** Since when is a film's budget relevant to quality? I can think of many
examples of films whereby critics carped about gargantuan budgets not
meeting quality or box office expectations. ("King Kong" is the most recent
example, "Poseidon" and "The Island" are others.) A film's budget is part
of the "news" of business reporting and typically enters into the discussion
when something becomes a bomb or a hit.
** Conversely, there are many more high quality films that cost a fraction
"Superman Returns" $201 million budget (as reported by Variety, excl.
marketing costs, in the same ballpark as "King Kong" and "Titanic" -- not
$300 million, which would make "Superman Returns," if true, the all-time
champ for waste). Four of the five films nominated for Best Picture in
2005, for ex. (the so-called illusory benchmark for quality) -- cost under
$40 mil. to make.
** Hence in my view -- the "common sense expectation" of a film's cost
matching "quality" -- is a red herring. Hollywood has a gazillion more
bombs under its belt than hits, esp. if budget is the deciding factor for
what makes a success.
** I've never forgotten what happened in 1980 when Warren Beatty's film,
"Reds" scored a boat load of Oscar nominations, had the highest production
costs of any film that year -- and was critically acclaimed. Yet all the
money put into that picture couldn't make people PAY to see it. Its
accolades were quickly over-shadowed by a high-quality "stagy" picture,
Robert Redford's "Ordinary People" -- which cost peanuts to make.
** Going to movies is always a risk. Wasted time is worse than wasted
money. On this basis, I recommend people staying home, esp. if
word-of-mouth does not match what you're reading in the press. What I tend
to do is collect about six to seven reviews of a given film, skip over
plot-point discussions and go straight to paragraphs dealing with actual
criticism. This, for me anyway, reduces the chance of being sucked in by a
deceptive trailer aimed at filling the seats. It's not fool-proof, and I'm
always mindful for whom critics are writing, but it does strip away some
risk.
** I just react sourly when I detect what I can only describe as
"fashionable pessimism," you know, the "let's be hip by crapping on stuff"
before actual sampling by customers I know. It's a dismissive, grouchy
tonality from people who haven't even seen a picture that's a turn-off. I
react better to people who verbally carpet-bomb a film after they've seen
it. At least then, the resulting debate a little more productive.
** I am among those who asked, "what's the point?" -- upon learning
"Superman Returns" was being made last year. But I didn't want to overly
pre-judge the picture until reading across-the-board critical response, from
populist critics (Ebert) to industry critics (Variety) to elitist critics
(NYT and the New Yorker). That the picture works on any level at all is a
miracle. Most movie goers don't care how much a film costs. Just look at
the garbage that finishes #1 on opening weekend and disappears from the
radar in less than 4 weeks. Hence cost does not equal quality. Press
coverage and mega-ads that go beyond film reviews, i.e., dismissively
referred to as "hype" -- furthers skew expectations by giving products a
higher profile than perhaps it deserves.
** There are some writers on these boards who, in my view, have a
demonstrated track record of steering me in the right direction when it
comes to selecting films, no matter what critics say. Channing Thomson is
one of 'em. Freeman Fisher is another. Though Channing found "Superman
Returns" disappointing, I could see why he did. Moreover, based on his
recommendation of "The Devil Wears Prada," I now plan to see it before July
4. That film got mixed notices. And I didn't care for the book. But
because Channing has never been wrong in the past for me (knock on formica),
it's now on my list. Anything with Meryl Streep is worth watching. But I
wanted to know if a film version of a mediocre book is something I must see
on the big screen sooner -- or on the little screen (TV) later...
** The short window between a theatrical release and a DVD release is
killing exhibitors, and there may be a time when only box office
blockbusters are shown for $10 a pop -- with everything else going straight
to DVD, where profits are higher.
** Based on the tepid response to "Superman Returns" on these boards, my
best advice -- if MoPo is one of only a few channels from which you're
receiving info -- is by all means, wait for the DVD.
-koose.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
