NEA Survey Finds 7% Drop in Movie Attendance Since 2002
by Big Hollywood
This is a regular survey done by the National Endowment for Obama that measures public participation in all areas of the arts. We hear a lot about Hollywood’s “record-breaking years” and will again this year, but the overall trend line for film attendance is headed only one way and an increase in ticket prices and a few monster hits each season like “Dark Knight” and “Transformers” are usually the difference between a record year and panic:
A new study from the National Endowment for the Arts finds a notable decline in theater, museum and concert attendance and other “benchmark” cultural activities between 2002 and 2008 for adults 18 and older, and a sharper fall from 25 years ago. The drop was for virtually all art forms and for virtually all age groups and levels of education.
The NEA’s senior deputy chair, Joan Shigekawa, listed a few possible reasons: The rise of the Internet; less free time; and cuts in arts classes.
“These numbers definitely represent a challenge,” Shigekawa said.
Released Thursday, the NEA’s 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts is the sixth such report to come out since 1982, when 39 percent of adults attended a “benchmark arts activity” at least once in the previous year. The percentage peaked at 41 percent in 1992, just as the Internet was taking off, and dropped to 34.6 percent in 2008.
Between 2002 and 2008, percentages fell for moviegoing from 60 to 53.3, for jazz from 10.8 to 7.8, for museums/galleries from 26.5 to 22.7. Other categories with lower attendance include ballet, opera, musical and nonmusical theater, and art/crafts fairs and festivals.
Yeah, “cuts in art classes” is why movie attendance is down. Good heavens, these people are stupid out of touch.
As with all things NEA and AP, both the study and the article blame everything but the growing disconnect between artists and their customers, not to mention the diminishing quality of the product.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
158 Comments
How about the fact that the movies and plays they are promoting are either boring, childish, unimaginative, or for the most part, offensive to people.? Nah, it must be those evil Republicans and ignorant masses!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Mr. Pink. Mr. Pink said: NEA Survey Finds 7% Drop in Movie Attendance Since 2002 http://tinyurl.com/ykhjefc [...]
Yo Hollywood adn the rest of the "arts" community, simple rule of business: You piss of the customers, you lose money.
They've already told us what they think of Middle America. Perhaps if the spent more time on content, and less on message they might see a rebound.
I don't know, I'm having an opening tomorrow night for my first solo show and it's shaping up to be a SRO event. Could it be that I don't make any political statement at all with my art? NO! Couldn't be! Plus, the show hadn't ven been up a week and I had already sold a piece. Poor, stupid NEA and friends. Here's a piece of advice: get your collective heads out of your arses.
These idiots aren't interested in what their customers want, they're just interested in getting their message out – even if it looks and sound like preaching and/or indoctrinating to us ignorant masses. Boy, do they live in a bubble. On the inside, it's all champagne and caviar – on the outside, growing discontent.
All together now, "It's Bush's fault."
Hmm… well maybe if they quit preaching to me and made something worth viewing I might be more inclined to spend $10 and 2 hours of my life that I'll never get back to go… I want entertainment, not propoganda… how hard is this to fathom… I like art, music, ballet, plays, movies, etc….. however, I lean towards the classical stuff because IT DOESN'T PREACH or tow the progressive line… :/
If there were less Damons, Afflecks, Baldwins, Penn's, Sarandon's, Clooney's, DeCaprio's and Carrey's on the screen and more Eastwoods, Lemmons, Matthau's, Waynes, Coopers, Bronson's, and Marvin's…..people might be interested in movies again. Keep these liberal political geniuses from spewing their ignorance every week on television and contain them with the rest of the morons in Hollywood, who people despise, we'd all be very happy to buy popcorn again.
Guess that's what happens when you have too many cultural events with the same worldview……too little originality.
Although they might insist that you purchase only 'nutritious' popcorn and popped with 'healthy' oil. It might taste like you were eating paper, but you'll thank them for it.
Just give me regular old popcorn made with real butter, and i'll just pop in a DVD of 'Red River'.
Oh, gee, let me see…
I can go to a theater or a museum or other "art" venue, be insulted and patronized as some kind of "hick' from the boondocks picking manure out from between my toes…
Or I can stay at home with all the comforts and big screen, Dolby and Surround sound theater speakers, watching whatever I want to watch at anytime.
