tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post7779001025210922274..comments2024-03-27T23:28:20.274-04:00Comments on Face to Face: I knew I wasn't missing much at the movies latelyagnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-36942987053152989352009-06-10T10:27:26.650-04:002009-06-10T10:27:26.650-04:00I'm not interested in whether 1989 was a parti...I'm not interested in whether 1989 was a particularly good or bad year in movies (though, impressionistically, it looks pretty dire).<br /><br />My point was that your argument (movie attendance correlates with movie quality) misses a key factor. You haven't shown that the good movies you mention were responsible for pushing up movie attendance, or that the bad movies pushed it down. They didn't, either way. The teen-comedy genre, while popular, were never huge contributors to overall box office. And within the genre, the mid-80s John Hughes movies were among the most popular.<br /><br />As I mentioned, Heathers (1989) was commercial flop (US gross $1m). Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1981) did reasonably well ($27m), but its impact on the total box office for 1981 was negligible compared to, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark ($245m).<br /><br />John Hughes's mid-80s movies also did well. The Breakfast Club (1984) got $46m; Pretty in Pink (1985) got $40m. Sixteen Candles (1986) was weaker ($24m). Inflation affects these figures, but not the overall picture.<br /><br />So your correlation between tickets sold and movie quality is spurious, at least on the examples you present.<br /><br />i.p.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-30447136494677756402009-06-08T15:51:21.008-04:002009-06-08T15:51:21.008-04:00You failed to provide comparisons for other years ...You failed to provide comparisons for other years (as well as accounting for inflation), so that list is irrelevant to tracking change over time in quality of movies.<br /><br />The reference to Heathers was to show that teen movies made in the early and later part of the '80s were good, while those in the middle part were bad.<br /><br />If you weren't illiterate, you would've already figured that out.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-37205614166140784612009-06-08T15:00:17.743-04:002009-06-08T15:00:17.743-04:00What does "Heathers" have to do with jum...What does "Heathers" have to do with jump in movies viewed per capita in 1989? It was box-office failure; its U.S. gross was barely half its $2m budget. <br /><br />If you want to make sense of your attendence figures, you need to look at the top-grossing movies for each year. For 1989:<br /><br />251,185,407 Batman (1989)<br />197,171,806 Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)<br />147,253,986 Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)<br />140,088,813 Look Who's Talking (1989)<br />130,724,200 Honey, I Shrunk the Kids (1989)<br />118,500,000 Back to the Future Part II (1989)<br />112,494,738 Ghostbusters II (1989)<br />109,859,444 The Little Mermaid (1989)<br />106,593,296 Driving Miss Daisy (1989)<br />100,047,830 Parenthood (1989)<br /><br />Yup, real quality there.<br /><br />intellectual pariahHHMBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12740109288795941606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-30739920699825559172009-06-01T20:10:09.561-04:002009-06-01T20:10:09.561-04:00Nah, people recognize good when they see it. Hence...Nah, people recognize good when they see it. Hence their boredom and avoidance of most modern art or postmodern novels.<br /><br />So, the correlation is pretty high.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-73529457954828201122009-06-01T19:27:20.479-04:002009-06-01T19:27:20.479-04:00"So now I don't feel so guilty about bein..."So now I don't feel so guilty about being out of the movie loop for the past 6 or 7 years. Apparently there wasn't much worth seeing."<br /><br />LOL, because what can be deemed as "good" stems directly from what the average american watches. hint: the correlation between how many movies were worth seeing in a year and how many movies the average american watches in a year is zero. i don't mean to be too harsh, but this didn't really make sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-89657976373453098352009-06-01T16:38:41.259-04:002009-06-01T16:38:41.259-04:00But that has nothing to do with the change over ti...But that has nothing to do with the change over time in the average.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-66705387153450701902009-06-01T10:01:30.559-04:002009-06-01T10:01:30.559-04:00My guess is that not too many people actually see ...My guess is that not too many people actually see the average of 4 to 6 movies per person/per year. It's more like either zero (for the majority of the population, perhaps a substantial majority) or 10+ (for a small but dedicated minority).<br /><br />PeterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com