DVD reviews that get their facts wrong (1 Viewer)

[ArthurMy]

Again, let's be clear, at least for me - I never said it was a failure, I said it was a moderate success. I hold to this belief.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Yes, can we please move on.






Crawdaddy

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

"Singin' in the Rain" was not an enormous hit during its initial run. It wasn't a dud, either, mind you, but it took in less than "An American in Paris", and made around half the worldwide box-office of other hit films from 1952 such as "High Noon" and "The Greatest Show on Earth". It's reputation grew steadily with subsequent reissues.

Regards,

 

[Ernest Rister]

I think the method of accounting used in that Top 20 list was specious. It creates false impressions that in no way reflect the larger truth about a film's total box office take. If a film is released in 1964, even if on only two screens the last two weeks of December, it is a 1964 film. By shaping the numbers in the manner above, the end result is an incomplete picture of those film's performances. It is essentially useless, unless your goal is to put Unsinkable Molly Brown into the top three highest-grossing films released in 1964 by deflating the numbers of late-starting blockbuster films like Mary Poppins and My Fair Lady.

By the way, what was the final negative cost of Molly Brown? Profits aren't measured by gross receipts, they are measured by the final net tally minus the cut from exhibitors minus the production costs minus advertising minus taxes minus legal fees minus print costs, etc etc etc.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

My biggest peeve for a while with online DVD reviews was the mis-use of the term "dynamic range", which many reviewers seemed to equate with frequency range/bandwidth rather than RMS to peak levels.

Regards,

 

[Scott Kimball]

Of course, "dynamic range" can refer to the visual qualities, as well...

 

[DaViD Boulet]

In terms of both audio and video, "Dynamic range" is a meaningful term just as Scott says.

In terms of audio, it means the range from the quietest to the loudest (as opposed to frequency response...as Ken rightly points out), and in terms of video it deals with contrast...the range from dark to light.

I use the term often regarding both audio and video reviewing.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Ernest,

Your logic escapes me. In the same way films released late in '64 did not account for the box office records for '64, the films that were released late in '63 would account for the box office records of '64. This is a very common form of accounting and not some bizarre conspiracy by the powers that be to somehow try and make TUMB look like a hit. This was hardly a big budget musical by that era's standards, so unless you are willing to substantiate your insinuations with actual confirmed accounting data that would prove the film was not financially successful I suggest you do as Crawdaddy so aptly suggested:
David,

I hope some day you consider authoring a guide to evaluating video, in particular DVD. I have followed your reviews from the start and especially over the last year or so and I would consider your reviews to be some of the best examples of how to review DVDs from both a technical and artistic standpoint. Truly superb work!

I also appreciate how over the years you have clearly sought to enhance your knowledge of all aspects of DVD production and it has shown in your writing. I also notice how often you edit your reviews, which I also consider an excellent trait as it suggests that you are more than willing to go back and fix whatever errors there might be.

I seriously hope you consider what I am suggesting as I honestly feel it would not only be a real value to others, and not just to fellow critics, but that you would probably enjoy the project.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

:b

Nils,

Thanks for the thoughtful compliment and for the great suggestion. I think you're right about putting together some sort of articulated account of my reviewing philosophy. Actually, I've wanted to write a "DaViD reviewing manifesto" of sorts for some time...if for no other reason than to clarify my philosphy of 'high-fidelity' and how the same principles that apply to high-end audio mastering/evaluation should likewise apply to high-end video mastering/evaluation; Whether it's film-grain being digitally air-brushed away or magnetic tape hiss being noise-reduced and taking a layer of musical information along with it...it's the same key issues.

I started out as an audiophile and the lessons learned there have been of great help to me in gauging the waters of how to evaluate digital video reproduction (a constantly evolving, hopefully improving, process on my part).

It's more a matter of just figuring out what I'd do with such an work. Would I host it on some website? It would be nice if I have some free web-space where I could write a classy HTML-formatted document...




Maybe what we simply need to do is post the same earnings report for '63 and '65 films...so we can see the spill-over before and after to take care of these "cut off" discrepencies...

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

That is the least I could offer you, so consider it done. Feel free to drop me a PM or give me a call and we can discuss specifics.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Your logic escapes me. In the same way films released late in '64 did not account for the box office records for '64, the films that were released late in '63 would account for the box office records of '64.

You know, I've never come across anybody who referred to "2002's The Fellowship of the Ring" or "2004's Return of the King" or "1992's Beauty and the Beast", etc. The films are dated by the year in which they were released. Of the films released in 1964, the three biggest box office hits do not include The Unsinkable Molly Brown. You have to create statistical parameters that nobody uses in normal discussion to make that happen.