All without crying kids, snotty sucking face teens, and cell phone mania while I watch some degenerate piece of trash at $$$$ per ticket…
Decisions, decisions, decisions…
(Two for one Movie Bob will come by sometime today and berate us for not accepting the "wonderful embrace of Hollywood"…)
i would kile to see how the HUGE BLOCKBUSTER movies compare, when adjusted for inflation with other movies.
Was Titanic really that much bigger?
do they ever compare movie attendance with population?
I'd bet that overall both the money and attendand would both be way down overall.
I could be wrong
How about some actual representative art again?
I mean Rothko's fun but there's a reason people still consider pre-20th century art some of the most attractive. This is why Thomas Kinkaide makes money & the NEA noobs have to mooch. If museums & galleries want to make money, how about showing things people want to see as opposed to things meant to "shock and enrage" as my art history prof said.
ostensibly, they don't care…
'We'll make it up on overseas DVD sales' is the refrain. It's where all the bad Iraq war films go to recover.
Problem is even the middle east likes Rambo better than 'Redacted'…
As the zombie slaying Mr Wolf so ably points out- Bad Business model. People will stay home.
Can you blame them?
The drop was for virtually all art forms and for virtually all age groups and levels of education.
An indication that virtually all art forms produce more crap than they used to. I love free-market economies!
It is time for conservatives to boycott all arts especially movies. These people earn huge salaries and then take our money and use it against us to advance the destruction of the very system they benefit from. It is disgusting. American conservatives stop going to movies with any of these lefties in them. They will not be sucessful if middle Americans stop funding their crap.
Save your breath bro…
The only way they'll learn is if every movie that pisses us off tanks. Let a few distributors go belly up…
Thats a sucker bet. He never saw a piece of propaganda he didn't like….
Blame George W Bush, Sarah Palin or the Heartbreak of Psorasis?
Yeah, it is hard to see why art classes would male you want to go out and see your average Hollywood movie. I'm 29, maybe it is because I am becoming an old curmudgeon, but every year I have less and less interest in anything Hollywood puts out. The movies ,while visually exciting, are often plot-less, trite, and sometimes insulting.
If something does hold my interest, I usually decide to rent it when available and watch it in the comfort of my own home.
For a prime example of what's wrong, just take a look at what's happened to the James Bond franchise: what was once escapist fun with a cool protagonist who fought against our enemies has now morphed into a brooding, humorless, metrosexual anti-hero with ambiguous morality whose incomprehensible, hyperly-edited stories now take subtle aim at the good guys. Who wants to see that over Sean Connery, Roger Moore or even Pierce Brosnan? At the very least, those guys were likable.
Hollywood commonly thumbs its nose at the very notions of "feel good", linear storytelling, straightforwardness, promotion of "traditional values," or the distinction between good and evil. To advocate for such things means you want to be "spoon fed", you see. The only things worthy or respectable analysis are abstraction and amorality, don't you know.
How depressing.
Here's a novel idea: make movie going fun again and audiences will return.
Here's yet another: stop trying to decrease the "window" between theater and home-video release. Figure out a way to make people want what they know they will otherwise have to wait for.
I guess this explains why, when I go to a movie these days, the theater is 1/3 full for even a "blockbuster" type movie. I remember having to wait in long lines outside and to scramble for seats to see the summer's tent pole movies a decade or so ago. Oh well, it's the celebrity's burden to covert the ignorant masses. Selflessness, thy name is "Hollywood".
Mjolnir –
You raise an interesting point. Personally, I think Hollywood has shot itself in the foot with all the great home theater tech we can have now (read: afford). Why should I spend 10 bucks on a movie I may or may not like when I can Netflix the Blu-Ray disc and watch it at home on my 42" LCD?
Recently, I've been renting a lot of this year's films that I missed in the theater like Terminator Salvation and Pelham 1-2-3 and not once have I thought, "Man, I wish I saw this in the theater!"
Hell, I'm a film school grad and I only saw two films in the theater: Star Trek and The Hangover and thankfully, both were worth it.
If it weren't for remakes, Hollywood would be a ghost town. I don't think there's been more than 5 original thoughts in that area code for years….
They be too big to fail!!!
