Box Office Slump

Where the movie industry is concerned, this summer could well be remembered more for the past several months' box office slump than any of the movies released in the same time period. Until last month when The Fantastic Four was released, box office revenues had been down for 19 straight weeks. Unfortunately for Hollywood, The Fantastic Four brought only a brief reprieve, not a full recovery; profits from movies have still been down from previous years. Even the latest Star Wars movie, Revenge of the Sith, considered by many to be among the best of the franchise, could not raise box office revenues to the levels that they once were.

The current box office slump has been blamed on many different culprits. Among the foremost of these is the increasing popularity of DVDs. I have to admit that this could be one possble reason that people are not going to the cinema as often as they once did. I know many people who, rather than going to the theatre to watch a movie they want to see, simply wait for the DVD to be released and then rent the DVD or buy it. And with many movies being released on DVDs after only a few months after they are released to theatres, these individuals do not have to wait long. That having been said, I do not think that DVDs are the only factor which have led to the current box office slump. Many people I know, who usually wait for movies to come out on DVD before seeing them, went to see Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith on its opening night at the theatre. Now I will admit that much of this is because most of the people I know are fervent Star Wars fans, but I think it could also point to the fact that if a movie is good enough, if a movie is remarkable enough, people will go to see it in the theatre. Indeed, last year saw record breaking box office revenues, despite the fact that DVDs were selling well too.

While many might wait for movies to come out on DVD, others might simply wait for them to be shown on one of the many cable outlets. Most movies debut on one of the premium movie channels (HBO, Starz, Showtime, and so on) about a year after their initial release and often on Pay-Per-View sooner than that. It seems possible to me that many people may simply be electing to wait until a movie is shown on the premium movie channels or Pay-Per-View before watching it. Still, as with DVDs, it seems to me that if a movie is good enough or intersting enough, people will go see it in the theatres rather than wait for it to be shown on a premium channel or Pay-Per-View. Again, I know of many who went to see the latest Star Wars movie even though they don't usually go to the cinema.

Another factor could be rising ticket prices at theatres. In many places ticket prices at cinemas have risen with every passing year. In fact, in many places it is not unusual for a family of four to spend over $100 on a night at the movies, after buying the tickets and a trip to the concession stand are factored together. With the cost of day to day living what it is today (especially the price of gasoline...), many families may not feel that they have the money to spare on too many trips to the movies. Going to the movie theatre then becomes something they do only once in a great while.

As to the ultimate reason for this year's box office slump, I suspect it may be the quality of this year's releases more than anything else. Indeed, it seems to me that in some respects Hollywood has been showing an amazing lack of originality the past several years, with many movies being simply sequels to prevoius movies, remakes of previous movies, or remakes of television shows. I do believe that this summer has not seen as many sequels as last year, but there were still a few, XXX: State of the Union and Herbie: Fully Loaded among them. Among the remakes of old movies there have been The Longest Yard and The Bad News Bears. As to remakes of old television shows, it seems to me that they have nearly been a dime a dozen this year. This summer alone has seen movies based on The Honeymooners, Bewitched, and The Dukes of Hazzard. It occurs to me that many people might simply not want to pay money for something which they have essentially seen before. Why go see the new version of The Longest Yard when one can simply rent the original on DVD? Why go see the cinematic remake of The Dukes of Hazzard when it is still in reruns on various channels or one can see many of the episodes on DVD (of course, I don't know why anyone would want to see the TV show or the movie based on it, but that's a whole different story...)? While many sequels and remakes are very successful (Shrek II and Spider-Man II from last year are two examples), it seems to me that many others simply fail at the box office. I suspect the reason for that is simply that people often won't pay money for something they perceive as having essentially seen before.

