At the age of 45, I'm way outside the intended demographic of many movies...

But I liked "Narnia." I'm looking forward to "King Kong." We loved "Good night, and Good Luck."

The Golden Globes are given by the hollywood foreign press, doesn't that mean that according to Bruce's thesis, its Europeans that want to see movies that are insulting to Americans.

Bollywood is actually turning out some good stuff.

I agree that going to the movies just isn't as much fun anymore precisely because of all the other people also going to the movies. I don't go to movies on opening weekend anymore not because it's crowded(they've always been crowded)but because you can't count on people to keep their mouths shut and let you enjoy the movie in a quiet theater. I make a deliberate effort to avoid the irritation factor, and go to movies during the day when I'm off, or go to smaller independent theaters. And some theaters I stay away from entirely. The last time I saw anybody complain about noise, the movie theater sent not one of their own employees in to talk to the loud movie-goer, but a cop who was working as security at the theater. Really, the only way to get them to change is to refuse to go to big chain theaters until they take the comfort of the average movie-goer seriously again.

Little of what Tammy says seems to make sense, though it does sound like conservative dogma.

Existentialists think life doesn't matter? That sounds like a 15 year old's apprehension of existentialism. The lie that Americans are bad people?

"the lie that Americans are bad people." Eh, which of thos emovies presents that idea? Even History of Violenc eis ostensibly about redemption for Pete's sake. And most of the Americans in Good Night and Good luck *were* good people. Heroes. Methinks maybe it's just that the people Tammy would *like* to be portrayed as good aren't.

Besides: people aren't inherantly good. Or bad. They're human. Each a mix. Taking either of the other views is simplistic and usually the refuge of new age types and theological liberals (we're all good) or religious fundamentalists (we're all bad, sinful).

"Communist supporting reporters"??? Did she even *watch* the movie? Or is this some weird admiration for McCarthy showing They go to great pains to show that it wasn't about the reporters siding with communism. How tedious.

And critics are calling them cowboys because it easier to say and to capture than sheepherders, accurate or not.

And her gripes about The Constant Gardener? Oh, She'll *love* Syriana.

Tammy sounds just like a wannabe Anne Coulter in the making.

I make a deliberate effort to avoid the irritation factor, and go to movies during the day when I'm off, or go to smaller independent theaters.

Ditto.

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: ... Mr. Shakes’ and my regular habit of deliberately watching bad films to mock them ...

I miss Joel, Tom Servo, Crow and Gypsy.

Yuck, sorry for all the typos in my little rant above. I really should learn to preview!

1. Too much mindless tuff.
2. Bring back stories.
3. Get rid of the advertising
4. Stop over pricing the goodies
5. Get rid of the stars, they cost too much
6. Get rid of the advertising. Oh, I said that already.

I like movies!

//I miss Joel, Tom Servo, Crow and Gypsy.

Mystery Science Theater - That was always such a funny show. I would love the DVD's for xmas but they are 60 bucks for just a few episodes. A complete rip off. However, 60 bucks for every episode and i'd buy it today.

Reasons why movie attendance is down

1 - The movies suck.

2 - Idiot teenagers on their cell phones, and idiot boomer parents who take a 4 yr old to see War of the Worlds who don't parent.

3 - Sony PSP, PS2, XBOX, IPOD, Nano, Tivo, etc

4 - Why bother seeing it in the theatre when it will be out on DVD in 3 months?

5 - The movies suck. Did I say that already? Anyone see "Stealth"? Didn't think so.

6 - The good artsy fartsy NY elitist movies only play in select cities, so if you live in a social retarted redstate, no "Goodnight and Goodluck" for you. Anyone know when "Aeon Flux" starts?

I'm as liberal as they come, but lordy, she's right--most movies are incredibly dreary and predictable. I like foreign films from places I don't know well, just for the surprise factor. And the documentaries have been good the last couple of years--Spellbound, etc. It also gets me out of seeing the violence, which pretty well saturates US movies lately. It's not "stylish violence", as one reviewer put it--it's sick.

There are more good explanations for why Hollywood is making less money than there are movies. I like the idea that it is a bad business model to make a small number of big money bets (see, e.g., King Kong, Narnia, Waterworld) instead of making a lot of small money bets (Scream, that Penguin Movie, etc).

For the people who hate going to the movies these days (myself included)... If that is why Hollywood income is down, then it would have to be because more people are choosing not to go due to the conditions, which means either people have become more finicky or the movie-going experience has become more annoying. I'm inclined to think it is the former. I know, from personal experience, the bar of pleasantness above which a movie has to place has been raised higher by how nice it is to watch a movie at home these days... big screen, comfy couch, beer, good sound, etc. Does this seem like the case for everyone else?

Also, another thing... I just wonder if there is any correlation between the decline of Hollywood income and the decline in number of theaters from which you can walk to any other activity. I know I like going to the movies downtown, when it is part of a night out, more than just driving to a theater, then driving home when it is over.

"Tammy sounds just like a wannabe Anne Coulter in the making."
Not really. Tammy knows she's a lesbian, unlike Ragin' Annie. Who knows what she's so angry about. Maybe she just knows her personal profile will get her on TV.

Put me down as one who waits for the video (I'll have to learn to say DVD, won't I. Just like my old man the "ice-box"). I sometimes say I'd pay more for a theatre that enforced courtesy, but then I think, so many actors are so vastly overpaid. They should start paying the big stars in percentages. If they're worth twenty million,they'll get it.

not enough films for teenage boys

Good Lord...is somebody seriously making this argument? When I look at the listings at the big mainstream theatres I feel like there's nothing playing that isn't targeted to teenage boys.

Well, it's obvious Tammy The Bruce didn't actually see A History of Violence, which is about an evil, violent man who moves to the Midwest and becomes a good, caring human being, a loving husband and father, who, when pushed by Elite East Coasters who threaten his life and the lives of his family, acts with violence, but only as a last resort.

But that's just it: she's not right.

she's not criticizing movies for being "incredibly dreary and predictable." She criticizing them for this:

Not only will we not go see films which insult us, we refuse to support an existential worldview. We happen to think life does matters, that decency is a good thing, and that people are inherently good, not bad. We also have stopped believing the lie that Americans are bad people. ...

So you can take your gay sheepherder, noble communist supporting reporters, big-business is evil, Americans are hopelessly and inherently corrupt and violent and unfaithful movies and go to Cannes...And especially considering the movies she's referring to, that's poppycock.

She's criticizing the movie because they don't reflect her worldview, but she's not even accurately reflecting their content. She's just projecting her own worldview onto all of them.

I mean, did you see Good Night & Good Luck? Did you think it was about "communist supporting reporters"?

Is A History of Violence about the "demonization of the average mid-western American man"? That's nonsense!

And does she offer any proff that big business *doesn't* take advantage of and experiment on the poor? No, she doesn't. She just proclaims her annoyance at the fact that anyone would dare criticize big business.

Are such conservatives really that naive about the practices of big business? You'd almost have to be *willfully* so.

Too much of a good thing is the problem, I think. I don't go often, which is probably why I'm blown away at how accomplished movies are these days compared to the movies of my youth. No nostalgia here. I saw a Humphrey Bogart movie the other day and nearly barfed at the acting.

Compare that to Spiderman 2. That movie has fine acting, by comparison, great graphics, camera angles and special effects the "classics" guys never dreamed of, stirring music, humor mixed in with adventure, love and pathos and the very agreeable experience of soaring above NY city! And I saw it in a stadium theater with a huge very sharp screen and incredible surround sound.

