This may be the strongest batch of Oscar nominees in some time, but general audiences don't care, according to a recent look by the Associated Press. The five Best Picture nominees combined have grossed about $246 million to date, compared with $297 million last year and $245 in 2005. (Juno is the sole exception, which has grossed over $100 million on its $2.5 million budget.) In 2003, the winner, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King alone grossed more than $300 million, making this year's batch of nominees look small and paltry.To break it down further, about 51 million people went to see The Lord of the Rings, while about 7.3 million have seen No Country for Old Men and 2 million have seen There Will Be Blood. Other multiple nominees like Michael Clayton, Away from Her and The Assassination of Jess James by the Coward Robert Ford have likewise played to small, specialized audiences. Though these are tough films, it's inspiring that they have received such an enthusiastic response from the few that have seen them. One commentator compared them to gourmet food as opposed to fast food. It takes a little more time and patience, but the flavor is ultimately better. And if everyone appreciated the good stuff, then places like McDonalds and movies like Spider-Man 3 would be out of business.
The great cinematographer Roger Deakins, who is nominated twice for No Country for Old Men and Jesse James, said: "It's one of the best years because there's so many intelligent films that are provocative. They're actually about something as well as being entertaining. It really makes you feel part of a real cinema," he added. "There's brilliant, brilliant people out there."
_thumbnail.jpg)
Discuss: So, How Was 'Twilight'?
Quizzimatical: Vampire Movies
Insert Caption: Twilight
Fan Made: 'Twilight' Cookies
Cinematical Seven: Great Exports from Down Under
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
_thumbnail.jpg "Watchmen Storyboards")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-29-2008 @ 10:46PM
Philip said...
A slightly unfair comparison. The LOTR movies inherited a very large fan base, and the quality of each of those films didn't hurt its potential, either. I think that the top flicks this year tend to attract a smarter, more thoughtful crowd. Casual moviegoers are passing up chances to see the Junos of the movie world, so that they can see the Rambos and AVP-R's. That isn't so bad, I think. Juno made good money, and people who enjoyed the movie can say they were in on the movie before everyone else, who bought it on DVD after it won all the awards. There is some satisfaction in that, yes? Kinda like when I was listening to the Fray before they hit it big, now everyone's got their record. Sigh.
Reply
1-29-2008 @ 11:31PM
Adam said...
People need to realize box office doesn't equal quality. As a film aficianado, I feel that too many people these days would rather throw money to repetetive popcorn movies like "Rambo" or stupid so called "comedies" like "Meet the Spartans" than something that has a little more substance in terms of entertainment. Of course, the studios are primarily to blame for this when they push special effects extravaganzas or gross out farce down the throats of a younger demographic. Then, those people grow up with the idea that's what real cinema is.
Reply
1-30-2008 @ 6:00AM
eugene said...
well, not all of us tie our sense of identity and self esteem to whether or not we found some band or movie before it got "popular".
Also, keep in mind, that not of us live in a "select city" and with a 2 year old, driving forty miles into the city to go see an independent movie is just not an effective use of time or money when I can just as easily wait a few months and enjoy the same movie at home, minus the sticky floors, the constant chatter and the over priced food and drink.
Then again, it seems some of you are more interested in being able to wave "cinema" around as some sort of arm band for snobs.
Reply
2-25-2008 @ 12:52PM
pete thomson said...
oooohhhh how bitter do you sound?!! You seem to be saying you would drive a whole 40miles for some popcorn blockbuster!! Its not about being a snob lol, its about expecting more from entertainment than that being talked down to and bored!!!!I am lucky enough to live in a major city in the uk and we have 3 arthouse cinemas and 6 regular cinemas we get to see loads of independent movies from around the world as well as the occassional bit of Hollywood fodder. Im not a snob Im just lucky
1-30-2008 @ 7:40AM
Christopher Campbell said...
Did 51 million people really see LOTR, or did 5 million fanboys each see it ten times? Just kidding, but I bet a lot of that money did come from repeats.
Reply
1-30-2008 @ 12:14PM
DAVID F said...
This isn't anything new. Oscar noms rarely connote big box office.
Reply
1-30-2008 @ 12:55PM
kevjohn said...
Some of these just don't seem to be meant to mass consumption. I saw No Country a couple of weeks ago and was blown away by every frame of film, but I don't know if I'd want to sit through it in the theater again. On the other hand, I saw Cloverfield twice on its opening weekend. The two films don't compare at all in terms of story, quality, acting, directing, you-name-it, but Cloverfield is a 'popcorn movie' and seeing it twice with different groups of friends make sense. The only thing Cloverfield excelled in over No Country was in the category of best giant creature attacking NYC.
Not to mention the mega-AMC theaters blow away the little arthouse theaters where No Country, Juno, etc. play in. The theaters themselves can be awesome, but it's usually 18 screens full of crap (Meet the Spartans, Eye Know What The Ring 2 Did Last Grudge, whatever the Wayans are working on). By comparison, the fancy 'cinema' movies play in a local theater decrepit enough to dissuade the casual moviegoer.
Reply