An Off Topic, Out of the Blue William Goldman Question
James Nicoll
essays on the films of the 1990s [Horrid decade for movies but
2000-2009 will be worse, I betcha]. Does he have a blind spot
for videos? Because all of his analysis of film profits are
wrt theatre takes and I thought video was now a major source
of income.
--
My Pledge: No more than 2 OT posts to rasfw a day. No replying
to trolls and idiots. Start five good on topic threads a day to drown
out the crap. Drink more coffee. Cross-posting is an abomination.
Marcus L. Rowland
<jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca> writes
> Does he have a blind spot
>for videos? Because all of his analysis of film profits are
>wrt theatre takes and I thought video was now a major source
>of income.
William Goldman has several blind spots - see e.g. his version of what
_The Right Stuff_ should have been like, with all that boring stuff
about test pilots taken out, as described in (I think) _Adventures in
the Screen Trade_
--
Marcus L. Rowland
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
http://www.ffutures.demon.co.uk/ http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
"We are all victims of this slime. They... ...fill our mailboxes with gibberish
that would get them indicted if people had time to press charges"
[Hunter S. Thompson predicts junk e-mail, 1985 (from Generation of Swine)]
James Nicoll
Marcus L. Rowland <mrow...@ffutures.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <91ecip$9hr$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>, James Nicoll
><jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca> writes
>> Does he have a blind spot
>>for videos? Because all of his analysis of film profits are
>>wrt theatre takes and I thought video was now a major source
>>of income.
>
>William Goldman has several blind spots - see e.g. his version of what
>_The Right Stuff_ should have been like, with all that boring stuff
>about test pilots taken out, as described in (I think) _Adventures in
>the Screen Trade_
Or _Year of the Comet_. People didn't stay away from that
one because it was a film about wine. They stayed away because it
was a dull film about wine. IMO, of course.
gfa...@savvy.com
[. . .]
> Or _Year of the Comet_. People didn't stay away from that
> one because it was a film about wine. They stayed away because it
> was a dull film about wine. IMO, of course.
I don't think it was sparkling, but I admired its presumption.
But, then, I think Penelope Ann Miller is a babe.
--
Gary Farber New York
gfa...@savvy.com
Mike Kozlowski
James Nicoll <jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> I'm reading _The Big Picture_, a collection of Goldman
>essays on the films of the 1990s [Horrid decade for movies but
>2000-2009 will be worse, I betcha].
Huh. I actually thought that it was a pretty damn good decade.
Of course, I've only really been a part of the movie-watching public in
the '80s and the '90s, and almost anything would be better than the
'80s...
--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
Mitch Wagner
<91ecip$9hr$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>:
> I'm reading _The Big Picture_, a collection of Goldman
>essays on the films of the 1990s [Horrid decade for movies but
>2000-2009 will be worse, I betcha]. Does he have a blind spot
>for videos? Because all of his analysis of film profits are
>wrt theatre takes and I thought video was now a major source
>of income.
I have a lot of respect for Goldman, but I think his analysis of the 1980s
as a horrible decade for movies is just plain hooey.
The 90s gave us most of the Coen Brothers' films (maybe all, I'm not sure
and am too lazy to check), "Titanic," "High Fidelity," "Nobody's Fool,"
"Wonder Boys," "Being John Malkovich," "Grosse Point Blank" (a John Cusack
fan? Me? How'd you guess?), and that's just picking a half-dozen off the
top of my head. No doubt if I were Gary Farber, I could list about 60 fine
movies made in the 90s, and seal the point.
Then again, I didn't write "Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid," either.
--
Mitch Wagner
Mitch Wagner
> Or _Year of the Comet_. People didn't stay away from that
>one because it was a film about wine. They stayed away because it
>was a dull film about wine. IMO, of course.
That wasn't Goldman's point. IIRC, he REJECTED the notion that people
stayed away from the film because it was a film about wine. He says he
doesn't know why people stay away from the film.
This is one of Goldman's central themes that runs through his nonfiction
about movies: nobody knows why some movies attract big audiences, and
others don't. Many people in Hollywood claim to know, but they are either
lying or deluded.
(You may be saying right now: "I know why people didn't want to see 'Year
of the Comet'! They didn't want to see it because it was a dull movie!" But
I submit to you that those two statements--"people didn't want to see it"
and "it was a dull movie"--are two ways of saying very similar things, and
do nothing to enable someone to predict which movies will attract big
audiences and make lots of money, and which movies will flop. I thought
"Terms of Endearment" was a pretty dull movie, but most of America seems
to disagree with me.)
