Scripts of the Revenant

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'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.

later.

matt,

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