You are here: Home / Features / 2009 – The Year Good Filmmaking Died?

2009 – The Year Good Filmmaking Died?

Posted by Barry Steele on November 27, 2009 · View Comments 

newmoon1

A week ago, The Twilight Saga: New Moon opened in theatres all over the world. Based on the best selling book of the same name, and sequel to a popular and lucrative first movie, it was always going to open big. What in fact happened, was that it registered the third highest US movie opening ever, with around $150M in it’s opening weekend domestically, behind Spiderman 3 and Dark Knight.

It currently holds a 29% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, the number one review collection website. So how can a film that has been rated so badly amongst film critics have made so much money already? Does no-one even read reviews anymore?

This situation isn’t unusual in the Hollywood movie industry, and this year in particular has seen a lot of big turkeys make a lot of big money. It didn’t start off too badly. Watchmen cost a lot of money to make, and whilst i loved the movie, I’m well aware of it’s myriad of problems. Aptly, it was a box office flop ($105M). Next big budget popcorn flick was Star Trek. This gained a significant number of good reviews, and the box office gross was a fair reflection of this ($260M). That’s when it started to all go downhill.

In a matter of months, X-Men Origins: Wolverine ($180M), Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ($400M) and GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra ($150M) were all released. All three movies were, in the main, lambasted by critics and yet, between them grossed nearly $750M. In between all this, a few lower budget movies, all deserving of Academy Award consideration, barely made their money back.

The trend continued, with by-the-numbers trash like The Final Destination hitting the box office heights, whilst better movies like The Informant were ignored. The only movies to really buck the trend were Inglourious Basterds, and surprise hit District 9, which grossed an impressive $115M, against a budget of $30M, becoming many people’s film of the year in the process. This month it’s the throwaway 2012 and aforementioned New Moon, and next month may be James Cameron’s Avatar.

So why are movies that are, frankly, bad, so wholly out-grossing such well made works? There’s a few reasons. One of the biggest, obviously, is marketing. The highest budget movies get the highest budget campaigns. The posters are everywhere, TV spots run for weeks in advance. Trailers are expertly cut together, and there’s no denying big action pictures make for far more compelling, excitement inducing promos. This means many viewers have already made their minds up to see a movie long before it’s release.

As far as reviews go, a lot of studios have discovered a trick, which is to not screen movies for the press in advance. This has happened for a few of the big films this year, and it means the first few days of release see people buying their tickets blind, until word of mouth begins to kick in. Something else that I’ve noticed over the last few years is that movie reviews in national tabloid newspapers often go against the common opinion. Big budget movies that are truly awful often get four or five stars out of five, and it got so bad i stopped reading reviews in newspapers. For a lot of people, however, these reviews would be the only ones they do read. And of course, the truth about reviews is that the majority of the movie-going public DONT read them, they go to a film based on the trailer, the actors, quite often just on the posters on display when they arrive at the cinema house.

Of course, there’s something that all the big movies I mentioned above have in common – they are all part of franchises. Whether it be sequel, reboot, adaptation or even based on a toy, trading on a previous movie or product that has quality and/or popularity is the fast track to good box office. We (the boys) loved Transformers twenty-something years ago, so of course we want to see them ‘for real’. The Terminator is a compelling story, and a movie about the much discussed human/machine war, done the right way, would be really cool. The kids of today love The Twilight Saga novels, they loved the first movie, and they love Edward and Jacob, so of course New Moon was going to make a fortune. They know New Moon has had terrible reviews, they don’t care. They are going to see it anyway (twice), and they are going to love it.

The main reason, you see, why big budget, dumb movies will always make the most money is simple. The majority of the movie going public don’t take the art of film as seriously as I do. They are spending money that they have worked hard to earn, and they want to be entertained. The masses aren’t overly concerned with coherent narrative storyline, great cinematography, or nuanced acting performances. The Twilight fans want to see the stories they love put up on screen, and they are grateful they have been given that opportunity. They are lucky that the books they love have been adapted into film, and even luckier that they are not dissapointed at the end result.

