Comments on: Ridley Scott on Hollywood: ‘3% good, 97% stupid’

By: Self-Reliant Filmmaking » Blog Archive » Caffeine, Sequels, and Remakes…

Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:09:58 +0000

[...] it for granted now, but I was thinking about it today when reading Matthew Jeppsen’s post at FresHDV in which he quotes a recent interview with Ridley [...]

By: Scott Eggleston

Scott Eggleston — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:16:21 +0000

So what are some of the positive downsides, Ridley?

By: johnny

johnny — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 03:15:23 +0000

If you look at the movies that have been successful versus movies that have flopped dramatically, you might notice that many films have a message that today’s viewers recognize and resonates with them.
Movies like “300″ which depict good guys versus bad guys without the popular ‘blurring of the lines’ between the two do far better in box office numbers than crap films like “Little Children” or “Babel” that try to make sympathetic the evil-doer’s plight.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:17:40 +0000

it’s several things:
1) the price of tickets to SEE the crappy movie
2) the quality of the experience (most home theaters are just as good as the junk you find in a local movie house. the screen may not be as big, but the sound and image quality are better.)
3) like Scott said, why pay to see a cheap remake of a movie that is already good?
4) viewing a movie initially on a tiny screen is crazy. if that’s the way you first view a film, then you aren’t a film lover, you’re a mass consumer. and that’s the way the studio see us, as mass consumers. so why make a film?

By: Ghibertii

Ghibertii — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:43:52 +0000

Or maybe the decline in theater attendance is due to the fact that the prices of tickets and food just keep growing exponentially. With food and tickets it could cost your family $100 to see a movie. Honestly there hasn’t been a movie recently that I would pay $100 for? I’ll wait for it on Netflix….