ST Episode IX Box Office Discussion

You have a valid point there... I just subscribed to a trial Netflix account yesterday and while the Malaysian service has a good number of Hollywood and local movies, this certainly pales in comparison with the TV series on offer including great fare like Stranger Things and Korean drama Descendants of The Sun...

Explains why Disney has decided to take a three year break from making Star Wars movies and went for TV fare like The Mandalorian as well as Obi-Wan on Disney+ instead...

 

What denotes a classic ? you mean a flawless Star Wars movie ? then your right however to me there all classics...........

 

‘Hollywood’, or the big major studies, have the highest output. Their product ‘fills the shelves’, so it’s entirely appropriate to specify Hollywood as the example. The claim wasn’t that quality films don’t get made, or that independent studios don’t generate good output.

If you disagree with my position, then by definition you have a counter one. I certainly don’t think TFA is a classic, I actually believe it’s everything that’s bad about popular cinema. But that hasn’t stopped people claiming it will become a classic. It gets the same score on RT as ANH. And it’s how this plays out in the media too, the power of modern marketing, that works to skew perception into believing something average has more value.

However, that the first film you cite is a remake (Mad Max) is such a thoroughly depressing response (I don’t mean that to offend you). It speaks volumes that your first example is a big budget reboot. As does the musical choices you listed (although admittedly I’ve not heard Donald Glover?), which are entirely average at best (IMO), and underlines my point.

 

Speaking personally, perhaps ‘classic’ is an inappropriate word, but certainly not meant to illustrate flawless or perfection, but rather a film where there’s a popular consensus of it being held in high regard, and by association, some level of quality to aspire to. A film that’s seen as a quintessential example of a period, genre etc. Be it The Maltese Falcon, It’s a Wonderful Life, North By Northwest, Star Wars ANH, Reservoir Dogs or Saving Private Ryan.

 

No, the claim was that the standard for classics has dropped. The reason I question the use of 'Hollywood' as arbiter is because the term has become amorphous. Does it mean American cinema generally, or just that funded by certain big American studios? Even more broadly some consider it to mean all English language films. Or more narrowly just blockbusters. With the rise of independent cinema over the last decade what people consider 'Hollywood' has changed significantly.

It doesn't matter what certain people say about whether it's a classic (I'm sure people have always made poor predictions), nor whether it has a good RT score. Classics don't get just liked by everyone, they are almost universally loved. Here's a list to show that I don't think the standard has dropped:

https://www.insider.com/modern-classic-movies-reddit-2018-10#american-psycho-2000-9

Because I was listing something of similar scope and size to TFA. I also listed a whole bunch of modern directors who mainly release original content.

 

Classics are movies people/pop culture still refer back to positively decades later. So you gotta wait a while to really know for sure.

 

Absolutely. ROTJ is close for me because as a 1977 child it was the movie of my childhood, and because it closes out the story from the 2 classics. If only Spielberg had directed it like originally intended.....

 

I think we're both aware of that. I think you can get a sense of what will qualify though.

 

As you infer, ‘Hollywood’ is shorthand for what constitutes mainstream/populist cinema, and should be taken as such in this instance.

Au contraire. As part of my MA thesis (circa 10 years ago) I researched hundreds of participants views on what they perceived to be the ‘best’ albums (popular music) and films of the 20th century. Over 60% of participants (the majority) listed albums/films they’d neither seen or heard, or had scant recollection of when asked to articulate further. Perception shapes reality. Now that applies to both ‘older’ and ‘newer’ films of course, but the point remains I.e. perception isn’t free from influence. And specifically, with the growth in technologically aided marketing, it’s easier to shape perception in relation to newer products than older.

Doesn’t particularly matter that you think it of similar size and scope, it’s that it was the example that immediately sprung to mind. Somewhat ironic wouldn’t you say? I’m sure you could have listed a more fitting example if you’d given it a couple of minutes, but usually the immediate thing that comes to mind is more reflective of what one thinks.

