"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 09:31:20 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
"As of last weekend, 36.4 million people had seen this year's five
best-picture nominees in theaters, compared to 173.8 million the year
of "Titanic.""

Then, just to prove a point, which I'm not exactly sure what point was
being made, there is this.

"Tom O'Neil of the awards Web site, theenvelope.com says this year's
Oscar show will probably be the lowest rated ever, but it shouldn't
matter.

"If we judge the success of the Oscars by the number of people who
watch them, then we're as guilty as Hollywood studios who judge the
success of movies by how many people see them," he said."

Um...excuse me, but I thought the whole idea of making a movie is to
entertain the maximum number of people possible in order to make the
maximum amount of money or, as we capitalists put is, ROI.

Honest to pete - these people can't be that stupid - or can they?
No, that's not *the* purpose of making a movie, although that certainly
has been the motivation of most of the "Hollywood type" movie for
decades. Many of the best movies ever made were not necessarily produced
or directed for the widest possible appeal and biggest possible box
office, but for the sake of art.

Name one.

Citizen Kane, considered the best American movie. Also, many of the
"greatest movies" didn't have a wide release in the United States and
therefore aren't well known. Have you seen Jean Renoir's "The River"?
How about Fellini's 8-1/2? Jules Dassin's "Phaedra"? Have you seen "Z" by
Costa-Gavras? It won an Academy Award for best foreign film. It wasn't a
great money make.



That does not dismiss the fact that the original intentions of making those
films was for the hope for a big box office hit.

Like Tom, I would not say Citizen Kane is considered the best American
movie.



There are higher callings than huge profits.

Really? Then why do people make films - say, oh couple of million
dollars to produce a small indy film.

What's the motivation?


Art, creativity, making a statement, all sorts of reasons.

But making money remains the number one intention................always.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 09:31:20 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
"As of last weekend, 36.4 million people had seen this year's five
best-picture nominees in theaters, compared to 173.8 million the year
of "Titanic.""

Then, just to prove a point, which I'm not exactly sure what point
was
being made, there is this.

"Tom O'Neil of the awards Web site, theenvelope.com says this year's
Oscar show will probably be the lowest rated ever, but it shouldn't
matter.

"If we judge the success of the Oscars by the number of people who
watch them, then we're as guilty as Hollywood studios who judge the
success of movies by how many people see them," he said."

Um...excuse me, but I thought the whole idea of making a movie is to
entertain the maximum number of people possible in order to make the
maximum amount of money or, as we capitalists put is, ROI.

Honest to pete - these people can't be that stupid - or can they?
No, that's not *the* purpose of making a movie, although that
certainly has been the motivation of most of the "Hollywood type"
movie for decades. Many of the best movies ever made were not
necessarily produced or directed for the widest possible appeal and
biggest possible box office, but for the sake of art.
Name one.
Citizen Kane, considered the best American movie. Also, many of the
"greatest movies" didn't have a wide release in the United States and
therefore aren't well known. Have you seen Jean Renoir's "The River"?
How about Fellini's 8-1/2? Jules Dassin's "Phaedra"? Have you seen "Z"
by Costa-Gavras? It won an Academy Award for best foreign film. It
wasn't a great money make.



That does not dismiss the fact that the original intentions of making
those films was the hope for a big box office hit.

Like Tom, I would not say Citizen Kane is considered the best American
movie.

There are higher callings than huge profits.
Really? Then why do people make films - say, oh couple of million
dollars to produce a small indy film.

What's the motivation?

Art, creativity, making a statement, all sorts of reasons.

But making money remains the number one intention................always.


These days for most Hollywood-type producers, sure. But not all. And not
always. Making money is NOT always the number one intention. You overrate
the profit motive in relation to "art."



OK, so lets forget money and just say that the number one intention is to
have the movie (or song, or painting, or book) *enjoyed* by the most number
of people possible. In today's world that most often translates into a want
to make money.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 09:31:20 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
"As of last weekend, 36.4 million people had seen this year's five
best-picture nominees in theaters, compared to 173.8 million the
year
of "Titanic.""

Then, just to prove a point, which I'm not exactly sure what point
was
being made, there is this.

"Tom O'Neil of the awards Web site, theenvelope.com says this
year's
Oscar show will probably be the lowest rated ever, but it shouldn't
matter.

"If we judge the success of the Oscars by the number of people who
watch them, then we're as guilty as Hollywood studios who judge the
success of movies by how many people see them," he said."

Um...excuse me, but I thought the whole idea of making a movie is
to
entertain the maximum number of people possible in order to make
the
maximum amount of money or, as we capitalists put is, ROI.

