jsea90

hi people.
more dissertation primary research needed.

what is, and how do you measure the success of a film?

is it money at the box office? working with huge stars? winning awards? making the film that you wanted to create? or something else?

discussions and debates welcome!

Joe

ChristineCB

I hope film-makers give 'longevity' some value. I am uncertain how important Longevity might have been during the early days of cinema. Every film maker probably hopes to create some ageless classic, but somewhere along the way, all of them recognize that most films are closer to landfill than ageless art.

I saw MY MAN GODFREY when that film was 58 years old. It was immediately charming, even with some stagey, wooden performances at times, or uncrisp dialog sequencing, less than perfect lighting, and an abysmal lack of CGI Star-Wars bar scenes, nuclear explosions or steroided gun-battles. (I know, I know - GODFREY would be SO MUCH BETTER if only George Lucas could get it and add in all those scenes now.) MY MAN GODFREY was done in 1936? 71 years old now.

Ronald Colman's ARROWSMITH (1930) is a favorite film of mine, but I'm still sort of dreamy about Ronald Colman. And it's pushing 80 years old.

Think of the Marx Brothers films (ANIMAL CRACKERS, 1930). Another film nearing 80. It's usually not considered one of their best films, but "not a success"? And their schtick is even older than 1930, yet they create new fans year after year.

I hope "longevity" will part of the formula for success.

I see a hundred copies of the same DVD on a rental store'shelves, and I'll doubt if 90% of those copies exist in 80 weeks before being trashed, much less being seen in 80 years. Yet, most of today's films have far more natural-appearing acting, better timing of dialog, more realistic blood splatter, louder music with 5.1 Dolby and the explosions all have that petro-nuclear bloom to them. Ahhh...

I'm sure Ronald Colman is wistfully looking down and wishing he could have done TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE BEGINNING. Oh yeah. Uh huh.

Fellwanderer

It hits you in the pit of the stomach.

It blows your mind away.

You feel a warm glow at the thought of it years [nay, decades] later.

All the best
FELL

A signature is no substitute for a life

Phil Turner

So true. The ultimate success of a film is how it affects you on a personal level. A favourite film has the power to enrich your life and stay in your heart and mind forever. That's much more important than ticket sales and box office receipts.

Talking of box office returns, I get very frustrated when the success of a film is measured in pounds or dollars. In our inflationary world, it's inevitable that modern films break box office records, because ticket prices are increasing all the time. In a fair world, box office receipts would be ADJUSTED for inflation, to achieve a direct comparison with films from the past.

Regards
Phil Turner

DB7

Really depends on your objectives from the beginning. Dickie Attenborough and Peter Sellers were probably happy just to get Gandhi and Being There on film whereas the producers of a Hollywood blockbuster like Spiderman will be looking for a large return, and infusing an inconclusive ending into the story that would allow for a sequel. Others may be a vehicle intended to allow a tv star (George Clooney?) or pop singer (Madonna?) to crossover to mainstream cinema... with varying degrees of success.

Then there's pure unadulterated self-indulgent twaddle normally featuring Kevin Costner or somebody who has lost his grip on reality.... (scientologists were probably delighted with Battlefield Earth)

merryowen

Box office.

A successful film is one that the public will pay to see.

DB7

Not always so. The Shawshank Redemption was a moderate box-office success, won no Oscars, but has since sold by the lorryload on DVD and now sits at #2 on the imdb's popularity rating.