 
|
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 |
68.37.240.251
Pursuant to our discussion below on Hollywood and its good films, some people had compiled the lists of good films of the seventies... looks like around 20-30 titles.So I was curious how many movies Hollywood produced during that time, and the numbers are hard to find, but for instance, there were 940 films released in just 2003, so make your guess regarding the volume of the seventies.
My guess is something close to 8000 or 10,000... of which 30 were good? Can't be THAT bad, even for Hollywood! I am sure you guy scan do better than that!
Could we at least get close to 1%?
Follow Ups:
and how many of these are classics? Who knows? Who really cares?Some are, most aren't, you can't see them all anyway.
It was just off the cuff really. Now for how many films are actually made I think your numbers are way off. I know that on average about 200 to 250 films are elgible for Oscar consideration each year. To be elgible all they need is an American thaetrical release. No that does include a good number of films made that go straight to video bt are we really talking about those? Are those "Hollywood" films? They are mostly indys. Also this list each year of 200 to 250 films does include any foriegn or independent film that simply gets an American theatrical release. So to make better estimates on the ratio of great film one must have better numbers. Then we have to do the impossible, agree on what is an is not a great film.
Most weeks about 5 movies open. That number would mean 18 per week. There hasn't ever been a week where that many movies were opened.The link is to the more accurate number of 307 (including foreign films and re-releases)
Add to that the fact that they didn't produce nearly as many films per year in he 70's and you have a decade long total probably closer to 1000 (of which more than 30 were very good to great)
"Except for the point, the still point, There would be no dance, and there is only the dance. " T.S. Eliot
"Take 2003, the last year for which Motion Picture Association of America statistics are available. Of the 940 movies released that year, only 29 were G-rated."
- http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/01/10/8230977/index.htm (Open in New Window)
Looks like the 307 was a little low and the 940 number was quite high...11MPA Worldwide Market Research & Analysis
U.S. Entertainment Industry: 2005 MPA Market Statistics
Year Produced Rated Released
2005 699 931 549
2004 611 871 528
2003 593 940 473
2002 543 786 466
2001 611 739 483
2000 683 762 478
1999 758 677 461
1998 686 661 509
1997 767 673 510
1996 735 713 471
1995 637 697 411
Number of Theatrical Films Produced, Rated, & Released
Films Released
Note: Films rated may be higher than films produced for a given year because films may be rated or rerated
months or even years after production.
Source: MPAA
"Except for the point, the still point, There would be no dance, and there is only the dance. " T.S. Eliot
The critical point is that it produces gold and has, always.
The discussion was based on the premise that its quality went south sometime after the fifties. The counterargument was made that the seventies, in particular, were extremely rich in good films.Hard to prove one way or another, of course, but given the huge production numbers the idea of a slide appears to be a supportable notion.
Your assumption relies on their being a higher proportion of great films from the forties and fifties, in relation to the amount of films being produced. If .5% of the films made in the forties and fifties were great, and .7% from the seventies were great, then, while the absolute percentage from the seventies may not be impressive, it does show increased quality compared to the forties and fifties.The place to start this exercise is during the period you believe Hollywood was churning out quality fare. Pick the 30's. My guess is that the percentage of great films from that era seems greater only because history forgot the schlock.
Although 1939 is probably the best single year in film.
I simply stated my feel, about which we all can disagree.And I also am glad I had to look at the overal volume... that is enough for me for now.
However, something I usually mention is that most of the old films used to be around the more or less normal people. Today the majority is about totally abnormal characters and situations.
Not of any objective stadard of excellence in film making. Whether or not it is even true. I mean what the hell is a "normal" person?
We could start easy, but on a truly idiotic note - the Hollywood (and American) obsesssion with winning underdogs.Face it... in real life someone beat into the pulp doesn't suddenly raise off the canvas to win the fight.
A quadroplegic does not jump out of his wheel chair to win a marathon.
If I were to count such events in American movies my computer would be smoking.
Normal? Hardly.
A janitor does not - in real life - become a mathematical genius. Not any more often than a 55 year old fart suddenly starts playing like Vladimir Horowitz.
Normal?
