In Defense of "Crash" - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-06-2006, 12:09 PM   #61
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2@NYC


Clearly not true.

As you can see, there is an increase in box office between 2001 and 2004, despite the launch of the DVD. The numbers do not lie, movies this year were terrible... and people decided that it was not worth to spend $10 at a movie theater to see them.

Numbers don't lie.


but numbers don't reflect the growing number of people who have DVD players, as well as the ease of getting pirated DVDs on the streets. with any new technology, it takes a few years between when the early adapters adopt new technology and when it slips into the mainstream.

also, the reason that box office went up from 2001 to 2004 has to do with the explosion of chain theathers into ever more markets -- the best indicator of how well a film is doing is not necessarily its opening gross, but it's per screen average -- compare the number of screens Spiderman opened on in 2001 and the number of screens it opened up on in 2004, and you'll see the difference.

now, multiplex theaters have hit a saturation point, right at the same time that DVD players, and more importantly, films that are marketed at a DVD audience, have infiltrated the mainstream.

i work in television. no one is watching TV anymore. why? TiVO, the internet, and, especially, the availability of watching whole seasons on DVD instead of having to wait each week for an episode and to wade through all the commercials.

finally, box office numbers have absolutely nothing to do with a film's quality. nothing.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 12:30 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Tiger Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Everglades
Posts: 4,740
Local Time: 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosgirl84


yes, yes!

freeway is one of my favorite films ever.

while i adore reese as much as the next person, i didn't feel she deserved the oscar, at least not for her role in walk the line. in the film she plays a sweet and spunky southern girl. but she already IS a sweet and spunky southern girl. not too big a stretch, there.

as for crash, i came into this thread because i was trying to decide if i should spend my afternoon tomorrow watching the dvd. i have noticed that the persons whose opinions i would value over all others are the ones suggesting i shouldn't waste my time. and then there was the crackerjack with all the rolling laugh smilies who loved it.

i think i'll go see brokeback instead.




Guarebe!

You know, I am capable of having intelligent conversation on Crash. I already did so. But some people had to come into this thread and claim the sky was falling because this movie (whether or not it's fantastic) won the Oscar. And then they claim that the Oscars are bullshit anyways.

Who is the crackerjack here?
__________________

__________________
Tiger Edge is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 12:30 PM   #63
Refugee
 
bsp77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,956
Local Time: 12:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2@NYC


Great, so let's shoot movies about no one will watch, but that can deal with people's stupidity... I am sure that is a recipe for a very successful business.
I never said anything about whether that is successful or not, I just said that numbers and quality are not the same thing.
__________________
bsp77 is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 12:50 PM   #64
Refugee
 
Dorian Gray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,520
Local Time: 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosgirl84

i have noticed that the persons whose opinions i would value over all others are the ones suggesting i shouldn't waste my time.
I'd have thought elements of this discussion would help people realize that watching the movie is anything but a waste of time. Like it or not, the fact that it has generated the level of discussion it has (not just here, I'm talking in general) is indication that it is a movie to be taken seriously.

It is a movie that will compel you to think, like it or not. Can this be a waste of time?
__________________
Dorian Gray is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 12:58 PM   #65
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
U2@NYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Back in Buenos Aires
Posts: 4,281
Local Time: 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




but numbers don't reflect the growing number of people who have DVD players, as well as the ease of getting pirated DVDs on the streets. with any new technology, it takes a few years between when the early adapters adopt new technology and when it slips into the mainstream.

also, the reason that box office went up from 2001 to 2004 has to do with the explosion of chain theathers into ever more markets -- the best indicator of how well a film is doing is not necessarily its opening gross, but it's per screen average -- compare the number of screens Spiderman opened on in 2001 and the number of screens it opened up on in 2004, and you'll see the difference.

now, multiplex theaters have hit a saturation point, right at the same time that DVD players, and more importantly, films that are marketed at a DVD audience, have infiltrated the mainstream.

i work in television. no one is watching TV anymore. why? TiVO, the internet, and, especially, the availability of watching whole seasons on DVD instead of having to wait each week for an episode and to wade through all the commercials.

finally, box office numbers have absolutely nothing to do with a film's quality. nothing.
Irvine, I think that now you are accomodating the argument to tell you what you want. It sounds to me as too much of a coincidence than 2005 was exactly the saturation point for DVDs and the boom of pirated movies and that non-appealing movies had nothing to do at the box office.

