Two Thoughtful Assessments of What’s Wrong With Movies

Posted on July 26, 2013 at 3:59 pm

I very much enjoyed Scott Nye’s article for rogerebert.com about plot holes in movies that are summerily — if not satisfyingly — dealt with via some line of dialogue.

If you watch big budget entertainments, there’s no escaping these sorts of moments. The trope familiar to the Scooby-Doo generation, in which a few nagging uncertainties are resolved with a “there’s just one thing I don’t understand” kickoff, has now become a motif. Characters must constantly address questions on behalf of a too-curious audience awash in complexly-plotted mega-stories. The movies are trying to plug leaks in a boat before the whole thing sinks—never quite repairing it, but doing just enough to get by.

He has some great examples but does not mention my favorite, in “Thank You for Smoking,” written and directed by Jason Reitman, based on the book by Christopher Buckley.  It’s my favorite because it makes fun of this very issue.  Aaron Eckhart, plays Nick, a lobbyist for the tobacco industry, who meets with Rob Lowe, as Jeff, a Hollywood executive, to talk about product placement in a new film.  There’s a hitch — it takes place on a spaceship.

Nick Naylor: But wouldn’t they blow up in an all-oxygen environment?

Jeff Megall Probably. But, you know, it’s an easy fix. One line of dialogue: “Thank God we created the, you know, whatever device.” You ought to make a product to tie in with the movie, such as a new brand of cigarettes.

And Slate, which just blamed the book Save the Cat!, with its formula for movie scripts, for the cookie-cutter nature of studio films, has a new piece about the year’s biggest money-losers, calling this The Summer of the Mega-Flop.

The latest high-profile calamity at the box office is the ill-buzzed R.I.P.D., which followed such heavily marketed titles as Pacific RimThe Lone Ranger, White House Down, andAfter Earth in failing to attract its expected audience. Meanwhile, The Conjuring, a smaller,Exorcist-style chiller from Saw director James Wan, more than doubled its production budget in just one weekend.

Summer 2013 is unquestionably the season of the über-flop. But do these numbers add up to the paradigm shift that Spielberg anticipates? For moviegoers exasperated by CGI whooshing—and 150-minute running times padded with a solid hour of action—a victory for the little guy might seem like good news. Still, the tent-pole collapse isn’t quite as stark as headlines might imply. With a mammoth gross of $407 million, Iron Man 3 has become the year’s top-earning movie, while Fast & Furious 6 continues a long line of success for its franchise. From the theaters’ perspective, this summer has been a bonanza. “We had four straight weeks of more than $300 million in box office, which has never happened,” says Patrick Corcoran, vice president  of the National Association of Theater Owners….?In an interview with New York magazine critic David Edelstein, producer Lynda Obst also pins the current trend toward gigantism on the increased importance of the foreign market, coupled with a collapse in DVD sales, which once provided a safety net for midrange pictures that didn’t pan out….Gomery notes that this summer’s fizzling blockbusters may also be symptomatic of the type of moviegoing dip that typically accompanies recessions; so far, relatively flat domestic attendance has been offset by China’s emergence as the world’s second-largest film market. And the jury may even be out on this summer. In the era of media conglomerate–owned studios, he says, it’s traditionally been the rule has been that it’s “a good year” if one in 10 of your major properties takes off and becomes a hit. If you want to get a sense of how that principle might work, he says, “Just watch a day’s worth of HBO.”

 

Related Tags:

 

Understanding Media and Pop Culture

Where Are the Women in 2013 Movies?

Posted on July 24, 2013 at 3:59 pm

New York Magazine’s Vulture blog has a sobering statistical analysis from Amand Dobbins showing that women play significant roles in a very small percentage of feature films.

The 2013 lineup is all superheroes and crass man-boy bonding. Granted, studios release these types of movies every summer, but usually they’ll at least give us one rom-com or female ensemble movie, or a woman in a role that is not “secretary to an Avenger.” Or so I assumed, based on fond memories of The Notebook and every mediocre Kate Hudson film ever made. This year seemed worse to me, and so I decided to do the math, comparing the number of women in major roles in the last five years of major summer releases with those in major releases from twenty years ago. It turns out that yes, 2013 is a bad summer — but it is far from a record low point. This has been a problem for 25 years now.

And it’s getting worse.  “ven when counting courtesy roles, 2013 is the worst year in the modern era, and at 57 percent it’s below the average for the past five years…Less than 30 percent of all movies can bother to write in more than a wife or a sidekick.”

As the article notes, the success of “The Heat” will probably inspire a brief blip in women-led films.  And there is one more encouraging note in a Buzzfeed collection of comments from writers about creating interesting, complex female characters.  My favorite is Joss Whedon who responds to the question “Why do you write strong female characters?” “Because you’re still asking me that question.”