 

Sounds like opinion to me.

TV's clearly a whole lot better than what it used to be. But saying movies have just taken a hit across-the-board is a pretty blanket statement. There are great movies released every year, just like there used to be crappy movies released every year too.

 

The problem is that you're assuming that RT sores give the perception of something being a 'classic' rather than just a well reviewed film.

Apart from the fact that you've made the odd assumption that I just type the first thing that comes into my head, in the very post that I mentioned Mad Max I mentioned other films (through their directors) before it. In any case I don't think it's particularly ironic - one of the films that I think many would consider a first-to-mind classic is Ben-Hur which is also a remake.

I'm not a person who is enamoured with, or exclusively watches, modern films at all. But where blockbusters have become focused upon remakes, sequels, prequels or reboots, independent and low-budget cinema has continued to produce films that are just as good as any classic.

 

Not at all. As somebody mentioned above (it may have been you), ‘classic’ is a term that’s usually applied retrospectively anyway. I’m not stating that RT scores (or any aggregated score) automatically equates to classic. I’m making a connection between ‘popularity’, box office and external influences that shape a perception of what constitutes a classic, and I think audiences are being pushed more and more to big budget, effects driven action films rather than well written drama... Not mutually exclusive obviously.

I didn’t make any such assumption... you’re being disingenuous. You specifically called out Mad Max: Fury Road, you referred to no other film directly in your post that I could see. That a remake can be, in and of itself, a very good film wasn’t really the point... it’s that a remake was your immediate goto example of a film you’d believe would be regarded as classic. I think that says a lot, even if you don’t. However, please note, that isn’t me being snobbish about your taste (I think Mad Max Fury Road is a very good action film), it’s more about what it represents.

Yes - I would completely agree. However, I’m not sure of the traction those smaller independent films get with the public/media to be deemed classics in the future... and that was more my point rather than believing quality films are no longer being made.

 

This is fundamentally about 'classic' status is bestowed. You're right that external influences can have an impact upon what is considered a classic, but I don't think these influences are as simple as a film being collectively enjoyed or even great media coverage. I think it's something that is remembered upon it's own before it is known as a classic (otherwise we'd be inundated with multiple new classics every year). I still think it is something that people collectively have to fondly remember beyond its release as being particularly memorable and it's this collective opinion that influences people.

Well you did make the assumption. You assumed that I mentioned Mad Max because it was the first thing that came into my head. I also mentioned before it films by the Cohen Brothers, Villeneuve, Nolan, Fincher, Tarantino, Pixar, etc (it was just easier to point out the directors because so many of their films I think are classics).

I think enough certainly do. Smaller films essentially own awards season now, and get significant publicity from it.

 

I chose to focus on Hollywood because this is a Star Wars forum - I'm exceedingly aware of world cinema, but didn't want to write an essay or come across as even more pretentious than I already do! I also should have put in a caveat that there are of course excellent films being made - even in Hollywood - to this day. It's arguably a golden age for fantasy and kid's films.

I'm afraid though that I'm going to have to be slightly objectionable. I've enjoyed films by all the directors and the production company you mention, but... Villeneuve's Bladerunner, good as it was, is a sad thing in comparison to the original (I praise him for baking this into the text of the film, with its quotations from Nabokov's 'Pale Fire' - he was clearly aware that anything he could produce wouldn't match the 1982 masterpiece). And that's the best film Villeneuve's made yet. Let's wait and see with Dune - very excited. But let's carry on this line: compare, if you will, Nolan's laughable Interstellar with the films it seeks to imitate, the peerless 2001 and Tarkovsky's masterful Solaris - the pathetic adherence to the Hollywood script writing 101 formula, the never-ending obsession with daddy issues... it never gets to the meat of anything! Still, Nolan has made decent films - he's probably the best exponent of the modern hollywood formula - but that fatally limits him. Tarantino's best films by far are now two decades behind him, and while I'll always be in line to see his latest at the cinema, he's never going to make another Pulp Fiction. Fincher's last work of any note was 2007's Zodiac, but again that was not in the class of Fight Club or Seven. The Coens - apologies for harping on this theme, but all their best films (Fargo, Lebowski, Raising Arizona, Fink) are pre-2000 with the exception of No Country. Pixar do indeed make some quality children's films.