Of course, even when a movie is a remake or a sequel, it seems to me that people will go see that film if it is actually good. As I pointed out above, both Shrek II and Spider-Man II were hits from last year. This brings me to what I feel is the underlying cause for this summer's box office slump; whether a remake, sequel, or a movie based on an original idea, many of this summer's crop of movies simply have not been very good. The Bad News Bears, The Dukes of Hazzard, Stealth, and many other releases this summer have received simply wretched reviews from critics. And while the public often disagrees with the critics, it seems that this year they might well agree with them more often than not. Both The Bad News Bearsand Stealth failed at the box office. The Dukes of Hazzard did well its opening weekend before seeing its box office take plummet. While some films recieved bad notices from crticis, yet others recieved mixed reviews. Bewitched is a prime example of this. Many critics felt that its idea was sound and that the cast was good, but that it simply fell short of what it could have been. Regardless, it performed poorly at the box office.

It then seems to me that if Hollywood wants the box office to peform better, then it simply has to start making better movies. To me this means cutting down on the number of sequels and remakes they release. Was XXX successful enough to warrant a sequel? I'm not sure it was. Was anyone out there demanding a movie based on The Dukes of Hazzard? I suppose there could have been, but I rather doubt it. This also means simply taking greater care in making movies. Hollywood is going to have to see to it that the scripts are better, the directors are better, and the casts are better. It seems no secret to me that many of the most successful movies this year had good scripts, good casts, and competent directors--just look at Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Batman Begins, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. As I said earlier, if a movie is good enough, people will go see it.

Of course, the unfortunate fact is that I don't know that Hollywood will take these steps in an effort to improve box office receipts. While the movie industry has produced many classics over the years, and has even produced many quality films in recent years, the fact remains that most movies over the many years have not been that good. Like any industry, it seems that Sturgeon's Law holds true for the cinema: 90% of everything is crud.

Brock Peters 1927-2005

Actor Brock Peters died yesterday at the age of 78. He had been fighting pancreatic cancer since January. Peters is perhaps best known for his role in the classic film To Kill a Mockingbird, in which he played the man falsely accused of rape.

Peters was born in New York City on July 2, 1927 as George Fisher. He attended the Music and Arts School in New York before attending the Ciry College of New York as a physical education major. Peters received a role in the classic musical Porgy and Bess in 1943. In 1949 he left college to go on tour with that show. By 1954 Peters made his screen debut in the film adaptation of Carmen Jones.

Peters played a number of memorable roles on film. Besides To Kill a Mockingbird, he also appeared in The L-Shaped Room, Porgy and Bess, The Pawnbroker, and Soylent Green. In the series of Star Trek movies he appeared twice as Admiral Cartwright.

On televison Peters made several guest appearances throughout the years. He appeared on the TV shows Daniel Boone, Mission Impossible, Night Gallery, Gunsmoke, and The Pretender, among others. On Star Trek: Deep Space Nine he had a recurring role as Commander Sisko's father, Joseph Sikso. He also did a good deal of voice work on cartoons, including work on Galtar and the Golden Lance, Gravedale High, and Samurai Jack. He was also the voice of Darth Vader in the radio series based on Star Wars Episode IV: a New Hope.

On stage Peters appeared in Kwamina and King of the Dark Chamber". He received a Tony nomination for his role in Lost in the Stars.

Peters was one of the most talented actors of his generation, playing a wide variety of roles. He was capable of bringing a great amount of emotion to the parts he played. This can be seen in his most famous role, that of Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mockingbird. Robinson is not simply a cardboard cutout created for Gregory Peck's character, Attcus Finch, to defend, but a three dimensional characters with his own concerns, his own feelings, and his own motivations. Appearing as recently as in the 2002 telefilm The Locket, I find it sad that Peters has passed on. He was a talented actor who could have continued acting for many more years.

"I'm a Loser"

This morning I find myself not in the best of moods. It seems like a good time for a Beatles song. "I'm a Loser" is one of my favourite songs from the early part of The Beatles career. Regrettably, I mut admit that I have had reason to identifiy with it.