How can anyone top that? But they have to try---Americans expect the next thing to always be more fabulous than the last---and they have to try hundreds of times more often than in the old days. The theater I saw Spiderman in had twenty screens!

Movies are not going to the dogs, we're in a golden age. Even the Kingdom of God, which has one of the dumbest plots in history, was fabulous if you see it for its feeling of being there, in the very center of charging knights, rudely defended castles, vast armies of men on horses---what a piece of movie making craft!

So all the plots are used up. People can't just fall in love anymore. One of the lovers has to be a reincarnation of his girl’s missing brother or something, and still they must churn these incredibly expensive productions out by the hundreds. Enjoy the golden age while it lasts, because it can’t. Appreciate what’s in front of us, people. We rarely do until its long gone.

as stated by others:

MOVIES SUCK.

and i love movies. i mean i fucking love them.

but the people who own and run studios do not love movies. they love money. they love business, and what business could be more fun than making movies?

they have it down to a science, guaranteeing everything is boring, predictable, safe, bland, worthless. gay cowboys? so what? do you actually think there's anything that happens in that movie that is original or surprising aside from the fact that they're gay?

and as profits for theater owners go down, what do they do? do they attempt to make the movie-going experience MORE ENJOYABLE? seems like a sensible tactic, but no, they also just want MORE SHORT TERM MONEY. so we get 10 minutes of commercials before the show. great. and even more overpriced popcorn. and higher ticket prices.

the thought literally makes me want to die, but movies in theaters are on their way out, and it's the movie industry ensuring the demise.

what a bunch of assholes.

"But hey—if Bruce prefers to watch movies where people like her seem not to exist, who am I to criticize her decision?"

But Brokeass Mountain isn't about people like Tammy. Maybe she'll like Imagine Me & You better.

Looks like Hollywood is following the trend of the MSM. Hee hee.

Tired of all that junk: return to decent movies, for example my favorite, Local Hero.

The problem is that Hollywood makes too many movies aimed at 15-25 year olds, mainly young men. No one can expect an intelligent adult to see "The Dukes of Hazzard"
The studios had a great run over the past few years because of the movies that brought people who normally don't go to the theatre, like "The Passion of the Christ" and "My Big Fat Greek Wedding". Teenagers and families will go to the movies basically regardless of what's playing, because they want cheap entertainment. But grown ups have more options, so you have to cater to them. Hollywood needs to start to make more crowd pleasing movies aimed at middle American adults, instead of dumb junk for teenagers.

1 - The movies suck.

This is a biggee, not but the only. I enjoy watching from the comfort of the home front. I get to have a drink, go to the bathroom, and eat whatever I want (sometimes all at the same time). I can pause the movie or watch a sequence again. Turn up the volume. Turn down the volume.

I reserve the Theatre experience for the special effects movies such as LOTR, SW, or Winged Migration.

Hollywood's ability to turn out crap has always been there - always will be. I am not sure that there is any greater percentage now.

The majority of movies have always sucked. It's easy to remember the good shit from the past, and quickly forget about Leprechaun V in the Hood.

There's little doubt that the internet (pulling people away from movies all together to other online pursuits) as well as the sale of DVDs and home theater systems are combining to cut into theater sales. That's why DVD sales are getting closer to movie release times all the time. No sense in waiting too long, when people are gobbling them up way more than they did video or, heh, laser disks. In fact, Stephen Soderbergh is about to release a movie in theaters on DVD and on cable, all at the same time.

As far as crap movies go, yes, they're bad, maybe getting worse, but Hollywood has always made crap movies. If anything we're having an incredible renaissance in documentaries, for example.

So I think it's really the changes in technology which are affecting sales.

Shakespeare's Sister:

I think it’s a combination of the increasing unpleasantness of the movie-going experience

For me, it's mostly the cost of the movie-going experience.

and Hollywood’s compulsion to release swill like Kingdom of Heaven

Nah...Hollywood's been releasing swill for years.

The key is the difference in the entertainment options available now versus 10 to 20-plus years ago. Growing up, I had four TV channels on a good day, and seeing a movie was a special event in the grape_household...Not so much anymore, when I can basically see a movie anytime I choose to.

As for Tammy Bruce, it looks like I found another subject for a parody..."Left-wing McCarthyism"? Please.

"but the people who own and run studios do not love movies. they love money...

and as profits for theater owners go down, what do they do? do they attempt to make the movie-going experience MORE ENJOYABLE?"

A typical liberal not knowing how the actualy world works. Theatre owners aren't the same people as the ones who run studios. But then I guess, it doesn't really matter. All a liberal knows how to do is whine and complain.

All a liberal knows how to do is whine and complain.

Since this whole post is a response to a griping conservative, I guess we can just chalk you up to a troll?

And let's not forget "Memoirs of a Geisha"- a movie about high-class prostitutes (furriners at that) filled with some smokin'-hot Asian women. Yet another affront to Middle American values!

Tired of all that junk: return to decent movies, for example my favorite, Local Hero.
Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on December 15, 2005 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Hey! Just saw that (finally) for the first time the other day. Really liked it. It reminded me of a small town in Shetland I visited years ago - same feel to the townspeople.

I saw a Humphrey Bogart movie the other day and nearly barfed at the acting.

Hey, don't barf on Bogie. Which movie? Casablanca is supremem cheese, but one of my all time favorites. And African Queen is perhaps Bogie's best acting, IMO. Check it.

And let's not forget "Memoirs of a Geisha"-

Thanks for the reminder! With Gong Li, no less!!

Theatre owners aren't the same people as the ones who run studios.

The studios, however, are not responsible for any part of the movie-going experience aside from providing the movie. Theater owners are responsible for:

- showing (or not showing) a seemingly endless stream of commercials (not trailers - commercials) before the film

- providing (or not providing) ushers, who enforce rules on talking, cell phone use, theater-hopping, etc.

- letting in (or keeping out) out underage moviegoers

- setting prices

All of the complaints about the movie-going experience aside from "the movies suck" are within the purview of theater owners.

I love movies. Love love love them. I used to go to, on average, about a hundred movies a year in theatres. (Some of them were double features, but some were repeat viewings, so let's say it averages out to twice a week).

This year? I'll have seen about eighteen movies in a theatre. Still far more than average, but a tremendous drop-off. And why? For the same reasons as others have listed above -- the loud crowds, the rudeness (I've almost come to blows several times with people who refused to shut up on their cell phones), the commercials, the general cattle car effect.

Plus, I'm very busy, and I can't stand to play this guessing game of When Will The Movie Really Start? I saw The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe last week -- the listed time said 7:40 PM, but after the commercials and previews it only started at quarter after eight, so I wasted a half-hour just sitting there.

But like Shakespeare's Sister said, if they can drive a movie fanatic like me away, they can do it to anyone. And that's not good for their business.

A smart studio would just return to the studio system that we had in the 30's, 40's and 50's. I call it the playstation model- Sony figured out that they could upend nintendo as the god of video games by numbers. While Nintendo was spending years developing each groundbreaking game that would come out for the N64, Playstation was just liscencing the crap out of any and every video game company in the world. They made millions of cheap(er) games with highly variable results, instead of banking billions of man-hours in a handful of carefully packaged and marketed titles. That way, when one of their cheapos struck gold they could make a zillion copies of it for nothing and sell it everywhere, and people would get hooked on the system and bought everything else taht they made, too, looking for the title that really worked for them.

