Are Audiences Really Happy with the Quality of Films These Days?
Filed under: Classics, Drama, Thrillers, Newsstand
Call me crazy but in the words of Nancy Olson's character, D-Girl Betty Schaefer, in Billy Wilder's Sunset Blvd: "I think a picture should say a little something." Which is why I'm pretty disappointed with the movies that seem to be coming out of Hollywood these days. Sure, there are still some great ones that get released. But for every The Departed, Inside Man and Brick we're also subjected to The Dukes of Hazard, Zoom, Phat Girlz, Man of the Year and many, many, many more. But that's just my opinion which, if you can believe this recent article in Daily Variety, is very much in the minority.According to a survey of 2000 moviegoers highlighted in the story, five out of six -- thats 83% -- responded that they were satisfied with the quality of current films. "I think the satisfaction level was the biggest surprise to come out of the data." said Mike Hunter, head of the group conducting the survey, in the article. "The satisfaction with the quality of films was consistent everywhere we polled. So quality is not really a problem." Actually, I think my surprise was the biggest thing to come out of this data. Didn't see that one coming.
I did, however, see this next one. The survey data also pointed out a less-hopeful statistic that's not going to make theater owners and studios so happy -- those polled aren't planning on increasing their movie attendance or DVD watching over the next five years and 5% said they even plan to watch less TV. So, people are satisfied with the quality of films but they don't plan on going to the movies more or watching more DVDs? Interesting. How these results came to be is anyone's guess. Are these survey participants not seeing the same films I am? Maybe not.
I guess it possible I'm wrong and the movies are really as great as these stats seem to indicate. I'm willing to admit I might have higher expectations for films than others -- particularly those surveyed in this poll. But I also believe Hollywood could make more quality product if they really wanted to. Although, Hollywood would, of course, argue that the results of the survey means that they are, in fact, giving audiences exactly what they want. But I think its really more a case of audiences getting what they deserve. Raise your expectations, people, and push for better films with the greatest power you have -- your dollars. Only then will Hollywood figure out who really runs things around here.
Jeremy Renner Wants To Be An Avenger
Directors We Love: Jim Jarmusch
Indie Roundup: 'Sweetgrass,' 'Clarkworld,' 'Broken Embraces'
Shelf Life: Fight Club_thumbnail.jpg)
Watch: Famous 'Matrix' Scene Re-Created with LEGOs
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-09-2006 @ 1:18PM
Erin said...
I can't believe you're equating Dukes of Hazard with Phat Girlz. There's a difference between an ultra low budget movie that sets out to a lot of things and succeeds at few and well, being the Dukes of Hazard (which to be fair, I didn't see but looked like a stoner comedy without the pot).
As for the survey, read Freakonomics and forever be skeptical of statistical data. It's possible that the survey provided defined "satisfied" extremely broadly and left little option for articulation.
Reply
12-09-2006 @ 4:19PM
Elijah said...
In terms of quality I think an important thing to keep in mind is that there has ALWAYS been a pretty big ratio of bad movies to good movies, throughout the entire history of cinema. I mean hell, back in the studio days they just churned out similar movie after similar movie like a factory, it's just that for the most part only the good ones have survived to the current day. My father calls this "artistic Darwinism".
Now what they really need to work on is the quality of the THEATERS. I'm only 23, and even I remember when theaters were better than they are now.
Reply
12-09-2006 @ 7:55PM
GhostDoggy said...
In 2000, the wife and I were averaging 65 movies in the theater. In 2006, that number dropped to 1. Does this say something about our satisfaction for the money and time spent? Sure, but that is only the face of our book.
Aside from the obvious disappoint in movies that were either over-hyped, or under-delivered, there are major aspects of the movie-going experience that led to the end of public cinema in our lives.
When i go to see a movie, I want to become immersed into the movie. I don't want distractions, and they can come from both on the screen and off. I think today's theater experinces are terrible, and often can produce a much better experience in my own home.
No, we are not rich, but that didn't stop us from setting up a room (our bat cave) with a ceiling mounted analog projector, multichannel surround sound, a cozy seat for two (no kids), and the ability to relax knowing no pests around the room and no poor presentation conditions will distract us from the show at hand.
Sure, the movie delivery is more than the technical setup and the rest of the environment, but all things being equal it is easier to forgive a badly delivered movie than it is to forgive the audience and poor playback system often found in public cinemas.
Sorry, Hollywood, I am more than willing to wait for the DVD (or HD DVD, Blu-ray, etc.) and have a better experience in my own home.
Reply
12-09-2006 @ 11:04PM
Gary Bourgeault (bizofshowbiz.com) said...
That survey is suspect at the least. I guess it's the only place in the world that 83% of the people are happy with the quality of movies. Either that, or the bar has been lowered so far that things that we thought of as junk in the past is now considered fairly good.
I don't think so though. Anybody can make surveys and statistics say what they want.
Reply