A few posts ago, I mentioned the impatientness of people. It's one of the few things that is irking me about society as a whole, a pantheon of people who want what they want RIGHT NOW, rather than later. Why wait when you can see it now? When it comes to going to the movies, all the money is going head-first into the few opening days, where now a film will be made or broken by Sunday evening (except for those great indie films that get word-of-mouth, but even those are starting to get rushed).
What is really frustrating in the cinematic world is to see the latest opening film come out on 4000 theaters (which normally means about 8000-9000 prints are in circulation), hog up all the screens, get every last person who wants to see it out on opening weekend...and then, the movie doesn't matter on monday. Well, maybe a bit on monday, because that's when everyone gets the news on how much money it makes, like a film wins a race because a lot of people paid money to see it. And if you miss the movie, well...just wait three months because the DVD will be out by then.
Everyone was masturbating over the fact last week that "Spiderman 2" made over $165 million dollars by the time cash registers closed the sunday night after its first weekend. Sure, the movie is a hit (everyone saw it coming) but when you think about it, it's just another victim of overloading this film into a competition-free zone. The movie opened at nearly every theater in North America, on multiple screens, with endless showtimes so no matter who wanted to see it could see it, rather than back in the day when people were lined outsided single-screen 70mm houses to catch "Star Wars" or "Jaws" and may have had to wait all day to get in to the show. But hey, who needs that with automated ticket kiosks and online ticket purchases? To rush your ticket, just click it. (You also know how Blockbuster Video has the "Guranteed Rental" credo? The megaplexes may not be too far behind.)
What's even more amusing: the $165 million take for "Spidey Two" was for FIVE days, including the tuesday night midnight shows leading into its Wednesday opening. The first "Spiderman" opened on a friday, taking in $114 million from Friday to Sunday. "Spiderman 2" only made about $88 million in the same amount of time. But hey, when you know you have box office gold, it's smart to open it on a Wednesday. I mean, look at how well "White Chicks" is doing!
(Columbia also opened the film on a Wednesday to off-set the release of "King Arthur" which just opened last Wenesday. They needen't have bothered. Columbia would still be riding high on Spidey tickets anyway.)
And, of course, the film dropped 50% in its second weekend, and it will continue to free-fall as new movies open, because you know what? Not only are newer movies out like "I Robot" and "The Bourne Supremacy", any movie is now unpopular after its first weekend. People would rather be caught dead than in a megaplex for a week-old flick! It's not "popular" for people to come into the office on monday morning and go "Hey, I just saw Spiderman 2 on Sunday...it was awesome!" "So?" says the co-worker "Everyone here saw it on the opening weekend when it made all that money. That movie is SO out, man." Watch also as all of the overbearing 4-star reviews (for the record, I gave it 3/4) and "Best comic book movie ever!" platitudes start getting rescinded and everyone starts thinking again that "Superman" is the best comic book movie ever (and it is!).
This is just part of an annoying trend today in an overreacting culture that wants what they want, and they want it NOW. We don't want to wait. We don't want to see the movie three weeks down the road. And we want that new CD on opening day instead of our day off on Saturday. And we don't want to wait for Hilary Duff to turn 18.
Jason
efilmcritic.com
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have to disagree.
I like the fact people see movies on the opening weekend.
I also think that Spiderman 2 is a better movie that Superman. I really do. But it's close.
But you're missing the point. The option to see a film on its opening weekend is there, and I'm all for it, but for people who aren't like you and I who do reviews as part of our job, it's as if the option to see it two, three, even a month down the road is not only unacceptable, half of the time it isn't even an option. Things are getting faster and people are getting less patient than ever before.
(Why do you think Blockbuster is stocking 150 copies of the latest craze rental and then you see it in their dumpster used bins two weeks later?)
Look at the situation on filmgoing as early as 10 years ago. When "Jurassic Park" opened, weeks and weeks went by when the Odeon here in Victoria was still repeating sell outs for their Friday and Saturday evening shows. The film lived on their huge upstairs theater for months. People viewed the film virgin all throughout the summer. Today, you could check in for a Saturday night showing a week after it opened as much as five minutes before previews, and not only would you get a ticket, but a halfway decent seat. (I remember when "The Lost World" was released in 97 and four of the seven screens at Odeon booked the flick. I went to see it on the SUNDAY that it opened and had first crack of seats TEN minutes before showtime.)
Go back another 10 years and "E.T" didn't leave the Towne cinema (now The Vic) for about five months. People were returning on word of mouth and bringing their friends, and new people were discovering the film in month four right along with the first weekend crowd. And I don't know if you've seen "The Exorcist" (the original Friedkin, not the crappy "Version You Shouldn't See") but there's an unforgettable shot on the DVD documentary where there's a line outside of the theater door in New York leading all the way down to the intersection and all of the way down half the next block, everyone looking enthused as the next. You only see that kind of "line" today at film festival screenings.
Today we live in a society that is abound with frontloading and making sure everyone sees the film right away and is quickly forgotten about so we can go see the next one. Which is not to say that you and I are among this crowd, Jakob; it's a lazy mass of people who wake up on friday thinking "Hey, what's the new movie opening tonight? Let's go see that."
"I also think that Spiderman 2 is a better movie that Superman. I really do. But it's close."
You see, I believe you when you say that, and I did like "Spider-Man 2" much better than the meandering, theme-park attitude of the first, but c'mon, Dick Donner making every last person in 1978 believe a man could fly, shooting in glorious Cinemascope with a pulsating John Williams score and visual effects that STILL chalk up to today's CGI effects work, compared to a 2004 sequel shot in Super 35 with a 4k digital intermediate and some pretty amazing set pieces? Raimi has my fanbase, but really, the winner is clear here. heh. And I liked "X-Men 2" more than "Spidey Deux". heh.
Glad to see someone is reading my blog though. Thanks for posting, Jakob. :) --JW
(now back to my Lindsay Lohan rant!)
Post a Comment