In the entertainment industry, it isn't a question of making something that everyone can tolerate. It's about making something that a group of people absolutely love, so that they will shell out the dough in the future to find another film that they really like.

A smart studio would just return to the studio system that we had in the 30's, 40's and 50's. I call it the playstation model- Sony figured out that they could upend nintendo as the god of video games by numbers. While Nintendo was spending years developing each groundbreaking game that would come out for the N64, Playstation was just liscencing the crap out of any and every video game company in the world. They made millions of cheap(er) games with highly variable results, instead of banking billions of man-hours in a handful of carefully packaged and marketed titles. That way, when one of their cheapos struck gold they could make a zillion copies of it for nothing and sell it everywhere, and people would get hooked on the system and bought everything else taht they made, too, looking for the title that really worked for them.

In the entertainment industry, it isn't a question of making something that everyone can tolerate. It's about making something that a group of people absolutely love, so that they will shell out the dough in the future to find another film that they really like.

>With Gong Li, no less!!

You know, I just checked her bio page and found out she is 40... talk about wearing your years well.

The problem isn't with the movies. There's plenty of good movies out there..in fact, there's some great movies out there. Look at RottenTomatoes sometime. The signal to noise rate is very high..extremly high compared to say..10 or 20 years ago.

In fact, the theatre companies are doing a great job of maintaining attendance levels in the face of increased entertainment options.

Another factor is that the number of widely distributed movies at one time has basically tripled. From maybe 3 to 12. Credit the multi-plex for this.

Hollywood makes the vast majority of its money from DVD sales, cable fees, TV rights, and other things that kick in only after the film has left the theater. It's gotten to the point where the theatrical release is just the advertisement for the eventual DVD. The declining box office numbers don't necessarily translate into declining profits.

And of course, Hollywood accountants specialize in crunching the numbers in such a way that all films appear to lose money, so they can avoid paying any fool whose deal gives him/her a share of the profits (not to mention taxes).

What Joe said. And amen, MJ.

Going to the movies is more a social event than the actual movie. I have seen plenty of bad movies knowing it was bad. The main reason I don't goto see movies in a theatre anymore is that it's way too expensive and I'd rather go eat out.

How many times must it be said before these pinheads will understand it?

IF YOU DON'T LIKE HOLLYWOOD MOVIES, THEN WATCH MOVIES MADE ELSEWHERE!

Netflix and similar services have also had a big impact on my viewing habits. Before when I wanted to see a great foreign or other film that wouldn't get a wide release I'd make sure to catch it in theatre because I knew that it wouldn't always be available at the video store. But now I can merely have to push a button and it will be at my door in a day.

I would, however, much prefer to see these movies in a dark theatre, with a crowd of like-minded fans, but that's become harder and harder to find. (Except at places like Film Forum in Manhattan, for example, where I'll be watching a double feature of The 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes this weekend -- a moviegoing experience hard to surpass).

>Another factor is that the number of widely distributed movies at one time has basically tripled. From maybe 3 to 12. Credit the multi-plex for this.

I think this really nails it. Just a few years ago, it seems like there were a couple of movies each year that everyone I knew would see. I can't think of a single one like that within the past five years at least.

All a liberal knows how to do is whine and complain.

I see Freedom Fighter just got the fax with the GOP talking points for 2006.

If I'm just a little bit patient I can watch any movie I want for less than $1.50 whenever I want via Netflix. Or I can go to a tacky-floored theatre with uncomfortable seats for $20 and hope my fellow citizens are courteous.

Some good, some bad, a few really good, a few really bad. Same as it ever was.

If you haven't seen "Manos, the Hands of Fate" or "Wild, Wild World of Batwoman" then you have no idea of how unbelievably, hideously, nightmarishly bad a movie can be. They make Ed Wood look like Stanley Kubrick.

As Dr. Clayton Forrester said as he launched "The Pod People" at his experimental subjects trapped on the Satellite of Love, "It has nothing to do with pods, nothing to do with people, and everything to do with PAIN."

Push the button, Frank.

I now hate going to the movies. I resent all the commercials. The whole point of going to a theater is to get away from all that crap so you can relax and enjoy the movie going experience. Some theaters now harrass you with a continuous flow of commercials before the commercials that are combined with the trailer making it just this side of impossible to read, have a conversation or just be alone with your own thoughts.

Please. Make it stop.

Of course, my (un)favorite category of movies are the movies with great trailers... because the only decent three minutes of the movie are in the trailers- leaving the poor sod who paid for the movie to wade through 87 minutes of dreck to see 3 good minutes which were already seen on the trailer. Comedies seem particularly prone to fall into this category.

Do we care?

I now hate going to the movies. I resent all the commercials. The whole point of going to a theater is to get away from all that crap so you can relax and enjoy the movie going experience.

No, that's the point of HBO (Cinemax, Showtime, Starz, etc.)

Hollywood movies suck. Movies as good as Hollywood used to make are hard to know about and harder to see.

I suppose Hollywood movies have gotten so much worse because Hollywood is more corporate. I don't know. But the movies do suck.

All a liberal knows how to do is whine and complain.

I don't love listening to sensitive liberals whine and complain.

But it's better than listening to macho conservatives boasting and bragging.

I don't know if this is still true, but in Paris, there used to be two times listed for movies. The former time is when they open the doors and the later time is when the movie actually starts. After the doors open, you can see 20 minutes or so of ads and previews and they keep the house lights on so it's easy to get to your seat. There was a limited pool of ads but most of them were actually pretty entertaining, and ten years later I still remember many of them. In London, before you enter a movie theatre, you're assigned a specific seat, making it easier for people to sit together without a hassle as the auditorium fills up. These are two ideas that could help American movie theatres improve the movie-viewing experience.

SecularAnimist! You're the first person I've ever met who's seen Manos: The Hands of Fate. Worst. Movie. Ever. My God, I feel so close to you right now.

Why is Tammy Bruce being discussed on The Political Animal? What next? Michael Savage's views on popular music?

Another factor is that the number of widely distributed movies at one time has basically tripled. From maybe 3 to 12. Credit the multi-plex for this.

I'm not sure the multiplex is at fault -- I think its at least as much the consolidation of theater ownership, and the natural demands of theater companies that don't want their locations competing with each other.

The multiplexes don't seem to show that many more unique films than smaller theaters, they seem to use the additional screens for more frequent showings more than anything else.

>What next? Michael Savage's views on popular music?

Don't go there- I hear (via The Poor Man) that Kaye Grogan is getting into rap.

shortstop, most of the people who saw Manos didn't survive the experience.

I could easily see Kingdom of Heaven on MST3K.

Anyone who can utter a kind word about Sen McCarthy's terrorizing the rest of the USA with his communist witch-hunt, is herself just as evil, in my opinion. Why would ANYONE even quote such as person as her.

To answer your question as to why Hollywood isn't as profitable as it thinks it should be:

1. I'm a 50+ unmarried female. They DON'T make movies to appeal to my demographic, so I don't go very often. Maybe they should pay attention to the current USA population statistics. 17-27 males do NOT make up the majority of the population, yet that seems to be who they pitch all the movies to.

2. I think movie remakes are a waste of time and money especially when the original was an outstanding and/or oscar winner. Why bother? I'd rather rewatch the original (and do, even if I have to buy it on vhs or dvd). There are many talented writers whose original work goes unsold, Hollywood ought to be making original movies out of some of these works instead of inferior remakes.

shortstop: You're the first person I've ever met who's seen Manos: The Hands of Fate.