It's kind of like Amway for actors. The top guys get out before all the money's gone…
I'm not engaged in a boycot per se. But everytime I'm looking for something to watch and I am faced with watching Clowny, Penn, Damon ert al., I find myself flipping the channel or just shutting off the TV (I just won't go to a theatre anymore. See Mjolnir.)
I can't watch these people becasue I can not seperate their roles from the people they are and the causes they promote.
They just aren't good enough actors for me to make that leap.
That's right. "The Buck Stops THERE."
Another bailout?
Exactly.Look at the music biz.Man,I worked four nights a week for almost 30 years playing rock-n-roll.Today,not so much.But,let the word out that real rock is happening,they will come.I wish the Who would grace us with a tour.Rap is just one big abortion.
When you look at the value of the dollar, Titanic STILL hasn't earned as much money as classics like Gone With The Wind and Star Wars.
Even the other top earning films, some of which are quite good, only make more when you look at the cost of movie tickets… older movies put more asses on seats.
Hollywood carefully avoids the fact that tickets used to be MUCH cheaper than they are now.
next to 'GWTW'- in sheer ticket sales- is the 1966 007 opus, 'Thunderball'…
more than a billion people have seen the film in theaters, two billion if you include tv. Adjusted for inflation it's grosses would pass that of all the top 10 films.
It was a buck to see it first run, not ten…
The rise of the internet is the real problem, and studio execs have their heads in the sand over the issue. Rather than embrace the internet like the music industry, they're trying to shove 3-D down our throats. I guarantee that if you made movies available online in pristine quality for a cheaper price than a movie ticket, they wouldn't be having this problem. Some people would simply go to the cinemas while the idiots who talk and text would stay at home.
Plus, a lot of the really great movies being released only come out in a single theatre in New York. It's not the consumers' fault if they can't find your greatest products.
Not to defend Hollywood, because they deserve no defense, but just want to point out the panoply of entertainment that is available at home these days (DVDs, DVRs, On Demand, video games, cable TV, the Internet, CDs, phone apps, etc.) that was not available during the 30s and 40s when the classic movies were made. Back then, movies and radio were the primary form of entertainment for the average family. Add to that the fact that film was a pretty new medium, so filmmakers weren't saddled with the "remake" issue. People were amazed at King Kong and other effects that today we would find a bit lame. However, in many ways, special effects have eclipsed good writing and creativity, which I find unforgiveable. Also, studios understood the bottom line. Cash was king for Warner Brothers, MGM, and the other studios…they wouldn't have given the green light to a series of insulting, unAmerican flops and then blamed their customers when the movies failed…give the people what they want, what a novel concept!
A couple of reasons……10.2% unempployment and We the People are tired of the Hussein Propaganda!
but, but, but . . . . those flyover bumpkims need to be "englightened", and educated on what it means to live in the 21st century. message is everything. (/snark)
Even then, the "remakes" were unable to sustain what the originals came to be…
"War of the Worlds"? Gene Barry +, Tom Cruise -…
"The Day the Earth Stood Still"? Michael Rennie +, Keanu Reeves -… (PS: remaking this should have been an executable offense, IMO)
"Superman"? Christopher Reeve +, Brandon Routh -…
Cripes, I'm depressing myself…
[...] the original post here: NEA Survey Finds 7% Drop in Movie Attendance Since 2002 This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
I couldn't agree more. The Day the Earth Stood Still should never have been remade. But you can't really call it a remake. They completely trashed the movie and tried to shove more eco-panic crap down our throats. Just a complete disaster. And yes, everyone involved in that movie should be executed ASAP before they destroy another classic
The only redeeming part of War of the Worlds was when Tim Robbins took a dirt nap…..
I've come to realize that the old wisdom about Hollywood being profit-driven can no longer be held as true. How well have their anti-war films done? Yet, they keep churning them out, one after the other. Either they're hopelessly out of touch, or in such blind lockstep with their leftist drummers that they can't break free of the ideological motivation, profits be damned. Maybe it's both. It's very bizarre.
