Avatar

[Frelga]

Advertising does not really convince you to change your behavior, it is simply selling you tools to enable you behave the way you already do or wish you did. Ads for male dysfunctions will produce excellent results, but try spending the same advertising budget on promoting abstinence and see how many people actually abstain.

[solicitr]

Are we to suppose that Birth of a Nation had nothing to do with the surging membership and influence of the KKK, which peaked in the 1920s? Or that movies like Godfather II (excellent) and Havana (not so good) have not played a role in shaping the public impression of pre-Castro Cuba?

I think that popular entertainment, not always in single, blockbuster films but at least by steady osmosis, plays an enormous role in shaping what people think they "know". This is after all a world in which the #1 'news' source for under-30s is Jon Stewart!

I don't see how American impressions of their armed forces couldn't but be influenced by a nonstop stream of Hollywood movies: the old generation (The Boys in Company C, Platoon, Apocalypse Now, M*A*S*H, even Forrest Gump), and the more recent one : Redacted, In the Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs, Stop-Loss, Rendition, and now Avatar.

[sauronsfinger]

Back in my teaching days we would have this discussion all the time...... are you influenced by what you see and hear in movies, TV, video games, music, etc? Sixteen year old kids were smart enough to state over and over again, year after year, in different classes, that yes indeed, there were some folks with weak minds that could be influenced and it might help turn them to something. But they would insist that if you have your head screwed on right, and you are a pretty together person with common sense, that you know its just entertainment and that is how you take it. When talking about High school kids its probably not accurate to say "out of the mouths of babes" but its still pretty accurate.

[vison]

Are we to suppose that Birth of a Nation had nothing to do with the surging membership and influence of the KKK, which peaked in the 1920s? Or that movies like Godfather II (excellent) and Havana (not so good) have not played a role in shaping the public impression of pre-Castro Cuba?

I think Birth of a Nation, like Avatar, pushed buttons that were ready to be pushed.

As for the public impression of Cuba, ask 100 people who saw Godfather II if "Cuba" was mentioned. Go on, I dare ya.

I don't see how American impressions of their armed forces couldn't but be influenced by a nonstop stream of Hollywood movies: the old generation (The Boys in Company C, Platoon, Apocalypse Now, M*A*S*H, even Forrest Gump), and the more recent one : Redacted, In the Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs, Stop-Loss, Rendition, and now Avatar.

Mainstream movies respond to the culture, they don't create it.

[solicitr]

Sixteen year old kids were smart enough to state over and over again, year after year, in different classes, that yes indeed, there were some folks with weak minds that could be influenced and it might help turn them to something. But they would insist.....

Because teenagers are never, ever influenced by pop culture.... Or at least never admit they are; it's only those other, weak-minded kids.

[Inanna]

Advertising does not really convince you to change your behavior, it is simply selling you tools to enable you behave the way you already do or wish you did. Ads for male dysfunctions will produce excellent results, but try spending the same advertising budget on promoting abstinence and see how many people actually abstain.

Well, advertising can create "wants". It can also influence some good behavior - as SPCA ads have. Wikipedia also reported cute results on which messages on their banners promoted donations to keep Wiki going.

[sauronsfinger]

Vison said

As for the public impression of Cuba, ask 100 people who saw Godfather II if "Cuba" was mentioned. Go on, I dare ya.

Well said. If somebody got their political and social beliefs about Cuba based on that movie - Francis Coppola failed miserably.

Solicitr - I would bet that there is no person walking in this land - including you and I - who was not, at one time in some way or another, impacted by what we managed to take from pop culture, high culture, low culture or any or way you want to describe facets of culture.

The difference is that while we all are influenced one way or another, it is generally in ways that we still maintain our identity, we still maintain control of who we are, we still maintain control of our essential values and belief systems.

When the kids in my class talked about weak minded people - and that is people including adults - not just KIDS by the way - they were talking about people who then do incredibly stupid things because they saw something in a movie or TV show or heard it in some piece of music. Those are few and far in between.

Just what is it that you are so terribly afraid of that you think is going to happen to people because they see AVATAR or anything else?

[solicitr]

Oh, sf, I'm not claiming that Avatar or any one movie will have the crowds rushing from the theaters to join Code Pink or the Earth Liberation Front. I doubt many of the audience will consciously bother to reflect on the political viewpoint of a big, splashy popcorn movie.

But it's another brick in the wall. People's worldviews are shaped, gradually, by what they see and hear. Humans think heuristically, by schema; it's the only way we can filter and order the buzz of phenomena into 'thought' or 'knowledge.' In other words, we evaluate the new by relating it to similar things in our mental inventories, and over time it is certainly possible to harden up relationships of corporations/exploitation/ecological devastation/military-industrial complex/genocide.

How else explain the fact that politicians can use "corporate" and "profit" as swear words, but for mass entertainment paving the way? (Ironically, since studios are for-profit corporations).

Back when Platoon was released, I remember Newsweek ran a cover story with the headline, "Platoon: Vietnam the Way it Really Was. " I bet 9 in ten people, or more, sincerely believe that.

Vison, you assert that movies follow the zeitgeist, rather than shape it. I would suggest that it's a self-reinforcing spiral, a positive feedback loop: which came first, the movies or the public opinion?

If, however, the endless stream of anti-Iraq/Afghan War Hollywood films of the last several years is a response to the public mood, how is it that evry one of them was a boxoffice failure? Perhaps they reflect, not the public mood, but the mood of Hollywoodland; or perhaps these projects are being greenlit, flop after flop after flop, as an attempt at shaping public opinion. It's interesting in this connection that the only Iraq War film to make money, The Hurt Locker, was also the only one which wasn't preachy and political.