The MST3K convention in Minneapolis in 1994 featured a costume ball in which people dressed up as characters from the bad movies that had been roasted on MST. There were a lot of people who dressed up as Torgo from Manos, so many that they had a contest for the best Torgo. There were a couple of dozen Torgos limping across the stage. Quite frightening.

My God, I feel so close to you right now.

Shared pain will do that.

Well, everybody says they are willing to do something for the cause, so hey girls, here it is.

Cleary - and very unsurprisingly - Tammy can't get a date. Very fortunately for us guys, she's a lesbian.

So one of you have to buck it up and take the chick to a fucking movie so maybe she actually for once will know what the hell she's talking about. Or more importantly, know that she didn't know what the hell she was talking about, and maybe she might get a glimmer of the fact that it isn't just movies she gets wrong.

You don't have to sleep with her, I would never expect you to do that. Sigh, although if it would get her to shut up for even awhile, well, please consider? Take it for the team.

Maybe they should pay attention to the current USA population statistics. 17-27 males do NOT make up the majority of the population, yet that seems to be who they pitch all the movies to.

They do make up a significant portion of the available disposable income dedicated to entertainment, and of those who can be easily milked into spending money not only to see the movie, but whose movie-watching can be leveraged into sales of the associated video game, soundtrack CD, and other merchandise; other than actual children, they are probably the most productive demographic in that respect.

A REAL movie nut would have seen Manos OTHER than on MST3K. I've never seen it any other way myself.

"Manos...............The Hands of Fate."

I'd like to encourage people, instead of going out to see movies, to go out to see local musicians playing in local bands in local bars, restaurants and night clubs. Rock, blues, bluegrass, country, folk, jazz, R&B, whatever you like, look around your town and you'll find it.

Instead of taking in entertainment in the form of huge, overblown, multimillion-dollar corporate commercial product cranked out by some faraway factory and projected on a screen (don't we all spend too damn much time staring at one screen or another already?), go see real people from your own community playing real music in real neighborhood venues.

Support your local musicians. You'll be connecting with an ancient and vital human activity, and building community by having fun.

Bollywood is actually turning out some good stuff.

Bollywood is also doing pretty damn well on the numbers game:

Although its annual revenues, at $ 1.3 billion, is a fraction of Hollywood’s $ 51 billion, Bollywood sold 3.6 billion tickets worldwide last year compared to Hollywood’s 2.6 billion.

http://www.ficci-frames.com/frames2001/Archives/2003/Synopsis/International%20Media.htm

The question has to be asked - as India, China and the rest of Asia develop, and the personal entertainment budget of their consumers increases, how will Hollywood meet the challenge? Bollywood already has the lion's share of the largest market in the world - at some point the dollars earned will start to match the numbers of fans.

Bollywood doesn't need to make it in the US and Europe - Hollywood needs to keep up with Bollywood in the market that matters...

I do not think the theater owners have total control over the admission prices. The Studios charge each theater a certain fee to show the film. The fee has become quite high and results in high admission prices. As I understand it, the theater owner cannot make any kind of a profit on the admission price; thus, the high-priced extras. I may not have all the details correct on this because of my advancing age. However, in my home town, Tacoma, Washington, a man owned about eight theaters in Tacoma--some were the old ones with balconies and gargoyles, so cool. He decided to take movies after the initial run and show them for $1 and then earn his profit from the extras because the studio demanded a certain fee no matter what he charged for admission. I went to a ton of movies during that period and bought popcorn, pop, etc., which I don't do when I pay $9. The studios were furious with him and started refusing to rent him any movies. He filed an antitrust suit; but, did not have deep enough pockets to continue it. He eventually sold all the theaters and many are closed now. So, sad. Anyway, that's how I came to believe the studios have more control that most of us know.

Like a couple of commenters above, I love movies. And, I love the movie experience, the large screen, the smell of popcorn even if I don't buy it, etc. However, I do not necessarily enjoy all the gratuitous sex, violence, and bad language permeating most of today's movies. I wish each movie would be released in a totally G-rated version for those of us who want the G-rated version. If it has a good story and plot and good acting, the gore, sex, and foul language will not be missed by me.

tbrosz: A REAL movie nut would have seen Manos OTHER than on MST3K. I've never seen it any other way myself.

Are you suggesting that Manos was actually shown in theatres?? Now that's a scary thought.

>The question has to be asked - as India, China and the rest of Asia develop, and the personal entertainment budget of their consumers increases, how will Hollywood meet the challenge?

More Gong Li movies?

Please?

Gore, sex, and foul language?

As programmers say, that's not a bug, that's a feature!

I'd like to encourage people, instead of going out to see movies, to go out to see local musicians playing in local bands in local bars, restaurants and night clubs.

Instead of taking in entertainment in the form of huge, overblown, multimillion-dollar corporate commercial product cranked out by some faraway factory and projected on a screen (don't we all spend too damn much time staring at one screen or another already?), go see real people from your own community playing real music in real neighborhood venues.

I'd think local theater would be better subsitute for movies, if you were looking for a substitute that focussed on the local community and represented an ancient and vital human activity.

Then again, contrary to your implicit comparison, the people in the film industry are, in fact, real people, not digital simulations. Well, okay, some of them are digital simulations, but even those are the products of real people.

Gong Li? Nah, give me Aishwarya Rai any day...

I do not think the theater owners have total control over the admission prices. The Studios charge each theater a certain fee to show the film. The fee has become quite high and results in high admission prices. As I understand it, the theater owner cannot make any kind of a profit on the admission price; thus, the high-priced extras.

The people I've known in the theater business have said the fees are a percentage of the box office, usually very high for the early part of the run of a major release (ISTR 70% being a figure quoted as typical with expected "blockbuster" films).

>Gong Li? Nah, give me Aishwarya Rai any day...

Hmm... no accounting for taste. :)

Like a couple of commenters above, I love movies. And, I love the movie experience, the large screen, the smell of popcorn even if I don't buy it, etc. However, I do not necessarily enjoy all the gratuitous sex, violence, and bad language permeating most of today's movies. I wish each movie would be released in a totally G-rated version for those of us who want the G-rated version. If it has a good story and plot and good acting, the gore, sex, and foul language will not be missed by me.

Um, sometimes the gore, sex, and foul language isn't gratuitous, its part of the good story, plot, and acting.

A REAL movie nut would have seen Manos OTHER than on MST3K.

Never seen it on MST3K, only via an admittedly strange friend's tape.

You don't have to sleep with her, I would never expect you to do that. Sigh, although if it would get her to shut up for even awhile, well, please consider? Take it for the team.

Dude, your plea is moving, but we can't be wingwomen on this one. I'm getting sick just thinking about it.

I'd like to encourage people, instead of going out to see movies, to go out to see local musicians playing in local bands in local bars, restaurants and night clubs.

We do that, too. All the time.

The reason I go to far fewer movies is the convergence of Netflix and TV. How many movies can compete with the Sopranos, 24, Firefly, the Gilmore Girls? How many movies are superior to the great TV miniseries--Shackleton, Band of Brothers, Pride and Prejudice? Movies have become the realm of awesome special effects. If you want plot, character development, perceptive dialogue, great acting--there's a lot of it on TV. And, with Netflix, we can watch them on our own schedule.

The biggest gripe I have is that it seems every theater I've been to in the last five years lights their projector with the equivalent of a flashlight bulb. If the image is so dark that I can barely make out what's on the screen, why should I bother watching the movie in the theater? As it stands, for 95% of the films that I have any interest in, I just wait for the DVD to come out.

