The Ratings System: How Much Does it Matter?

While exploring the blogs that I recently submitted to my linkroll, I came across a post by Scott Weinberg at Cinematical. In his entry titled, "Fan Rant: PG-13 Horror Sucks and I Can Prove It," he makes the argument that the only quality horror films that have been released possess the R-rating. He also has comprised a list of PG-13 horror films dating back to 1984, in order to “Prove It.” After reading the post, I was intrigued to find what others thought about the current MPAA movie ratings guide. Again, I searched the blogosphere and came across a post titled, “Censoring the Future.” In it, Dave explains the complexities of the current ratings system and the importance of the parent’s role in determining what their child is exposed to. Both of these posts captured my attention with their strong arguments accompanied by substantial evidence, and I happen to strongly agree with the authors. I commented on both of the posts and have provided these comments below as well as on their individual sites.

Comment:

I really enjoyed reading your post and agree with you that PG-13-rated horror films do not measure up to those that are R-rated. Call me a "bloodthirsty bastard" as well, because I also feel that the genre must push the envelope in terms of shock value. When I was younger, my friends and I took pleasure in visiting the local movie rental store on Friday nights and renting the most outrageous horror film we could find (based on the box cover art). We would always look for the movies that only had one copy on the shelves; those were usually the most bizarre and gruesome. The horror films were fun to watch, and in no way afterwards were we tempted to go out and commit some kind of heinous act of violence. Most of the time, it is the R-rating and the grisliness that it allows that bring the entertainment to the horror film. Because it cannot deliver the same amusement, the PG-13 rating is a stigma on the genre. An issue that should be examined, though, is that many of what are considered the best horror films of all time were created before the addition of PG-13 to the MPAA movie ratings. The films, Night of the Living Dead, Rosemary's Baby, The Haunting, and Psycho, were all created before an option in-between PG and R. The most famous of these, Psycho (seen on the left), was released without a rating at all. Its remake in 1998 received the R-rating, but is that really a suggestion to what the original film would have been rated? Alfred Hitchcock and Gus Van Sant are two very different auteurs, but I am not quite sure the original film would have received anything more than a PG-13 in today's theaters. Maybe it would not have wanted anything more than that, seeing as how the R-rated remake received terrible reviews. With that said, I must also point out one film that is missing on your list of PG-13 horror film releases: The Sixth Sense. One could argue that placing the film into the genre is questionable, but it is on many lists for "Best Horror Film of All Time.” What sets the film apart from the rest, though, is its Best Picture nomination at the Oscars in 2000. So shouldn’t it be recognized as a rare case of an exceptional PG-13 horror film?

Comment:

Your post was very exhilarating to read as it truly touched on every aspect that should be considered in the censorship of film. You made an excellent point when referencing the Old Testament, as it would certainly earn the R-rating from the MPAA. I consider myself a religious individual and greatly appreciate the film, The Passion of the Christ (seen on the right). The gruesome scenes of Jesus being beaten are very difficult to watch, but there is purpose to Mel Gibson’s decision of showing these images. As an aspiring filmmaker, I realize the importance of storytelling and agree with you “that violence and sexual content are often necessary to relay the story.” Like with The Passion, removing the scenes of violence would not convey the same story and message that were intended. Also, I admire your idea of abolishing the movie ratings system and simply placing warnings before the films. This would force parents to know what their child would be viewing. Nowadays, it appears parents are exhibiting more leniencies in terms of what their children are being exposed to. Every week I meet with a seven year old student whom I tutor. Recently while he was telling me a story, I was shocked to hear the “f-word” come out of his mouth. Again, he is seven years old. I still have a few years before even thinking about becoming a parent, but I felt that it was important for me to tell him that the word was inappropriate. Film and television have great powers in influencing the audience, and it all falls on the parents to decide what their children do and do not see.

Plea to Theatres: Lower Your Ticket Prices!

The couple on a first date may need to rethink plans of dinner and a movie. Spending $30 for the entire night sounds normal, but spending $30 solely at the movie ticket counter sounds ridiculous. That is what it has come to. Especially in cities such as Los Angeles and New York, tickets have been sold for as much as $15 a piece. Tickets at that price and any concessions purchased leads to an expensive movie-going trip. For this reason, many people are staying away from the theatres and investing time and money into other ways of watching films. Although their revenues have increased over the past few years, theatres should consider lowering the prices of movie tickets not only because of the low number of visitors, increased number of movie rentals, and the rise of movie piracy, but most importantly to bring back the enjoyment of the movie-going experience.