--
Mitch Wagner
Ed Dravecky III
<snip>
> The 90s gave us most of the Coen Brothers' films (maybe all,
Without checking IMDB I can tell you that "Raising Arizona" was
from the late 1980s since we did a promotion for it when I was
working at a radio station I left in 1990. "Blood Simple" was
released before that so, no, not all of their films.
--
Ed Dravecky III
(ed3 at panix.com)
Ed Dravecky III
> of the Comet'! They didn't want to see it because it was a dull movie!" But
> I submit to you that those two statements--"people didn't want to see it"
> and "it was a dull movie"--are two ways of saying very similar things, and
> do nothing to enable someone to predict which movies will attract big
> audiences and make lots of money, and which movies will flop. I thought
> "Terms of Endearment" was a pretty dull movie, but most of America seems
> to disagree with me.)
Not necessarily. According to IMDB (okay, I had to peek[1]),
"Terms" grossed $108.4 million in the USA since it was released
in 1983. Even given an average ticket price of $5[2], that means
only about 22 million people have seen this movie in a theater in
the last 17 years. Even if you ignore repeat viewers, less that
nine percent of the US population saw this in theaters.
You are not alone. Okay, so a lot of people have rented the
movie and bought the cassette and seen it on cable, but there's
still a good chance you're in the majority and merely confronting
a vocal, hanky-wielding minority that likes to see people suffer.
[1] "Raising Arizona" came out in 1987, "Blood Simple" in 1984.
[2} I'm using that figure to compensate for both re-release and
second-run prices which would be higher and lower than that
figure, respectively. It's a rough number but it's close.
Steve Franklin
news:91ecip$9hr$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca...
: I'm reading _The Big Picture_, a collection of Goldman
: essays on the films of the 1990s [Horrid decade for movies but
: 2000-2009 will be worse, I betcha]. Does he have a blind spot
: for videos? Because all of his analysis of film profits are
: wrt theatre takes and I thought video was now a major source
: of income.
: --
--
Steve Franklin
For a delicious fat-free treat, er, to reply, remove the pam from the
spam.
_____
Atlantis 596.15S 600E .5A 90
David G. Bell
mit...@sff.net "Mitch Wagner" wrote:
The impression I get is that movies have to be _instant_ successes, from
the PoV of Hollywood. If they don't go mega in the first weekend,
they're seen as a flop.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
We suffer as a society and a culture when we don't pay the true value of
goods and services delivered. We create a lack of production. Less good
music is recorded if we remove the incentive to create it. -- Courtney Love
gfa...@savvy.com
[. . .]
> The impression I get is that movies have to be _instant_ successes, from
> the PoV of Hollywood. If they don't go mega in the first weekend,
> they're seen as a flop.
No. That's merely one possible strategy. It's a prevalent one, but
scarcely the only one chosen. See how, for instance, "Brother, Where Art
Thou?" is being released.
mike weber
("David G. Bell") typed
>The impression I get is that movies have to be _instant_ successes, from
>the PoV of Hollywood. If they don't go mega in the first weekend,
>they're seen as a flop.
>
I remember an industry type speaking at a con sayng that at least at
one time, in most cases, films were financed on completion bonds (and
other short-term instruments) that had to be paid back within
thirty-to-ninety days of opening, or, in essence, the profits would go
to the banks; this would certainly foster an "instant hit or it's a
bust" mindset.
--
"He had long ago come to the conclusion that there
were no 'things Man was Not Meant To Know'. He was willing
to believe that there were things Man was Too Dumb To
Figure Out." - Mike Kurland
<mike weber> <kras...@mindspring.com>
Ambitious Incomplete web site: http://weberworld.virtualave.net
mike weber
I'd say even earlier than that -- i'm *fairly* sure i saw it run on
video in a pizza parlour here no later than '87, which would indicate
an original release of '85 or so... but i could be wrong.
I am.
IMDB says 1987.
Soren deSelby
><jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca> writes
>> Does he have a blind spot
>>for videos? Because all of his analysis of film profits are
>>wrt theatre takes and I thought video was now a major source
>>of income.
>
>William Goldman has several blind spots - see e.g. his version of what
>_The Right Stuff_ should have been like, with all that boring stuff
>about test pilots taken out, as described in (I think) _Adventures in
>the Screen Trade_
I like The Right Stuff a lot, but a whole lot of people thought it dragged,
and it tanked at the box office; I suspect that Goldman is right that taking
out the test pilot stuff would have made it a crisper movie. When I watch it
these days, it isn't the test pilot stuff I'm watching for, certainly.
________
no unity with traitors
no compromise with thieves