At the end of the day, like any business, it’s all about supply and demand. The major studios know for the most part what is demanded by the mainstream, and they supply it. Movies like Moon, The Hurt Locker and Sugar don’t make money because there is not enough interest in them, and i think myself lucky they get made at all. Leave the New Moon lovers alone, it’s their pocket money, they can spend it however they like. And remember, there’s another two movies to come…

Bazmann – You can now follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Related Posts

Filed under Features, News · Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

HeyUGuys on Facebook
  • JamesP1977
    I do see what the author's trying to say with this post. That is, the affect of advertising and marketing can turn a poor movie into a big box-office smash. Occasionally, like with the Dark Knight and Star Trek, the movies themselves will be excellent, and that will speak for itself. But others, which are often hyped for months if not years by the media beforehand, like Transformers 2, can actually be pretty poor films, or nowhere near as good as the hype.

    It is true that often some of the best films don't get awards. The reason for this is often that big budgets don't often go alongside big risks. Studios don't like to bet big unless there's a percieved guarantee of success at the box office. They don't take risks on films, directors or actors as much as they used to. This is the reason some films do better on dvd, because on dvd they are available to all, some who were curious when it was at the cinema but didn't go, or simply hadn't heard of it, and then eventually word gets around and suddenly everyone has it on DVD. Two films I know like this - The Shawshank Redemption and Grosse Point Blanke. Both superb films, but have done better on dvd than in the cinema.

    The first Matrix film was a sleeper hit, no one expected it to do that well and in comparison to other films it had a smaller budget and so there was less hype and expectation, and the makers had more creative freedom and a smaller egos. It was also a very original idea and innovative in lots of ways. The sequels were massively hyped, had loads of money pumped into them, and huge expectations and pressure on the filmakers. They were both poor in relation to the original.

    The Dark Knight, for me, is the best of both worlds. A massively hyped big-budget film following on from another big hit, but it actually delievered on the hype and in fact I think outstripped it in terms of critical and financial success. Indeed, it got a Best Supporting Actor Oscar, but a well deserved one. Its a top film and didn't need its hype to make it great. Star Trek was the same to a degree, though not quite as good as The Dark Knight.