Since 1995, the average ticket price has increased by more than two dollars, according to Lee's Movie Info. Today the average price is $6.88, which may surprise people in the larger, more populated cities in the US, where tickets can be seen for around $12, but that average includes discounts for matinees, seniors and children. Because of the high price, though, theatres and studios are bringing in more money than ever, even with a decline in ticket sales (seen on the left). As the chart shows, the number of movie tickets sold in 2002 was 1.61 billion. In 2007, 1.4 billion tickets were sold. These two numbers display the greatest difference in the revenue for each year. Ticket sales in 2002 brought $9.34 billion, and 2007 raked in $9.6 billion. The only explanation for this increase of revenue alongside a decrease of ticket sales is the rise of the ticket price. In response to this, more people are choosing to stay home.

To beat the cost of movie tickets, more and more households are making the investment in home entertainment centers. In a survey conducted by ABI Research in December of 2007, 38% of respondents said they owned home theatre systems. Big screen televisions, video projectors, high-definition sets and surround sound systems are purchased with hopes of simulating the experience of watching a movie in the theatre. This experience is oftentimes even better than the real thing. In a home theatre, there are no worries for the obnoxious noises of strangers, the film can be paused, the sound can be increased or decreased, and concessions are more easily available (at a more reasonable price). The home entertainment centers are more appealing now with the expansion of numerous resources of film access. High numbers for Blockbuster and Netflix in 2007 prove that more individuals prefer to stay home to watch their movies. Seeing these numbers led Apple to provide a rental service through its own iTunes. The online rental store gives quick and easy ways to attain and watch movies in the comfort of the home.

The cheapest way to view a film also happens to be very illegal. The advancements of computer technology have brought about the ability to download movies off of the Internet. Peer-to-Peer (P2P) networks allow individuals to post and share films, recorded straight from the theatres or ripped from DVDs. Sometimes movies can be downloaded even before their release in theatres. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) released a study in 2006 stating that the US lost $1.3 billion to piracy the previous year. The illegal trade also had an astounding economic impact. The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) concluded that piracy resulted in $5.5 billion in lost annual earnings among US workers, 141,030 jobs lost, $837 million in lost annual tax revenue and $20.5 billion in lost annual output to all US industries. The illegal sharing of movies is clearly having a negative impact, but the blame must be put on the high price of the theater movie ticket.

Amidst the dropping number of movie tickets sold, a few people think they can bring more people back to the theatres. Village Roadshow Ltd., Act III, Lambert Entertainment and the Retirement Systems of Alabama pension fund have partnered to bring the luxury cinema circuit Village Roadshow Gold Class Cinemas to the US, according to Variety. Over the next five years, fifty “high-class” theatres (seen on the right) will be developed that feature reclining chairs with footrests, digital projection and the capability to screen 2-D and 3-D movies, as well as a lounge and bar, a concierge service and valet parking. Graham Burke, managing director and CEO of Village Roadshow Ltd, claims, "It's like what Mercedes is to a Toyota or like flying first class in an airplane." But with high-end moviegoing comes a great ticket price: $35 a person. Reason behind the price is difficult to understand. The group responsible for these new theatres is trying to get people out of their houses to see films, but by getting them into luxury theatres, the group is merely charging individuals for an environment they can get at home. Reclinable chairs, an array of drink and food choices, and a quieter, smaller audience are all amenities that can be received at home. Gold Class Cinemas will be popular at the time of their release and will be worth visiting at least once, but I do not see luxury theatres bringing about more ticket sales.

There is something special about sitting in a dark, quiet theatre with a bag of popcorn in hand watching a new movie. The experience has been cherished since the first movie theatres were established. By increasing ticket prices, theatres are taking away this special experience from the public. I admit that I am guilty of finding cheaper ways of watching movies, whether honest or not. Seeing a double-digit number for the price of a ticket at the theatre is depressing. I hope that the theatres will see the trends of the American moviegoing audience. No one should have to spend an outrageous amount of money to escape from the daily routines of life and enjoy an imaginative visual exploration on the big screen.

Hearing Voices: The Entertainment Blogosphere

In a previous post, I analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of a number of entertainment news resources that I found while searching the web. Most of the sites were of general news and information, so this week I decided to look for entertainment blogs. I again applied the Webby Awards and IMSA criteria and added the blogs to the linkroll on the right. The first blog I came upon was Blogs.NYPost, which is well-organized with the posts in the center of the page and a simple search bar on the right. However, the lower section of the page has much unused space, which is obvious due to its different color from the post area. The Projectionist uses large, high-quality graphics to complement the posts, but because the bottom post of the page dates back so far as six months ago, the page is slow to load with the high number of posts. Similarly, In The Company of Glenn has multiple posts on its front page which should be limited. The blog makes up in visual comfort with a basic black and white interface that allows easy reading. The next two blogs have numerous authors, resulting in multiple posts in only a few days. Cinematical mixes advertisements in between posts, though, and the “Explore” drop-down navigational menu on The Movie Blog is blocked by an advertisement. Film Rotation provides many links to news sites, other blogs, and comments to posts, but among these links are advertisements that are discreetly blended in. IndieWIRE presents blogs from their own writers and also blogs around the web. The large site map at the top of the page is distracting but can be closed. A younger audience is addressed in MTV Movies Blog, but the three columns of text are too close and need to be distinctly separated with either more space between them or with vertical lines. Two of the blogs struggle with utilizing space on the left and right of their pages. Starplus Entertainment News Blog, though, abbreviates the posts to the starting few sentences and a picture, which make it simple to quickly search through the topics. BlogDance takes posts from all over the world and puts them onto one page. There is much to be said about the current events taking place in the entertainment industry, and the presence of these blogs and many others prove that people are out there spreading their voice.

Entertainment in War: What Is It Good For?

As soon as President Bush declared war, Hollywood had a party. It had been the subject for many famous and successful films in the past, and after a short absence, the war films returned to the big screen. 2007 marked the biggest year of such films. Three of the five nominees for "Best Documentary Feature" in this year's Academy Awards examined the war in the Middle East. With good odds, the winner, Taxi to the Dark Side, was one of those three films. But war was not just examined in documentary form; it had a large presence in the narratives. The intention of the pictures was to comment on the supposed unruly actions taking place overseas, and to provide insight of the Iraq War, no matter how fictionalized the surrounding storylines might have been. The problem was that not many people went out to listen to what the films had to say. Studios need to stop releasing anti-war films, because the American audience does not want to see them, and in turn, money will not come in.

In order to sell movies these days, studios need big Hollywood names attached to their projects. The narrative war-commentaries that were released in 2007 set out to get big-budget stars, and they did. In the Valley of Elah follows Hank Deerfield, played by Tommy Lee Jones, on his quest to find his AWOL military son and unravel the mystery that surrounds the search. In The Kingdom, FBI special agents (Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Garner, Chris Cooper and Jason Bateman) are sent into Saudi Arabia to investigate an attack on Americans. With Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhaal and Meryl Streep, Rendition is about an American woman whose Egyptian-born husband is arrested, and the CIA analyst who is assigned to interrogate him. Lions for Lambs revolves around a university professor's (Robert Redford) influence to fight in the war in Afghanistan, a presidential hopeful's (Tom Cruise) new war strategy, and a probing television journalist's (Meryl Streep) report of the strategy. John Cusak in Grace is Gone decides not to tell his two daughters that their enlisted mother was killed in Iraq.

Four out of the five films mentioned above are considered anti-war films (Time, Entertainment Weekly), while The Kingdom holds back on any particular stance during its runtime. Interestingly, the total gross of those four anti-war films is less than the total for the neutral. Elah, Rendition, Lions for Lambs, and Grace is Gone together brought in a mere $31.5 million, while Kingdom raked in $47.4 million. Although Elah was the only film to receive critical praise and Oscar recognition with the nomination of Jones, studios only care about the dollar signs. Hollywood loves to criticize the current Presidential Administration and illuminate the supposed problems, but if these films are not making money, should they keep releasing them?

Hollywood thinks so. By the end of March, already two anti-war films will have been released: Chicago 10 and Stop-Loss (seen on the left). Chicago 10 has not shown much promise in its two week limited release with a $42 thousand box office number. I attended a screening of the film and a question and answer session with the director, Brett Morgen. He expressed his concerns about the marketing of the film and worried whether the right audience (late teens to twenty year-olds) would make its way out to see the documentary. It uses a modern style that is visually stimulating to appeal to the current generation as it follows the story of eight Vietnam War protestors who try to lead a march toward the 1968 Democratic Convention. Morgen said he wanted to appeal to the young audience to encourage them to act out against the current war. I was also able to attend a screening of Stop-Loss. The drama is about a sergeant in the Iraq War who is sent home to Texas only to find out that he must immediately be shipped back for duty. Although the previous numbers presume that the film will also be unsuccessful, it has the backing MTV Films, which should bring in a large young audience. Heart-throbs Ryan Phillipe, Channing Tatum, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt make up the cast of the film, which should help attract the female demographic.