I wonder how much the rise in DVD revenue has offset the drop in ticket sales. That's a story no one seems to report on.

To correct the original post, it simply isn't true that "Hollywood profits are in the toilet." The studios are making more money this year than last -- as documented in various ways by Edward Jay Epstein in several of his Hollywood Economist columns for Slate -- but the increased income is coming from the sources cited by Joe Buck. What's been declining is theater ticket sales, and nobody knows what's causing this, or whether it's temporary. Though many are happy to speculate.

As for Tammy Bruce: anyone who looks at the protagonist of A History of Violence and sees an "average mid-western American man" is either (a) not paying attention, (b) deliberately constructing a tendentious argument, or (c) emotionally confused. Given Bruce's status as a "voted-for-President Bush progressive," not to mention a "openly gay . . . feminist" who's contemptuous of movies about gay men, I'd be willing to bet on a combination of all of these.

My own reservation about Brokeback Mountain: the Annie Proulx short story is only about thirty pages long, although given the way it's written, I could easily see it adapting into a standard-length, roughly-100-minute feature. But 135 minutes? Sounds like that could be awfully slow and static, at least in parts. We'll see.

Disgusted in St. Louis has a nice take of a Middle America-Approved version of Brokeback Mountain.

http://disgustedinstlouis.blogspot.com/

My wife & I qualify for Sr. prices & we still only go sparingly. It would knock us out to pay the whole tab,sitter etc. to discover movie-going ain't that great. Once there were 2 films, an 'A' and a 'B' Now there's but one over 2 hrs, & if it's a dog, yr screwed. And now we see a lot of what used to be 'B' movies as the main attraction. Some of the premises on which an entire script is based is so silly, it's hard to imagine any adult or late teen subscribing. I mean Ben Kingsley as a deadly, fearsome former gangster or the continual re-treads of old ducks like all the retired stars who come out of retirement & embarrass themselves & us.
Furthermore, I wonder if the avg viewer would recognize good acting if they saw it. As a rule, I find pictures by Robt Altman are well worth viewing so I characterize myself, but don't the studios look w/ disdain on him?

Did I miss the part where we find out if Tammy actually likes going to the movies? Or watching movies? Sorry.

P.S. We loved Walk the Line.

give me Aishwarya Rai any day...

Any day, indeedy! Today would be nice for starters...

snicker-snack: ah, another fellow with impeccable taste and discernment!

A movie about a couple of lonely sheepherders. I think it could be a lot worse than just gay.

Baaaaaah.

A movie about a couple of lonely sheepherders. I think it could be a lot worse than just gay.

Baaaaaah.

Well, New Zealand is making some fantastic movies these days, so...

Actually, without adjustment for inflation, a number of films this year made the top 150 for box office gross.

Movies in theatres cost too much; the sound is too loud; the seats are dirty; everybody around me is eating something; and the most interesting films being made rarely show up in localities outside the major cities.
I love movies, but I'm primarily interested in seeing films made by real artists with a point of view, not movies constructed to appeal to some imaginary "demographic." When I lived in a major American city 30 years ago most of the films that appealed to me were made in other countries and I could see a lot of them. Now, with the breakdown of the old studio system even some Americans are actually able to finance and make interesting and even quirky movies. But most of these never play in the area I live now. But they do show up on DVD in the few video rental places that function outside the Blockbuster business model. I see no reason to go to go to theaters where my choice will be to pay $10.00 to see either "Revenge of the Sith" or "Harry Potter and Whatever It Is This Time" when I can pay $3.00 to see "Born Into Brothels," "Ripley's Game" (never shown in theaters) or "Maria Full of Grace;" not only see them but study them, enjoy them and watch them again whenever I choose. To hell with "moviegoing." Let the theater industry die.

Goodnight & Good Luck - a delight, and george clooney, yum yum. Manages to be both old fashioned and progressive.

The Constant Gardener - a thrill and a chill, with African dazzle, but rather sad.

Brokeback Mountain - loved the New Yorker story.

There are only 52 weekends in a year, which means that anyone in my demographic (suburban, middle-aged, teen kids) has a limited amount of entertainment time. So given the multiplicity of choices named by the commentators above me, it's only natural I don't go to so many movies. At Tower Records this afternoon, buying show tune CDs for my daughter for Christmas, I bought Godard's weekend for $12.99. That's less than anything on the next door Cinema 1-15 plus popcorn.

Let's see....$3 to watch something on DVD in the comfort of my own living room with the ability to pause, rewind, etc., or $18 (not including overpriced popocorn & soda) to watch something in the theater after sitting through 20+ minutes of hideous commercials. Tough choice!!

The simple fact is that there are relatively few movies for which my wife and I are so impatient to see that we are willing to pay $20+ extra instead of waiting for the DVD.

And I'm guessing that there are lots of other people who feel exactly the same way.

Why are Hollywood's theater profits down?

Two words: Home Theater.

A lot of us have home theaters that have pretty good sound systems, good chairs, big (for a small audience) screens, and popcorn. We wait for the DVDs.

I agree that most movies are poorly written, badly acted, hopelessly directed and horribly put together. That has been the case since before talkies. Nothing new there.

Hollywood has aimed directly at the teenage set forever. They are the folks who have always gone to movies. Nothing new there.

When you want to figure out why people have changed their habits look at what has changed. Home theater.

I was happy to pay $35 to see a live performance of Parsifal last week. I know it is a rerun (first performed in 1882) and I had already seen it before, but some things are worth going to. The problem I have with the first-run movie experience is that I don't know whether it is any good at all, and I know it will be very expensive. To put it even more bluntly, there are some movies that are actually painful to see. The characters are so embarrassing to watch that I cringe as they make fools of themselves. Add to that all of the problems listed by pretty much everyone else here -- the people who don't stop talking, the crunching of popcorn and rustling of plastic wrappers -- at some point a couple of years ago, my wife and I realized that we were always coming out of the theater auditorium mad. Now, I tend to go over to LACMA (the county museum of art) for their film series. They typically show two films for less than the price that commercial theaters charge for one, and the audience is respectful. No popcorn either.

Ticket sales are down about 15% in the past couple of years, but rentals are up 600%. Someone has to be watching all this crap, and it can't just be New York, LA, and San Francisco (just as with porn, although that's a subject for another time).

This is the point that's missing with gay films as well. No matter how they do at the box office, even many of the truly awful ones do extraordinarily well on video, likely because they're either not shown in many areas or because any number of people (gay and straight alike) in many places don't feel comfortable going to see them in theaters. When internet streaming of films becomes more common, they'll do even better.

The audience (like the electorate) is so fragmented today I'm not sure that another great age of filmmaking on national themes (a la the 1940s or 1970s) is even possible again. Just as with music, it is very difficult and likely to become even more so with time to reach a general audience because that audience less and less exists. I expect we'll see more outfits (and divisions of the major studios) making films for hyper-specialized audiences - gays, evangelicals, urban African-Americans, Mormons, etc.

America really hasn't come to terms yet with its own fragmentation yet; this is reflected in our politics, economy, and culture. There are going to be political changes that reify that fragmentation, probably granting more power to states and localities; some states or metro areas (the new city-states) may even secede. There are going to be economic changes that reify that fragmentation, with products, marketing and services becoming more personalized, and cultural changes as well; the idea of a national culture will die a slow death. The nationalists will be sorely disappointed in the twenty-first century.