"I'm a Loser"--The Beatles

Joe Ranft R.I.P.

Most of you have probably never heard of Joe Ranft, but chances are that you have seen a movie he has written or heard his voice. Ranft was the head of the story department at Pixar, the animation studio responsible for such hits as The Incredibles and Finding Nemo. Ranft was one of Pixar's writers and co-wrote two of their biggest successes (Toy Story and A Bug's Life. He provided the voices for Heimlich the catepillar in A Bug's Life and Wheezy the penguin in Toy Story 2. Ranft was killed Tuesday in an accident involving the Honda Element he was riding. He was 45 years old.

Ranft attended the California Institute of the Arts along with Pixar directors Brad Bird and John Lasseter. His student film attracted the attention of Disney and he began his work there in 1980. He wrote the story for The Brave Little Toaster and wrote on the screenplay for The Rescuers Down Under before going on to such important Disney projects as Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. He provided the storysketch for Who Framed Roger Rabbit and supervised the storyboards for The Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach. At Pixar Ranft played a role in nearly every movie they made. On the forthcoming Cars he supervised the story.

Ranft did a good deal of voice work, beginning with providing the voice for Elmo St. Peters in The Brave Little Toaster in 1987. He provided the voices of Heimlich on A Bug's Life, Wheezy on Toy Story 2, Jacques on Finding Nemo, and additional voices on The Incredibles.

Joe Ranft was a remarkable man who worked in nearly every aspect of animation. He was considered one of the best storytellers in animation today. In fact, his profile at Salon.Comsimply described him as a "story man." He was loved by his fellow animators at Pixar, not simply for being a great talent, but also for being one of the kindest, gentlest men around. I don't think it is truly possible to measure the enormity of his loss not only to Pixar, but to the animation community as a whole. He will most certainly be missed.

American Movie Classics Not Classic Enough

It seems that it is official. American Movie Classics is not showing enough movies that are "classics." For those of you who may not have heard, Justice Bernard Fried of State Supreme Court in Manhattan ruled last month that American Movie Classics had in fact violated its contract with cable giant Time Warner in showing more recent films. According to AMC's contract with Time Warner from September 1993, which was extended in 2000, the cable channel was restricted to showing films from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. In October 2002, however, AMC changed its format from a channel which shows classic films to one which shows more contemporary movies, largely in an effort to appeal to young people.

AMC is expected to appeal the ruling. Rather than cancelling their contract with AMC, some expect Time Waner to simply negotiate a lower fee to carry the cable channel. It should be pointed out that earlier in this year AMC obtained the rights to show 22 Warner Brothers movies from Time Warner, including Batman Begins and Million Dollar Baby. The film rights from that deal are not affected by the outcome of this ruling.

Personally, I would prefer that Time Warner simply drop AMC. For that matter, I would appreciate it if other cable companies followed suit. When American Movie Classics first started years ago, it was a channel that showed older movies. Granted many of those older movies were not what I would consider "classics," but at least they were older movies. The sad truth is that beyond Turner Classic Movies only a few channels (cable or otherwise) show any films made before 1980. While it is true that AMC still shows older films (last week they showed Dr. No and High Noon among others, they also show a lot more recent films. Of course, this cuts down on the number of older films they show. For anyone who loves old movies, this is not exactly a desirable situation.

Here I should point out that I am not biased against younger movies. I love movies both old and recent. Indeed, my DVD collection not only boasts Hitchcock's 1934 version of The Man Who Knew Too Much and that old Danny Kaye film The Court Jester, but such recent films as Hellboy and Hero. That having been said, I do wish the various television outlets would show older films more often.

Of course, much of the reason AMC changed its format was a perception that Turner Classic Movies was simply doing the same thing they were doing and being more successful at it. Personally, I don't think this is a valid reason for AMC to have changed their format. Given how rarely movies made before 1980 are shown on most channels, it seems to me that there was enough room for at least two classic movie channels.