I could keep going, but that should give you some idea... it is not Frankensteins I am talking about... I am talking about fun for severely intellectually handicaped, forced by Hollywood on masses, and the masses willingly responding.
OTOH, all characters in Bergman's films are normal people... they find themselves in the situations that are common, but not any less interesting psychologically because of that.
Truth is, one does not need an abnormal situation to provide food for deep analysis - a family divorce and how "ordinary" people go through it is rich in emotions and psychology, in drama and revelations.
A quadraplegic winning a race is a sick joke, is a low brow entertainment for a dumb crowd.
"We could start easy, but on a truly idiotic note - the Hollywood (and American) obsesssion with winning underdogs.
Face it... in real life someone beat into the pulp doesn't suddenly raise off the canvas to win the fight."Actually it happens more often in real life than it does in the movies. Honestly some of the most outrageous underdog stories have only been deemed acceptable because they were based on real life events. The made up ones are rarely as unlikely.
"A quadroplegic does not jump out of his wheel chair to win a marathon.
If I were to count such events in American movies my computer would be smoking."
I must have missed that movie about the quadropalegic marathon runner. OTOH there was this guy that was dying of cancer who beat the odds, survived, and won a record 7 straight Tour de Frances. Try selling a made up story as unlikely as that one. Oh and there was this US hocky team back in 1980. That's just a couple. There are many many more real life stories. I get the fealing you are not much of a sports fan.
"Normal? Hardly."
Again it depends on yor defenition of "normal." Underdogs beating the odds certainly is normal enough to happen with reasonable frequency. The facts pove it. But if normal simply means average then no. But then movies have never exclusively been about average. Thank goodness.
"A janitor does not - in real life - become a mathematical genius. Not any more often than a 55 year old fart suddenly starts playing like Vladimir Horowitz."What movie was the 55 Horowitz in? By the way you are putting the cart before the horse. It was a mathematical genious that became a janitor because he grew up in a shitty envirement. Um yes that does happen. Ever heard of Einstein? No he wasn't a janitor he was a high school drop out and a clerk when he came up with two of the most important ideas in modern physics. Once again real life makes is stranger than fiction.
"Normal?"
depends on your idea of normal.
"I could keep going, but that should give you some idea... it is not Frankensteins I am talking about..."
if it wasn't then why mention Freddy and Jason?
" I am talking about fun for severely intellectually handicaped, forced by Hollywood on masses, and the masses willingly responding."
Actually I think you are talking about your personal taste in art and confusing it with an objective standard. Why not just complain about French impressionists because they don't paint realistic paintings?
"OTOH, all characters in Bergman's films are normal people... they find themselves in the situations that are common, but not any less interesting psychologically because of that."
Which is fine and I am glad his movies were made. but I would be quite sad if we were limited to his movies or that particular style.
"Truth is, one does not need an abnormal situation to provide food for deep analysis"
No truth is food for deep analysis is not limited to your concept of normality. really, how many of Shakespeare's characters or stories fall within your definition of normal? Or was he a hack?
" - a family divorce and how "ordinary" people go through it is rich in emotions and psychology, in drama and revelations."
It certainly can be if artfully portrayed. OTOH despite your prejudices a romp through outerspace or middle earth or an underdo's story can also be "rich in emotions and psychology, in drama and revelations." We as movie goers are enriched by the variety of vehicles for this.
"A quadraplegic winning a race is a sick joke, is a low brow entertainment for a dumb crowd."
I must have missed that one. Is a cancer survivor winning a record seven straight Tour de Frances a sick joke?
You two cojoined twins?
I accept your concession.
There is difference between a cheap shot and friendly joke... and my post landed under yours by pure chance - it could have very well been his!But I am sure you know what the crutch is, and a story with a crutch is a bad story. I had not been exposed to the crutched stories until I came to the US... believe it or not...
I didn't take your cheap shot as mean spirited. Sorry if it looked that way. Mostly I was disappointed that you blew off the content of my post. I'm still wondering about this quadropalegic marathon runner movie.