Shortstop,

The Pale Rider was one of the first 100 people to join the Mystery Science Theater 3000 fan club in the late 1980s. The show was created at a local TV station when I was living in the Twin Cities. I have a nifty photo of myself standing on the Satellite of Love circa 1995 when they redesigned the set.

The MST3K people were some of the nicest people in the world and they would let fans in for tours. I also have pictures of myself with the host-segment Crow, Deep 13, and a lot of the props they used. Someday when I create my special website of Pale Rider items detailing my career of evil, I'll put them up there.

Bonus information: The puppets, created mainly by Joel Hodgson, came in a variety of forms. There were host-segment puppets, backup copies of the puppets, and a special Tom Servo with a darkened gumball machine globe specifically for the movie segments.

Manos: The Hands of Fate

It is one of the top 5 Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes, along with the 1970s cop/action/mystery/grossout fest called Mitchell.

Mitchell had Joe Don Baker as the aforementioned drunken cop who stumbles from caper to caper trying to catch bad guys. Truly awful dialogue and plotting, terrible acting, Joe Don Baker crawling over a desperately, desperately unsexy hooker played by Linda Evans.

Manos has its own following. Here is an article from this summer:

Much-maligned 'Manos' gains new following

Erica Molina
El Paso Times
Monday, June 27, 2005

In the summer of 1966 a group of El Pasoans gathered at an East Side ranch to make a Hollywood-style horror movie, but their accomplishment went far beyond their intentions.

Thousands love this film today, and not because " 'Manos' The Hands of Fate" was scary. It was frighteningly bad.

"It lived down to my expectations," Las Cruces resident Jeff Berg said recently of the flick made on a bet by El Paso fertilizer salesman Harold "Hal" P. Warren.

The movie was featured in the June 10 issue of Entertainment Weekly as "the worst movie ever made" -- a distinction it received from voters at the Internet Movie Database (www. imdb.com).

"This thing will not die. It just will not die," said Bernie Rosenblum, one of the few who worked on "Manos" still in the area.

ADVERTISEMENT

A recent check of IMDb.com showed that "Manos" had fallen to number two on its list of worst movies, behind 1996's "Merlin's Shop of Mystical Wonders" -- an event that shocked both site watchers and Rosenblum.

"I find it very difficult to believe there is another movie that is worse than this," Rosenblum said. "You couldn't make one. ... I'll take that movie ("Manos") and put it against anybody else's bad movie."

"Yes, it's ('Merlin's Shop') a bad movie, but no way is it worse than 'Manos,' " one IMDb.com site user lamented on the site's message board.

Part of what made "Manos" so bad were blurry scenes, badly framed shots, out-of-sync dialogue and some scenes that seemed to go on forever -- such as the painfully long opening driving sequence. It also was far from scary.

"This should never have happened and it wasn't going to, but (Warren) turned everybody on to doing this," Rosenblum said. "They didn't know it was bad. They thought of it as a legitimate horror movie."

But he caught on to the awful reality sooner than many.

"About halfway through (filming), we realized it would be the worst thing you've ever seen in your life," Rosenblum said. "How could it live?"

The movie existed in obscurity until "Mystery Science Theater 3000" dug it up and roasted it in a 1993 episode. In "Mystery Science Theater 3000," a human and two robots are stranded on a spaceship and forced to suffer through old science fiction movies.

In a scene near the start of the movie, one of the "Mystery Science Theater" characters says, "Every frame of this movie looks like someone's last known photograph." Then the movie got much, much worse.

"It just exploded," Rosenblum, 60, said. "We got phone calls, and I had lots of e-mails. They all wanted to know about Torgo."

In the movie, Torgo was a satyr and the caretaker of an old house visited by a lost family. Played by John Reynolds, Torgo has become the big-kneed favorite of many "Manos" fans. The movie tells of the family's stay at the house, where they are terrorized by the house's ruling "Master," who had several wives and worshipped a god called Manos.

Rosenblum is proud of the amazingly bad movie, in which he played the part of "teenager in car" -- making out with a young woman in a convertible and arguing with the cops during his short scenes. He also worked staging the film's stunts and fight scenes and manned the second camera.

None of the people who worked on "Manos" was paid. Instead they were given percentages of the movie, which was made on a shoestring budget. For his work, Rosenblum was promised 6 percent.

"We all knew we were never going to make any money," Rosenblum said.

Rosenblum, now a commercial photographer, said the movie was recorded wildtrack, or without sound. The voices for the movie were dubbed in by Warren and a few others. It was filmed at the ranch of former County Judge Colbert Coldwell.

Rosenblum said the first time he saw the finished movie was on its opening night, Nov. 15, 1966, at the Capri Theater.

"The mayor, the sheriff and anybody who was anybody was there," he said. "We had searchlights. It was a big deal. Hal had rented a Cadillac about 10 years old."

The cast and crew lined up around the block and waited to be picked up by the car a few at a time and dropped off in style at the premiere.

Rosenblum took a seat next to his best friend and "Manos" cinematographer Bob Guidry as the lights dimmed.

"Then it starts, and the music sounds like a porno film," Rosenblum said. "People are driving, then the first word comes out and it's muffled and we go, 'Oh no.'"

He and Guidry sunk low into their seats and watched the movie unfold with dulled dialogue out of sync with the actors' mouths.

"We're into it about 20 minutes and we're about as low as we can get, then people started laughing," he said. "Everybody on the second floor started laughing. ... It was that funny because it was that bad."

He and Guidry snuck out quietly and stood at the back of the theater watching the movie they made flop.

"When the thing was over people were clapping and laughing," he said.

At a party after the premiere, Rosenblum was surprised by the reactions of others who worked on the movie.

"Nobody noticed how bad the movie was," he said. "Everybody was proud. Now, because it's the worst movie ever made, everybody is proud of that."

He is careful to note that the movie never would have gained its strange distinction without "Mystery Science Theater 3000."

"They just went crazy," he said. "They spent some serious time writing lines for it and against it."

A few years ago, Rosenblum and Guidry were invited to attend a science fiction conference to talk about the movie, which by then had gained a cult following.

"These kids knew everything about the movie," he said. "We didn't know there was this volume on the movie."

El Pasoan Charles Horak is among the relatively few locals known to have seen and own a copy of " 'Manos' The Hands of Fate."

He said he first saw the movie at midnight on Thanksgiving more than 10 years ago.

"I'm laying there in a turkey- induced haze and my eyes were half-open when I realized what I was watching on the screen looked a lot like Scenic Drive in El Paso," the film buff said. "I ended up watching the whole film. ... It's a totally inept film."

Alex Quintana, founder and director of the El Paso Film Society, said the city has a strange feather in its cap with "Manos."

"At least it's remembered," he said. "At least it's a movie that hasn't died. ... I'm kind of proud."

In 2004, a group of Canadian filmmakers descended on El Paso to make "Hotel Torgo," a documentary about "Manos."

"That thing was dynamite," Rosenblum said. "El Paso put together one of the best worst movies ever made and El Paso did it first-class."

Ok,

My last post should have gone on the bad movie thread.

Therefore, my off topic post shows why Hollywood sucks and how Manos the Hands of Fate is such a bad film, one cannot even approach it by posting it on the right thread.

Good night and good blog commenting.

Well, New Zealand is making some fantastic movies these days, so...

Hey Floop, speaking of New Zealand, heard this non-sheep (though recently I understand they also run to chickens) joke from an Aussie.

Q: Do you know what the trouble with New Zealand is?