    So there is truth in what you say, and I think there needs to be more support and recognition of innovators and pioneers, creative people who want to make something fresh and different, and take risks. But ultimately a good film is a good film no matter what the hype around it. I think the secret is not to look at hype, not to read newspaper reviews, but find a good film magazine (or website!) with reviewers whose opinion you trust and go with that, instead of looking at hype. Unfourtunately the way the world is, people are often going to go and see movies - and think they are good - based on hype, and there's little you can do to change it.
  • jonathon
    No its just that not everyone will enjoy the same movies as you. Half of the movies that you mentioned as being a waste of time happened to be very good movies in my opinion, including Wolverine, Transformers 2 and G.I. Joe. 2012 was also a very good entertaining movie. The writing did not suck and the acting was good but its just not in your taste. This is why critics don't help anymore they don't have an open mind and only look for certain things they would enjoy. Oh yeah, and by the way, the Informant sucked, imo. See what I mean?
  • Harry knowles
    Jonathan, it's people like you that have made films a cheap and money making exercise. Transformers was a cgi disaster and utter crap and wolverie was an anti comic book travesty, these films in the hands of someone not interested in just money would have been something special, for example Chris Nolan- huge talented director = amazing Batman films. I won't even start on the shockingly bad GI Joe. Everything these days seem like cheap sequels and it annoys me that the likes of Moon, the Hurt locker and especially the Informant are missed but they aren't to everyones liking but for mindless idiots to say there is a place for money making explotation films ruining franchises like transformers is going to far, so Jonathan go back to your Twilight obssessed world an your obsession for talentless actresses like Megan "I didn't hire her for her acting skills" Fox and don't try and defend shite films because you look like a fool. They were crap and only slightly entertaining. Try watching Fargo, Kind hearts and Coronets, The Third Man, Yojimbo, Manhattan, the seventh seal, Citizen Cane, seven samurai, shawshank Redemption, one flew over cuckoos nest, rear window, china town, La confidential and Dr Strangelove before you can even know what a goodfilm is.
  • Jonathon
    Well I am certainly sorry you feel this way. I don't mean to argue but you are mistaken about me as i'm sure you and many critics are wrong about so many moviegoers. You have named many classic films and occasionally they do go under the radar. I loved shawshank and rear window just to name a couple of those films. I have not watched or read any of the Twilight series, its just not my style. I do, however, enjoy all the comic book movies that have come out. Do i expect them to be exactly like the comics without any flaws at all? No, because i know technology has advanced but its not perfect. The special effects that Michael Bay put in to both Transformers movies was amazing and if your still stuck on Megan Fox's acting rather than how they got these machines to fight in such an amazing way then i'm sorry that your missing the big picture. Yeah maybe they casting wrong but honestly she's easy on the eyes and that's probably what got her the role. Its not a role that needs to have a great actress though and i feel she fits the role okay. As for Wolverine the action was there and there was a storyline. In my opinion X-Men 3 ruined that trilogy for me because they stopped with the story kiling off main characters making them look like nothing and it was poorly executed. Wolverine was a much better story, albeit a prequel. It was certainly better than a lot of attempts at action flicks. A Matt Damon comedy just doesn't sit as well as a great action sequence for me if i'm going to the theater. I can watch that at home but on the big screen i want to see something you can't enjoy at home like giant tidal waves in 2012 and shoot em up chase scenes in G.I. Joe. The casting in G.I. Joe was not to my favor but you know what, the story worked and they set it up for more films to follow and they made it entertaining.
    The sad thing about today's society is that critics bash a film, like Avatar, before its even viewed. Moviegoers don't even have a chance to form their own opinion before they're programmed to dislike something. I stopped reading or listening to reviews years ago and its helped a lot. I'd have missed out on a lot of great enjoyable films that would have not been as great had i waited for them to go to video or on demand. Dark Knight was the best movie i have seen at the theater in some time so i'll admit these other movies do not touch that and Iron Man was very good as well, there are movies that miss like Speed Racer and Superman Returns but they're for the most part not too bad. A lot of work gets put in and i appreciate that instead of bashing it because a reviewer said it was below standards.
    I'm with you with the classics and if you don't like these movies that's fine, its your opinion but just because you feel that way it doesn't make them bad movies it just makes them lower than your standards but i assure you that those standards are not in the majority.
  • Sarah
    "Machines to fight in such an amazing way" you are kidding?! The Transformers fighting was as clear as trying to read after having your eyes pulled out. It was a close up mess and i couldnt tell what was what, the fights actually ruined most of what was a good film. There were a few long range shots of the robots and that worked great but Bay ruins it all by zooming in to save money on FX costs.
    You say you stopped reading reviews years ago, i suggest you go back to that philosophy and quit being jealous that these reviewers get paid to watch films for a living and see these films early. They are quite entitled to give an opinion in any format they choose and you have not right in saying they are wrong, just post your views on the film with out victimizing someone else's views
  • Jonathon
    Great, i try to say some things without being too mean and here you go attacking everything. Nice to know you took debate class. Are you related to this critic or something? You obviously missed the whole Transformers films or did watch them with your eyes closed but hey its okay, like i said before not everyone will enjoy the same things. I'm sure i like lots of movies you wish were never made and vice versa but honestly a good critic gives positives and negatives and keeps it balanced. This article attacks everything there is about these movies and makes it sound like no one liked them which is far from the truth. And, its not because we are dumb and don't know anythings its just because we don't go in looking for something in particular and hating it if its not exactly what we expected. Open Mind, read about it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion as you have shown yours and i have shown mine. This is something we all aren't going to agree on except the fact that we can agree i would hope that your favorite type of films are gonna be different from your neighbor's or cousin's or my own. That's all i'm saying. I stick up for these movies because i truly believe they were worth what i paid to see them and what the studios put in to make them. I say its better than no films at all. Once again that's just my opinion. And, I thank you for your opinion as well.
  • Heather
    One thing I have to say is when you talk about all these movies that make little to no money or are ignored in theaters like Moon, The Hurt Locker, and any other movie you want to insert the title of here is you also have to realize some to many of those no matter how good of movies they are, are only opening with limited releases.