I suppose that one could bring up the fact that what constitutes a "classic" is largely subjective. For some people The President's Analyst is a classic comedy from the Sixties. For others it may just be an old movie. Too, I suppose that even how old a movie must be before it can be considered a "classic" probably varies from person to person. Some might a movie released only ten years ago a classic, while others might maintain that a movie must be at least twenty to thirty years old before it can attain "classic" status.

As for myself, I believe a movie can be considered a "classic" only if it has stood the test of time and is generally considered a great film by most people. Using this as a standard, much of what American Movie Classics now shows could not be called classics. Chain Reaction was made in 1996, yet AMC was showing it just a few years ago. Even if it hadn't received horrible reviews, I don't think Chain Reaction could be considered a classic because it hasn't been around long enough. Friday the 13th was released in 1980, twenty five years ago. I would say that is probably old enough for a film to be called a "classic." Unfortunately, most people would not consider Friday the 13th a great film by any means. I would then say it is not a "classic." Sadly, these sorts of films--movies made less than twenty years ago or films that are, well, just plain bad--occupy as much time on AMC as true classics do, sometimes more.

There was a time when I watched AMC a good deal. Here was a channel where I could see everything from classic Hitchcock films to classic John Wayne Westerns to the classic comedies of the Marx Brothers. Since 2002 I have watched AMC much less than I once did. In fact, I can often go months without tuning it in. For me it is simply a case of not liking what they are showing much of the time. I really have no desire to watch Fatal Attraction or Missing in Action--films I could probably see on TNT, TBS, and USA as well. While AMC may have altered their programming so that it differs a good deal from that of Turner Classic Movies, they have also made themselves more like every other cable channel out there. I won't even start on the commercials. At any rate, I would be very happy if the various cable companies would take a stand and let AMC know they should switch back to showing classic movies, or else.

VCR

The video cassette recorder or VCR, as we know it, has been around for about thirty years now. I think it is safe to say that it revolutionised the way people watch television. In 1965 an individual who wished to watch a television show had to do so whenever the networks or local stations aired it. In 1985 that same individual could simply record the programme and watch it at a later time.The VCR also brought motion pictures to the homes of common people. No longer would the individual have to wait for his or her favourite movies to be shown on television or re-released to theatres.

The video cassette recorder or VCR was the result of several developments over the years, the first of which was the invention of video tape and the VTR or "video tape recorder." In the early days of broadcasting, the need arose among the television networks to be able to delay broadcsts to the different time zones across the United States. After all, a television programme airing at 8:00 at night on the East Coast would air at 5:00 in the afternoon if broadcast live to the West Coast. Film took time to be developed, so that many programmes aired live on the East Coast would not be seen on the West Coast until days later. Film also tended to be costly. There was then a need for a way in which the networks could record a programme on the East Coast so that it could be viewed on the West Coast later that night. For that reason in 1951 Ampex began work that would result in the world's first video tape recorder. In March 1956 Ampex would market the VRX-1000 (later renamed the Mark IV). At a whopping $50,000, only large corporations, educational insitutions, and governments could afford them. In the United States, CBS (Columbia Broadcast System) would become the first network to use video tape extensively.

Here it should be pointed out that in the Fifties and Sixties, video tape did not come in cassettes. Instead, just like audio tape at the time, all video tape was reel to reel. And just as audio tape was eventually marketed to the average person, so too would video tape. By the mid-Sixties companies would introduce VTRs for home use. In 1964 Sony came out with the CV-2000, a video tape recorder for use in the home. Sony introduced it to the United States in 1965. The CV-2000 did not prove to be a roaring success, with less than a thousand of the machines sold in the United States. In 1966 Ampex released the VR-6275, another video tape recorder for home use. The VR-6265 was revolutionary in that it actually allowed the individual to record one TV show while watching another, just as today's VCRs do. At around $1500, however, the VR-6265 was too costly for anyone but the rich and video tape enthusiasts willing to pay its price. Like Sony's CV-2000, the VR-6265 would not bring video tape to the masses. Despite the few private individuals to actually own VTRS, the first pre-recorded movies would come out on video tape in 1967, well before the advent of the VCR!