A: It's above sea level (ta-da-boom)

For all that, New Zealand sounds like a fantastic place to be.

snicker-snack; yeah, we went there for a wedding this year. Fantastic place - they really have got it all worked out, with regards to standard of living and general attitude to life...

They're like us, but 20 years ago.

And that's a compliment.

On the sheep issue, I prefer the old stand-by.

Q: Why do Scotsmen wear kilts?
A: Because a sheep can hear a zipper a mile off!

And, just to be somewhat topical, does anyone else remember "Rob Roy"? Liam Neeson as the star, set in 18th c. Scotland... and makes use on at least a couple occasions of sheep-shagging jokes.

For the record, King Kong was really, really good. I mean, when was the last time you actually got a wee bit choked up at a Hollywood blockbuster? There's an evident love for, dare I say it, old-school filmmaking using today's tools.

But what do I know? I'm a sucker for an adventure film that actually delivers.

Ahhh... kilt jokes!

Q: What's worn under a Scotsman's kilt?
A: Nothing. It's all in perfect working order.

Did you hear about the Scottish exorcist?

Wherever he went, he made the spirits disappear.

Am I the only one that does not care about the movies or what someone thinks about them. For gods sake Drum, you are better than this.

Good films in 2005:

Batman Begins

Capote

Walk the Line

Jarhead

Constant Gardener

Wedding Crashers

Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Yeah, I know. Save it.)

Worst movie by far: The Aristocrats, the unfunniest, sickest, most offensive piece of crap I've seen in years. It was hideously bad; we lasted thirty minutes before we left. Our departure cut the audience in the theatre (in a populous Chicago suburb) by half. The idea that sheer offensiveness and tearing apart all social restraints on language (as a part of a "concept piece" on the nature of humor)would make a boffo movie was disastrously ill-conceived. I think Middle America thought so, too. The movie showed how completely out of touch a lot of industry people are these says.

And by God, Kingdom of Heaven had its moments (just rented it), despite its obvious flaws. Far from the worst movie. (Damning with faint praise, I know.) Orlando Bloom will get there, eventually.

The Aristocrats, the unfunniest, sickest, most offensive piece of crap I've seen in years.

What the hell were you expecting? It's not as though the film marketed itself as anything other than what you just described it as.

I saw a Humphrey Bogart movie the other day and nearly barfed at the acting. ... Compare that to Spiderman 2. That movie has fine acting, by comparison, great graphics, camera angles and special effects the "classics" guys never dreamed of, stirring music, humor mixed in with adventure, love and pathos and the very agreeable experience of soaring above NY city! And I saw it in a stadium theater with a huge very sharp screen and incredible surround sound.

You just captured the difference between movies of yore and movies of now. Older movies focused on the human condition, whether through dramatic actors like Humphrey Bogart and Bette Davis, or comedic ones like William Powell and Carole Lombard. (Perhaps that's why their acting means little to you.) Movies of today are more visceral, more spectacle, but what do they tell us about ourselves? Unless a master like Peter Jackson is doing them, very little, I'm afraid.

Movies suck except after 20 years when that era that you THOUGHT sucked actually was pretty good.

Movie companies are doing fine thank you

US box office is down this year

the reason - if you have a sweet 42 inch hdtv and a netflix account it is hard to motivate yourself to go out on a rainy night to spend 50 bucks to see a movie and get snacks in NYC on a screen that is not much bigger than the screen you have at home.

"Am I the only one that does not care about the movies or what someone thinks about them. For gods sake Drum, you are better than this."

1) Shakespeare's Sister is blogging this week. Be nice to her.

2) Only puritans and the spoiled daughters of Hollywood executives (are you out there David Yaffee? - that ones for you) don't like movies.

3) Kevin and his guest bloggers can write about whatever they damn well please. If you don't like it get your own blog.

"The Golden Globes are given by the hollywood foreign press, doesn't that mean that according to Bruce's thesis, its Europeans that want to see movies that are insulting to Americans."

Quick! Somebody tell me which to pick apart foirst here: the grammar or the logic.

The Golden Globes are rigged. Seriously. It's why the "Hollywood foreign press" that votes doesn't include any European film critics of note.

Worst movie by far: The Aristocrats, the unfunniest, sickest, most offensive piece of crap I've seen in.....

I believe they advertised this movie as the dirtiest joke ever. I'll admit, the first 30 mins or so were a little dull because I didn't understand the joke. However, Bob Sagat, Gilbert Gottfried, and Sarah Silverman made me have cramps from laughing so hard. This movie is definitely on my "buy" list. Can't wait til Jan 24th

I'm afraid I'm awfully late here, having spend way too much time reading the related thread ("worst movie ever"). But I do want to jump on the foreign film bandwagon. Hey, you won't see many (or any) of Kitano Takeshi's films at the multi-plex, but you can buy a double-feature DVD with "Zatoichi" and "Sonatine" at your local Border's Bookstore for $12. Maybe you'll even be able to find "Hana-bi."

The foreign actresses, too. I mean, "too" as in join the bandwagon, rather than jump on, although now that I think about it...

Gong Li? Nah, give me Aishwarya Rai any day...
Posted by: floopmeister on Dec 15, 2005 at 7:39 PM
Hmm... no accounting for taste. :)
Posted by: MJ Memphis on Dec 15, 2005 at 7:45 PM

I'll go with Gong Li, especially during those five or six years from "Red Sorghum" to "Farewell to My Concubine. But maybe floopmeister can recommend some Rai films that will change my mind. Oooh, and check out Tanaka Yuko when she was in her late 20s and early 30s, like in "Amagi Goe".

Wait, what was the topic, again?

I time my arrival for 15 minutes after the published start time, to avoid obnoxious ads and previews, all presented at deafening 100 db.

We knew Aristocrats was a dirty joke told by various comedians. Guess we didn't count on it being as childish, unclever, lacking in general wit, and artistically self-indulgent as it turned out to be.

Look, ANYBODY can be crude. Very few people can be genuinely funny. Aristocrats demonstrated that in spades. I'm an old Democrat, not a conservative at all, but sometimes, when I see stuff like Aristocrats, I understand why so many conservatives loathe us.

By the way, we understood the joke in Aristocrats the first time we heard it. That still didn't make it any less boring, lame, and pathetic.

>Wait, what was the topic, again?

You mean "hot Asian women" wasn't the topic? Oops.

Ah, Farewell My Concubine. That was my introduction to Chinese movies- my class watched it (well, most of it anyway) in Modern Asian Civ a few years back when we were covering the early years of Communist China. Then I dated a girl whose favorite movie was "Raise the Red Lantern". Periodically I will rent a Chinese movie and- surprise!- there's Gong Li! She's got quite a long CV.

By being a self-aggrandizing asshole, Tailgunner Joe McCarthy did irreperable harm to the desperately important effort to remove communist influence from the US government. It is correct to honor what he tried to do, but utterly wrong to honor him.

As for the movies, I can understand remaking King Kong, but why on earth would anyone pay to see a remake of the Bad News Bears?

I think y'all need to lighten up a bit. There is an incredible variety of movies being made these days. I love a good indy film, or a foriegn film with an interesting viewpoint, small budget, and good acting. I also love Spiderman. I don't expect them to be the same.

Hollywood is producing, in fact, an incredible variety of movies these days. So there's gonna be some of them that are really out there, from anyone's point of view.

For those of you who live out in the boondocks though, I feel your pain, because I've been there and it sucks. All I can say is Netflix.

