Digital Joe #4

---

Tools:
Send to a friend »

---

We´ve all heard the "sobering" news that 2005 box office receipts were down quite a bit from 2004 despite the release of franchise flicks such as "Revenge of the Sith" and "Batman Begins". Everything and everybody has been blamed for the downturn, from the theater owners to the patrons, DVD, the internet, television, natural disasters and the number of people wearing white shoes versus black shoes (alright, I threw that last one in to illustrate how stupid this whole thing is).

Yes, there are a multitude of reasons why theater attendance is down. But through all the rhetoric we´ve all heard about internet downloads and bootlegging, one simple fact remains: make a movie worth forking over $9 for and people will go see it. The major problem those within the industry don´t dare utter is the garbage polluting every single screen in America. To put it very succinctly, 9/10´s of the movies produced today are utter crap.

Not regular run-of-the-mill crap. Complete disaster-grade crap. The kind of movies you wonder about. How did it ever get the greenlight? Why did that actor sign on to this script? Was there even a script? Did no one edit this thing? The last excruciatingly mind-numbing movie I saw in the theater was "Alien vs. Predator" way back in August, 2004. Before someone reminds me, yes, I hated "King Kong" (2005) but it tried. I wasn´t fond of "The Fog" (2005) either, but the combination of Tom Welling and Maggie Grace made it at least watchable. "AVP" was a monumental disappointment on every single level.

Minor side note: I´ve seen loads of junk movies since then ("Super Mario Brothers" being the latest) but I´m restricting this discussion to movies I saw in the theater.

I saw 22 movies in the theater during 2004, 14 in 2005 and just one so far in 2006. (I know these are accurate numbers since I´ve been keeping ticket stubs since the end of 2003.) That´s one hell of a decline. But it´s about quality, not the quantity. If I could see just one movie all year long, I´d want it to be something so completely mind blowing, so totally orgasmic that it would cause sensory overload and elicit every emotion I have. I would want to laugh, cry, hurt, rejoice…I would want to feel. Too many movies try to play to our emotions and end up being no better than a soap opera.

For example, I´d give up watching twenty "Fantastic Four"-type movies for one "Brokeback Mountain". I´d let Hollywood keep their "King Kong" spectacle pieces for a single "Polar Express". If I could be assured of being swept up in the story and characters every time I went to the theater, I´d put up with the stained seats, the below freezing temperatures, the rude cell phone people, the prices and the general discomfort in a theater for the experience. To feel a movie like "Brokeback" with a group of people you don´t know is a rare experience.

You´ve got to be nuts, though, to think I´m going to fork over a wad of cash just to see dreck like "The Day After Tomorrow" (saw it May 30, 2004) or "Van Helsing" (May 8, 2004). So when news of yet another remake pops out, I want to scream bloody murder. I don´t know if everyone´s heard, but the latest classic movie to get bastardized with a worthless "re-imagining" is "The Wolf Man". Benicio Del Toro is on board to play the part and a 2008 release date is planned. Is there no original idea left in Hollywood? Guys, THIS is the reason receipts were "down" last year. Hollywood isn´t producing movies people have a desire to see. The industry cannot continue to rely on franchises, remakes and spin-offs to fill its coffers.

Some of the best movies in our film canon have nothing to do with graphic novels, comic books, television shows or previous films. "American Beauty", "Star Wars" ("A New Hope" not the less-than-sub par prequels) and "Citizen Kane"-these are some of the great movies we have available to us. No one´s ever going to claim that "The Dukes of Hazzard" or "Charlie´s Angels" belongs on this list. Why do we bastardize every single classic piece of entertainment for a couple of bucks?

(Another side note: I do realize there are some exceptional movies out there based on other works. "Brokeback Mountain" and "Jaws" are adapted stories. "Superman" and "Batman Begins" started life as comic books. By and large, though, they don´t measure up.)

More importantly, why do we as American filmgoers continue to be lured with fancy advertising, a name actor and some recollection of the original movie? Seriously, the target audience for "The Wolf Man" remake never saw the original movie (or any of its sequels). The toads that spent money to see "Planet of the Apes" (2001) have no clue the original film is a piece of cinematic genius (I was one of those toads). And the dopes that sing the praises of "The Grinch" should all be lined up and shot (saw that one, too).

Is it the sense of familiarity that brings the green in for these movies? Sure it is. But for every person who goes to see the junk, at least one person stays away from the theater completely-me. I can´t imagine I´m alone in this. I have always been more than content to wait for the DVD release of a movie I want to see. That´s why I spend an arm and a leg at the store nearly every week. That´s why I have my Netflix subscription.

I won´t pretend I don´t watch bad movies on purpose. "Doom" is in my queue, but then so is "Jarhead" and "History of Violence". I will not pay theater prices to see crap. Unfortunately, that is what we´re getting fed on a continuous basis. It seems as though a lot of other people are taking this same stance, judging on the "down" year last year. (I wonder: since 2004 was a record year, is it really fair to say that 2005 was down? Anytime you have a record anything, any decrease is looked at as a failure.)

---