It must be pointed out that not every attempt to bring video to the home involved magnetic tape. Both CBS and RCA introduced systems that utilised holography instead. In 1967 CBS introduced Electronic Video Recording or EVR. 20th Century Fox even agreed to sell films in the EVR format. Unforutnately, for CBS, EVR proved too costly to mass produce. RCA called its competing system "HoloTape" and later "SelectaVision or SV," a term the company later used for their magnetic tape. RCA's HoloTape is historic for one simple reason--it was the device meant for home use to utilise laser technology--years before CD and DVD players! Unfortunately, RCA found itself in dire economic straits in the early Seventies. Further development of HoloTape or SelectaVision proved to be too costly for them to continue. They discontinued research into the system in 1972.

It is with the early Seventies that we see the advent of the VCR. The first VCR is generally considered to have been produced by Philips. Philips developed a system they called "Video Compact Cassette" or "Video Cassette Recorder (that's right, the Dutch electronics giant coined the term)." The machines were equipped with primitive timers, using rotary dials, and could record up to an hour. It was about the same time that Sony introduced U-Matic, its own video tape cassette format. Although U-Matic would eventually fall out of favour for home use, it would continue to be used in professional and industrial settings for literally years. In 1972 Avco introduced its Cartrivision system. Cartivision allowed for two hours worth or recording. What is more, it was the first VCR for which pre-recorded tapes were manufactured, AVCO having struck a deal with Columbia Pictures. Despite this, Cartrivision was a failure. Introduced in 1972, Avco abandoned the project in 1973.

Given the relative lack of success with which Philips' VCR, Sony's U-Matic, and Avco's Cartrivision systems met in the early Seventies, it would seem that the average person was not ready for home video. All of this would change in 1975 when Sony introduced its new system, one would which would become one of two major industry standards for the next several years. Sony introduced the Betamax to the United States in 1976, touting it as a means of recording one's favourite programmes. Both Disney and Universal sued Sony, claiming that recording on the device constituted copyright infringement. Fortunately, the American Supreme Court would rule that taping programmes in one's own home was protected by the "fair use" excepition to American copyright laws. Betamax could record up to 4 1/2 hours and quickly became a favourite with video enthusiasts. Unfortunately for Sony, it would soon have a rival on the market.

In 1976, another Japanese company, JVC came out with the VHS (Video Home System) format, the standard format for all videocassettes today. VHS had an advantage over Betamax in that it could record longer periods of time. While many claimed Betamx had a better picture, VHS soon became the more popular format. By 1980 70% of all VCRs sold used the VHS format. Eventually, video rental stores would drop Betamax all together, providing only VHS tapes for rent. Sony continued to manufacture Betamax VCRs for the United States until 1998. They continued manufacturing them in Japan until 2002, finally abandoning the format altogther.

While both Betamax and VHS formats were marketed as a means of recording one's favourite programmes, both created a market for pre-recorded movies. In the United States they also created a whole new type of retail store--the video rental store. Perhaps because of the costs of pre-recoreded movies in the late Seventies and early Eighties (believe it or not, they could cost as much as $50), video rental stores sprung up across the U. S. For a few dollars an individual could rent his or her favourite movies, as well as a machine to play them on. Suprisingly, video rental stores continued to exist even after the price of pre-recorded movies dropped (Video Land here in Huntsville was open for about twenty years before closing down). Chains of video rental stores even sprang up, including Blockbuster.

