“Between cable, Netflix, DVDs, the internet, VOD – all of this stuff makes available films people wouldn’t otherwise get to see.”
that doesn’t mean people are watching them though.
I’m pretty sure that studies have found that power law distribution(i.e winner takes all) rules auxiliary markets, it’s just that we tend to focus on the exceptions and get a distorted picture of how it really works.
I believe people are watching them. Otherwise, SPC wouldn’t be buying nearly as much stuff as they do. A lot of the films they buy (specifically foreign films) have little success theatrically but find a place in home entertainment.
dp
^^maybe the really popular ones get watched, but i doubt stuff like Uzak, Liverpool, and films of that ilk do really well on cable.
It’s a question of scale, those films wouldn’t have even been available to audiences in the US before the rental market opened up, and some of the films we tend to hold in high acclaim from earlier eras nowadays weren’t successes when they were released, its only been through the sort of secondary marketplace that they’ve been able to find a place in film history. A film doesn’t need to be a huge hit to make some money, which is how a lot of smaller dvd producers are able to put out some of the films they do, they rely on narrower markets than would be possible to support a film in theatrical release. Not all of these films will make money, and most of them will not have huge numbers of viewers, but with some limited success in their home market or niche and some additional dvd sales they can get by if they keep their production costs low, at least for a while. The internet may continue to change that model of course, as is Mubi hoping. The larger point though was that comparisons by era aren’t that useful without a lot of context for a number of reasons, no matter if one is comparing the most popular films at the box office or the films that are critically well regarded. The market has changed and so have the methods of production and distribution, so you really have to try to look at many different factors in figuring out what anything in this area means.
>>>>>> “Robert Altman – Gosford Park” this is JUST KOOKY TALK
>>>>>> “Robert Altman – Gosford Park” this is JUST KOOKY TALK
No it’s not, that movie was BORING!!!
I liked Nashville and A Wedding, so clearly something went wrong.
" Not all of these films will make money, and most of them will not have huge numbers of viewers, but with some limited success in their home market or niche and some additional dvd sales they can get by if they keep their production costs low, at least for a while. "
Right, in traditional distribution models the idea is to just continually drive overall volume up, how to produce and distribute a relatively small number of films that while appeal to the biggest possible audience . With on-demand, it’s more about figuring out how to best exploit niche markets.
I understand Soderbergh must raise funds, but Traffic struck me as indecent.
“This forum topic broke my heart. Popeye, Temple of Doom, Dracula and Hulk are all very good films.”
Agree 100%.
@ Flip Trotsky – White Dog is frickin’ brilliant and scary. It and any association with the word “failure” do not compute in my world.
I consider myself a huge fan of Stanley Kubrick’s film work, but for the past six or seven years (I’m 27, btw) I’ve noticed something very consistent in his filmography that warrants scrutiny, if not to call it an outright “sin.”
The man didn’t work with original material. Each one of his feature films was an adaptation of a novella or other literary work, and one of his most memorable quotes is to the effect that “If it can be written, it can be filmed.”
That sort of approach to storytelling, trying to stretch the bounds of how a cinematic endeavor can present literature, is one of the things that I enjoy so much about his films. But would Kubrick’s reliance on already-existing material point to a lack of commitment on his part to take the time to form his own narrative ideas? And would this lack of commitment to use original narration be enough grounds to reassess Kubrick’s contributions and value?
The greatest Sin is talking for such great lengths about Spielberg in a thread about Brilliant Auteurs (supposed or otherwise)
Ill take Spielberg as a Brilliant Auteur before I take Tarantino
^Second.
Assault Girls by Mamoru Oshii was pretty bad. I’ve liked everything else that I’ve seen of his though.
I agree with Uli.
Santino
Between cable, Netflix, DVDs, the internet, VOD – all of this stuff makes available films people wouldn’t otherwise get to see. I know my mom sees a lot of stuff on Netflix and only goes to the theater for big movies that she really wants to see.
This is especially true when a lot of the small art films come out on DVD so quickly after their theatrical release or get released on demand sometimes even before they get released in theaters.