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 'childrens' 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 plesent
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 atract 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.

About the author:
Ryan Parsons Owner of CanMag.Com Check out href="http://www.canmag.com" title="movie trailers">Movie
Trailers for more articles Article use by permission with
backlink to CanMag.Com

Author : Ryan Parsons
Site : www.goarticles.com

BobPaton.com � 2010
Hosted by Midsouth Marketing

Online Games | New Media Blog | City News Magazine | Collierville Advertising | Collierville Dragons