VCRs have been around in one form or another since 1970. As is often the case, however, it seems that they might soon become obsolete. DVDs of pre-recorded movies often offer more than their VHS counterparts--one not only gets the movie (often in widescreen format), but many extras as well ("Making of..." documentaries, audio commentaries, et. al.). With the advent of the DVD recorder, it has become possible for the average person to record his or her own DVDs, getting a superior picture and sound quality than one would have on VHS. There has also been the development of such DVR (Digital Video Recorder) services as TiVo and ReplayTV. DVRs record a broadcast on a hard drive for replay later. Like the DVD recorder, one gets a better picture than one would with VHS. It would seem that the VCR's obsolescence could then well be inevitable. Already many video rental stores (including the Blockbuster chain) have reduced the number of VHS tapes they carry or have even dropped them altogether. Some retailers, such as Best Buy, have ceased to carry VHS tapes altogether (although both WalMart and Target continue to do so, contrary to popular belief). It would seem, then, that soon VHS may go the way of the dinosaurs. Vinyl records replaced records made of shellac. CDs replaced vinyl records. I rather suspect that DVD recorders and DVRs could replace VCRs before long. Regardless, VCRs will have their place in history, having changed the way people watch television forever.

Barbara Bel Gedes R.I.P.

Lung cancer has taken the life of another well known person. Actress Barbara Bel Geddes died of the disease at her home Monday, at age 82.

Barbara Bel Geddes is probably best known for her role as Miss Ellie on the nighttime soap opera Dallas, one of the mainstays of American television in the Eighties; however, her career extended far beyond that role. In fact, she was very successful on the stages of Broadway. The daugher of architect and stage designer Norman Bel Geddes, Bel Geddes made her debut on Broadway in 1941 in the play Out of the Frying Pan. By 1946 she would win a Theatre World Award for her role in the play Deep Are the Roots, directed by Elia Kazan. Over the years Bel Geddes played in several Broadway productions. She was the first actress to play Maggie in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof in 1955. She also appeared in the plays The Living Room (1954), Mary, Mary (1961), and The Sleeping Prince (1956), among others.

Bel Geddes was primarily a stage actress, so her movie and television credits are few. That having been said, they are very notable. She made her screen debut in the role of Jo Ann in the movie The Long Night in 1947. She also appeared as eldest daughter Katrin in I Remember Mama (1948), a role for which she received an Oscar nomination. Among her other notable films were Fourteen Hours, Panic in the Streets, and Vertigo (in which she played Midge, Scottie's best friend and confidant). On television, beyond her role as Miss Ellie on Dallas, Bel Geddes appeared on various anthology shows (Robert Montgomery Presents, Campbell Playhouse, Schlitz Playhouse of Stars), and Studio One) and she made guest appearances on Daniel Boone and Dr. Kildare. She appeared on Alfred Hitchcock Presents many times. In fact, her most famous role besides Miss Ellie on Dallas may have be her guest appearance in the Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode "Lamb to the Slaughter. There she played a wife who murders her philandering husband with a leg of lamb, then serves the murder weapon to the unsuspecting detectives investigating his death.

I never had the opportunity to see Barbara Bel Geddes on stage, but from her few TV and screen apperances I have no doubt she was an immensely talented actress. While her role as Miss Ellie may come to many's minds when they think of Barbara Bel Geddes, I tend to identify her more with her apperances on Alfred Hitchcock Presents and her role as Midge on Vertigo. In both "Lamb to the Slaughter" and Vertigo, Bel Geddes was amazing. She brought a frankness and causalness to her roles that not many actresses could have. Indeed, I have always been impressed with her performance as Midge in Vertigo. She and Jimmy Stewart seemed to have a marvelous rapport. She was very convincing as a woman who watches the man she loves (although that love was sadly unrequited) descend into madness. I don't think any other actress could have played the part quite as well. Indeed, I think it very sad that so many only think of Barabar Bel Geddes as Ellie Ewing on Dallas and remain unaware of the many other roles she played, both on stage and on film. She certainly deserves to be remembered for so much more.