If Hollywood must continue to make commentaries about the war, they should at least give pro-war movies a chance in the box office, for the sake of not only the viewing public, but also the studios. While it was neutral, The Kingdom brought in the money and pleased Universal Studios. Bruce Willis (seen on the right) is one artist that has been pushing to release more pro-war films. It was reported that he is developing a story about the Deuce Four, members of the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry, who spent a year fighting terrorists in the northern Iraq town of Mosul. However, it seems Hollywood is having a hard time accepting the idea, as they continue to disregard any storylines pertaining to patriotism or pride for our United States of America.

Willis, who has visited Iraq, is frustrated with how the media handles the coverage of the war. He was quoted saying that he saw soldiers "helping people in Iraq; helping getting the power turned back on, helping get hospitals open, helping get the water turned back on and you don't hear any of that on the news." The Hollywood celebrity is right. It is more often that when tuning into a news channel, a viewer has a better chance of hearing a report on how many people were killed that day in Iraq, than how many citizens were helped. Hollywood is using the war in the Middle East an easy selling point.

Unless it involves pirates, robots, or blood-thirsty Spartans, none of the top fifteen highest-grossing films of 2007 have anything to do with war. Clearly it does not take criticism or analysis of what is happening in the Middle East to sell films. Movie-going is a time to escape from the realities of the world around us. Audiences already see coverage of the war on their television sets and do not want more of it on movie screens. They want to be moved, captivated, enthused and, overall, entertained when they visit the theater. Until Hollywood decides to bring forth the positive stories of the Iraq War, viewers will continue to shrug off the pessimistic commentaries that studios repeatedly churn out.

Entertainment News: Some Like It Hot

Headlines are created every minute in Hollywood, and the Internet is the first place to deliver the breaking news and rumors. Because my blog focuses on the current events in the entertainment industry, I recently searched the Web for outstanding resources that provide up-to-the-minute information. The resources I discovered have been added to the linkroll on the right of my blog. In selecting these sites, I not only applied the Webby Awards and IMSA criteria, but also examined the pro's and con's according to my own tastes. And the Winner Is... is simplistic, with blog posts on the left and credentials on the right. A large empty space at the bottom of the page is detrimental. ComingSoon.net might steer visitors away with its amateur, 80s-looking logo, but the content of the site attracts attention. News stories are categorized (e.g. horror, super hero, DVD, etc.), making specific articles easily findable. There are a number of large distracting advertisements on the pages which also tend to slow down the loading speed. From the popular television network is E! Online, arranged to be visually-stimulating. An extensive search engine breaks down results into the site’s many unique departments. There are scattered advertisements for the network’s programming, and some even discreetly blend into the headlines. Empire stems from the magazine counterpart and features most of its front-page news with high-quality graphics. Along with these graphics, though, are animated advertisements that can be distracting. I Watch Stuff delivers the latest news material in visual form. Constantly new trailers, production stills, or promotional posters for highly-anticipated films are updated to the main page. The large visuals might make it difficult to load the site, but the waiting creates anticipation for discovering the news. Metacritic.com is a dependable source for various film opinions. Reviews from well-known magazine and newspaper critics are scored and ranked using a simple color categorization. Movie Blog is similar to "I Watch Stuff" presenting posts with large pictures or videos. It provides more of an opinion toward the material, making it worth the read. Navigating the site, occasionally a sponsor page disrupts the flow into another area. An additional movie review site is Rotten Tomatoes. Like "Metacritic.com," this site takes the reviews of established critics and scores films. Although a large advertisement takes up almost a third of the front page, "Rotten Tomatoes" has established itself as the number one Internet movie review website. The largest database for film and television is IMDb.com, and almost every aspect of a production can be searched for. However, the site should change its novice font choice; it would visually exemplify its reputable status on the web. Variety is another site that comes from its own magazine and provides an immense amount of entertainment news. There are numerous stories on the front page, but there is no separation among them. I will continue to visit these resources, as all of them provide valuable news to attribute to my future posts.

