Daryle, I concede to your points. I admit that I pay such minutiae little mind, in greater part because of my loathing of the system.
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Daryle Lockhart <dar...@darylelockhart.com>wrote: > > > Actually...that's not ENTIRELY accurate. > > Remember that most of these studios are owned by corporations that have > little to do with entertainment. As I write this, "At The Movies" just > showed a clip of a Roger Ebert review from 1987 where he goes OFF on > "Leonard Part 6" because at the time, Columbia was owned by Coca Cola, so > Bill Cosby is holding a can up to his face randomly in the picture. THIS is > where it all went left. Corporations "getting into the movie business". > Disney's one of the only pure-play entertainment companies making movies > right now. This is one of the factors that went into selling off Miramax. > > As for the audience not going anywhere...that's not entirely accurate > either. They're slowly leaving, as evidenced by the rise in ticket prices. > Check the match. You're paying an additional 2 dollars in some markets. 5 > extra dollars for IMAX. That's somebody's seat. The audience isn't JUST > leaving for the internet. People are starting to watch smaller movies, even > movies that LOOK smaller. The "French new wave" of the 21st Century is made > up of movies from Asia. Bollywood, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese films > take risks that American pictures don't. And they pack houses they way a > movie during a recession is supposed to - 300 at a time. > > But on to the point of the article. Comic book movies are SUPPOSED to kill > Hollywood. Comics are supposed to be counter culture. The movie business > cycle is at a point now just like is was in the early 60s. The pictures are > too big. The stars are too boring. The money's just not there in some (MGM) > cases. There's a collapse coming of "Cleopatra" proportions. When that > happens, it's not gonna be about Superman or Green Lantern movies to save > the business. It'll be pictures like Scott Pilgrim. Popular comics with > stories you can tell a number of ways, but more importantly, cost > effective pictures that relate to the audience. > > Comic Book movies are killing contemporary Hollywood. Long Live the next > Hollywood. > > > On Aug 1, 2010, at 6:29 AM, Martin Baxter wrote: > > > > No one puts a gun to H'Wood's head and forces them to churn out such crap. > If they want to do movies based on comics, they can take their time and do > it right. The audience isn't going anywhere. > > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Kelwyn <ravena...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> http://news.premiere.com/blog/2010/07/comic-con-is-killing-hollywood-.html >> >> Super hero movies might save the box office, but they fail fans of good >> movies. >> >> That's because movies based on comic book super heroes are the worst of >> Hollywood's modern genres. These flashy passion plays that celebrate the >> redeeming powers of violence are more loathsome than torture porn, fratboy >> fart operas, or mopey boomer spawn tearjerkers. The brooding, misunderstood >> heroes are boring. The erotic, computer generated fisticuffs between >> demigods is boring. The secret identities, costume fetishes, and the super >> powers – the grappling-hook bazookas, and lightening sneezes and berserker >> gorilla rages – are boring. The genre is exhausted. And this is coming from >> a dude who is currently plowing through three comic book series (Ex Machina, >> The Walking Dead, and Top Ten.) >> >> http://news.premiere.com/blog/2010/07/comic-con-is-killing-hollywood-.html >> >> > > > -- > "If all the world's a stage and we are merely players, who the bloody hell > wrote the script?" -- Charles E Grant > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik > > > > -- "If all the world's a stage and we are merely players, who the bloody hell wrote the script?" -- Charles E Grant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik
