Hollywood just doesn't get it

[reveal]

I don't know exactly what your point is and this response is with the best of intentions, but you never, ever produce art, be it film or any other type of media to please critics. Big, huge, gigantic mistake.

Again, I use critics as a guage of how audiences in general will react. I realize not everyone agrees with critics but I don't have the time to ask everyone in the US how they feel about a film.

 

[DonTadow]

Again, I use critics as a guage of how audiences in general will react. I realize not everyone agrees with critics but I don't have the time to ask everyone in the US how they feel about a film.

A few years ago, critics were only a minor determination if I"d see a movie or not. Heck I saw Batman and Robin. But, as ticket prices went from 5 bucks to $10 it became more econmoic for me to really investigate a movie before I go see it. Especially when, as the guy, you end up paying $20 bucks, plus popcorn and something to drink even though you told them to sneak a pop in their purse before the theater....

Anyway, it gets expensive and it helps to get a general synopsis of the movie before you go in. When I go to rottetomatoes I read the rotten reviews before I read my favorites. Because if someone hates it I want to know why and if its the same things I would hate about the movie. That is more of a determinate in retrocspect that a positive review. If the rotten reviews sound more like personal gripes, I dismiss the, no matter how many it is.

 

[Mystery Man]

Again, I use critics as a guage of how audiences in general will react. I realize not everyone agrees with critics but I don't have the time to ask everyone in the US how they feel about a film.

And why the hell not? You should do your research before make a post like this!!

j/k

Actually that reply is probably more relevant that you might think. Do film makers have that kind of time either? Unfortunately we're conditioned by the media into judging a films worth by how many dollars it brings in rather than its artistic value.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't know exactly what your point is and this response is with the best of intentions, but you never, ever produce art, be it film or any other type of media to please critics. Big, huge, gigantic mistake.

I think maybe his point is that if critics gave better reviews, then more people would see movies.

 

[Desdichado]

Unfortunately we're conditioned by the media into judging a films worth by how many dollars it brings in rather than its artistic value.

I don't think that's really true; I think that how much money a movie makes is the only objective (albeit indirect) guide to how good a movie is. Artistic value to one guy is utter crap to the guy next to him. Artistic value is meaningless except in a personal context.

I like plenty of movies that were not runaway box office sensations, and I similarly despise many movies that are, but face it; other than my own personal reviews of a movie, how much money it makes is usually a more relevent point of discussion, unless the main point of the discussion is a sharing of personal reviews of the movie. And money is certainly how movies are judged by studios. I'd venture to say it's the only relevent variable to the topic at hand.

If you'd rather talk about the artistic value of The Island, there's a separate thread for that.

 

[Mystery Man]

I don't think that's really true; I think that how much money a movie makes is the only objective (albeit indirect) guide to how good a movie is.

No, if it's inovative and pushes the industry and the audience to grow is a guide to how good a movie is.

Artistic value is meaningless except in a personal context.

Yeah, art is subjective.

 

[Desdichado]

No, if it's inovative and pushes the industry and the audience to grow is a guide to how good a movie is.

Innovative is a tricky word; what movies are innovative isn't exactly well agreed on. And if a movie pushes and industry and the audience to grow, that's a result of having had ticket sales, right? I don't see the industry changing for a commercially unsuccessful movie very often.

And what causes the audience to grow? What do you mean by that?

 

[Mystery Man]

Innovative is a tricky word; what movies are innovative isn't exactly well agreed on. And if a movie pushes and industry and the audience to grow, that's a result of having had ticket sales, right? I don't see the industry changing for a commercially unsuccessful movie very often.

Well, nobody is in the business to not make money.

And what causes the audience to grow? What do you mean by that?

Take Sci/Fi for example. Before 2001: A Space Oddyssy and after. It made people think about space travel and the future, not just running from a robotic space alien invasion. That's generalizing in a big huge way, but I don't feel like writing an essay.

 

[Hijinks]

what causes the audience to grow? What do you mean by that?

Another example would be Chicago. While it is a film version of the Broadway play that's been running for a long time, for many people it was an introduction to the musical genre of film. So that more people began watching musicals, who possibly had not watched one before. But since they had seen Chicago because it was mainstream and included mainstream actors and actresses, they realized they liked it and wanted more of it.

 

[Bloodstone Press]

My problem with Hollywood is that they are pricing themselves out of the market, the big screen is just an ad for DVD sales.

I agree with that. I almost never go to the theater anymore. the only time I go is if the big screen would make a difference in the experience (as someone else said).

Plus if you wait a while to see a move after it comes out you not only get to read critical reviews, you also get to read discussions on message boards from many people who have seen it. You get to see ticket sales and plenty of other info about it, so you can make an informed decision about whether to spend the time and money on it.

Take Sci/Fi for example. Before 2001: A Space Odyssey and after. It made people think about space travel and the future, not just running from a robotic space alien invasion. That's generalizing in a big huge way, but I don't feel like writing an essay.

I'm not trying to argue with you, , but I just felt the need to point out a few things:
1.From the Earth to the Moon:1867
2. Buck Rogers: 1928
3. Flash Gordon: 1934
4. R is for Rocket: 1943
5: Dr. Who 1963 (ok, maybe it doesn't quite fit your criteria, the Dr. did fight robotic space aliens. But I still think Dr. Who is one of the best, most innovative, sci-fi settings ever)
6. Dune: 1965
7. Star Trek:1966
8. 2001: A space Odyssey: 1969

I'm sure other people can think of more.

I'm not saying you should write an essay, but perhaps you could elaborate a little? I understand you're "generalizing in a big huge way," but I can't really imagine what you might be trying to say.