Even more encouraging is this list of 2013 movies written by women.  Studios, take note of the talented women on screen and the writers and directors as well.

Related Tags:

 

Understanding Media and Pop Culture

Hijacking the Tooth Fairy

Posted on July 20, 2013 at 8:00 am

The tooth fairy is one of childhood’s most treasured myths, a lovely tribute to a bittersweet rite of passage that allows each family to create their own traditions.  (Our tooth fairy left books.)  There’s an awful movie with The Rock, a disappointing movie with Isla Fisher, and a pretty good assortment of books (my favorite is The Real Tooth Fairy), but until now no one has shamelessly exploited the legend of the tooth fairy for toys.

Susan Linn of the very worthy CCFC writes for the Huffington Post about a massive new marketing campaign for tooth fairy dolls.  Watch this video — aimed at investors, not parents — with highlights of the marketing plan to get little girls hooked by “leveraging the brand” of a biological guarantee.  It’s a “massive opportunity!”

Linn writes:

By harnessing the Tooth Fairy, The Royal Council of the Real Fairyland, LLC (also known as The Real Tooth Fairies, LLC), wants to “leverage and define this rite-of-passage moment” and literally profit from each tooth a child loses. The company is already selling VIP memberships, deluxe Real Tooth Fairy Collections, and more. Participation in Real Fairyland doesn’t come cheap. “Give your girl the gift of everything Tooth Fairy,” the website exhorts. A Real Tooth Fairies Birthday Party Collection costs $379.

Yanover pushes what the marketing industry calls an “immersive” Tooth Fairy experience, including a virtual world, toys, games, clothing, accessories — and a creepy “interactive” component where girls can “communicate” with their Tooth Fairies. Plans for licensing include, “toys, oral care, party & greeting card, & more.” According to the company, “This world was built for licensing; it’s a character that everybody already recognizes and is engaged with.”

The Real Tooth Fairies swaddles its product in virtue, claiming that its goal is to empower girls and promote kindness. But its target audience of girls as young as 5 are disempowered when a free-ranging, child-driven vision of Tooth-Fairyness is reduced to just six sexualized options, largely preoccupied with appearance, shopping, boyfriends –and leg hair! And it’s unkind to millions of girls, and the women they will become, that the “villain” in Real Fairyland, and the butt of its jokes, is a hairy-legged, buck-toothed, roly-poly, glasses-wearing fairy-wannabe. At present, the site’s target is mainly 5- to 10-year-old girls — but lest you’re wondering why boys have been left out of the marketing equation, they haven’t. Heavily-armed, superhero, Tooth-Fairy-counterparts are in development.

It is a shame that these people cannot support the imagination and empowerment of children rather than “leveraging” a character and, worst of all, turning her into just another perpetuation of the idea that appearance and buying things is all that matters.  If you want to send a message that this is not appropriate, sign here.

Related Tags:

 

Advertising Gender and Diversity Marketing to Kids Understanding Media and Pop Culture

MVP of the week, sort of: Ryan Reynolds

Posted on July 16, 2013 at 3:59 pm

It is unusual for an actor to star in two major studio feature films opening the same week.  Studios understandably do not want to split the fans by making them choose between two options.  Even though the audiences for the two films starring People Magazine’s 2010 Sexiest Man Alive Ryan Reynolds do not have much overlap — “Turbo” is an animated family movie about a racing snail and “RIPD” is a PG-13 “Men in Black”-style buddy cop story about the un-dead police force — it seems a strange choice to release them in the same week.

Even stranger, “”RIPD” is not screening for critics, always a sign that the studio has no confidence in a film.  For Reynolds fans, the racing snail looks like the safest bet.

Related Tags:

 

Actors Understanding Media and Pop Culture

What Happened to Romantic Comedies?

Posted on July 16, 2013 at 8:00 am

More than halfway through the year, we have not seen a single high-profile romantic comedy.  Once a reliable staple of the cineplex, the “we know they are destined to be together before they do” movie starring America’s sweethearts like Meg Ryan, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Lopez, and Katherine Heigl seems to be beyond the capabilities of Hollywood at the moment.  Even the romantic dramas have underperformed this year, though I liked the sci-fi/fantasy films “Upside/Down,” “Warm Bodies,” and “Beautiful Creatures.”

One problem is that these days it becomes increasingly harder to think of reasons to keep a couple apart, which is one element the supernatural can bring to a story.  Coming up later this year, we have two movies that seem drearily familiar.  Paula Patten stars in “Baggage Claim,” about a 35-year-old who devotes 30 days to finding a husband which sounds a lot like the awful “What’s Your Number?” “About Time” has Rachel McAdams falling for a time traveler.  She must have a sense of deja vu — she did the exact same thing in “The Time Traveler’s Wife.”

Related Tags:

 

Understanding Media and Pop Culture
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2026, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik