 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: AMC Victims Unite! posted by Victor Khomenko on December 16, 2002 at 11:23:12:
VK,There was a long article in the Los Angeles Times probably a month ago that bemoaned the downward course of AMC. AMC did have a good beginning with uncut America movies and interesting commentary, but must've had financial trouble and hired the wrong marketing firm. A problem competing directly with TCM?
The repeat pattern became astounding- a friend said, "if they show 'Rio Bravo' again, I'm going to buy a six gun myself." She eventually turned in her cable for a satellite dish to receive TCM.
Then came the commercials. This was dissapointing in the extreme- as it was with Bravo- as the commercials were all aimed at a certain demographic. I started referring to AMC as "OBC"- "The Overactive Bladder Channel" as every eight minutes there were dire warnings of the "overactive bladder" and were singing, "GOTTA GO! GOTTA GO!" And I went.
The movies selected also began to have a certain character- John Wayne and Charlton Heston. Both have made great movies, but in combination with the advertising created the impression that AMC is intended to appeal to elderly, pro-gun conservatives with bladder problems.
Now, AMC is moving towards a younger market, with magical films in colour- but the commercials are more painful than "The Sting" is wonderful -again.
The new logo bothers me too as it is too reminiscent of the American Motors Corporation badge on a Pacer.
If AMC returned to it's wide range of American films uncut with (was it Bob Dorian?) introductions I could probably stand a commercial set in between. And at least they might look at Bravo for a reasonable grade of advertising.
I appreciate this opportunity to rant!
Next time-"The Hitler Channel" a.k.a The History Channel, CNN: the Britney Spears News/Product Placement Network..
Cheers,
Bambi B
Follow Ups:
BB, ironically, I would refer to History, A&E, Disocvery, and TLC as THE Nazi Channel to my friends. Their combined programming, up until a couple a years ago, would afford you to flip between the four and see Adolph at anytime of the day or night! I was amazed how it used to be. 8^)
Ah, I remember the excitement of my wife and I when our cable company began to offer the History Channel! We were filled with anticipation for shows about English Knights, French Kings, the Spanish Inquisition, Ancient Mayan Civilization, etc. What did we get? 24 hrs of war footage! Pheh! At least Biography still has interesting features now and again.And of course there's always the Weather Channel. "Honey, come see this Occluded cold front that's causing chances of precipitation over much of the Eastern Seaboard!"
I gave at the office!
rufus,Some more synchronicity:
I used to have a game in which I would turn on The History Channel but as soon as I saw Hitler or heard his name, I would turn it off. There were several times that I the instant I tried it, there would be Adolph. Mostly it would take about 4-8 minutes as the next round of announcements of future Hitler programmes would be run.
It's not that Hitler is not important and very interesting, but the Thousand Year Reich was only 1933-1945. What about 15,000,000,000 B.C.E to 1933 and 1945 to 2002?
Fortunately, it has improved, but still has an emphasis on miltary history, weapons systems, etc. History was made off battlefields as well.
Cheers,
Bambi B
Merry Christmas and Happy New year to each and every Inmate.
bubbahotep,For a more definable date, I use B.C. and A.D. I do find it odd though we use the English "Before Christ" and the Latin "Anno Domini" for after.
I use "B.C.E." - Before Common Era- when referring to pre history- a very approximate early time- like the origin of the Universe fifteen billion years ago, the mass extintion of the dinosaurs 65 million B.C.E., the migration from Asia to North America 12,000 B.C.E., and etc. "B.C.E." allows scientist-approved sloppiness.
Dates in the West are a conundrum as in the absence of any evidence there is conjecture that Christ was born between what we call 4 B.C. and 6 A.D. -and possibly in March or April rather than December. This makes Millenial hysteria- that happened in both 1000 A.D. and 2000 A.D.- less accurately timed, especially as the 2000th year after Christ was Jan 1 ,2000.
"A.D". was not used until the 6th C. A.D.and was still based on a complex calculation of 750+ years backwards.
As there is no year "0", is the original Christmas December 25, 1 B.C which then turned to 1 A.D. (two years later by date) a week later on January 1? Anyone living during the translation between B.C. and A.D. has to have two years subtracted from the addition of the BC and AD numbers.
Then there was the change from Julian to Georgian calendar that changed everything, because the equinoxes were getting so far off their dates. Ten days were omitted from the calendar, and it was decreed that the day after Thursday October 4, 1582 would become known as Friday October 15, 1582. The rent came up faster in Europe that October!
Whichever it is, have a merry approximately "2002" Christmas and a very happy so-called "2003" yourself!