[River]

Or maybe people just don't like watching grim movies about grim current events? That's why I haven't gone to the war movies. That sort of stuff is already in the news all the time - why should I buy tickets when I can get it for free on the internet?

There are better ways to gauge public opinion about a current topic than ticket sales.

[sauronsfinger]

That is a good answer River to Solicitr's question about Iraq war films. I think that people simply do not want to go and see that stuff because it does nothing for them in any way.

[solicitr]

But again, River, The Hurt Locker (very gritty) was profitable, as was Black Hawk Down (certainly a grim movie). Precious has done very well for an indie, and it's hard to imagine how either that story or that current reality could be more grim.

But I raised the issue in response to vison- if there is no public demand for movies like this, why does Hollywood continue to make them? The fact of their production is hardly evidence of the public mood if the public turns up its collective nose.

Studios ordinarily hate to lose money, and one good flop will generally scotch the chances of any similar project being made for years.

[sauronsfinger]

solicitr - Where are you getting your numbers for HURT LOCKER? This is from boxofficemojo

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hurtlocker.htm

The film took in $16 million dollars. With about half of that going to the theaters who exhibited the film, that leaves 8 to pay for the film and its marketing and distribution costs.

People will go and see grim, even depressing films. The subject of the Iraq war however has been a bad draw for Hollywood.

[River]

Two war movies out of how many (Precious isn't a war movie)? Really, one out of how many - your original comment was about Iraq and Afghan war movies not profiting. Blackhawk Down is NOT about Iraq or Afghanistan and it came out years after the events it portrays. Precious, as I said, isn't about war at all and is set in the mid-80's. The Hurt Locker came out after we got serious about drawing down and the US casualty rates started declining. My point being, movie-goers may have a rather palpable preference for fare that isn't on the news all the time, or stuff that feels like it might be kind of sort of resolved.

Anyway, of the three you listed, the only one I've personally seen is Blackhawk Down. I didn't really want to but S Netflixed it and it was one of those things where it was better to just give him what he wanted that have a row. Like I said, I am not a fan of these types of movies and I therefore don't go see them.

[sauronsfinger]

this from boxofficeprophets.com on HURT LOCKER

It carried a paltry budget of $11 million and arrives after a long festival tour that included Venice, Toronto, and SXSW, where it saw nearly universal acclaim.

A film with an $11 million dollar budget that grosses 16 million does not make money for the studio which makes it after the normal theater split.

[solicitr]

The Hurt Locker has performed better than most recent dramas about Middle East conflict. The independent film was acquired by Summit Entertainment at last year's Toronto International Film Festival for $1.5 million and has since made almost eleven times that amount. The film has already outperformed all other Iraq-war themed films such as In the Valley of Elah (2007), Stop-Loss (2008) and Afghanistan-themed Lions for Lambs (2007)

It made its money back, which the others didn't- it wasn't as big a flop. But you're really missing the point.

The point is that there is no market for these movies, but Hollywood keeps making 'em. Which suggests that Tinseltown is motivated here by something other than profit; and runs counter to vison's assessment that H'wood is responding to consumer demand.

[River]

Just out of curiousity, what's the fail rate for movies in general?

[solicitr]

River-

I tossed Precious in because it's out now, and is a really unpleasant story about a really unpleasant reality, yet people are going to see it anyway. Whether or not it's set in the 80s is pretty irrelevant, since the reality hasn't changed any.

[sauronsfinger]

No Solicitr, it has lost money. The quote you are using is accurate - but only in a very limited context as it applies to the distributors who bought the film at what amounts to a fire sale. The film cost $11 million to make. Then there were a series of Iraq war films released which all bombed. So the makers of the film sold it for the $1.5 million to Summit as your article quoted. It indeed has made money - for those buyers. It lost nearly ten million for its original makers who bankrolled it.

General rule of thumb in the film industry is that a movie must get back 2.5 times its production cost to make a profit. For an independent film on a low budget like HURT LOCKER, that figure may be lower at only 2.0. If the film cost $11 million to make and took in $16 million in revenues, over all it was a losing proposition.

When you talk about film revenues, always keep in mind that the theaters who show the film generally keep about half the revenue. And in some cases, like foreign showings of the LOTR trilogy, even more because that deal was made in advance and New Line sold cheap.

HURT LOCKER was a money loser for those who made the film. Even when you add in the sales to the distributor,it has yet to show a profit on its overall costs.

River - when I taught film as an elective, I used a text that said that two out of every three films lose money.

[solicitr]

SF, it's a side issue whether Hurt Locker was or wasn't a success. You're tugging away at a thread which isn't part of the pattern.- it doesn't invalidate the point of the continuing string of antiwar flops. Somebody continues to finance these things, just like somebody kept pouring money into Air America almost as fast as it lost it.

[sauronsfinger]

Not at all.

Here was your statement

But again, River, The Hurt Locker (very gritty) was profitable,

When you add it the total costs of the film - production, prints, distribution and theater splits - the film lost money for those who made it. That is not a side issue. That is a fact that is undeniable when you simply add all the numbers together.

Theater owners do not have to care if a film is profitable for the studio that makes it. Distributors who buy a film outright like they did with HURT LOCKER, do not have to care if it makes back its productions costs when they buy it on a fire sale.

But when you add it all together, HURT LOCKER lost money for the studio that made it. If every studio had the experience with every film that was evidenced with HURT LOCKER, there would soon be no film business.