2004 Poor
for Movies
by: Ryan Parsons
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?
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 'children's' 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 present 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
attract 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.