It's all highly subjective though. The people you list are all great filmmakers.

Edit: Ha - I agree with you on Mad Max: Fury Road. A definite classic!

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on the general argument, but I'll address the filmmakers in question because it's an interesting topic.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Villeneuve's Blade Runner actually beats out the original or at least on par with it. I'd also say that his film Arrival may be considered a classic. For Nolan, I wouldn't say that Interstellar is one of his best - TDK and his early work are all his best I think. However, in any case, all of these filmmakers have made great 'classic' modern films, even if their best work was earlier in their careers.

 

That assumes that a ‘classic’ film has a quantifiable criteria, other than it being regarded as a ‘classic’ by consensus. The consensus may be true, but as indicated before, the consensus has a tendency to be tilted towards an artificial perception i.e. many people believe something is regarded highly because they are told it is. Again, this isn’t a new phenomenon. However, my point was that opinion is increasingly being pushed more towards big, visual effects action films... and that, in my opinion, these films are of a limited quality.

Oh I see what you mean. I thought you meant I’d made an assumption that you regarded Mad Max as a classic. Yes, I assumed that if you’d had more time to think about it, you would have selected something more appropriate... but that was me giving you the benefit of the doubt. However, I stand by my comments re. Mad Max being the film you cited I.e. a big budget, effects driven remake. Also, I wouldn’t agree about the “so many of their films” comment. I think those filmmakers are all talented, but their ‘great’ films are the exception and not the norm in my opinion. And these filmmakers do get to the crux of the point. For example, I think we’d both agree that The Dark Knight is regarded as a modern classic, but personally speaking, I think it’s inferior to Batman Begins, and indeed, Batman Returns... 2 superior films (IMO) but destined to be held in lesser regard.

 

@topgoalscorer_no11 - pretty much agree with everything you stated.

 

* 2019 results not final


* 2019 results not final

 

I disagree that films become classic simply because people, at the time of their release, all agree that it's a good film. There are many of these film every year and they aren't all regarded as classics. 'Classics', I would argue, are those films that, upon reflection, many remember particularly fondly. This is why I don't think the standard for classics has declined. The film has to be well remembered outside of its window of release meaning it has to be high quality on its own.

Yes, but I thought it was an appropriate contrast to TFA.

The fact that you think that some of their lesser known films are better than their well recognised ones really doesn't get to the point, or is it necessarily unique to the recent. Do you really think that TDK is an example of a lowering of the standard of what is considered a classic?

 

Just a thought, sorry if this has been talked about.

With both PT and OT the middle film did the least and the first the most and the third in-between.

But I looked at RotJ gross and while it made more domestic, if made less over seas.
It's over seas gross is 165 M, which would likely include the 43 M it made from the SE in 1997.
So just about 120 M in overseas gross pre SE.

RotS made more than AotC in both domestic and overseas.
But one thing that hurt AotC's overseas gross was the Dollar being quite expensive in 2001 and in 2002.
That reduced the overseas gross of several big films, Harry Potter, PS would have made over a billion is the exchange rate had been what it would be a few years later, LotR, Fellowship would likely have made over 900 M with better rates.

RotS did benefit from a better exchange rate. That wouldn't make up all the difference to be sure.

So looking at past history with SW, the domestic increase is there but overseas it is less clear.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

I see that everyone is now talking about every other SW film compared to each other because, I guess, there's no longer any point in discussing TROS's box office?

 

Quite honestly, I like Jiffy better than Skippy. But I think that Skippy may sell more jars. Either way, they're both better than Peter Pan.