Based on your argument, 2006 will be another flop year, regardless of what movies are played since one would assume that DVDs and home theaters will penetrate homes even more. We should save this thread and discuss this in a few months to see what happens.

The notion of quality, as you probably know, is subjective. So the only logical argument I have at this point is to somehow correlate the number of people with the number of 'appealing' films... unless you buy into the 'stupidity' argument that bsp77 is sustaining, which I frankly don't.
__________________
U2@NYC is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 12:59 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
U2@NYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Back in Buenos Aires
Posts: 4,281
Local Time: 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bsp77


I never said anything about whether that is successful or not, I just said that numbers and quality are not the same thing.
I agree, but I think that it is too simplistic to say that people are stupid, unless proven otherwise, and that they will not watch good films...
__________________
U2@NYC is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 01:00 PM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
U2@NYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Back in Buenos Aires
Posts: 4,281
Local Time: 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by PlaTheGreat

Who is the crackerjack here?
I think that you express yourself and mock other people in a very particular way, both of which tend to hurt your credibility.
__________________
U2@NYC is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 01:08 PM   #68
Neon Zebra
 
beegee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: southern nevada
Posts: 10,590
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by PlaTheGreat
Who is the crackerjack here?
lmao. i saw your journal entry and didn't even make the connection.

i'm sure i deserved my very own journal entry.

crackerjack is a term we use quite frequently around my house to describe people who are acting a bit tilted in any given situation. you kind of went off the deep end there with the mocking smilies is all.

nothing personal.

and yes, crash is generating some good discussions, but so is brokeback, and i like those better.
__________________
beegee is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 01:11 PM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Tiger Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Everglades
Posts: 4,740
Local Time: 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2@NYC


I think that you express yourself and mock other people in a very particular way, both of which tend to hurt your credibility.
That's alright. Interference isn't a Greek forum where my opinion, or yours for that matter, is of any consequence at all.

__________________
Tiger Edge is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 01:22 PM   #70
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by PlaTheGreat


Interference isn't a Greek forum

It isn't?

It's all Greek to me.

__________________
indra is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 01:24 PM   #71
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:19 PM
Maybe in the frat rush sense...
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 02:03 PM   #72
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
U2@NYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Back in Buenos Aires
Posts: 4,281
Local Time: 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by PlaTheGreat


That's alright. Interference isn't a Greek forum where my opinion, or yours for that matter, is of any consequence at all.

Ok, so continue to mock people then.

No point in me continuing an argument with idiots of your kind.
__________________
U2@NYC is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 02:08 PM   #73
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,997
Local Time: 01:19 PM
uh back to the subject..I think what this writer says about Crash is accurate, just my personal opinion so please don't be rude

By Kenneth Turan, Times Staff Writer
March 5, 2006

Sometimes you win by losing, and nothing has proved what a powerful, taboo-breaking, necessary film "Brokeback Mountain" was more than its loss Sunday night to "Crash" in the Oscar best picture category.

Despite all the magazine covers it graced, despite all the red-state theaters it made good money in, despite (or maybe because of) all the jokes late-night talk show hosts made about it, you could not take the pulse of the industry without realizing that this film made a number of people distinctly uncomfortable.

More than any other of the nominated films, "Brokeback Mountain" was the one people told me they really didn't feel like seeing, didn't really get, didn't understand the fuss over. Did I really like it, they wanted to know. Yes, I really did.

In the privacy of the voting booth, as many political candidates who've led in polls only to lose elections have found out, people are free to act out the unspoken fears and unconscious prejudices that they would never breathe to another soul, or, likely, acknowledge to themselves. And at least this year, that acting out doomed "Brokeback Mountain."

For Hollywood, as a whole laundry list of people announced from the podium Sunday night and a lengthy montage of clips tried to emphasize, is a liberal place, a place that prides itself on its progressive agenda. If this were a year when voters had no other palatable options, they might have taken a deep breath and voted for "Brokeback." This year, however, "Crash" was poised to be the spoiler.

I do not for one minute question the sincerity and integrity of the people who made "Crash," and I do not question their commitment to wanting a more equal society. But I do question the film they've made. It may be true, as producer Cathy Schulman said in accepting the Oscar for best picture, that this was "one of the most breathtaking and stunning maverick years in American history," but "Crash" is not an example of that.

I don't care how much trouble "Crash" had getting financing or getting people on board, the reality of this film, the reason it won the best picture Oscar, is that it is, at its core, a standard Hollywood movie, as manipulative and unrealistic as the day is long. And something more.

