Here's what I'm thinking (aside from "Why does Arizona have it right and every other state has it wrong?"):
· Box office numbers came down today, and Watchmen (review here) apparently did well. Woo. Not that I don't follow the numbers. They are interesting, at least as far as the industry goes. But ... they're just not all that meaningful to me, individually. Some great films make a ton of money (again, see: Rings, Lord of the) and others make absolutely zero (like this one). And, of course, some garbage movies kill at the gates*. Then there are examples like this one, where everyone gets together and talks about how great a film is despite its standing as merely OK. Really, quality and turnout aren't unrelated, but they're certainly not directly proportional.
*No, I don't mean At the Gates.
· Speaking of The Assassination of Jesse James (yes, I was speaking of it ... check those links), I can't get over how incredible its score is. Good thing it was nominated for an Osc--oh, wait. It wasn't. Michael Clayton? Really?
· On my TV today: A Coen Bros. movie nobody ever talks about (but they should). You know, for kids? One of these days, I'll do the obligatory Coen Brothers post. Until then ...
... actually, this movie brings this blog post full-triangle, because The Hudsucker Proxy is the absolute picture of box office vs. quality. According to Wikipedia, the 1994 release only made $2.81mm in theaters. Not only that, but it cost between $25 and $40 million. Now, there's an old-school school of thought out there that goes like this: Because of the cost-revenue disparity, the whole film is rendered a flop. A failure. And, since moviegoers have major stakes in studio takes, the film itself is not worth seeing.
Did someone say Logic FAIL?
In Context: The Contentious Making of "Frida"
2 hours ago