I found this reading pretty interesting. I must admit, I have been in my fair share of arguments where I had no comprehending of the other opinions involved in the argument. I need to work on my views and open up to the other persons' points of view. I had no idea I was being so narrow-minded.
As for the end of the reading, I had no idea how difficult it was for movie studios to get their NC-17 and R rated movies out. And how when they did get them out, how much they had to go through with the editing of their movies to a presentable version to the public. I never would have guessed that the moving to these movies to an "adult section" of the store which sell them would affect their sales so negatively. I personally don't agree with the essay, however. I don't think how good a movie is should be based on how much money it makes, but how much the audience that saw it, enjoyed it. Of course there are going to be movies out there that a particular audience would never dream of seeing (such as the elderly seeing SuperBad), thus causing the movie to not rake in as much money as a movie that appeals to a bigger, or broader range of audiences. But the movie might have actually been a good one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with this topic for the most part. I think "superbad" is a perfect example on how you can have a great movie not make as much movie as a terrible movie because of its appearance to the audience. For example "superbad" was a very well written film and didn't nearly make as much money as some horrific films such as "Pirates of the Caribbean, Night at the Museum, and Indian Jones". Unfortunately people see movies because of a certain actor/actress or because the media hypes it up, but truthfully looking at the top 50 grossing films this decade most are sub par. Sometimes I think movies without a mainstream actor/actress or low budget films are the most entertaining.
ReplyDelete