There's a scene in the "The Holiday", (a charming film, by the way), in which Kate Winslet and her friend are talking about box-office records. Her friend, a retired screenwriter from Hollywood's golden age, comments that in his day, there were 9 movies in a month rather than nine in a day, and the box-office records were not released like baseball scores.
Now, don't get me wrong, I accept that now, film-making has become a business and has become riddled with corporations. Whatever. I don't like it, nor agree with it, but that's the way it is. But I reject the idea that films nowadays have to take a certain amount of money before they are labeled a success.
Films, now, cost a ridiculous amount of money. I mean, it's just stupid. And what a lot of people don't realise is that a film has to take back more than double its production cost to actually turn a profit. There are salaries to consider, marketing costs to produce, etc. But I mean, come on. Millions and millions of dollars are going into producing these films. It's becoming impossible for a blockbuster to become a hit, because in order to, it has to take a ridiculous amount of money in return!
Look at the top three grossing films of all time: (Forgive me if these aren't correct. They are by my knowledge).
1. Titanic (Cameron, 1997) [U.S.A.]
2. The Return of the King (Jackson, 2003) [N.Z.]
3. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (Verbinski, 2006) [U.S.A.]
These films cost MILLIONS of dollars, so I don't even know HOW they got their money back. Save Titanic...that just went on for months and months. I was...10 or 11 when that came out. I remember seeing at the cinema. Twice, I think. And THAT'S just it. Titanic was one of those films were it was like "Man, Titanic was great, let's go see it again." It was the ultimate date movie, not that I participated in any during the time of its release.
Sorry, I'm rambling, but here's my point: Box-office scores are hugely over exaggerated in terms of importance. A film's merit should be judged on the final product, not the amount of money put into it.
And with that, I'm going to watch Chicago.
Now, don't get me wrong, I accept that now, film-making has become a business and has become riddled with corporations. Whatever. I don't like it, nor agree with it, but that's the way it is. But I reject the idea that films nowadays have to take a certain amount of money before they are labeled a success.
Films, now, cost a ridiculous amount of money. I mean, it's just stupid. And what a lot of people don't realise is that a film has to take back more than double its production cost to actually turn a profit. There are salaries to consider, marketing costs to produce, etc. But I mean, come on. Millions and millions of dollars are going into producing these films. It's becoming impossible for a blockbuster to become a hit, because in order to, it has to take a ridiculous amount of money in return!
Look at the top three grossing films of all time: (Forgive me if these aren't correct. They are by my knowledge).
1. Titanic (Cameron, 1997) [U.S.A.]
2. The Return of the King (Jackson, 2003) [N.Z.]
3. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (Verbinski, 2006) [U.S.A.]
These films cost MILLIONS of dollars, so I don't even know HOW they got their money back. Save Titanic...that just went on for months and months. I was...10 or 11 when that came out. I remember seeing at the cinema. Twice, I think. And THAT'S just it. Titanic was one of those films were it was like "Man, Titanic was great, let's go see it again." It was the ultimate date movie, not that I participated in any during the time of its release.
Sorry, I'm rambling, but here's my point: Box-office scores are hugely over exaggerated in terms of importance. A film's merit should be judged on the final product, not the amount of money put into it.
And with that, I'm going to watch Chicago.
posted by CelestialScribe | 3:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home