It's funny, because I was just going to ask if it was "be kind to Woody Allen" day, because I personally think his last really fine movie was in 1980!
But I imagine that we can agree that his streak of ten straight incredible movies from 1969 to 1980 was something no one could live up to: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081554/> 1980 * Stardust Memories <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081554/>* 1979 * Manhattan <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079522/>* 1978 * Interiors <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077742/>* 1977 * Annie Hall <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075686/>* 1975 * Love and Death <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073312/>* 1973 * Sleeper <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070707/>* 1972 * Every Thing You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068555/>* 1971 * Bananas <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066808/>* 1969 * Take the Money and Run <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065063/>* On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Evan Zweifel <[email protected]>wrote: > Is it pick on Woody Allen day? Mostly mediocre output since 1989? > Really? He's been nominated for 11 Oscars since 1990. Granted 8 of them > were writing -- suggesting that he's doing something right. > > Evan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Kusumoto <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 22:04:21 -0000 (UTC) > Subject: Re: [MOPO] John Carter: excellent > > > That's an excellent point, Dave. I hadn't thought of that. Meanwhile, > the NY Times delivered its verdict today. Despite better returns expected > from the overseas market, "John Carter" is going to be one of the biggest > financial disasters in film history. The AP also grimly noted that most of > "Carter's" fans are men OVER 25, which is terrible news from a business > standpoint for a film the NY Times now says cost $350 million to make AND > to market. How can you make a profit from that? You need younger patrons > who are more avid movie goers than older people, who tend to stay home. > > This afternoon's article further infers that while Disney is today > adopting a "point no fingers" stance, director Andrew Stanton was given a > blank check based on his past performance with "Finding Nemo" and "WALL-E." > Disney apparently so feared angering a box office golden boy like Stanton > - that the result was a Mike Cimino-like "Heaven's Gate" fiasco (which > occurred after UA gave Cimino a blank check after his prior success with > the "The Deer Hunter" in 1978-79). > > While Hollywood has always cared about overseas box office, production > chiefs still craft their films foremost with U.S. audiences in mind. This > is a country, after all, of 300 million. This explains the > American-centric drive of U.S.-financed pictures that puzzle sophisticated > audiences in the U.K., for example, e.g., the casting of William Holden in > "Bridge Over the River Kwai," the singular U.S. perspective of the D-Day > landing in "Saving Private Ryan," the casting of Steve McQueen and James > Garner in "The Great Escape," etc. Even today, a U.S. film that does > poorly here but makes up its investment overseas is considered a blemish to > its prestige in the industry, e.g., Costner's "Waterworld," last year's > "Cowboys and Aliens" and 1963's "Cleopatra" - the latter which nearly > destroyed Fox. (Incredibly, the #1 overseas market for U.S. films is not > in Europe - but in Asia, specifically Japan.) In the end, for all the > clamor for better made pictures, the Hollywood model i! > s still geared towards making money by targeting young people, resulting > in an overall poorer quality product unless you purposely chase mature > audiences (as in temperament, and not necessarily age) - such as > independent films which can still make money because of low production > budgets. It's why Woody Allen is still making films despite a mostly > mediocre output since 1989. One thing for sure - despite the quality of > "John Carter," Disney's and director Stanton's original plans to make two > sequels of this film in the years ahead are dead. > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/business/media/ishtar-lands-on-mars.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all > > > Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 09:55:41 -0400 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > True, "John Carter" is meaningless except to ERB > fanboys, but Disney has had terrible luck with any movie with "Mars" in the > title. Both last year's Mars Needs Moms and, from years ago, Misson to > Mars were > major flops. So Disney may be shying away from the whole Mars thing. And > if they > weren't before, they sure will now. > > Dave > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > David Kusumoto > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 3:39 > AM > Subject: Re: [MOPO] John Carter: > excellent > > > The sad thing is a film like "The > Artist," which has done poor business in the U.S. despite winning the > Oscar > last month for Best Picture - is not considered a flop because it had a > modest > production budget. (BTW, if you haven't seen that film yet, hold your > dollars; the film is being released on DVD next month.) But "John > Carter," despite its merits, is headed toward becoming one of the biggest > box > office flops in Disney's history. Some say the film, which cost a > whopping $250 million to make, may even lose this weekend's Friday through > Sunday box office in the U.S. to "The Lorax." CinemaScore, the market > research firm, says "John Carter's" demographic is running at 65 percent > male, > indicating the picture turns off women. The business projections for > "John Carter" are so dire - that there's talk Disney may lose $100 > million to > $165 million on the picture. Audiences have no clue about much of this > negative chatter of course, but some analysts say Disney made a huge > marketing > mistake with the film's title, which only resonates with Burroughs fans > and to > comic-book fanboys - by dumping its original working title, which was a > more > intriguing and mysterious, "John Carter on Mars" - and not just "John > Carter." > > Los Angeles Times: > > http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-fi-ct-disney-carter-20120310,0,2000583.story > > Entertainment > Weekly: > http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/03/10/box-office-john-carter/ > > > > > > Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:14:38 -0800 > From: > [email protected] > Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent > To: > [email protected] > > > > > > Very happy to hear these comments, as a long time Edgar > Rice Burroughs fan. > Always thought the Barsoom adventures would be fantastic on the big > screen. > Ari > > --- On Sun, 11/3/12, Richard Auras > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: > Richard Auras <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MOPO] John > Carter: excellent > To: [email protected] > Received: > Sunday, 11 March, 2012, 3:14 AM > > > > > > Caught it last night myself and can echo your sentiments. > Best movie I have seen in a while. > > > > > > From: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > To: > [email protected] > Sent: Sat, March 10, 2012 7:17:47 > PM > Subject: [MOPO] > John Carter: excellent > > What an amazing science fiction > movie...maybe one of the best for some time...highly > recommended. > > Philipp > > Sent via BlackBerry by > AT&T > > > 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. > > 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. > -- Bruce Hershenson and the other 24 members of the eMoviePoster.com team P.O. Box 874 West Plains, MO 65775 Phone: 417-256-9616 (hours: Mon-Fri 9 to 5 except from 12 to 1 when we take lunch) our site <http://www.emovieposter.com/> our auctions <http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/all.html> <http://www.emovieposter.com/unused/signature/20111028Frankensteinemployeegroupphotosignature.jpg> 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.
