NYT: Big Films, but a Year of Smaller Audiences

New York Times ^ | December 20, 2004 | SHARON WAXMAN

[TheBigB]

Gotta put a plug in for Ghostbusters as well. I saw that one four times in the theater. :) Murray, Ackroyd, and Ramis at their absolute apex.

[marmar]

Now it is affecting their pocket book. Maybe it will give them time to read up on things and study. Knowledge is power......

[eleni121]

Actors may know how to read, but except for a few, do not know how to critically evaluate what they read.

Thankfully, that responsibility is left to the directors and others who are trained to interpret and frequently get it wrong too. Put it this way: great performances are the result of accidents.

[Borges]

Exactly. Movies that make the most money are usually teenager driven. TPOTC was unique. Though there are exceptions, great movies generally don't cost a lot...or make a lot.

[LexBaird]

Most people hated King Arthur but I thought it was good because I am a history nut

Don't you mean "even though", not "because"? The "King Arthur" movie bears the same relationship with history as Michael Jackson has with family values.

[Cogadh na Sith]

I can do you one better:

I only saw The Incredibles. It was pretty good....

[LibertarianInExile]

And let's not forget video rental and sales, and pay and TV rights.

These ALL probably made a profit. Don't think for a second that there were bombs here financially. The reporter is just doing what MSM reporters do: being stupid and ignoring a big consideration to score points as a cynic.

[tm22721]

The "King Arthur" movie bears the same relationship with history as Michael Jackson has with family values.

Can you envision a two hour Capital One commercial ?

BUMP

[LexBaird]

Envision it? I've lived it!