« Home | spoilers are dumb » | fridays at the gym » | gadzooks! it has been a long time » | O'Verien McBrotzman » | long time no? » | changes » | and my turn? » | looking after » | to-day's topic: spictor... i, i mean- victor » | mr. bush- i effectively despise you. »


my trembling hand turns
left, left me with burns
festering splinters come
my swollen knee-caps
kneeling reading maps
still can't find my way home
~t de a

first things first:

as you might have guessed, i got rid of the other post before hand. it just seemed that it was not going well. this one will stay, so any comments will be appreciated, and left on.

i will not lie, i did not look as hard as my friend matt did to find evidence for the movie, United 93, and the funds it is to generate, and where those funds will go. but- if i may, i did know that this movie was made with the consent of the families involved. and please do not get me wrong, it might be a great film. however, i will still not see it. hollywood makes movies for one reason alone. going a stretch further- the people responsible for this movie would not donate all of the money generated, after cost, to the families involved.

therefore, knowing that, and the way that hollywood is, i still see this movie as a money making film. i could be 100% wrong, i will not deny that, but i will still let my donation go, and refrain from the movie. though i do like the idea of using no named actors/esses.

1. It is silly to say that 'hollywood makes movies for one reason alone.' you are reducing an complex industry of many and various people to an oversimplification of an abstraction.

2. Even if hollywood did only make movies for money, by your reasoning you should never see any movie at all (except maybe annoying abstract expressionist ones that show at art houses). If you were more consistent, you'd be scandalized that all profits made from Casablanca didn't go to WWII refugees, or everything after cost from Schindler's List didn't go to death camp survivors.

3. If the filmmakers really wanted to make money they wouldn't be making a movie about 9/11, they'd be making a movie about computer generated aliens, or the immoral antics of teenagers.

though i do see what you are saying, i do disagree. how long after the holucaust was schindler's list made? and casablanca was more acting than anything else.

i am not saying that i am not being stubborn about this.

plus i don't see universal studios as an independent film company trying to give an awareness to a situation (unlike hotel rewanda). this movie cost about fifteen million to make, this movie will make some serious money.

and for schindler's list:

Spielberg: “It is blood money. Let’s call it what it is. I didn't take a single dollar from the profits I received from ‘Schindler's List’ because I did consider it blood money. When I first decided to make ‘Schindler's List" I said, if this movie makes any profit, it can't go to me or my family, it has to go out into the world and that's what we try to do here at the Shoah Foundation. We try to teach the facts of the past to prevent another Holocaust in the future.”

The Shoah Foundation, now funded by donations from individuals around the world, collected testimonies from 52,000 survivors -- their memories of their lives before, during and after those darkest times.

I'll concede Schindler's list, but that was just an example (one could come up with dozens).

Anyway, you seem to be arguing that the intentions of the filmmakers are more important than films themselves. Surely, that is a bad way of regarding art. Further, you admit that the motivation for making this movies wasn't entirely based on economics.

One might also argue that if this movie does well, it will encourage the big studios to make more conscientious, artistic films. Certainly that would be a good thing.

(PS Hotel Rwanda cost 17.5 million and was distributed by a subsidiary of Sony. From what I've seen, U93 won't make all that much money, and who knows if it will match Hotel Rwanda, which just about doubled up. if you really want money in movies you go for the under 25 demographic, certainly not the folks who would go see U93).

i'm on my way out the door, so real quick.

1. i saw U93 yesterday (is that the official shorthand for it now?) and am working on a full review, but in short: it's amazing. best american film in a long time.

2. it occured to me that everyone (specifically the networks) have been making $$ on 9/11 since the moment it happened and no one's said a word. seems rather hypocritical to speak out now, don't you think?

3. Universal is making a big push for donations and whatnot in the film's name, which is something, and the theatre i saw it in didn't run any previews before it. i'll have to find out if that's a nation-wide trend.



U93 is the type of film that should have box-office "legs", as they say in the industry. i'll bet it makes somewhere in the neighborhood of $55-70M, assuming Universal lets it have a good run.

it'll do really well on DVD

hyporcrytical- no. i have said stuff like this before. there was a women who started making those little yellow magnets on the back of cars, and all the money raised went to troops in iraq. when her story made it to the news- everyone started doing it, and not sending the money to iraq. so just because i did not blog about it before, does not mean that i have not talked about this before.

immoral teenage movies? it seems that if one really want to make money in cinema, one would make movies based on books (classics or comic), mystery/action movies, or kids movies- though those are starting to slip. (lord of the rings? spiderman? mission impossible? shrek? toy story? all of these movies did better than the american pies and the scary movies (but the immoral teenage movies did do better than independent films, sure, except amelie)).

and hotel rwanda, as i said, was not pushed by sony, but rather a subisidary. to me that is quite different. sony, and other companies, didn't make their independent movie subsidiaries knowing that they would make more money than their normal ones, though they do hope to make some money on them. i would not be suprised if the independent branch of the major film companies make zero to little each year. and it would certainly be dwarfed by the parent company for sure.

i have no problem with artistic movies, i own quite a few. it is this movie, and this move only (i think i might have mentioned that at some point, or at least inferred it) that bothers me. if next year they make a movie about iraq from the u.s. led invasion to the present- i would not see that either.

i suppose this is just a genre of movies that i cannot bring myself to see. strike that- it is mostly the timing. i did see schindler's list. and i might see united 93, just years from now.

the American Pies and Scary Movies, et al, tend to make more than the MI3's and such, when you think of it as a % of the cost. one reason we get so many bad horror movies is that they're guanteed to make $40M, yet only cost around 10

Post a Comment

about me

  • i'm billiam
  • from prague, Czechia
  • where capital letters have been executed! let's see... i really dislike sunny days. i love precipitation of all kinds. snow is my favorite. i wish that it could be no more than fifty degrees fahrenheit, and clouds covering the sky. i enjoy friends and beer- in that order. i dislike wearing shirts. my random thoughts and unanswerable questions keep me up at night. when i sleep i have dreams; long epic dreams. i believe that it is important to be fit in mental, physical, and emotional capacities. any food worth eating should be as organic as possible, without additives that have letters p, k, x, c, h in close proximity without vowels. save a cow- eat a vegetarian.
my profile - click it up