It’s things like this that convince me not to go to the movies unless there’s something that I really, really want to see. Hollywood needs to bleed out awhile, at it appears they’re doing that for the most part. It’s going to take the rest of the world awhile to catch on that the great majority of what Hollywood sells is pure garbage, and most of their sales are overseas, I think. [/quote]
The thing is though, a lot of people know something is going to be garbage, and they’ll still pay to see it. But why? Is it to escape reality no matter what the cost? Will watching the movie and confirm it’s bad give the viewer some illogical feeling of superiority- that they somehow could’ve done better? Or is it the hope that they’ll be surprised and find out the movie is actually enjoyable?
I really don’t know. What I do know is Hollywood all about film marketing, and they are EXTREMELY good at it. They will press on while other industries die. King Kong set long standing box office records- during the Great Depression. If that isn’t staying power I don’t know what is.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
NeelyDan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The deflation of Favreau.
Before almost 300lbs
After close to 200.
maybe T-Nation is getting to me, but i am on the fence as to which picture he looks better in
It’s Hollywood. They don’t even understand what muscle is supposed to look like. You will have hundreds of wannabe stars jumping on the Favreau Diet simply because he looks “skinnier” now.
I will say that he has the build to actually look impressive if he actually lifted a weight.[/quote]
It’s things like this that convince me not to go to the movies unless there’s something that I really, really want to see. Hollywood needs to bleed out awhile, at it appears they’re doing that for the most part. It’s going to take the rest of the world awhile to catch on that the great majority of what Hollywood sells is pure garbage, and most of their sales are overseas, I think.
The thing is though, a lot of people know something is going to be garbage, and they’ll still pay to see it. But why? Is it to escape reality no matter what the cost? Will watching the movie and confirm it’s bad give the viewer some illogical feeling of superiority- that they somehow could’ve done better? Or is it the hope that they’ll be surprised and find out the movie is actually enjoyable?
I really don’t know. What I do know is Hollywood all about film marketing, and they are EXTREMELY good at it. They will press on while other industries die. King Kong set long standing box office records- during the Great Depression. If that isn’t staying power I don’t know what is.
[/quote]
I think it does give them some feeling of superiority, or people simply have nothing better to do with their time. The thing is is that movie ticket prices keep going up while the quality keeps going down. Movie tickets are subject to teh same law of supply and demand as everything else.
To your last point, movies are pretty recession-proof, as are sports, as long as the quality is there. I heard some where that a lot of investors are moving money into those very things right now.
Funny you should mention that, as that is where a rather large hunk of my investment money has gone. It certainly seems less risky than the stock market these days.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Somewhat off topic…but since a minor discussion has started about Favreau’s weight loss,etc.
I saw a trailer for Four Christmases(which looks funny as hell) with Vince Vaughn and it appears Favreau has been lifting a little bit.
[/quote]
He’s played roles in the past where he needed to be in some kind of shape, such as playing an astronaut in Deep Impact and the prison guard linebacker in The Replacements. The behind-the-scenes work for movies can take up a lot of time and throw people into weird schedules, hence never consistently being in top condition.
What is impressive though is when it’s time to get into proper shape for a role, they get it done. It’s all about what’s the priority at that time.