status of hollywood
original post
trade magazines have been bitching and moaning about the low attendance at the box office during the summer months (calling the disappointment the "summer bummer"). and the question that hollywood is asking itself why?
my theory is that hollywood did it to itself. it has always been known for producing some type of thing over and over again. there are a limited amount of films that get nationally distributed and it's confined to a few safe genres: superhero flick, romantic comedy, stylised horror and so on.
if anything, most people are not interested in seeing movies in the theatre because... well, they are not interested in what's out there. people more and more are getting more picky about what they do with their time. if it involves movies, they will explore other options. in fact, what's so great about services like netflix (there are a few other places that do the same thing that netflix does) is that many people now have the opportunity to expand their cinematic palette. i know i have taken advantage of it and it's helped me a lot to be a better film appreciater. and right now, i'm more interested in watching good films that have appeared before summer 2005 rather than living in the theatre moment.
if anything, hollywood needs to take risks again like it did in the 1970s. there needs to be more experimentation. there needs to be more diversity in the type of films that get into theatres. sure the loss will be theirs, but the rewards will be theirs as well. after all, they are losing anyway but playing safe. going on with this same idea, the marketing should also be appealing. the tactic should not be "you better watch this film because of dat, dat, dat." rather, the marketing should be made for the film and should tell the film in about 30 to 60 sec and captivate a potential viewer that way.
the other thing is that there is the strong possibility that the theatre system as we know it, i.e. the megaplex, is dying. people are not interested in attending movies in the theatres in mass droves, except when inspiring by mass hype or because there is an interesting film out there. or - and this is meant to explain why the lord of the rings was successful in the box office - there is timed-tested material that is made well.
but either way, let us sing: cinéma, cinéma!!! from screen to screen, from film to film... =]
trade magazines have been bitching and moaning about the low attendance at the box office during the summer months (calling the disappointment the "summer bummer"). and the question that hollywood is asking itself why?
my theory is that hollywood did it to itself. it has always been known for producing some type of thing over and over again. there are a limited amount of films that get nationally distributed and it's confined to a few safe genres: superhero flick, romantic comedy, stylised horror and so on.
if anything, most people are not interested in seeing movies in the theatre because... well, they are not interested in what's out there. people more and more are getting more picky about what they do with their time. if it involves movies, they will explore other options. in fact, what's so great about services like netflix (there are a few other places that do the same thing that netflix does) is that many people now have the opportunity to expand their cinematic palette. i know i have taken advantage of it and it's helped me a lot to be a better film appreciater. and right now, i'm more interested in watching good films that have appeared before summer 2005 rather than living in the theatre moment.
if anything, hollywood needs to take risks again like it did in the 1970s. there needs to be more experimentation. there needs to be more diversity in the type of films that get into theatres. sure the loss will be theirs, but the rewards will be theirs as well. after all, they are losing anyway but playing safe. going on with this same idea, the marketing should also be appealing. the tactic should not be "you better watch this film because of dat, dat, dat." rather, the marketing should be made for the film and should tell the film in about 30 to 60 sec and captivate a potential viewer that way.
the other thing is that there is the strong possibility that the theatre system as we know it, i.e. the megaplex, is dying. people are not interested in attending movies in the theatres in mass droves, except when inspiring by mass hype or because there is an interesting film out there. or - and this is meant to explain why the lord of the rings was successful in the box office - there is timed-tested material that is made well.
but either way, let us sing: cinéma, cinéma!!! from screen to screen, from film to film... =]
posted by djproject at 09:11
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home