I remember Titanic becoming the first billion dollar film

Philly_Q

darthed1981 said:

Avoid the new Luc Besson Dracula though ... 

I keep considering it, but I don't know if I'll ever watch it.  He's ripped off the look of Coppola's film, it sounds like it's too much romance and not enough scares... and although Caleb Landry Jones is an interesting actor, I don't see him as Dracula.

darthed1981

Philly_Q said:

darthed1981 said:

Avoid the new Luc Besson Dracula though ... 

I keep considering it, but I don't know if I'll ever watch it.  He's ripped off the look of Coppola's film, it sounds like it's too much romance and not enough scares... and although Caleb Landry Jones is an interesting actor, I don't see him as Dracula.

It's... bizarre.  Just bizarre.  

Don't want to spoil it for you though...

I think Coppola's Dracula is a total masterpiece BTW - I have no problem with a horror movie with scenery-chewing acting performances...

Philly_Q

darthed1981 said:

I think Coppola's Dracula is a total masterpiece BTW - I have no problem with a horror movie with scenery-chewing acting performances...

I think it's very flawed, but I like it.  Most of the performances are terrible but it looks great and I really admire what Coppola set out to do.

darthed1981

Philly_Q said:

darthed1981 said:

I think Coppola's Dracula is a total masterpiece BTW - I have no problem with a horror movie with scenery-chewing acting performances...

I think it's very flawed, but I like it.  Most of the performances are terrible but it looks great and I really admire what Coppola set out to do.

I've always had a soft spot for massive ambition... I could see where the original DCEU films were going and honestly, even though Zac Snyder fell short, there was some merit there.

On the first list... some films have been rewarded for doing something new, some for simply being more of the same, but something new by a new director that breaks new ground AND makes money is really rare in film.

Philly_Q

darthed1981 said:

On the first list... some films have been rewarded for doing something new, some for simply being more of the same, but something new by a new director that breaks new ground AND makes money is really rare in film.

I guess that's what 27-year-old Steven Spielberg did in 1975 with Jaws.  And, a little later, Lucas with Star Wars.

Incidentally, has anyone seen Ne Zha?  It's the only film on the two lists I'd never heard of.

Keiko

Sassafras said:

It seems many are sequels. Originality is no longer valued.

More than just sequels, they are franchises. Once people are already familiar with something, it's an easy sell.  You can't really complain that not enough original stuff gets made, theres a ridiculous amount to choose from, it's about what people are choosing to watch, based on what they already like. Plus a lot of other stuff like the amount of advertising.  

theatreanchor

Philly_Q said:

darthed1981 said:

The other problem again both industries have is a massive back catalogue of stuff people know they like already.  You could watch the latest indie horror film... or just watch your DVD of Jaws again... in this respect, nostalgia is a self-fulfilling prophecy... if you only like or watch what you know, then before too long there isn't anything good and new.. because there is no money in it.

I nearly always go out of my way to watch something I haven't seen before, despite the fact there are thousands of films I have seen which I know are good.  It often feels like shooting myself in the foot, because most of the things I take a punt on are rubbish, or at best OK.  There's also the feeling that there are films I love which I might never get round to watching again...

I don't think I'll change though.  I've never understood people who've watched the same film dozens of times and can recite the dialogue.  But of course it's their choice.

Always new things to discover on repeat viewings. 

westford

I've seen 26 of them, but mostly not at the cinema.

lustycourtier

Ive seen 3. Blockbusters isnt really my thing

strtdv

I remember the continuity IRA bombing the cinema in Enniskillen the week Titanic came out so no-one was able to see it. Every cloud and all that

UnclePsychosis

Interestingly enough I've seen about 90% of the inflation adjusted ones and only 50% of the first list.

I'm sure that says something, but I'm not sure what... 

thecolourbox

UnclePsychosis said:

Interestingly enough I've seen about 90% of the inflation adjusted ones and only 50% of the first list.

I'm sure that says something, but I'm not sure what... 

That you've had more time to watch the older films?

ICBM

UnclePsychosis said:

Interestingly enough I've seen about 90% of the inflation adjusted ones and only 50% of the first list.

I'm sure that says something, but I'm not sure what... 

It says that the inflation-adjusted ones are the true classics that more people have seen, and the first list is just heavily skewed towards modern blockbusters by inflation.

Likewise the most expensive movies list - for decades the Taylor/Burton Cleopatra was the most expensive film ever made in real terms, despite only costing $31 million - but that was in 1963. A few modern ones have finally overtaken it now, but it’s not that many - under 40 according to Wikipedia - so the unadjusted lists are essentially meaningless.

darthed1981

Arguably the list adjusted for inflation is still extremely misleading - though obviously more accurate than a recent one.

First off. the film that will probably always be top is Gone With The Wind... an extremely beautiful technicolor film shot before WW2... and therefore extremely popular during WW2 when it played and played and played and played and played, often with little competition.  New films were often cheap, or short, or propaganda and almost universally black and white.

For many years afterwards, cinemas were small, so a genuinely huge movie, like "Sound of Music" would run and run without anyone needing to change a poster.

This means the first blockbusters - both near the top of the list - Jaws and Star Wars - were able to hit cinema hard with not just a brilliant and entertaining film that stands up to re-watching, but also simply the concept of a film designed to be big and appeal to the widest possible demographic.

I love the ones near the top of the list that clearly ran for ages because word of mouth kept people coming and also people kept coming back.  The Exorcist for example... now, you can pause your blu ray and see the demon's face in HD... in the 1970s people walked out of the cinema going "did I just see the face of evil" - it felt subconscious, it haunted people - great stuff.

I'll say this though, while Jaws is a one off, a perfectly structured, plotted and acted film that really rips by - the pacing is brilliant - and it deserves it's place in history - it's not especially more brilliant as a bit of film-making than Top Gun Maverick... which is also brilliantly structured, shot and acted... and it's also better than the first one as well.

Films today often struggle because they have to compete with so much else.  They lost relevance in the rise of pop music, then television, then the internet and social media.  Now, Hollywood has to somehow get people to leave their homes to (pay to) sit in a room full of assholes eating a tonne of popcorn that cost twenty quid to see a film they can watch at home in comfort in two month's time... the lack of risk taking is rather understandable, if unfortunate.