Honest to pete - these people can't be that stupid - or can they?
No, that's not *the* purpose of making a movie, although that
certainly has been the motivation of most of the "Hollywood type"
movie for decades. Many of the best movies ever made were not
necessarily produced or directed for the widest possible appeal and
biggest possible box office, but for the sake of art.
Name one.
Citizen Kane, considered the best American movie. Also, many of the
"greatest movies" didn't have a wide release in the United States and
therefore aren't well known. Have you seen Jean Renoir's "The River"?
How about Fellini's 8-1/2? Jules Dassin's "Phaedra"? Have you seen
"Z" by Costa-Gavras? It won an Academy Award for best foreign film. It
wasn't a great money make.


That does not dismiss the fact that the original intentions of making
those films was the hope for a big box office hit.

Like Tom, I would not say Citizen Kane is considered the best American
movie.

There are higher callings than huge profits.
Really? Then why do people make films - say, oh couple of million
dollars to produce a small indy film.

What's the motivation?
Art, creativity, making a statement, all sorts of reasons.
But making money remains the number one
intention................always.

These days for most Hollywood-type producers, sure. But not all. And not
always. Making money is NOT always the number one intention. You
overrate the profit motive in relation to "art."



OK, so lets forget money and just say that the number one intention is to
have the movie (or song, or painting, or book) *enjoyed* by the most
number of people possible. In today's world that most often translates
into a want to make money.

That's not true, either. Many very high quality movies are not aimed at
the mass audience, and therefore "mass appeal" is not the intention or
motivation.

Once again, if you are a true artist, it is the production of art that is
important, not the widest possible audience OR the amount of money you
might gross.


Any artist would want his/her project enjoyed by the most number of people
possible.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 09:31:20 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
"As of last weekend, 36.4 million people had seen this year's
five
best-picture nominees in theaters, compared to 173.8 million the
year
of "Titanic.""

Then, just to prove a point, which I'm not exactly sure what
point was
being made, there is this.

"Tom O'Neil of the awards Web site, theenvelope.com says this
year's
Oscar show will probably be the lowest rated ever, but it
shouldn't
matter.

"If we judge the success of the Oscars by the number of people
who
watch them, then we're as guilty as Hollywood studios who judge
the
success of movies by how many people see them," he said."

Um...excuse me, but I thought the whole idea of making a movie is
to
entertain the maximum number of people possible in order to make
the
maximum amount of money or, as we capitalists put is, ROI.

Honest to pete - these people can't be that stupid - or can they?
No, that's not *the* purpose of making a movie, although that
certainly has been the motivation of most of the "Hollywood type"
movie for decades. Many of the best movies ever made were not
necessarily produced or directed for the widest possible appeal
and biggest possible box office, but for the sake of art.
Name one.
Citizen Kane, considered the best American movie. Also, many of the
"greatest movies" didn't have a wide release in the United States
and therefore aren't well known. Have you seen Jean Renoir's "The
River"?
How about Fellini's 8-1/2? Jules Dassin's "Phaedra"? Have you seen
"Z" by Costa-Gavras? It won an Academy Award for best foreign film.
It wasn't a great money make.

That does not dismiss the fact that the original intentions of making
those films was the hope for a big box office hit.

Like Tom, I would not say Citizen Kane is considered the best
American movie.

There are higher callings than huge profits.
Really? Then why do people make films - say, oh couple of million
dollars to produce a small indy film.

What's the motivation?
Art, creativity, making a statement, all sorts of reasons.
But making money remains the number one
intention................always.
These days for most Hollywood-type producers, sure. But not all. And
not always. Making money is NOT always the number one intention. You
overrate the profit motive in relation to "art."


OK, so lets forget money and just say that the number one intention is
to have the movie (or song, or painting, or book) *enjoyed* by the most
number of people possible. In today's world that most often translates
into a want to make money.
That's not true, either. Many very high quality movies are not aimed at
the mass audience, and therefore "mass appeal" is not the intention or
motivation.

Once again, if you are a true artist, it is the production of art that
is important, not the widest possible audience OR the amount of money
you might gross.


Any artist would want his/her project enjoyed by the most number of
people possible.

That's simply not true for "any" artist. Many "artists" (painters,
filmmakers, writers, sculptors, et cetera) do not produce for the mass
audience or even the widest audience. I have a small collection of
original "art," included a couple of original pieces by abstract
expressionists. I assure you, these guys were not painting so their work
could be enjoyed by "the most number of people possible."

Everyone loves Grandma Moses. Arshile Gorky is an acquired taste.


You miss my point. I never said they produce the art for the mass audience.
What I said was they produce it in hopes is it enjoyed by the most number of
people possible. That is an absolute truth.