Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: witpqs quote:
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote:
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy Not just by itself. I'd go for Leyte-Samar AND Surigao. It's got everything one could ask for in the plot. Except an audience to pay for the $400 million budget. Those kinds of movies don't get made anymore, certainly not about 70-YO events. About 40% of the US population doesn't know who we fought in WWII. You think they know from Samar? They don't have to know Samar. The movie, done well, would be what audiences want. They would love it. I agree, if it got made. But it won't. You're talking "Avatar" money, with no champion like Cameron to sell it to the money men. A huge cast, and all-CGI exteriors. There's no contract system to keep the extras low-paid anymore. Not to mention the cost of going on location for much of it. Outside that, it would take too much back-story to fully bring an unschooled audience to the point they understood what was at stake. And, with no women in the cast, you lose half the audience--the half that chooses the movie (backed up by research.) The last time they did that was for "Master and Commander", where women appear in only one scene, Large Slow Target style. Despite Russel Crowe at the height of his popularity, a script that was excellent, and historical detail to please the grognards, the movie limped in and out of theaters. We here can bewail the romance in "Pearl Harbor", but it was there for very good business reasons. And movie-making is a business.
< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 8/31/2010 2:28:37 AM >
_____________________________
The Moose
|