Oscar Miscarriage: Juno's Presence in the Awards Race

As the Academy Awards are only a few days away, I recently scoured the blogosphere for different opinions and predictions as to who will be taking home a little, golden man (seen at the left). What I came across was surprising, as one of the top awards analysts in Hollywood, Scott Feinberg, was picking the less favored Juno (seen on the right) to win the top prize of Best Picture. In his post, "A Pregnant Teen Can Stop What's Coming... Friend-O!" he gives a breakdown of his predictions along with a projected order of vote-getters in every category of nominees. As I was amazed at this ambitious claim, I went on to further search for what others thought about Juno. I quickly came across a number of articles discussing the controversial issue of abortion in the film. Many pro-choice individuals found the film to be heavily pro-life grounded. Jill Stanek, well-respected pro-life advocator and columnist for WorldNetDaily, posted her opinion on this dilemma in her own blog and defended her personal beliefs, yet refuted the claim that Juno stood on these same principles. I decided to comment on each person's post and have provided these comments below as well as on their individual sites.

Comment:

Your investigative breakdown to your predictions for this year's Academy Awards was impressive and to be admired. However, I must disagree with your choice for Best Picture, not because I favor another film more, but rather because Juno should not be nominated for Best Picture in the first place. It is easy to say that Juno fills the Little Miss Sunshine comedic role in this year's list of nominees, but Sunshine consisted of a much more engaging story with characters that I actually cared about, and as a result, enjoyed watching on the screen. I am not going to rag on Ellen Page, because she did a fantastic job portraying the snappy teen. But a flaw that I have with the film is that amidst all of the sarcasm and witty dialogue that come out of her mouth, portraying her as a smart teen ahead of her time, she is not smart enough to have protected sex during her first time (Michael Cera just looks like a kid who is bound to suffer from premature ejaculation during his first time). Also, why do the parents not seem at all upset when hearing the news of her pregnancy? I anticipated the interaction between Juno and her parents because I wanted to see a realistic, enraged response from the parents, especially the father. Instead, he puts his hand over his face and makes a joke about her first time being with the scrawny Michael Cera character. The film must be so post-modern that it makes light of teenage pregnancy like it is not a big deal. Ultimately, it deals with the birth or death of a new human being, depending on the decision of the mother, and that is no laughing matter at all. As for the other films that have been nominated for Best Picture, I admit that I have yet to see Atonement or Michael Clayton, both of which I have heard mixed reviews but plan on seeing in the near future. I agree with what you conclude about No Country for Old Men in that it leaves you with too many questions, which I believe restrict it from being considered on the same level as the Coens' previous Fargo. As for There Will Be Blood, the performance by Daniel Day Lewis takes over the screen and distracts the viewer from meager storyline. As a film professor (much more learned than I) expressed to me recently, the performance seems very similiar to that of the Noah Cross character, played by John Huston, in Chinatown. So if Hollywood has seen the performance before, is it really worthy of a win?

Comment:

I thorougly enjoyed reading your opinion on the pro-life/pro-choice issue in Juno, and I believe Brianna put it perfectly in her response to you. Juno was entertaining to say the least, but like many entertaining movies, it was unrealistic. I had a very difficult time watching the half-hearted reaction that the parents gave to Juno when she announced her teenage pregnancy. It is interesting to see pro-choice/feminists trash this film because of its apparent pro-life slant. Technically Juno makes her own personal choice as to whether or not to keep the child. Sure, the inside of the abortion clinic in the film feels depressing, but I do not think it is meant to comment on the issue of abortion itself. It is simply another way for the film to make its audience laugh. If there are jokes embellishing the interaction between Juno and her parents when she first announces her pregnancy, why not fill the waiting room of the adoption clinic with humor as well? The movie is a comedy, and gags are necessary to keep the story rolling. Ellen Page just recently was asked in the Washington Post whether she believed the film to be pro-life. She heartedly responded that it was in no way a pro-life film, as it was the character's choice to keep the baby. What was most unusual about her response was this apology she made: "Like, I'm really sorry to everyone that she doesn't have an abortion, but that's not what the film is about." Why is she apologizing? Must she stay as far away as possible to the pro-life stance as to not be ostracized by the strong pro-choice presence in today's media?

The Comfort Zone: Numbing the American Moviegoer

The Warner Bros. romantic comedy, Fool's Gold, and the Miramax male melodrama, There Will Be Blood, both brought in over $20 million. The difference is, Fool's Gold did it in one weekend and Blood did it in seven. Even though There Will Be Blood (seen on the left) has not been distributed to as many theaters as a typical blockbuster, the film should be attracting a greater audience, with so many accolades and so much recognition. The film review website, Rotten Tomatoes, gave Fool's Gold a 10% rating. In other words, of the 97 critics that actually saw and reviewed the film, ten thought it worthy of spending the $12 admission into the theater. There Will Be Blood received a 91%. In fact, this year's Oscar nominees for Best Picture of the Year have all received over 80% positive reviews on the website: No Country for Old Men at 94%, Juno at 93%, Michael Clayton at 90%, and Atonement at 82%. With all of these outstanding "grades," most, if not all, will probably not receive a total gross higher than the amount that Fool's Gold will make. The fact is, the current trends in Hollywood can oftentimes predict where the American public will invest their time and money.