I don't even think a film as straightforward – let alone original – as "Rain Man" or "Driving Miss Daisy" would be made today. Boy, that's sad. And yes, folks, as much as I enjoyed films like "Little MIss Sunshine" and even "Zombieland", lets face it: they're not even anywhere close to being in the league as the movies I just cited (or just name your pre-2000 year). Bleak fare like "Crash" and "No Country for Old Men" are "Best Pictrues?" Really? No wonder Hollywood feels so small these days. Even years dominated by leftist pap (like 1981's "Reds") still felt "big" in that Hollywood way. The stories still had something to say. I defy anyone to tell me what "There Will Be Blood" was even about. Is this how people felt about "Chinatown" way back when? Something tells me there's a difference. You tell me.
by the time we pay a sitter, buy the tickets and get popcorn, a movie can cost up to 100.00 bucks. I would rather spend my money on other things…. like food for my kids. I am not interested in lining the pockets of Hollywood with my hard earned money. All they do is insult my beliefs and values, and give bad ,boring movies. even 3-D is to expensive at 13 bucks a ticket. Hollywood does not care for the average joe. And I love movies, the old one of course. The new ones are just awful.
you forgot the overpriced concessions. when I actually go to a movie (pretty rare), we never buy anything. At home, you can have your popcorn and drink and not go broke.
I'm of the opinion that deep down, these studio types are so immoral and depraved, that put it out to try and get widespread support for their depravity. e.g. holllywierd's support of Roman Polanski.
Oh right. We're supposed to believe this due to a growing disconnect between leftist Hollywood and rightist America?
that's rich.
a) Hollywood is about three things: Money, money, and MONEY. Now that's pretty American I'd say.
b) Gee do you think that, just like CD sales, movie attendance might have something to do with alternate medias like DVDs and the Internet? HELLO?! BUELLER!?
Boording and humorless? Yes. Metrosexual? I'd have to disagree. (And I think we need to definitively define what that means since the vibe I get here – not your post, but in general – is that it's used as a placeholder for "actor I don't like.")
And linear storytelling is just a tool… I wouldn't categorize it as some political stance that Hollywood likes to thumb its nose at. Even Citizen Kane started in the future and worked backward.
Yeah I agree, they just are not that entertaining, stories that bore, special effects just because, unnecessary grossness, depravity, attacks on western culture etc.
I dunno. Another Iraq War movie might just be the ticket right now.
He's another one of these male types without any hair on his body and sensitive. Obviously, he's physically tough. It has nothing to do with my opinion of Daniel Craig (who I like, but am not a fan of him as Bond), and everything to do with the decline of the man in Hollywood film.
And don't get me wrong: I have absolutely no problem with non-linear storytelling, but so much of what I see is artsy pretentiousness (i.e., non-linear is not a virtue in itself) masking ambiguous, amoral messages.
Hope that clarifies.
It did. Thank-you for your reply.
I LOVE the Craig version of Bond!! I very much enjoyed both of the Bond movies with him as lead. I respect the old Connery-as-Bond movies out of cultural sentiment; Brosnan's portrayal I've only seen snippets of. Haven't seen Tim Dalton's at all.
Give Craig credit for getting a new audience interested in the Bond stories, and FINALLY being the actor lucky enough to be able to star in "Casino Royale", which had been mired so long in a nowhere-land position as a Woody Allen treatment that was embarrassing and sad.
I'm not going to give Hollywood my Money, money, and MONEY if they're just going to insult my Values, values and VALUES.
That's called "voting with your wallet". It's a capitalist thing.
As for DVDs… if I can't stand to see it in a theatre, I MIGHT se it on DVD if I'm bored, but honestly, it is getting more and more difficult to find anything on DVD to watch unless it is classic, foreign, from Pixar, or an indy.
I gotta disagree.
Craig is the most ruthless of the Bonds… he bests Connery in that category. Connery also bested all the other actors that followed in general style, and of course set the standard for Bond. Each actor and production team that followed wouldn't simply want to be just like Sean, they need something else to make it distinct, yet good.
Daniel Craig isn't really a metrosexual. The fella's all man. Tough as nails. Doesn't wear his emotions on his sleeve. He's not humorless, in fact considering the taunting he gives his torturer in the last third of Casino Royale he's a sarcastic as Sean and Pierce.
[Continued]
[Continued from above]
If you want to talk metrosexual, Pierce Brosnan is the man and the Bond to fit that description. He was fine as Bond, but the writing was under par, the villains were under used (especially when it comes to the quality of actors they used like Sean Bean and Robert Carlyle and Jonathan Pryce!), and they were made pretty much by the numbers (especially "Die Another Day"). He was a reasonable blend of Roger Moore and Sean Connery, but he (and the audience) was ill served by the mediocrity of the films themselves.
