Star Wars Episode III did big boxoffice this weekend, but not enough to push Hollywood out of its terrible revenue slump. Looking at the current lineup of "new" summer movies, Bebeaux at Double Toothpicks thinks he knows why...
- A "Star Wars" movie
- A "Bewitched" movie
- A "Herbie (the Love Bug)" movie
- A "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" remake
- A "War of the Worlds" remake
- A "Batman" movie
- A "Dukes of Hazzard" movie
- A "Longest Yard" remake
- A "Bad News Bears" remake
I'll add to the list:
Flatulent, overblown and overexpensive "epics" that lose their audiences because directors try to mix postmodernism and political correctness into their stories at the expense of historical accuracy and truth. And epic "remakes" - Colin Farrell vs. Richard Burton? Give me a break. Why not try telling a compelling story or at least one with real heroes that people will actually like?
An over-reliance on CGI. When modern CGI first showed up on movie screens (I recall "Terminator 2" and "Jurassic Park" as the pioneers in that area) it was used to enhance otherwise traditional moviemaking. And it was such an improvement over special effects done with stop-motion photography and scale models that it brought a fascinating realism to movies. But now EVERYTHING is done with CGI. And now you can look at a movie and say, "Oh, that's all CGI." I saw Star Wars Episode II for the first time this weekend on TV. Maybe 15 minutes of live action in the whole thing. That's just wrong.
The incredible cost of marketing and promotion. A $100 million movie suddenly becomes a $220 million movie after the marketing campaign. Every restaurant now has to have kid's toys. Curse you, George Lucas!
Ticket prices are outrageously expensive. To take a family of 4 to a movie now costs over $50 by the time you add in concessions. Does Tom Cruise really need another $20 million every time he stars in a movie? I'm the first to defend the right of companies to pay contractors and employees whatever they see fit. But the fact that Hollywood liberals unanimously flock to protest the evils of business and capitalism, and yet have no problem taking mind-boggling compensation themselves has always been a burr under my skin.
A dwindling number of like-able, "everyman" types among the Hollywood elite. There are a few. Denzel Washington, Tom Hanks, Kevin Costner, and Sandra Bullock come to mind, and their films usually do quite well. And very few truly talented actors and actresses. Charlize Theron surprised us in "Monster", and by all accounts Hillary Swank was remarkable in "Million Dollar Baby," despite the subject matter of the film. William H. Macy should be at the top of the Hollywood A list, but unfortunately his is the fate of the "character actor." Imagine that - if you are good enough to play a variety of characters (i.e. "act") you usually never make it as a star. My Leonard Maltin movie guide has a movie profile for Steven Seagal but not for Robert Ryan. It's not Leonard's fault. It's just Hollywood.
Okay, I'm through ranting now. Please return to your seats.
Comments