Support your local musicians. You'll be connecting with an ancient and vital human activity, and building community by having fun. Posted by: SecularAnimist on December 15, 2005 at 7:31 PM

Hear! Hear! That's what I do with my free time and disposible income. In fact, all but three of my CDs are from local bands. I almost exclusively buy only local band CDs rather than the mass marketed crap.

My theory: movies used to be a way to learn new things, about other countries or relationships, but now people can learn about anything on the web.

So the stories aren't as compelling or they go to extremes, and finding good movies is less about what's new as what's great - more like literature.

Pay attention to who's complaining about people not going to the movies - it's the movie companies. They're unhappy because ticket sales this year isn't 10% higher than it was last year. They're not telling you that they make billions of dollars each and any year from the movies they make. They're unhappy only because they're not making more money. So take anything they say with a grain of salt.

Also, remember that movies have been dying since the 1950s when TV really cut into their sales. Hollywood countered then with cinerama and The Spectacle - big, splashy, must-see movies. And that's still all they've got. The small, personal dramas that Hollywood used to do so well have all become TV shows. But when you put all your money on a few big pixs you're going to get a roller-coaster of hits and misses.

Also, Hollywood is the birthplace of creative book-keeping. No matter how many hundreds of millions of dollars a movie may earn it will never turn a profit - because they will then have to pay people with net profit participation. never trust a man wearing a suit that costs more than you make in a week.

Theaters have always been dank, tacky, filled with broken chairs and loud talking people seated behind you. (But never try to huss a grandmother whose talking to her grandkids is annoying you. She will be one S.O.B.) I don't know why people complain about the poor movie experience. Unless they're comparing they movie experience to TV watching at home.

Ads before a movie *ARE* annoying as are the Music payola of in-house radio channels. The worst of the worst of music promotions was a cover of a Chicago hit by someone who couldn't sing, only to find out that the group was Chicago covering one of their own hits.

A comment I read elsewhere seems valid, too. Most screenwriters don't get to write script after script like they did in the old studio days. They don't learn the tricks of thinking in movie terms, of pacing and background characters. The result is flatter, more tone-deaf movies.

The list goes on. Movies, like stage productions will only be around. There are things about them which are unique. Such as seeing a movie with a twenty foot tall screen. There is no way to duplicate that in a home theater environment. But Hollywood complains because it always complains.

I'm an old Democrat, not a conservative at all, but sometimes, when I see stuff like Aristocrats, I understand why so many conservatives loathe us.

Oh, because conservatives don't indulge in sexist, racist, low-brow humor? Because the sense of humor in such conservative bastions as Texas and Georgia is so genteel and proper and designed not to offend? Give me a fucking break with that nonsense.

Stefan--
This talk about "genteel humor" reminds of one of the funniest letters I've ever read, David Cross' "Open Letter to Larry the Cable Guy", which can be found here:

http://bobanddavid.com/david.asp?artID=183

Joe

I'm an old Democrat, not a conservative at all, but sometimes, when I see stuff like Aristocrats, I understand why so many conservatives loathe us.

Well, I must have missed the time when liberals were trying to herd people into theatres to watch "The Aristocrats". It's not exactly "Narnia" or "Passion of The Christ" where every red-blooded Conservative is screaming that WE MUST SEE THIS FILM. Maybe you can make the case that liberals are forcing "Brokeback Mountain" on the masses, but not "The Aristocrats." And finally, if the Aristocrats has any political leaning I would argue it is a Libertarian film, not Democratic at all. It certainly appeals to the "South-Park Conservatives."

Question: *Why* was _Alexander_ so bad? I don't mean what constitutes the measure of it's badness, I mean why did it turn out like that given the background to it?

Question: *Why* was _Alexander_ so bad? I don't mean what constitutes the measure of its badness, I mean why did it turn out like that, given the background to it?

Maybe you can make the case that liberals are forcing "Brokeback Mountain" on the masses, but not "The Aristocrats." And finally, if the Aristocrats has any political leaning I would argue it is a Libertarian film, not Democratic at all.

Exactly. I guarantee you 95% of Americans never heard of the Aristocrats. Guarantee you. Sometimes we forget that people outside of the circles frequent aren't remotely aware of the stuff we're interested in.

Additionally, yes, Penn Teller who directs is an ardent libertarian (and, tangentially, an atheist), NOT a liberal.

Having said that, there are plenty of conservatives who believe in free speech, too, and probably saw the movie. (Note: I didn't say "enjoyed." I watched it, but it became a one-trick pony too quickly for me to really enjoy it.)

Older movies focused on the human condition, whether through dramatic actors like Humphrey Bogart and Bette Davis, or comedic ones like William Powell and Carole Lombard.

Er, so movies like Syriana, Traffic, Maria Full of Grace, 21 Grams, Mysterious Skin, The Insider, The General, No Man's Land, Last Orders, Lovely and Amazing, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Magnolia, Amores Perros, Lantana, The Station Agent, City of God, The Ice Storm, Kandahar, Taste of Cherry, The Constant Gardener, Time Off, Shattered Glass, American Splendor, Welcome to Sarajevo, Wonderland, In this Woirld, Vera Drake, The Magdalene Sisters, Kinsey, The Mother, The Sea Inside, Secrets & Lies, The Woodsman, Rabbit-Proof Fence, You and Me and Everyone We Know, Lost in Translation, Welcome to the Dollhouse, Being John Malkovitch and, hell, Best in Show don't capture the human condition? Hell, About a Boy captures the human condition and prescribes alternate means of forming family bonds for chrissakes!

Boy, what movies are you guys watching exactly?

(And *most* of the above movies are US flicks made post-2000.)

You don't have to like all of the above movies, but they *all* capture various facets of the human condition. If anything, I think modern movies often capture the human condition with greater delicacy and nuance than ever before.

Like I posted yesterday on a similar topic, I think it's the explosion of the video game industry and home entertainment systems that helps explain the lower box office receipts. For the past several years, video games have outsold the movie industry.

But keep in mind that the vast majority of video game-makers are based in, you guessed it, in or near Hollywood. So Hollywood's not hurting at all!

I walked out of Brokeback Mtn today and demanded a refund even before it started.
It is only playing at one theater in Austin so it took a special trip across town in heavy xmas shopping traffic. Then soft drinks started at $3.75 and popcorn $4.50 for SMALL. Fortunately I couldn't afford them - I didn't know I'd be leaving in 10 minutes. The movie was to start at 1:30. But after 20 minutes of advertisements I realized how bad the sound system was. It was like being in an echo chamber with your ears full of water. The sound from all the different speakers was hitting my ears at different times. I don't think it was broken. It seemed to be designed that way. By 1:40 the trailers hadn't even started yet. What a rip off! I used to go to 2 movies a week in the early 90's. Now I'm down to once a year, or less. Neither the manager nor the girl who issued the refund ever asked if there was a problem when I told them I wanted my money back. Probably won't ask any questions when their bosses go out of business either.

"Question: *Why* was _Alexander_ so bad? I don't mean what constitutes the measure of its badness, I mean why did it turn out like that, given the background to it?"

The story of Alexander the Great is the stuff of a great PBS or BBC documentary, not a great feature film. The trouble is that unlike Macbeth (at least the fictional one) Alexander knew when to stop. Had he continued east, and been killed in battle (or revolt by his own men), it would have been a classic case of hubris, and worthy of tragic drama. But - you know - he just kind of died, which doesn't undercut his historical importance, but also isn't the stuff of great drama. Had Alexander's story been genuine tragedy Shakespeare probably would've written a play about him, and it would have been the gold standard.