    Now I like to watch those big fluffy action movies, New Moon, etc. purely out of entertainment purposes but I also thoroughly enjoy those smaller budget movies as well. Unfortunately I am in a city in which very rarely gets any of the movies originally with limited releases.

    It's a bummer.
  • Baz_mann
    Just thought i should address some of the comments. I'm not assuming the public have no interest in movies that are'nt big budget, the numbers tend to speak for themselves. If the public were that bothered, they would seek out the more low key intelligent movies. It wasn't a pop at Avatar, but with a final budget of half a billion dollars it has a lot to live up to. And KP, you, your sisters and friends all loved Transformers? Where were you girls when i was a boy? That would have been brilliant...
  • KP
    "We (the boys) loved Transformers..."

    Ummm...really? Pretty sure that I, my sister, all of our female friends, etc. loved Transformers. It wasn't a "boys'" show. It was a fricken cartoon.
  • Dana
    Way to throw in a shot at Avatar, a movie nobody has seen yet.
  • Palf
    Avatar will be shite
  • Neil
    Low standards guarantee the assembly line of production can continue without writer and director input which would only annoy executives with diversity and difference, both anathema to the tick-box accountants. And the fact that distributors take on small movies and bury them instead of really trying to sell them gives the lie to any notion that competition really exists. When thousands of screens are brought up well in advance so that rubbish can be spewed out, the industry is never going to court a wide-ranging demographic. It shows when I go to the cinema myself, an increasingly rare occasion. The non-adolescent movies aren't actually much good anymore. Every "good" movie I see of late somehow comes up short. The skill base is being lost as writers and directors are increasingly marginalised to the extent that they may as well disappear from the credit roll altogether. Global corporations' art departments - or studios as we like to call them - don't like individualism. If you make a good movie today you'll have to make one tomorrow as well. And to make that happen you'll need to hand power to real talent instead of checks to hacks.
  • SwedishLore15
    Sorry for rambling, but this article has summoned various feelings for me:

    Even for the "worst films of all time", I have no doubt that the crew was sincere in their effort to make something fun. I'm sure that they had loads of fun themselves, despite the subsequent critical failure of their creations. I highly doubt that directors and crew members would waste over a year of their lives on something that they couldn't have a decent measure of fun with. So, with that in mind, the lively spirit of making a film is still very much alive, despite what some critics may have to say. Even some of the "worst films of all time" by critical consensus have a decent base of fans that may have seen something meaningful that the critics could not perceive.

    Not every film has to be particularly deep or mentally challenging, though. I simply want to have a fun time. The Dark Knight is one of the most financially successful films of all time (not to mention a critical darling), and yet I wasn't particularly impressed by how Nolan tried to make the world of comics, which is escapism at its core, too forced with themes that he deemed intellectual.

    I think that the definition of a "bad movie" has become too narrow. It's now anything that the critics trashed, despite the different story that is told by general audiences and less uptight moviegoers on other websites.
  • SwedishLore15
    What's my conclusion after this unintentionally long response?

    Don't let the critics always determine what you watch, since many of their criticisms sound like absolute nonsense. You may be surprised by the ability to form an independent opinion that isn't influenced by anything that Roger Ebert writes.
  • SwedishLore15
    Something that I would like to add:

    In my *opinion*, it's perfectly acceptable for films to serve as good entertainment that brings together an audience in the theater for a few hours. Not every movie has to be a profound cinematic experience with forced intellectualism that is positively dripping with Oscar-bait. A close friend of mine does independent film making, and his simple philosophy to entertain an audience first and foremost. Critics and their glorified opinions don't exactly dominate his thoughts, because too many of these "critics" that are counted on RottenTomatoes may have their own biases. One particular example: Armond White. Yuck.

    Too many people seem to be afraid of dismissal from the "big boy" critics when they don't fake a smile and claim that The Godfather is one of their favorite films of all time. I greatly admire individuals that are able to list off movies that weren't exactly critical darlings, since they carried a specific meaning to *them*. Heck, I thought that the first Underworld movie was pretty great, but I don't mind if the majority of critics hiss whenever it is mentioned in their circles.
  • SwedishLore15
    I have to disagree with one thing:

    In my opinion, reviews from certain critics are simply glorified opinions that blur the line between objective critiquing and biased stuffiness. I thoroughly enjoyed New Moon and its gorgeous visual style, despite not being an avid fan of the books. Many reviews that I have read for New Moon were full of contempt for the fanbase, misunderstandings about the series, etc. Some of my favorite films since childhood weren't critical darlings, and I'm okay with that. This same viewpoint applies for films like New Moon.

