"Hollywood's like Egypt"

[Sylph]

Probably no one is really interested, but Manohla Darghis and A. O. Scott "debate whether movies are better or worse than ever, and invite you into the discussion":

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/movies/manohla-dargis-and-a-o-scott-on-hollywoods-crisis.html?ref=movies

David O. Selznick got it right.

[All My Shadows]

Or, rather, insecure people pretentiously state their own personal opinions in hopes of intimidating someone else to agree with them. Snoozefest. I'd rather watch a remake of Forrest Gump than read all of that.

[Sylph]

Intimidating? Really? It was worth the read, if only for the Selznick remark. LOL.

[All My Shadows]

Intimidating was totally the wrong word, but I was so hot to type something bitchy because I was reading another board I think I channeled my anger at the other board into my post here.

But you know what I mean...the whole thing is pretentious and condescending. Any time -- any time -- you ask someone about the current state of music, movies, and TV, the knee-jerk reaction comes right on through. Of course, there's not a lot that TRULY excites me these days either (well, I'm less selective about my music, so I'm good with it now), but "everything was better in the past" is annoying as hell. It's like the people who swear 1939 was the greatest year in movie history but have only seen The Wizard of Oz and a few assorted clips of Gone with the Wind.

[cct]

I truly think that movies are in the same state as they always were. While we had Oz and GWTW (and many others), we also had Three Stooges, Andy Hardy movies, and their ilk as well.

I agree with the article when they speak about the influx of home video really changing the movie culture. I have many friends and my own mother who rarely step foot into a theater. It's too expensive to take the risk that the movie you see is mediocre, let alone truly awful. Most people will "wait until it comes on video," especially for those mid-level adult dramas, such as the ones typically nominated for Oscars. I don't blame them. Myself, I often categorize movies into "gotta catch that in a theater" (crazy special FX, visual treats, sumptuous cinematography, etc.) and "can wait for video" (adult dramas or comedies; can't tell you the last time I watched a comedy in a theater, considering there's nothing "big screen" about most comedies).

So, let's take it down to what is often considered the Lowest Common Denominator of Movies--Transformers franchise. Truth? I thought the first one was a lot of fun. This, from a man who thoroughly enjoys movies like The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, The Kids are Alright or Blue Valentine. Other truth? If I'm going to see Transformers 2 (I didn't) or 3 (probably not), I'm going to want to see it on a big screen, because it's really all about the special FX and the Dolby surround-sound. I'm not going for the acting or even for what is sure to be the hole-riddled plot. I believe many adults base their moviegoing decisions the same way.

Teenagers have more disposable income. If I had all the money I made in high school and early college years that I spent on going to the movies back in my coffers, I'm sure I could've afforded a better car, but I digress...therefore, it's teenagers making up the bulk of the market. When I go to a regular movie theater on a Friday or Saturday night, (rare), the place is CRAWLING with them. Very few adults and the number of blue-hairs, rarer still, (although the ones that show usually wind up in my theater).

You cannot blame the "marketers" or whatever the article referred to them as...follow the money.

That said, if you make it (film for grown folk) they will come...if it's good. Witness the large grosses for movies like True Grit, Good Will Hunting, As Good As It Gets, American Beauty, Million Dollar Baby, even Black Swan to some extent. All of these movies had critical acclaim, big box office and aren't based on comic books or SNL alum/skits.