What is an is not a good story.... I don't know that you can pin it down. IMO almost any story can be good or bad depending on how it is told. Art is is the expression more than in the content. We can all spout basic truths, Life is precious, life is hard, love is beautiful etc etc. It means little just to say it. The art is in making us feel it in seemingly profound ways. I don't think there is a set of limits in terms of genre or story line in which this can happen. I can say "he layed dead in his mother's arms" and I can look at Michelangelo's Pieta. The content is the same. One can even argue the content is almost cheap and cliche. But I suspect you get my point.
Well, what you seem to be arguing that there is room for situations that normally do not happen in real life, or are improbable, and I am not denying that.My point was about the degree that such stories are present in the Hollywood movies. My impression is they are disproportionally presented. But when you start talking about things like disproportionate, that enters the subjective area, that is why I don't see much reason to argue about it. Heck, before coming here I would have hard time believing adults would be watching the James Bond movies, let alone the LoTR... cultural gap, I presume...
The quadraplegic remark was sarcastic, not meant to be taken literally, but I don't think you should deny that is a popular Amercan theme.
I don't see them dominating American movies.Not to argue. As you say it's hard to argue. I confess I never saw it as an American phenomenon but maybe it is. I would say that the majority of those films are sappy shallow and cheaply manipulative but there are some really good ones. Interestingly enough they are often refered to as "Rocky" stories. IMO Rocky was a great movie. It seems most people have forgotten that Rocky lost the fight. His victory was quite human, quite "normal." He found love. I can't remember any severely handicaped people going on to victory movies. But I don't see every movie that comes out.
"We could start easy, but on a truly idiotic note - the Hollywood (and American) obsesssion with winning underdogs"You mean like during the revolutionary war when those guys in tattered trousers, with almost no military experience, and little education, and mostly unorganized, defeated a larger force of well trained, well educated, well organized soldiers? You call it an obsession. What percentage of Hollywood films deal with the underdog? I guess I'd like to know what you mean by "obsession", because the overwhelming majority of Hollywood films I have seen seem to be obsessed with sex. But I know how you like boobies, so I guess that is okay.
I dunno, Vic. I happen to believe that the "underdog", that guy that starts with little in the way resources, and possessing nothing but determination, can excel beyond what someone one means can separates this country from any other. Perhaps that is why other countries' films generally do not tell those stories - because in those countries, it is not their reality.
"Face it... in real life someone beat into the pulp doesn't suddenly raise off the canvas to win the fight. A quadroplegic does not jump out of his wheel chair to win a marathon. If I were to count such events in American movies my computer would be smoking."
'Fraid I missed those films. Maybe you mean Rocky. But that is but one example. Painting with a very broad brush. You mean there really was a film where the quadrapalegic won a race? Perhaps you would point me in their direction. If your computer starts smoking, e-mail me the bill.
"A janitor does not - in real life - become a mathematical genius"
I think I know the film of which you write. You have it backwards. The mathamatical genius became a janitor. He was a mathamatical genius before he was a janitor. His genius was discovered while he was a janitor. Has it never happened that a person of great gifts, for whatever reason, has been in a profession that does not fully utilize their skills? Never? Ever? Perhaps communist Russia avoided such problems by telling people what their gifts were, and herding them accordingly.
"OTOH, all characters in Bergman's films are normal people... they find themselves in the situations that are common, but not any less interesting psychologically because of that."
"Truth is, one does not need an abnormal situation to provide food for deep analysis - a family divorce and how "ordinary" people go through it is rich in emotions and psychology, in drama and revelations."
Maybe. Maybe not. But have you ever watched a film merely for entertainment? To enter a different world? Have you ever had the pleasure of watching a film with your child, knowing that while the film maybe a little absurd, it is simply fun.
My three year old and I recently watched "The Polar Express" together. It was a joy and an experience that I would not trade for free copies of all Bergmans's films. Likewise when we watch The Wizard of Oz. In your zeal to exclusively watch realist films at the expense of escapist entertainment, for while there is time in life for both, it appears that some priceless moments may have passed you by. If I miss a "realist" Bergman film to watch Polar Express with my son, well, I am more than happy with the choice I made. And more importantly, so is he.
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 ]