That said, there were a number of great set pieces during Brosnan's time!
I am 100% with you brother when it comes to voting with your wallet.
However, when it comes to Hollywood… wow that sounds tough! Pixar may be in Northern Cali, but do you think they are LESS liberal? Moreover… you buy DVDs of "classic, foreign, from Pixar, or an indy"… sorry to tell you but I think your vote-dollar is compromised by quite a few Hollywood-bound pennies.
I did my time playing the bars too, also playing Rock n Roll, and you're right, we always packed wherever we played – not cause of who we were (average run of the mill beer hall cover band) but cause we played what they wanted.
You make a very good point, Relish… however the Remake Issue was still in effect in the 30s and 40s. At least in terms of Universal's classic monster series. They were remaking the films all the time when they made sequels. Not only that, they were remaking stage productions, too.
At least, that's my defense for Hollywood and television remaking and "revisioning" old television, films, and other productions in new films. It's a terrible idea… except when it works, like "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight".
True enough it isn't often… but how often do we actually get a good film in the first place?
I even have that one in my DVD collection.
"in many ways, special effects have eclipsed good writing and creativity, which I find unforgiveable."
BINGO! Now I'm all for special effects and all that (being a scifi/fantasy/horror fan) but without a good creative story for a foundation, it's all frosting and no cake.
well, not to be snobs but…
You should see the new BluRay version. Omigod! This is back when they really did- on screen- what the film was all about. The way reality slips in and out of the fantasy is amazing.
Example: No one had ever seen an H-bomb. US military brass, enamored of the series, snuck top secret photos of the device ot the production designer, and you have the FIRST screen appearance
of a facsimile of the real deal. The underwater sleds were designed for the film and worked, the aquaparas that come to the rescue became the SEALS and their appearance was so powerful it goaded the DOD to accelerate the program…
There is SO much going on it surpasses 'just a movie' thing. We could go on…
Not snobbish at all. I agree, the realism seen and felt was because they were really doing these things for the camera. I also like it cause this was released the same year I was born.
My favorite of the whole series though (modern ones included – all versions have their pluses) goes to "You Only Live Twice" for pure fanboy reasons. It had ninja and had Bond train to become a ninja.
Historically speaking , it was the first western film to use ninja in a storyline – I could possibly be wrong so if any film historians out there know better, please do post to correct me.
I'm pining for the days when the movie theaters of America are dark, abandoned, lifeless husks.
"See that, kiddo? That big empty building? In the olden days people used to go in there, of their own free will, and PAY MONEY to get brainwashed by their programmers! Imagine that!"
I've not darkened the door of the local theaters since the first Hulk movie, and, short of brute force, will not do so again in my lifetime. New Babylon doesn't get my money, (except that which they take through taxes and the N.E.A., of course, naturally, goes without saying).
I'm serious. I want a future where movie theaters are seen as Scottish castles are today. Tumbleweeds blowing up the aisles. These Gods have lived too high for too long, and their temples need to be taken down.
I'm not looking for any thumbs-up here on this. Take it as an anecdote, but lots of other people think this way.
Okay, fair enough. You guys all make good points, and I don't want my own points to get lost in the "metrosexual" descriptor. Maybe the recent "Twilight" movies would be a better example for that!
I just don't like the new Bond. I find their their storytelling tedious, compromised of the originals' fun, and fairly depressing. I find them representative of what's wrong with a lot of Hollywoods' output these days. Be that as it may, hopefully, we can disagree on my example without missing the general point I'm trying to make.
I haven't been to a movie in years… I can sit at home have a meal, drink, stop the movie when needed back it up when I want and generally relax…. I usually watch older movies anyway!
no, you are dead on correct…
This entry, the biggest budget of the series ($12 million in $35 an ounce gold days) had the great Freddie Young- David Lean's DP of 'Lawrence' ,'Kwai' and others- and he shot the bejeebus out of it. They needed great locations, and Fleming's original novel had a samurai theme so the Ninjas were included.