There are fewer artists that want to engage the audience through their creative works, with thought-provoking plots and twists, and more businessmen who want to just put an A-list celebrity in a super-hero costume and throw him on the screen with special effects. The super-hero brings in the cash, because it is something that the audience is already familiar with. A film like this, though, lacks depth and fails to elicit the imaginative mind. As box office statistics continue to show most audiences viewing less-acclaimed films, Hollywood producers continue to spit out similar works with equal, if not lesser, mind stimulation. In the film business, only one thing matters: money. While the exceptional films in theaters are not being seen, the American audience continues to invest their money in the movies they know and have seen before, and thus feel most comfortable with.

With less than two weeks until the 80th Annual Academy Awards, in attempt to make the televised-event more interesting, it would make sense for intending viewers to go out and see at least a couple of the films nominated for awards, most specifically, the Best Picture of the Year award. The box office reports from the previous weekend, however, show that people are more interested in seeing Matthew McConaughey without a shirt on in Fool's Gold. Only two of the nominated films are in the top ten in the box office, with Juno at number five, and There Will Be Blood at number ten. Along with multiple critics, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has also acknowledged the merit of these films. The five films are nominated because they do not follow the popular trend in today's film business. They contain original ideas with compelling storylines and characters, and each film is unique and has thus been honorably recognized. The films may be outside the comfort zone for most of the American audience, but more people need to develop a sophisticated palette when it comes to choices in cinema.

Fool's Gold is the second film in which Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson star side-by-side (seen on the right). The previous was the 2003 hit, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days; that one brought in $23.8 million in its opening weekend, similar to Fool's Gold. With the film's total gross revenue ending up at $105.7 million, it is no wonder the celebrity duo was brought back together on the screen. The 2008 film is about a divorced couple that finds themselves reunited during a quest for deep sea treasure (I wonder if the couple get back together in the end?). Hollywood continues to release films with regurgetated storylines from previous successful movies. By minimizing films' risks and sacrficing artistic integrity, studios create a successful product, but nothing close to a thematic masterpiece. If it brought in millions before, why not stick to it? 2007 included a summer full of sequels; to name a few: Spider-Man 3, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Shrek 3, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Ocean's 13, Live Free or Die Hard, The Bourne Ultimatum. As for remakes, 3:10 to Yuma, Halloween, The Hitcher, and Hairspray all returned to the big screen with a rejuvenated look.

It seems as if Hollywood is running out of original ideas to develop into major motion pictures, but apparently, not many people are fazed by it. Pirates of the Caribbean dominated the summer and made a total of $336.5 million, even though the critics bashed it (it received a 45% on Rotten Tomatoes). The other blockbuster of the summer, Spider-Man 3, made a total of $309.4 million and also was not well-received by the critics (62% on Rotten Tomatoes). Hollywood has the American audience exactly where it wants it: too numb to know what is going on but with pockets full of cash to contribute. These films are undoubtedly superficially pleasing, yet lack substance. They are old films with new titles. But as long as Americans continue to give their money to these insubstantial pieces of work, more of the same will be released.

The main purpose of a film is to entertain. Whether the entertainment value is derived from unmatchable artistic quality or silly sketch comedy by beautiful actors, people buy movie tickets for the enjoyment of the experience. I am all for going to the cinema with the intention of being entertained, whether a film has been hailed or criticized, and I occasionally am in the mood to see a less engaging or a proclaimed bad movie (this summer I enjoyed watching Evan Almighty). I will even spend two hours watching another comic book film (I cannot wait to see Iron Man). Films like Spider-Man 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean do not need critics to get people in the theaters; they will bring in money no matter what. Alongside the petty films designed to generate a quick buck, there needs to exist the same desire to see films that will be hailed as instant classics because of the depth and breath of their content. Cinematography, lighting, set design, audio mixing, acting - these are all things that are routinely sacrificed by producers looking for a quick money maker. We should not forget about the films that cherish every detailed aspect that goes into its creation.