Mark Kermode explains the problems with blockbusters

[Dr. Whom]

A fairly long article, but an interesting point of view of film critic Mark Kermode

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/aug/28/mark-kermode-multiplex-blockbuster

[Psycho Circus]

Mark Kermode

[Dr. Whom]

Fixed. But I will always think of him as Frank.

[Psycho Circus]

Fixed. But I will always think of him as Frank.

 

[Rev. Powell]

Excellent article! 

SPOILER ALERT:  Michael Bay is the bad guy. "If you want kids' movies in which cameras crawl up young women's skirts while CGI robots hit each other over the head, interspersed with jokes about masturbation and borderline-racist sub-minstrelsy stereotyping, then Bay is your go-to guy. He is also, shockingly, one of the most commercially successful directors working in Hollywood today, a hit-maker who proudly describes his visual style as 'f**king the frame' and whose movies appear to have been put together by people who have just snorted two tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium."

[Chainsawmidget]

Excellent article! 

SPOILER ALERT:  Michael Bay is the bad guy. "If you want kids' movies in which cameras crawl up young women's skirts while CGI robots hit each other over the head, interspersed with jokes about masturbation and borderline-racist sub-minstrelsy stereotyping, then Bay is your go-to guy. He is also, shockingly, one of the most commercially successful directors working in Hollywood today, a hit-maker who proudly describes his visual style as 'f**king the frame' and whose movies appear to have been put together by people who have just snorted two tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium."

If that doesn't make you want to go watch a Bay movie, I don't know what's wrong with you.   

[zombie no.one]

I won a video of Henry:Portrait Of A Serial Killer off Mark Kermode once, on a Radio 1 competition. but he sent me Jaws by mistake (or whoever dealt with the prizes did). so Ive still never seen Henry:Portrait Of A Serial Killer.

his impressions of film stars are quite funny though

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXFmlkqhCkA
	Small | Large

[Mofo Rising]

Well here's my take, which means I'm going to blather for a bit.

The way the movie industry is currently set up is that movie studios make most of their money in the first few weeks of a movie's release. In the first few weeks, a majority of the money actual theaters make in ticket sales go to the movie studios. After that period of time, less of the ticket prices go to the movie studios and more of it goes to the actual movie houses. That's why dollar theaters exist. They can afford to run movies that have been out for a month or two. Most of their money is made in popcorn sales, which most theaters subsist on anyway.

There is also a large portion of the movie going public that just want to see what's new. I would say that they are the majority. These are the people who pay for the blockbusters.

Many movies are now simply engines for an "event." Hype engines work overtime as presenting movies as "the thing you just have to see in the theater." Usually this involves gigantic explosions that just would not be the same if you watched it at home. This is where Michael Bay shines. The high-budget explosions that Michael Bay engineers are the je ne sais quoi of modern filmmaking. I'm not immune to it, I love big budget malarkey.

Now, I don't watch television or even listen to the radio, so hype means nothing to me, but it is probably the most powerful engine at work in entertainment today. Hype is everything in American culture. All that matters is getting those viewers in the seats for the first few weeks. Is the movie awful? Who cares? Get them to pay for tickets when the movie opens, and the hell with everything after that!

Well, the law of diminishing returns. I don't want to suck up to Christopher Nolan, but that guy has managed to create a middle ground where movies are an "event" but also happen to be good movies in their own right.

Michael Bay fails because all he cares about is the bottom line of the first two weeks.

It should be said that the amount of money that goes into movies is non-negligible. You do not invest $100 million dollars into movies to see it fail, and that's what these movies cost to make. If I had that amount of money in a movie, I might be more than willing to sell out artistic integrity to make my money back.

You know what I think, though, now that home theater has approached what is approachable in the actual theater, people won't be willing to sit through the garbage. The audience is growing ever smarter, and these s**tty blockbusters will grow increasingly obsolete. I have faith in the viewing audience.

[Dr. Whom]

Mofo, I don't  share your optimism in the viewing public. Blockbusters will only die out when companies figure out something that will rake in just as much, and be cheaper to make. God knows how depressing that will be.

Anyway, I do like your term 'hype engine'. I just can hear Patrick Stewart say it: Engage the hype engine!

[Mofo Rising]

Mofo, I don't  share your optimism in the viewing public. Blockbusters will only die out when companies figure out something that will rake in just as much, and be cheaper to make. God knows how depressing that will be.

Anyway, I do like your term 'hype engine'. I just can hear Patrick Stewart say it: Engage the hype engine!

Well, look at it this way, you are an intelligent person who wants to see good movies made and released. You spend your dollars accordingly. You are the viewing public. You're part of that unsung crowd who only go and see "the good stuff."

That's a bigger crowd than the people behind the "hype engine" imagine. Don't discount how many other people are out there who feel exactly as you do. Don't worry about the people who only want to see dreck, there are entire communities of people who seek out quality movies. This board is only one example.

That crowd is who you want to pay attention to. You're a member, and it grows every day. That's why I have hope for the viewing public.