Like all other 007 films, they are the real deal. it is the first exposition of martial arts in Western film. And still one of the best…
Then you're basically saying, "I give up," as if everyone who leans to the right shouldn't participate at all. That, IMHO, is the wrong way of looking at things. Not only does it discourage people on the right (and even some folks in the middle like myself) that might want to create films, music, etc. in the future, it's also a defeatist attitude.
Better to boycott the people and movies you don't like and support the ones you do. The industry won't change with your head in the sand.
We can.
What's interesting is that, in the history of the Bond films, every time they go crazier and crazier, inevitably they tone it back down. I'm sure people complained that Licence to Kill was too dark and depressing back in 1989. Hopefully, the Wilson/Brocolli team learned their lesson after Quantum of Solace (which I liked but didn't love) and the next one will be a tad lighter.
Well, that's it in a nutshell. There's just no balance. The public as a whole needs more than "Watchmen" and "Children of Men". There is value in a "Jaws" or "The Natural" or "Star Wars". Hollywood today is not only not making stuff like that anymore, but they also seem to be hell-bent on disowning themselves from that kind of storytelling altogether. I was told that "Slumdog Millionaire" functioned the same way "Rocky" did in 1976. Then I saw "Slumdog," which was a decent story, but whose protagonist seemed to have little control over his fate. Good thing it wound up in his favor.
I'm not saying being "bleak" disqualifies a film from being great (one of my favorite films is "Taxi Driver" in fact). The point is that many films today are defined by a bleak outlook that either promotes leftist morality, amorality or nothing at all. It's not a virtue in itself, i.e., bleakness does not provide meaning on its own. This is one of the things, in fact, that separates good horror films from bad ones; the presence graphic violence alone isn't what provides the quality, but if that's all there is….
Indeed… real in their tactics and abilities; without the acrobatic wirework (though that stuff is entertaining too when looked at as the fantasy it is).
Let's see. If we put our heads together, we can figure out why people aren't plunking down their hard earned cash.
Movies are written these days by committee. Really good books (Klavan's latest) aren't optioned, but any anti-American screeds gets the full Monty. Toss in a bunch of blonde actresses who all look like each other and none of whom can act and give them a chance to take off their blouse. Add lead male characters chosen for their political ideology (George C. Looney, Matt Damon, Sean Penn, etc.) and give them some really juicy propaganda to spout.
And then there's the silent boycott.
Craig is badass in the new Bonds.
Royale was great, QoS suffered from a sincerely lackluster climax.
I really enjoyed Speilberg's WotW. The effects were great, but the real gem was centering the story around a father trying to keep his kids alive at all costs. (And I'm not any kind of Tom Cruise fan.)
there wasn't much wire work in the film; and they invented the trampoline shot- set off a small charge, the stuntman hits the trampoline (camera shoots slightly up) and you have the best explosion gagas ever. Add Peter Hunt's dynamic editing (the fight in Osato's office with the Samurai is superb) and you have a timeless classic.
Which, of course, it is…
The only decent movies out lately are Harry Potter and Twilight…other than that, nothing decent since the 80's…what great movies they had then!!
Well, I have a hard time refuting anything you just said.
You reminded me of Rocky… my wife hadn't seen it in years, and after showing her "Rocky Balboa" she was surprised by how much she liked it, and said, "I wish the first film was like that."
Of course, I had to show her… and she was surprised all over again.
DVD sales are tanking, so find something else to blame.
it's partially on demand and internet viewing, but mostly it's the product. I'd love to buy more DVDs, but not many cross the threshold into the 'have to own' category. (The Dark Knight and UP are the only 2 I've bought this year.)
Then again, maybe my standards are too high … Nah. Maybe I should just buy some more old movies.
Hollywood is about MONEY, but the problem is that it's largely a hermetically sealed ecosystem in which groupthink pervades. I'm sure there's plenty of closeted conservatives who don't currently have the bank nor the power to out themselves, so they quietly follow along.
That's why it helps that Pixar exists outside this ecosystem. Outside of voice talent, they function more like a family enterprise than a free agent system at other H'wood studios.
Pixar has proven itself through its storytelling to be considerably less liberal than Hollywood. The Incredibles is about human exceptionalism, and the constraints society continually attempts to place on achievers, and government seems to exist as an obstacle to that exceptionalism.
