Jul
31
Posted on 07-31-2007 at 01:45pm
Does box-office success equal quality?
Filed Under (Movies) by Big Orange Michael on 07-31-2007

Interesting column in the Hollywood Reporter about how the perception of a movie’s quality these days is tied to its box-office success.

Consumers have been conditioned to believe that success and quality are officially indistinguishable from one another. If your movie is perceived to have bombed at the boxoffice, the judgment of your project’s artistic merits tanks right along with it not only in the critical community but, indeed, the greater public mind.

As we’ve come to learn, feature films have only that first Friday night in theaters to make their case before the assessment machine begins churning. Primetime TV series get two episodes, maybe three (if the producer wields sufficient influence). Anything that disappears from sight quickly is generally dismissed as a lousy idea from the get-go, no matter how well-made or entertaining. No one wants to back a loser, even one that was championed last week.

Read the complete article here.

Now, a big box-office doesn’t necessarily mean a movie is good or bad (example one: I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, example two: Wild Hogs). A big box-office and a strong opening weekend is all about marketing and buzz. Just look at the first four weekends this summer when you had three “third” films in a series opening up and the huge hype that went into it (and only one was worthy of the hype…and it didn’t have a big green ogre or Captain Jack Sparrow).

So, does it matter to you how much money a movie makes? Does this determine if you will or won’t see it? And does it influence where you’ll see a film–theater or at home on DVD?

While I’m posting about movies, let me say again…Nashville needs a second-run, discount theater in the worst possible way.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Furl
  • RawSugar
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
    Read More   

Comments

Ron on 31 July, 2007 at 1:50 pm #

Spider-man 3 was mediocre at best.


Joe P. on 31 July, 2007 at 2:16 pm #

Sometimes i’m glad a certain movie does make the big bucks on opening weekend, but more because I’m happy a wide audience saw a particular movie. For instance I hope Werner Herzog’s movie “Resue Dawn” does gangbuster biz - both because it will clue a lot of folks into Herzog and because I just hope he benefits financially.

Still, first and foremost, Hollywood movies are all about business. Same for TV. So in my mind, no, the money it makes has nothing to do with my decision to see a movie, either in theatres or on DVD.

Crazy me, I like good well-told stories. And I have noticed several good filmmakers and storytellers are finding more welcome and longevity via cable channels. But I think some more trouble is heading towards moviemaking as another big-time writers strike is about to break loose.


nm on 31 July, 2007 at 2:20 pm #

Considering the recent deaths of Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni, we can say a resounding NO to the $ = quality proposition.
-
OTOH, there’s plenty of work of great artistic merit that has been wildly popular. I like to point out that even if Grand Funk Railroad played stadiums, so did the Beatles.


Rick Maynard on 31 July, 2007 at 2:27 pm #

Following the logic that the most commercially successful is always the best, Britney Spears has the greatest set of pipes in the current music industry, and JK Rowling is the best writer ever. And the fresh (Okay fresh-ish) burger I had at Boscos the other day was far inferior to the Big Mac, which has sold billions.
-
That’s not to say that commercial success and artistic merit are mutually exclusive by necessity— But particularly in movies, it’s difficult when guns, bombs, and tits will be rewarded over good storytelling.
-
Many people don’t realize this, but when you hear it, it will make sense. The movie “Armageddon” was 2/3 complete before they ever finished the shooting script. And frankly, the storytelling shows that. They didn’t miss a single cliche, and made up for it visually.


Slartibartfast on 31 July, 2007 at 2:42 pm #

“guns, bombs, and tits ”
-
[wakes up…]


Rick Maynard on 31 July, 2007 at 3:35 pm #

One more thing -
While I’m posting about movies, let me say again…Nashville needs a second-run, discount theater in the worst possible way.
-
It cn’t happen anymore. Not here. Not there. Not anywhere. The second run theater is a thing of the past.
-
Now, the cycle is so short between the initial release and the DVD release that the theater cannot compete with the convenience of slapping a disc into the DVD player.
-
“300″ was a massive hit, with a theatrical run longer than 80% of what hits the market. I just looked it up— It hit theaters on March 9, and comes out on DVD today.
-
With most movies, it’s more like 2 to 3 months. There’s no room in that cycle for a second run.
-
We had two here for years, and they used to be great to go to (Well, at least one of them was). Once the theatrical to DVD cycle was reduced so radically, it fell into disrepair and went under.


DB Carden on 31 July, 2007 at 3:59 pm #

To paraphrase Robert Kiyosaki, the best-selling is not necessarily the best (written, produced, etc.). How much money something extracts from people definitely does not equate to its greatness. I choose to see movies that I think will be entertaining or provocative not based on popularity. For example, I loved Lady in the Water and it was a resounding flop at the box office and panned by critics.

I second Rick Maynard regarding a second run theater, too little space between theater and DVD release anymore.