Monday, March 13, 2006

Movies and Me

Mrs. Blogger and I went to see some movies. Here's the quick review.

"Date Movie" utterly terrible (as roughly expected-but we had a sitter and saw all the other movies at the theater-I wonder how much of Hollywoods box office comes is owed to sitters?). And yes, the movie screams Caveat Emptor, but I actually felt bad for Alison Hannigan because she seems nice enough but she should definitley fire her agent. This was a "career destroying" type bad movie.

"Ultraviolet" Mrs. Blogger did not like it, I loved it. Looked and felt like a comic book, which makes sense as its based on one. Even had scenes where Milla Javionichidghech's nose was blurry, which I think was done on purpose to make her look more like a drawn figure, it just bugged the wife. Solid actions scenes, and a very comic book plot (good or bad depending). I don't know the book so I can't vouch for how well it held to the book.

But Date movie got me thinking. Yes I expected a bad movie, but why would a studio put one this bad out? While it may recoup some of the investment, it must hurt brand name. Then it hit me, no one cares about which studio put the movie out. I can't name the studio of any movie I've seen, whether I loved it or hated it. So there's no reputational damage to the studio (there are direct risks, put out enough movies that don't make back the investment and you go under, for example). So Fox can put junk out because I'll never think before I see a movie "Oh, is this a Fox movie? I don't like them since I saw Date Movie (had to look that up). I'll shy away from actors and directors, but studio...means nothing to me. Its not like an automanufacturer. Ask anyone who made the Mustang II and they'll say "Ford" and Ford suffered because of bombs like that. Its an interesting dynamic. The studios get the profits, but don't take the same risks as actors, directors, or even writers. One bomb (see Alyson Hannigan above) and your career could be over, yet studio's can release bomb after bomb, becasue no one really associates movies with the studio's. Maybe it hurts within the industry, Fox has a harder time attracting A list actors and directors due to bombs, that I don't know. But it doesn't seem like the consumer cares, which I find interesting.

2 comments:

Muscles for Justice said...

The consumer that Hollywood targets--a consumer half our age, I'm afraid--cares about the meeting of his or her (usually, his) expectations:

"I just want to laugh"; "I just want to see _______ kick some ass"; "I just want to get out of the house."

It's the last one that's skewed moviemaking to younger audiences since the VCR. I'm 36; I just want to watch whatever I want, whenever I want, and with whomever I want, and there's never been a better time to do it. Who needs teenagers? Hollywood, not me, which is why after four years I'm using my Netflix less than ever. Demographic scraps like us are for low-dough producers to pick up, because it's too risky to spend literally $100 million on something as subjective as "quality" when you can get high schoolers out of the house for almost anything.

StalinMalone said...

I've never even heard of the movies being reviewed on this blog. I'm going back to Ebert.org!