed too, for years we have gone to the same cookie cutter movies, some good and some bad, add to that the every growing buget of movies, the move to DVDs, the cost of going on a date...this was to be expected.

Yeah, I'm guilty. For instance, I didn't bother to go to the theater to watch Daredevil but I caved and bought the director's cut DVD.

I believed we discussed this before in an earlier thread about actual theater vs. DVD (and home theater).

 

[Hand of Evil]

Yes. I'm suggesting that the critics word is gospel. *rolleyes*

I use critics because it's the only guage I have as to how a movie fairs in the eyes of the general public because, a lot of times, the critical numbers reflect how the mainstream audience likes a movie. I'm not suggesting that you, personally, listen to critics. Do what you want to do, I don't care.

What I'm suggesting is that the mainstream audiences, using the critics as examples, has not liked the movies that Hollywood has put out and has told Hollywood this by not buying tickets. But Hollwood, for some reason, blames it on "audience tastes" rather than picture quality.

Last week or was it the week before, there was a major payolla (sp) dealing with record labels paying off radio sations to play their music, Sony being one. I can not believe the same does not happen for movies.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Yeah, I'm guilty. For instance, I didn't bother to go to the theater to watch Daredevil but I caved and bought the director's cut DVD.

I believed we discussed this before in an earlier thread about actual theater vs. DVD (and home theater).

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=97316

This Weekend at the Boxoffice - 08/06/2004

Estimated ticket sales for Aug. 6-8
1. “Collateral,” $24.4 million
2. “The Village,” $16.6 million
3. “The Bourne Supremacy,” $14.1 million
4. “The Manchurian Candidate,” $10.8 million
5. “Little Black Book,” $7 million
6. “I, Robot,” $6.3 million
7. “Spider-Man 2,” $5.5 million
8. “Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle,” $3.2 million
9. “A Cinderella Story,” $3.05 million
10. “Catwoman,” $2.9 million

 

[Ranger REG]

What I'm suggesting is that the mainstream audiences, using the critics as examples, has not liked the movies that Hollywood has put out and has told Hollywood this by not buying tickets. But Hollwood, for some reason, blames it on "audience tastes" rather than picture quality.

Hollywood blaming us for not being in-sync with them? Meh. Like that's new.

I do agree with you on this. Hollywood in general have not been on the pulse of their movie audience to impress us. IOW, it is just another summer slump. That and DVD/HET and the rising movie ticket price, etc.

 

[DonTadow]

Yes. I'm suggesting that the critics word is gospel. :\

I use critics because it's the only guage I have as to how a movie fairs in the eyes of the general public because, a lot of times, the critical numbers reflect how the mainstream audience likes a movie. I'm not suggesting that you, personally, listen to critics. Do what you want to do, I don't care.

What I'm suggesting is that the mainstream audiences, using the critics as examples, has not liked the movies that Hollywood has put out and has told Hollywood this by not buying tickets. But Hollwood, for some reason, blames it on "audience tastes" rather than picture quality.

Not all critics review the same or are the same. There are mainstream critics and non-mainstream critics, a good portion of both are represented on rottentomatoes.com. The good critics review a movie to their personal taste, not what everyone would like. The key is to find reviewers whom have a personal taste like yours.

When the non-mainstream critics begin agreeing with the mainstream critics someone may have a point. I use rottentomatoes.com as you do reveal to guage if i want to see a movie or not. I look at the total rating and then go to some of my favorite reviewers to see what they say. I have yet to see a movie that got a really good set of ratings on rottentomatoes that I did not like. Every bad movie i've seen or heard about usually gets super low review scores.

However, I will admit, sometimes rottentomatoes can not be trusted, which is why I"m glad they got the quotes. A majority of movies are on the border of a good/bad review and depending on the wind blowing, the website will label it good or bad.

As for critics being paid off, honestly it happens a lot more than you think. It happens in music, it happens in videogame reviews and it happens in movies. I was a reporter fora few years and the MOvie Critic at the big market newspaper received "lots" of gifts from movie studios. Free tickets, dvds, movies, free trips to "view" movies (in the islands no doubt) ect. The policy at the paper would be that if anything came across they had to be either returned or destributed to the rest of the staff via auction. HOwever, I know that some of the freebies slipped by management. But this is a good reason why these websites that compile reviews are good. Not every reviewer can be paid off. and the good ones even tell you when they were offered to give a good review.