Cheers,
Bambi B
Damn capitalism! Damn that market economy!What percentage of the under-40 is interested in classical films, you think? There is Dmitry, but in just few short years he will be over 40 too, so he hardly counts.
Perhaps if Bunuel made a film about football with Fernando Rey scoring touchdown with broken back and torn off leg, that would attract some audience.
VK,I live in Los Angeles, a highly atypical market since there is such a high involvement in the entertainment world. The most prominent museum in Beverly Hills the very expensive and chic Richard Meier designed Museum of Television and Radio.
There is also a very strong interest in film and television history among the general populous and the lines at art and revival cimemas long. My wait to see "Crumb" was more than an hour. If you stop almost any 25 year old in Santa Monica and ask about their favourite cinematography, they are likely to answer with something fairly considered like "Touch of Evil" and then talk the next hour about the screenplay they are writing after work. The movie industry decision makers are also generally young: a senior V.P. at M.G.M. at 33 was the most knowledgable movie historian I've ever known.
The "damn market economy" is unfortunately the best way to get things done with any enthusiasm, but I wish that all that marketing energy could be more true to the product. If the product is a continuous sequence of images and sounds, then to make it discontinuous with a completely other set of images and sounds spoils it and suggests that continuity is not important. They don't sell Buicks with a horse cart spliced into the middle as a reminder that "horses are nice too".
Cheers,
Bambi B
***If you stop almost any 25 year old in Santa Monica and ask about their favourite cinematography, they are likely to answer with something fairly considered like "Touch of Evil" and then talk the next hour about the screenplay they are writing after work.Bambi, I wish you were right, but I happen to know who of those 25 year old who live in LA and sorta write something, play of whatever, and I can assure you if I mentioned Fellini one would think of pasta and the other - of oral sex.
Yet I will not argue that larger proportion of young people in places like LA, Chicago or NY appreciate fine movies, but these three cities do not the US make.
If there were more of them, we would not be seeing the trend we are seeing now.
VK,'If you stop almost any 25 year old in Santa Monica and ask about their favourite cinematography, they are likely to answer with something fairly considered like "Touch of Evil" and then talk the next hour about the screenplay they are writing after work.'
It's a trick comment, because the 25 year old would have to know what "cinematography" means. If they did, there would be opinions.
I agree the big American cities are atypical- there are just better opportunities. Here there is the added daily contact with people in the Biz. The death of Fellini was front page news in L.A.
The trend does seem to be going in a certain direction. As the studios believe audiences expect more elaborate movies with known $20-$30 million above the title headliners, 600 special effects shots**, 2 full-page colour newspaper campaigns, 1,600 prints, making the price ever higher. (** "Spiderman" was in post-production for 13 months.) The returns have to be ever higher in box office.
Independent film is doing better, but those films still have to have critical success at Sundance & Co. to be picked up for distribution.
And the perception is that it is mostly 11 to 15 year olds with the time and money to see something in theatrical release four times and then the DVD. The financial end affects content ("damn market economy" again).
Cheers,
Bambi B
I think cable can have a role in keeping one's options open of what to view. Although I am long past the "25 year old" stage, I live in Oklahoma City - a small market (even smaller than the population would imply) and yet, when checking what movies were listed for the week, to see if there were a few to record, I filled my quota before leaving the "B's" (Anastasia, Being There, and The Bicyle Thief to name but three). And we don't even get HBO, Showtime, etc.When I was younger, and no cable, we were limited to what the networks offered. Which was predominantly poor. So now the movies are out there, and accessible for young people. It's up to the parents and teachers to point the way.
(P.S. - I've already tried to talk my 4 1/2 year old into watching "Solaris" with me. And I would have, too if my wife hadn't interfered!) :^)
I gave at the office!
mvine,I agree -cable offers a great distribution to places where there is less choices in theatre releases.
With TCM, yes AMC, IFC, Sundance, network, Bravo, HBO, Showtime, Encore, etc. I have been introduced to dozens of great films- for me, anything made before 1967- that I would never have known through the big screen alone. I certainly never saw "The Bicycle Thief" larger than 27" in the diagonal.
And I appreciate being able to see movies that I wouldn't trouble over or pay the $9.00 it costs here in Los Angeles (actually, movie and parking at the Cinerama Dome is $14.00) for first run and almost as much for revival. Plus there's traffic, parking, lines, poor seating, $6 more for refreshments, and neighbour wrapper crunchers.
The experience on TV is not the full one in terms of intensity of experience, but it does provide range.
Cheers,Bambi B
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