    Not every film has to be "intellectual" Oscar-bait that is adored by the masses. Some of my favorite films of all time have divided the "critics". New Moon was a resounding success at the box office because of the fanbase. From what I have seen, the fanbase consensus is that New Moon was faithful to the book and a great film in its own right.

    That's the issue for some critics: it was faithful to the book. Too many reviews for the movie seemed to be complaining about the book and its fanbase with horrendous generalizations.
  • Good article, but I have to share Ed's view that you're falling into the same trap that the studio investment machines have fallen into, namely assuming that the broader public doesn't want to pay for anything other than a big dumb movie.

    Case in point is Jamin Winan's Ink. Ink is one of the best films of 2009. Even though it has action and what not, it is not a commercial film in any respect and is quite deep and meaningful and vastly different to most commercial films. Yet virtually everyone who has seen it has raved about it, wanted to see it again and so on. It's an extremely popular and rightly so, it's better than the majority of films released this year.

    Yet, the Winans could not get studio backing. The broader public mostly never knew about it, and so now the film has gone straight to DVD/Blu-ray where it's sales will probably end up being so-so, once again, because few people really know about it other than those that take an active interest in film.

    As you said, the general public respond not to reviews and so on as much as they do to trailers etc. The Winans received no trailer or marketing for Ink because it never received a distributor willing to push for a wide theatrical run. The reason? Ignorance of what a really good movie is as a result of the investment checklist. It's not just blindness to a good film this trap breeds, it's a risk aversion to invest in originality.

    The problem, as I see it, is simply commercialism. The studios have made money from films made to a stock-standard process and so, being risk averse, the studios now look to replicate those processes.The general public never hears about the really great films only because the studio has no desire to invest in un-proven possibilities. The error, at the root, is the assumption that the general public only wants what it has only paid for in the past.

    Sure, a large chunk of the broader public are probably in this "dumb" class of movie goers, as evidenced by the continuing massive earnings of crap like Transformers and the like. But, I'd argue the sheer number of commercial flops is evidence enough that the other type of movie goer also exists, but that the studio is simply not giving them what they want.
  • Ed Whitfield
    I think everything you say is fair but I think you make the same mistake as the studios, assuming the public has broadly no interest in movies which aren't big-budget or high concept. The trend in the last 30 years has been toward making films for a younger audience. It was not always so. The blockbuster era which started with Jaws produced two highly significant changes in the way movies were marketed and distributed. In the case of the former, they have, as you say, ruthlessly exploited a younger, thrill seeking audience which hadn't previously gone to the cinema in such large numbers. Hollywood discovered synergy and the corporations that run the studios aren't interested in movie making when they can manufacture a product which can be vertically marketed with books, games, clothes, etc.

    Movies aren't made for older people accept for industry kudos - i.e. award contention and niche markets - the so called art house crowd. Remember that before Jaws, the highest grossing movie ever made was The Godfather. Before that it was the Sound of Music. Adults used to see movies because films were made for them. Now they're made for children and people who's idea of film has been retarded by wave after wave of this high concept bullshit.

    Movies also used to have a key asset in finding and building an audience - time. They were in cinemas for ages - sometimes several months, sometimes years. They opened in cities first and with good word of mouth spread around. Home entertainment has put an end to that. So smaller films only have a few weeks at best to make an impact and if they don't, which they often won't because they aren't covered in the mainstream media, they fade away - often to nothing. The kneejerk response is that these films don't have an audience when none were sought. Consequently fewer get made and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. It's the celluloid Catch -22.

    Film 2009 had an interesting piece recently about how, with an aging population, audiences would be proportionately older and would need to be catered for accordingly in 10-20 years time. The kids will always pay to see visual effects spectaculars but there's many more people out there who'd be going to the flicks more often were there anything for them to watch. The tragedy is they're being ignored.
blog comments powered by Disqus