Rogue588

Originally, when I was thinking about starting this thread, I was going to lament the disappearance of the "old" Steven Spielberg.

Ya know...the Spielberg that was responsible for Jaws, Close Encounters, E.T., hell even 1941.

Then I got to thinking about Dr. DVD's thread here about the "pacing" of Jaws and what defines a summer "popcorn movie".

Then I started thinking about how little Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle pulled in. To be honest, even though I had no intention of seeing it, I figured it'd do at least 50-70 mil based on promotion and young male hormones.

It ended up doing around $38 million. Columbia probably spent that much in promotion alone..

So i'm wondering...what's going on?

Have we, as moviegoers, become jaded? Or has the industry gotten used to releasing a series of "hit 'em hard & fast, and get out with as much money as you can in as little time as possible" flicks? Or is it that we just have too many damn choices to choose from?

Let's look at Jaws for example. When it opened up, there was no internet. No home video. No cable. No satellite dishes. No video game systems. Most movie theatres had one screen. Two, if they were lucky. The output from Hollywood was significantly less.

All the media -- TV, Music & Movies were businesses...but they weren't yet industries.

Jaws was a flick that didn't have any major stars [though Robert Shaw had starred in the most films at that point] and this was only Spielberg's second motion picture.

The current top ten stands:I really had more to say, but right now it's all jumbled in my head [along with my desire for sleep]. So if anyone can get the gist of what i'm getting at, please take the ball and run with it..

But I guess the best way I could sum it up, is this: while i'm glad we have DVDs [and DVD Talk* ] and that the window for flicks to hit home video seems to be getting smaller, I miss the old days. Of course, DVDs won't matter much if Hollywood doesn't take a step back and analyze what's working and what isn't...and FIX it.

* [Obligatory kneepad comment ..]

Rypro 525

Well, t3 still comes out next week and Ebert and Roper basically said its a braindead action movie with little plot.

mdc3000

Roeper seemed to think it had some interesting questions and ideas that it brought it....they never pay them off...but he thought it had much more going on than Ebert did...Roeper said they did a great job and that T4 has lots of potential because of all the unanswered questions etc. they set up in the third...

lesterlong

Jaws is simply a great movie. People, though dumb at a times, do go see good movies.

Rogue588

Right...but I guess i'm trying to figure out exactly why Charlie's Angel's [and most other movies this summer] have been underperforming. This isn't necessarily the first summer either.

Is Hollywood running out of ideas?

I guess Sony was figuring that the combination of the BO take from the first CA & the media blitz [Maxim, Talk Shows, etc] would get a BIG first week's take...at the very least. It's obvious that massive media hype [along with the built in comic book audience] worked for the Hulk's first week..

Looks like it didn't help this flick..

Which will be the next..?

Dr. DVD

I inspired a thread!! Shucks!!!

In terms of why CA:FT is underperforming and what makes a hit, if you had the definitive answer to that question and could prove it correct, you would be the top person in Hollywood. Personally, I think the lackluster B.O. of the Angels is a combination of several things.
1) The first one did good in movie theaters, but nowhere near as phenomenal to justify spending on the sequel what the first one grossed. I did a little research at other websites and forums to test the anticipation for CA:FT, and found that more people seemed to hate the first one as opposed to liking it.
Basically, the first CA got a lot of one time viewers, a majority of whom didn't like the what they saw and chose not to come back for seconds. Like I said in another thread, Blair Witch Project is an example of this.
2) After buying into build-up for [B]Hulk[/] and Matrix Reloaded, and those not meeting people's expectations, I think audiences were a little bit wary of jumping the next big event bandwagon.
3) The least likely contributing factor, but one worth mentioning, the weather was really nice in a lot of areas this past weekend, and people probably didn't want to spend hard earned time off in a movie theater when they could be out doing stuff day and night.

What I find interesting about this summer, is that the way it looks, the big hits will wind up being rated R movies with a G flick thrown in amongst them. (The G being Finding Nemo ) I already know that TMR will be either #1 or #2 for the summer, depending on how long Nemo sticks around, which will be for some time. Who knows, the other big hits might be T3 and Bad Boys II. If that happens it might prove something, and that's that the moviegoing public that two or three years ago made a bunch of PG-13 movies top draws has gotten old enough to see rated R movies legally, and they want to see rated Rs because darn it, it's their right as adults!
That's just my .02, take it or leave it.

gettinbranded

I think Hollywood is more interested in formula than good film. I also think filmgoers have become more jaded and sophisticated than hollywood gives them credit for.

wordtoyamotha

Great thread! I'm not sure whether (average) movie audiences are much dumber than Hollywood thinks or much smarter than they give them credit for. Either way, something strange is definitely going on this summer. My short opinion on why things have been happening the way they have is that word of mouth is becoming VERY powerful. My long opinion is as follows:

People are seeing more movies these days over the course of a year than they did, say, fifteen years ago. This is both good and bad for Hollywood. It's good in the sense that more movies viewed = more $. It's bad in that audience's are craving a wider variety of entertainment in their films. I don't think a movie like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon would have been half as successful fifteen years ago. Look at what word of mouth did for that movie. On the other hand, I think a lot of people are holding off on certain movies because they don't really provide anything new or exciting. Take Charlie's Angels for example, the buzz that I've heard about this movie is that it isn't really bad, it's just another fun action movie that does not take itself seriously. I think a lot of people hear that and say, "Well, it sounds o.k., but I'm in no hurry to see it. Maybe I'll rent it."

Just my $0.02

DRG

Another factor in Charlie's Angels so-so opening may be the fact that it just didn't that the "must-see" pull, even for fans of the first film. Even if you loved the first film, it's pretty clear that there's nothing really new here. It's more of a "I guess I might go" type movie.

Scot1458

What has Spielberg lost? A.I., Minority Report, Catch me if you can, three solid great blockbustin' movies.