SCREEN-L Archives

August 1994


Options: Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
John R Groch <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 4 Aug 1994 11:20:08 -0400
text/plain (32 lines)
On Thu, 4 Aug 1994 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I think one reason for this ascendancy of FX is that theatrical
> release is still the key to the biggest financial returns. A
> movie that does spectacularly well in its opening weekend, week,
> and month does spectacularly well in video (and perhaps in
> product tie-ins, and in...). Of all the ways to do spectacularly
> well, perhaps the most reliable is to be spectacular. That is,
> the difference between seeing _Four Weddings and a Funeral_ in
> the theater and on the home screen is not so great that my wife
> and I will necessarily decide to part with $14.00 when we can
> wait two months and see it for $2.00. But those FX movies just
> don't don't curl my toes on a 25" TV. Sure, some of us have 50"
> TV or even projection TV, but how many?
Does this sound to anyone else like the 1950s?  The key to big box office
is providing something that tv can't, so let's go with...CinemaScope!
Technicolor!  3-D!  THX Sound!  Computer animation!  Huge explosions!  I'm
not sure what to make of that, since the economics of entertainment are so
different now than they were then, but I'm struck by the possible
similarities.  Any thoughts?
And any nominations for the William Castle of the 90s?
John R. Groch <[log in to unmask]>            |  "Work!  FINISH!  THEN sleep."
English Department/Film Studies Program    |     -- The Monster,
Univ. of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260  |        "Bride of Frankenstein"