At one time, I was a subscriber to both Time and Newsweek, regularly read two daily newspapers plus the Sunday New York Times, went to theaters for the new films, watched the older ones on cable, and attended a variety of live performances.
What can I say ? To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, they left me …
Yeah, I liked Rocky Balboa too. Reminded me a lot of the first one. And wasn't it a great feeling walking out of movies like that? I always think back to when I was a kid (not the most reliable perspective to be sure) and saw "Superman: The Movie." Not only was it uplifting/positive, but I idolized Clark Kent. I felt genuinely good about what I just seen, and wanted to emulate the same values. Over the years, I have come to realize that it wasn't just a good message, but it was done with every ounce of quality talent Hollywood had to offer in terms of writing, acting, cinematography, score, etc. The competency of all those elements gave tremendous weight to its message. Movies like that shine…..they also cost a bundle to make, as they did then. Does Hollywood invest in the same type of messages anymore?
Obviously, Superman is a fantasy, but I would argue that its values are not. Lets compare: do you think that kids today feel the same walking out of "Watchmen" or "Dark Knight" (both good movies, btw) as I did about "Superman" in 1978?
Clooney and Penn are very accomplished actors. Damon isn't in their class, but he's not bad.
And Alec Baldwin is very capable on 30 Rock.
While I do not agree with their political ideologies, I don't think the reason they are chosen for roles is for a specific ideology. Perhaps they get more opportunities for being "in the club", but their talents speak for themselves.
Boy, nothing like "possible reasons"! Like the pending alien invasion… that might just be panicking audiences, wouldn't you say?
I would add Lord of the Rings to that mix. That was an epic series! Even if Viggo is now being a Zinn-loving troll
Most of the movies are self-serving, self-righteous propaganda, horrible remakes, or just plain horrible.
good. I hope the left wingers are feeling the heat. Nice job avoiding them America!
The entire "hero sequence" in the middle of Superman is pure magic. A friend of mine and I showed our sons (five and three) that sequence… and just like the tagline says, "You'll believe a man can fly."
They did. So wonderful.
I certainly don't think kids are walking out of "Dark Knight" and "Watchmen" like we did witih "Superman". Of course, "Dark Knight" and "Watchmen" and similar films are targeted directly to an older audience… in fact, it is us. The audience of "Superman" who originally saw it in the theater who are targeted for the adult comicbook films.
[Continued]
Now, a similar film like Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" and "Spider-Men 2" are much closer in tone and style and have a greater feeling of wonder… perhaps more of a teen film. But still, I don't feel too bad showing my son scenes from "Spider-Man".
Hell! That was a film, too. I remember seeing it at a screening before it came out with about 20 other people… I walked out of "Spider-Man" feeling like a kid again. I wanted to pump my fist in the air and cheer (what a geek) during the movie. I was absolutely elated. My wife noted how cute (yet geeky) it was that I beamed ear to ear.
[Continued and concluded]
Part of it was that WONDERFUL sequence at the George Washington Bridge where it seems as if all of New York (and all of America) were cheering on Spidey (and the cops and firefighters and medics and soldiers) and telling the Green Goblin (and the terrorists) to back off… because "if you mess with one of us you mess with *all* of us!"
And the flag… the damn thing waved, proudly. Spidey jumped up to hang on the flag pole as if he were watching over all of the city, and all of America.
I'm not embarassed to say I was just a little bit misty eyed with faith in heroes and the American spirit. And Spider-Man.
Same here regarding LotR. I own the 12-disc set. The actors DO tend to expose their complete non-understanding of the story, and of the forces of evil and good presented in the story, if you watch the trilogy with the actors' commentary track on. Great film, though, despite the actors in the commentary showing their utter moral ignorance. Frodo (forgot the utterly-forgettable actor's name) just HAD to mention Bush and "his" war during discussion of Mordor and Sauron. And the others just had to pipe in and agree. They can't help this. They are programmed this way. They will NEVER understand that Mordor is ISLAM. That THEY THEMSELVES are typified by Grima Wormtongue, calling all who would take to the field of battle against those terrors who have arrayed themselves against the free world "WARMONGERS". They'll never understand, not even when theirs are the heads being sawn off by the Uruk-Hai of the modern world. Their final thought, as their head rolls, will be "Damn that Bushie and those Repukes for making these normally-peaceful orcs do this! Damn them all!"
