|
2004 a Bad Year for Movies?
By Ryan Parsons | Images property of respective holders.
The Incredible's was one of the films that had to carry 2004
on its shoulders.
Here is a case in point- 2004 was a strange, if
not bad, year for movies. Now, I'm not talking about the quality of films,
they were probably right on par. But, Hollywood has been growing scared.
Scared to create films that fall away from standard conventions and afraid
to try films that may tilt a couple heads or raise a few brows. If it wasn't
for a few HUGE films in 2004, including some that distributors were afraid
of, everybody may have felt that Hollywood was losing us. However, it seems
that Hollywood is willing to turn a cheek and come stronger than it ever
has this century [never mind Lord of the Rings] with the bringing
in of 2005.
2004 Poor for Movies
I can understand how it may be hard to fathom that Hollywood did not have
one of its best years during 2004. Sure, the film companies were still able
to pull in film revenues with a little over nine billion, but ticket sales
were actually DOWN by a startling two percent. Now, I know this doesn't
sound like much, but it is! For the year of 2004, distributors were planning
on conquering the box offices with films such as Troy, Alexander,
The Whole Ten Yards, The Village
and Van Helsing. However,
all of these films flopped [Van Helsing is doing great with DVD
though]. No matter how impressive the battles or sequences, audiences left
the theatres feeling unsatisfied. So what was wrong with the films? And
who saved 2004?
Prisoner of Azkaban was another film that did great in 2004. But it could have been better.
Four of the biggest hitters of 2004 came out of either CG animation or children's
tales. Shrek 2 began
with a bang and was able to gross somewhere just under $450 million in ticket
sales. Then we had Pixar's The Incredibles,
which proved that animated films with adult-style action and subject matter
can still be successful [~$275 million gross]. Last of the animations was
Spider-Man 2 [the fights
were almost entirely animated]. I can call this an animation as the fight
scenes were well animated and the film seemed to run like a perfect animated
comic [~$370 million gross]. Harry Potter
and the Prisoner of Azkaban, based of the 'childrens'
book [I beg to differ], couldn't lose with a darker atmosphere set up by
Alfonso Cuaron [pulled in $250 million]. Obviously, the four listed films
were expected to do well in the theatres and all three performed gracefully.
But what about the films that nobody wanted or were afraid to touch?
The two films that were handled like boiling water were Mel Gibson's Passion
of the Christ and Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Even though
these films caused a lot of tension amidst their distributors [Einstein
was pissed!], the two films managed to pull just under a combined $500 million
in ticket sales. So that would make five big blockbusters for the year;
not nearly enough. While Passion and Fahrenheit were more
than plesent surprises, what about the other films?
The best thing to come out of 2004 is the amount of surprise hits that were
able to maintain some theatre presence longer than just opening weekend.
The only thing that hurt most the surprise hits for 2004 was the invisible
barrier that would not allow a lot of films to break the $100 million mark.
Here are some of the films that were able to break that mark [with a brief
thought on how they were]:
Shark Tale- I would hope this out of a high cast CGI animation
I, Robot- I still don't know if I liked this film or not. Seemed
a little rushed.
National Treasure-
One of the best surprise films all year.
The Village- Only got passed $100 million thanks to hype.
Luckily, Hollywood did not have to rely on only these films. Even though
the industry hoped to have at least double the number of films to get passed
the $100 million mark, there were some other sleeper films that helped maintain
high 2004 numbers. Some of these films include Mean Girls [a teenie
bopper that anybody could like], Man
on Fire, and The Notebook, Friday
Night Lights and Napoleon
Dynamite.
What's Wrong with Movies in 2004?
Eternal Sunshine takes you on a journey through love and the
mind.
The best example to give for what happened to movies in 2004 is the upcoming
Academy Awards. Take a close look at the nominated films, what we have are
dramas and bio-pics. People are losing interest; our top rated films are
the ones that few people saw. We don't have a Lord of the Rings
this year, or any other film that people want to sit down and root for.
Want further proof? Why do you think Chris Rock is stepping in as host in
order to atract a younger crowd?
Also, where the hell is Eternal Sunshine
for the Spotless Mind? I know it has a few nominations,
but it deserves a few more. The film, starring Jim Carrey, only grossed
$34 million in ticket sales [domestically] and was probably one of the most
unique and plain out cool films of the year. Forget the biographies and
the straight forward dramas, Spotless offers up an extremely unique
outlook on love and the new ways to handle it. And, mind you, it falls entirely
away from the simple conventions overly used in films during 2004.
In conclusion-- Hollywood needs to get people back in the theatres and buying
tickets for films that deserve hyped attention. The best way to do this
is by creating blockbusters that can actually remain in theatres longer
than an opening weekend or two. Viewers are tired of films that just go
through the motions and are now seeking something extremely polished or
unique. Films of 2004 had lost the ability of 'word of mouth', but I expect
that 2005 should regain all of this-- as Hollywood now seems ready to take
some chances.
Part II- Looking Forward on Films of 2005 Coming Soon!
Link will be posted here. |
Ryan Parsons
Sources: Images property of respective holders.
Contact
© 2004 Minds Eye One, All Rights Reserved The Can Magazine™ is a trademark of Minds Eye One All movie titles, movie icons, movie stills/clips/trailers/other media... are registered trademarks and/or copyrights of stated holders CanMag.Com banners contain movie/gaming icons that were created by individual holders
|
|
|