 

[Thomas T]

Mr. Crawford, I have made my point but I certainly would like to move on but I must say to Mr. Rister,

Ernest,

The list is the highest grossing films of 1964, NOT the highest grossing films RELEASED in 1964. Do you get the difference? It would be quite silly to have Fill In The Blank released in December 2004 in only New York and Los Angeles in order to qualify for Oscar consideration (which often happens) and then opens wide across the rest of the country in February 2005 have its grosses applied as one of the highest grossing films of 2004 because it wasn't one of the highest grossing films of 2004, it was one of the highest grossing films of 2005. As for TUMB, as you can see from my quote from The MGM Story, "filmed on a lavish budget, amply returned from American box offices but less so from overseas" should settle the matter once and for all.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Silly or not, that's how it is usually done. When discussing the box office of Schindler's List, no one lists "Schindler's List (1993 - $30 million, 1994 - $69 million)" - they just list "Schindler's List (1993) - $99 million". The same thing for Titanic, the LOTR films or any other film that debuts late in the year. When I saw your list of the top grossing films of 1964 that excluded Mary Poppins completely and had Molly Brown ranked above My Fair Lady, my first reaction was one of great puzzlement -- I had to read on to see what that chart really was - a rather unique way of sorting box-office data.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

If unique you mean the way annual box office receipts have been tabulated and archived via numerous industry accounting firms for more than fifty years then I guess you must be right...

Let it go Ernest, let it go.

 

[Roger Rollins]

FYI...MOLLY BROWN opened in the dead of summer during 1964 and broke the house record at RADIO CITY MUSIC HALL, the previous record-holder was NORTH BY NORTHWEST!

MOLLY BROWN was indeed a financial success. It was certainly not a blockbuster success on the level of MARY POPPINS or THE SOUND OF MUSIC.

Indeed, MGM had several musicals in development after MOLLY BROWN. GOODBYE MR. CHIPS was supposed to have an Andre & Dore Previn score and star Richard Burton, only to end up with endless personnel changes and become a box-office disappointment in 1969 despite valiant acting efforts from Peter O'Toole, and a winning performance from Petula Clark as his leading lady.

Arthur Freed had been developing his SAY IT WITH MUSIC project with an Irving Berlin score of both old and new songs as far back as 1958. After droppping screenplays by Arthur Laurents, George Wells, and 2 different ones by Comden and Green, Freed was ready to go with Julie Andrews and Blake Edwards directing, but Kirk Kerkorian had taken control of the studio by that time, put James Aubrey in charge, killed the project and Freed was let go from the studio after 40 plus years of dedicated service.

SHE LOVES ME was also in the works for Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. Since MGM owned the underlying property (THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER) and had recorded the Broadway cast album as a result, the screen version was much anticipated. I don't know who was set to produce (it wasn't Freed) but Kirk & Aubrey killed that one, too.

The only survivor (if you can call it that) was Ken Russell's ill-fated attempt to film THE BOY FRIEND, which was severely edited by the Aubrey regime before its eventual, badly-received release.

The only "musicals" to succeed before MGM's true demise in 1986 when its library went to Ted Turner, and its name went to Kerkorian's UA, were FAME and VICTOR/VICTORIA, both of which only became profitable after ancillary markets kicked in their contribution.

Getting back to the main thrust of this thread...Unquestionably a great deal of online reviewers make mistakes and get things wrong..but equally a great deal of them do work worthy of praise.

Most of the best, are those who contribute their fine dedication to HTF.

 

[Thomas T]

I apologize to everyone for harping on this subject but ...

Ernest,

If one is talking about the highest grossing films of the year, it is just that. The highest grossing films of the year which is measured by industry box office charts from October 2004 to September 2005 as the highest grossing films of 2005. This is the norm, not the calendar year that we civilians go by.

When speaking of the highest grossing films of all time, then the accumulated totals are gathered and listed hence:

Schindler's List (1993) $99,000,000.

The 1993 lets you know the year of release of the film, not the year it accumulated its $99,000,000 total.

Here's a good example: Vertigo was not one of the highest grossing films of 1958. In fact, it's grosses were so low that it didn't qualify for a listing in Variety's highest grossing films of all time chart. However, during it's highly successful re-issue in the mid 80s after long being out of circulation, it was an art house hit, and the grosses it earned when added to its grosses earned in 1958 were enough to bump Vertigo onto Variety's all time grossers list. According to you, that would qualify Vertigo as one of the highest grossing films of 1958 when, in fact, it was anything but. Similarly, Gone With The Wind was one of the highest grossing films of the year during its 1967 re-issue and was listed as no. 3 as the third highest grossing film of 1968 after The Graduate and Guess Who's Coming To Dinner (December 1967 releases) but according to you, it shouldn't be listed as one of the highest grossing films of 1967 because it's a 1939 film.

Simply put, you may not like how they do it, but that's how it is.

 

[Paul Linfesty]

The 10 million quoted for Victor/Victoria is way too low. The film grossed AT LEAST $20 million domestic, which leads me to suspect this is actually a rental list, not a b.o. list. As a matter of fact, Variety's year end charts used to always be in rentals, at least up through the early 80's. And there was a time that the aggregate total of all theatrical engagements (first, second, third-run) was more like 37 percent of the boxoffice, even as late as the mid 70's.

 

[Scott Kimball]

Everyone says, "let it go"...

...and yet, they don't.

Unfortunate. I've lost interest in what could be an interesting thread.

-Scott

 

[Jack Briggs]

Agreed, Scott.

 

[RickER]

Hey Scott, Jack, they just cant get their facts straight...thats all.