A caveat: Hollywood didn't make the Lord of the Rings, by and large, which may explain why it's so GOOD.
I admit, I thought "Iron Man" was pretty darn good too. That actually, more than "Spidey", reminded me that old feeling. Nothing is likely ever to replace that "Superman" magic for me, but "Iron Man" was excellent all the same…..it made the numbers at the box office for its efforts to boot.
One last thing while we're going off on a superhero tangent, I feel the same way about drama, which is primarily what the original "Rocky" was (just as good as "On the Waterfront", imo).
Unfortunately, I fear history will show that 'the buck stopped then [1/21/09]'
I avoid the theaters because a) there's almost nothing that attracts my attention, b) all the gutter language, c) no plot but a lot of explosions and special effects, d) the loutish behavior of so many theater goers, especially parents whose children are the center of the universe, e) folks who are incapable of shutting off their phones, f) refreshment prices that are obscene.
Slight variation on the theme: I subscribed to Harpers, New Republic, and The Atlantic. Granted, TNR was always leftist, but written in a thoughtful intelligent style that stimulated thought. But it degenerated, and The Atlantic is now almost unrecognizable.
My family's biggest reason for not attending movies is the price of a ticket and the quality of the product recvd. Time and time again the movie is a bust and we've wasted time and resources attending the show. Second reason is our money needs to used to pay for more important things…like food, clothing, shelter and what seems to be the most important issue for our elected officials TAXES!!!
My position exactly. Thank you Scott.
I don't know why anyone would give this post a "thumbs down". The internet is most definitely an influence on the downturn in filling theatre seats. Along with ticket prices. And poor quality. And political message infusion. And the economy.
Movies that depress or annoy for $20 in tickets and another $15 for two drinks and a popcorn. I frankly really want to meet the kind of people Hollywood seems to be making movies for. These people who live such comfortable lives that they need to pay someone to make them feel BAD for two hours. Just what do these people do for a living that makes their lives so cushy that they feel the need to pay to be insulted, or to be screamed at, or otherwise made to feel bad?
I am a pediatric oncologist (really) and my wife is a debt counselor (again, not kidding.) We can feel bad for free, just by going to work. I don't go to downer movies. Emotionally challenging movies (last movie seen was Martin Landau and Ellen Burstyn's Oscar caliber performances in "Lovely, Still") are fine. Depressing or derogatory movies? Keep them. Movies that involve some flavor of the moment hollywood bimbette doing a lesbian scene for shock value? Not falling for it. Movies that shock by cutting apart said bimbettes? Yawn.
How about some good compelling dramas? I mean "Lovely, Still" was incredible and if it weren't filmed in Omaha, we would not have seen it as Hollywood is not willing to give it a distribution deal. I guess it's because the main characters are not 20, Landau doesn't spend the whole movie bashing Bush, and Burstyn doesn't do a nude scene with her female co-star; so Hollywood can't be sending that movie out to the cineplexes.
Make a product people want to see and the theaters will be full. Make crap that no one wants to see, or crap that looks like all the other crap, and they won't be. Simple.
The corollary to this is the drop in viewership for the Oscars. Hollywood can't understand why we don't want to see awards given to movies that glorify statutory rape (The Reader), dysfunctional couples (Revolutionary Road), and all the other crap that movie studios seem to see as "art". If beauty is in the eye of the beholder and you're trying to sell tickets to those beholders, find out what they think is beautiful, don't tell them what they should find beautiful.
hollywood bases it's "records" on money made from ticket sales. I'd like to see those numbers adjusted for inflation and population wtih previous years. Many of the studio's favorite movies wouldn't even make the top 100. Of course, that wouldn't matter to them.
You guys make me want to go back and rewatch the classic era Bond films with commentary. I loved the featurettes on those disks. Great stuff!
Absolutely… going back I forgot that all of the boxing sequences (the fun ones) were all at the end of the film. All the build up was character… we became invested in seeing Rocky get through all of the rounds.
He was never going to beat the champ… but he held his ground and measured up nicely. He had heart… that character was ALL heart. It wasn't that he was too dumb to just play around in the ring… he wasn't putting on a show for the world. This was his chance to prove to himself.
You must be logged in to post a comment.