Fast food too?

[eddie]

I think miker is giving the example that senior
executives in fast food chains have easilly changed jobs to work for film studios.

Thus emphasising the similarity of fast food and film consumption.

Besides there is an undeniable and proven link between fast food and brain damage, as there is with Stallone movies. Everyone knows that.

[SoulJacker]

miker ? the out spoken quasi-culturist of exposure?

[redlum]

I think this is a great discussion.
Art/Movies/Football/Beer are all the same they are products with a perceived value.

I Diagree. Unless you are stating the theory of relativity.

Also not all films are made with the focus to make money. It is mostly the films that come out this time of year (comme Spiderman and E:2) that place box office at the top of a list of priorities.

Also, Mikers unspoken point about fast food and producers onlymakes limited sense. The producers are business men and women and not artists, and they dont make the films.

[Nigel]

Let me try to make my point a but clearer. What I am saying is this--

If Budwiser Beer is popular and a lot of people drink it--it is because they find it good. The brewery also spends millions on advertising and promotion. If there is a small brewery that makes an equally good product people will by it too. If that small brewery had the money to dump into adverts then they would get more people. Perhaps they don't want more people because they could keep up with demand so they have met some sort of equilibrium.

It is the same with a movie. If there is a big studio that makes a film it has more money to make more people know that it is showing. That does'nt mean that it is of any lower quality. Or that the small film is better because it is only showing on 10 screens.

I have seen plenty of bad films in art houses. I have also seen plenty of good ones. Art/Beer/Football or whatever you want to talk about is in the eye of the beholder. If there aren't enough beholders then the product(Art/Beer/Football) will not sell and survive.

Good Luck and keep up the discussion.

[redlum]

I see what you are saying but I think its more complicated than that. Its also a case of supply and demand. The studios market the ones which they think can make the most money based on the bio of the avergae cinema goer. These films are usually your typical summer blockbusters, like the ones we see at the moment. And for the informed film goers like ourselves I think while we can enjoy these type of films, we also know that there is a lot of better stuff out there aswell (I hope). Its not just simply a matter of opinion - I enjoy the Mummy films a lot but that doesn't mean that they are good films in my opinion. There's more to films than just entertainment.

[SoulJacker]

How is it Nigel gets 5 stars, and I get 1??????

[eddie]

>If Budwiser Beer is popular and a lot of people
>drink it--it is because they find it good. The
>brewery also spends millions on advertising and
> promotion. If there is a small brewery that
> makes an equally good product people will by it
> too. If that small brewery had the money to
> dump into adverts then they would get more
> people. Perhaps they don't want more people
> because they could keep up with demand so they
> have met some sort of equilibrium.

Hello. I know you wrote that simply to make your point, but it sounds awfully naive.
Budweiser isnt nessescarilly any better tasting than Staropramen beer. When something is promoted the **** out of, they are selling more than a product. They are selling a status and a lifestyle too, something fictional that they have created. You buy the beer, you buy into their fantasy. That is the thing you like first. The taste comes second.
When you promote the **** , out of something and dominate the market you deny others the opportunity to promote theirs, because they simply cannot compete with your money. No one will buy something that they dont know exsists, and this strangles the chance to get a foothold.
Corporate dominance kills variety, drowns out the individual and abuses democracy.

>It is the same with a movie. If there is a big
>studio that makes a film it has more money to
>make more people know that it is showing. That
>does'nt mean that it is of any lower quality. Or
>that the small film is better because it is only
>showing on 10 screens.

Yes I agree with you, however again, most people dont know what they are missing. Unless you live in privileged and culturally varied place, then the only films you will get the opportunity to see are the massively promoted ones, that cost millions to make. There is simply no where to see other types of films. Your choice as a consumer is restricted by the dominance of the big boys.
Having helped run a film society in the past, I know how difficult it is to show anything but the bigger films. Sometimes you need to educate your audience, but if you cant get bums on seats, then you cant afford to give people the variety.

My point is that consumer power comes through choice. Dominating the scene takes away their choice and so their power, and your freedom.

[miker]

of course business is business, we all want to get stinking rich, right?

but doesn't it bother ANYONE that the majority of kids think that sports stars BUY their clothes and are NOT sponsored?! -which obviously applies equally to film stars and the clothes they wear.

or that the majority of grain sent to the third world is for CATTLE consumption?!

or that the USA has recently developed BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS that eat through natural resources? (I think I prefer the Daisy-Cutter)

or that the USA can mandate the recall to manufacturer of millions of units of a defective product, but is powerless to recall one-hundred-thousand tonnes of meat destined for burgers that is unfit for human consumption?


the mission statement of the global company I work for is 'nourish the world'. this they do by developing GM crops and seeds with the death gene.

my point is, whatever happened to Truth ?

why should we be shielded by these facts and why should the people who shield us be influencing the film industry? or any industry for that matter? damned illuminati ... ;-)

public opinion needs a shift so that companies take notice. that will only happen with freedom of Knowledge.

of course, I forget the apathy, the damned global apathy ... TOO MUCH FAST FOOD !!!

[SoulJacker]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Unless you live in privileged and culturally varied place, then the only films you will get the opportunity to see are the massively promoted ones, that cost millions to make. There is simply no where to see other types of films. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where the **** does everyone live? Fuckin Emmerdale Farm? Britain has one of the most robust indie networks in the world. Manchester has 2 top class indie cinemas ? that specialise in INDIE AND FOREIGN (AKA cinema not made in the US) CINEMA. London must have double that and then some. Like Despin said, you wanna see these films, get your arse and go see them ? some place will play them.

The Little Theatre Bath (in Bath BTW), plays a whole host of indie flicks ? I should now, I?ve fuckin been there and live nowhere near the bastard place. Legs. Bus ticket. Ride. INDIE CINEMA. AMAZED.

[eddie]

&gt;The Little Theatre Bath (in Bath BTW), plays a &gt;whole host of indie flicks

Thanks my point exactly, but even that is constantly under threat of closure, and shows more mainstream stuff that it used to for the reasons I said.