RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Comic Books Gail Simone to write Red Sonja.

No Country for Old Men, great, quality movie. Box office receipts are a pittance compared to Transformers. Crazy Heart, awesome film that explores the life of an old, drunk, has-been country singer that was better than anything else out in theaters at the time. It made no where near the bank that Twilight did. I can also rattle off about a dozen or so TV shows that were cancelled despite their quality because they couldn't get ratings.

As much as I hate Bay and how he holds the craftsmanship of film making by the hair, forcing it down face first into a rusty tub of water until the bubbles stop, his movies and movies like his make money. You and I may want quality in our entertainment, but the masses at large settle for shiny, polished, gilded turds.

I don't think the downward trend is atrributable to mediocrity: I think the downward trend is atributable to consumer dollars being pushed in different directions.

it's being pushed in the direction of my sphincter!

Sphincter? Damn near kill 'er!

Good examples (except for Crazy Heart, which I didn't see). But I think it leaves out stylistic qualities that have to be taken into account. I agree that a movie shouldn't have to be shiny or gilded to reach an audience. But I consider polish to be a presentational must.

For all the shit I give the Coen Bros. and Bridges over their arrogance in how they tried to sell the True Grit remake (as though their rendition was more faithful than the original film), I admit that it was a very decent film that most audiences could be attracted to. It was neither shiny nor gilded (due in large part to its genre as a dark and grainy western), but it was finely polished.

A better example is perhaps Game of Thrones. Everything about it screams quality, but it's also complemented by polish. And incidentally, its following is huge.

What I think we agree on is what people will generally flock to right off the bat. However, I don't think that necessarily means there'll be a lasting interest (with Twilight being an irritating fringe exception). In the case of Transformers for instance, everyone I spoke to who went to see it admitted that it sucked. Despite this, they'll still go see the sequel in theaters again. But it was pretty clear they'd never buy the film. What we learn from this is that, regardless of a film's quality, it still needs to sell itself--like Nolan's "Batman" filsm for instance *wink wink*. In which case, I'll chalk up the failure of good films to stunted marketing--which may or may not be compounded by an all-audience friendly rating (as is the case with Twilight and Transformers).

I used to think that for a long time as well, but s couple studies my macroeconomics teacher rattled off in class apparently showed that entertainment has a history of being an outlet for an economically depressed populace. People still generally find time and a budget for entertainment (mostly families) despite money woes.

It's the budgets for vacations and clothing that take a beating more so than annual recreation.

That was certainly true of the 1930's.

The movie industry thrived, perhaps as a needed outlet of escape from reality of the times.

in the 1930s if you wanted to see a movie you had to go to a theater and pay per person. Today, you rent the movie at redbox for a couple of bucks (or obtain it through other means) and the whole family watches for a single price.

With a chimp.

That's a terrible thing to say about our president, Dave!

I'd agree that it's easier now for the family to do that, at a much lower cost.

My point was that when we didn't have broadcast television and all the inexpensive movie options we have now, people still made a priority of cinema movies in the 1930's, even when they had far less options and had to pay full price. I thought it was interesting that it was one industry that never suffered in the depression-era.