For "Crash's" biggest asset is its ability to give people a carload of those standard Hollywood satisfactions but make them think they are seeing something groundbreaking and daring. It is, in some ways, a feel-good film about racism, a film you could see and feel like a better person, a film that could make you believe that you had done your moral duty and examined your soul when in fact you were just getting your buttons pushed and your preconceptions reconfirmed.

So for people who were discomfited by "Brokeback Mountain" but wanted to be able to look themselves in the mirror and feel like they were good, productive liberals, "Crash" provided the perfect safe harbor. They could vote for it in good conscience, vote for it and feel they had made a progressive move, vote for it and not feel that there was any stain on their liberal credentials for shunning what "Brokeback" had to offer. And that's exactly what they did.

"Brokeback," it is worth noting, was in some ways the tamest of the discomforting films available to Oscar voters in various categories. Steven Spielberg's "Munich"; the Palestinian Territories' "Paradise Now," one of the best foreign language nominees; and the documentary nominee "Darwin's Nightmare" offered scenarios that truly shook up people's normal ways of seeing the world. None of them won a thing.

Hollywood, of course, is under no obligation to be a progressive force in the world. It is in the business of entertainment, in the business of making the most dollars it can. Yes, on Oscar night, it likes to pat itself on the back for the good it does in the world, but as Sunday night's ceremony proved, it is easier to congratulate yourself for a job well done in the past than actually do that job in the present.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now  
Old 03-06-2006, 02:31 PM   #74
Refugee
 
angel_of_L.A.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Where soul meets body...
Posts: 1,074
Local Time: 11:19 AM
I was disappointed that "Brokeback" did not win. That movie was a profound thinker and an excellent example of why hatred, prejudice and ignorance are the most dangerous weapons in the world.

"Crash" on the other hand, was a cliché ridden, emotionally manipulative movie filled with lousy dialogue and talented actors in predictable roles. It was a shameful departure from Paul Haggis' usually wonderful material. "Crash" to me, felt like a script written by a film student in a hurry; a treatment on the way to becoming a script. "Brokeback Mountain" on the other hand, challenged people to look inside themselves and question their own prejudices with less dialogue, smart writing and a wonderful score.
__________________
angel_of_L.A. is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 02:53 PM   #75
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2@NYC
Irvine, I think that now you are accomodating the argument to tell you what you want. It sounds to me as too much of a coincidence than 2005 was exactly the saturation point for DVDs and the boom of pirated movies and that non-appealing movies had nothing to do at the box office.



nope. i would have said this in january. i think the box office is going to continue to decline as going to the movies becomes less convenient for people and they tend to opt for the DVD.

generally speaking, this is the CW in the film/television industry and the industry itself is reeling as it tries to deal with what might be called "new media."

lastly, take a look at the budgets for all the films nominated for best picture. all of them, except for Munich, were made outside the studio system and for miniscule budgets, which also translates to small budgets for advertisting. yet, they've all been immensely profitable, especially when you compare the $200m for the budget for "King Kong." "brokeback" cost $13m to make, and it has already made around $80m. that's significant, and that's also good for movies -- i think it might be safe to say that traditional Hollywood genre films (romantic comedies, summer action flicks) didn't have a good year in 2005 despite "sith" (can you say, "fantastic four"). perhaps, because films like that are designed to generate revenue, that a BO return is a good indicator of quality. films like the ones we saw at the Oscars are not designed to make money; it's great when they do make money, but that is not the sole reason for their existence. i think this is a great trend in the industry -- the death of the blockbuster, the rise of the more niche-oriented, but still highly profitable small movie made for pennies that makes decent box office.

for someone who might enjoy a blockbuster like "sith" but is far more passionate that a quality, auteur director like Ang Lee or Steven Soderburgh or P.T. Anderson gets a check from a studio to do basically what he wants on screen, this is all very good news.


[q]Based on your argument, 2006 will be another flop year, regardless of what movies are played since one would assume that DVDs and home theaters will penetrate homes even more. We should save this thread and discuss this in a few months to see what happens.[/q]

my guess is it will.


Quote:
unless you buy into the 'stupidity' argument that bsp77 is sustaining, which I frankly don't.

i don't think that people are stupid; but i do think people can be lazy and would rather be entertained than to think.

how else to we account for the success of "Dancing With the Stars"?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com