Terror/Horror

[Jakob Abrahamsson]

Sorry to contradict you Najib, but the production cycle for most Hollywood films are surely much longer than one year.Some action were taken directly after Sept 11 such as removing the twin towers from the Spiderman trailer and putting Arnold Schwarznegger's Collatoral Damage on the shelf for a while. 

This summer's blockbusters like Reign of fire, Signs were most probably in production before Sept 11. However it will be interesting to see what will happen to Matrix 2&3, them dealing with an underground restance force and so.. 

But basically I think most everything is back to normal in the big studios. 

/Jakob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Khash Najib" <najibjp at yahoo.co.jp>
To: <KineJapan at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Terror/Horror


> 
> > it's too early to
> > really see any possible decline. The major movies
> > that are coming out now
> > have started production before September 11th.
> 
> Well I don't think so; the production cycle for most
> Hollywood productions is surely shorter than a whole year.
> I agree than the conception and planning phases do take
> place over a year before release, but those phases consume
> only a fraction of film budgets, and changing or canceling
> planned projects, if they are perceived by the producers
> to be risky or against the public mood, is a usual thing
> to do. You know, even events as big as the then-scheduled
> ceremony of the Emmy Awards was cancelled. Also don ’t
> forget that the media was indeed sensitive to the obvious
> enormous effects of the attacks on the national psyche.
> Microsoft sited that they made the effort to erase the
> twin towers from their games (some of which include many
> fictional structures) not only for accuracy reasons but
> because they thought that the sight of the towers might
> provoke traumatic feelings in some users. And with the
> anthrax scare that followed, I wouldn ’t be surprised if
> film producers thought that it is not a good time for a
> disaster flick.
> I’m also not sure that the decline in “catastrophe
> movies ” happened naturally or because of saturation in
> the market. I feel that the genre is one of Hollywood ’s
> bread-and-butter lines of production with its devoted
> audience. I also think that those movies embody some of
> Hollywood ’s most basic values, and some of the
> industry’s favorite social, and even religious,
> projections (perhaps the place of this argument is not in
> this message, but I mean that the genre is not a temporary
> fashion).
> Anyway thank you for pointing out that the decline in such
> productions is not as overwhelming as I had thought.
> I was also wondering if producers of “Pearl Harbor”
> would have gone ahead with the project had it been in its
> earlier phases last September. Having said that, I am
> aware of the validity of the opposite possibility. I mean,
> some producers could have thought that nothing would be
> more needed at a time like that than a film like Pearl
> Harbor. After all, the film is about an attack that
> America managed to weather, and which happened at the
> beginning of a war that America won.
> Well, no way to make sure of what would have happened to
> Pearl Harbor. My basic question is about how much film as
> a medium would respond to national mood. Apart from the
> obvious  “yes, there is a relation between the political
> atmosphere in a country and the films produced there ”, I
> guess that young generations in many parts of the world
> now, because of being less politicized than, say, in the
> 60s or 70s, are kind of separated from much of the serious
>  “status of the world” discourse and enjoying an
> “independent world ” of filmed entertainment, even if
> the “status” concerned is of their own countries.
>  
> Cheers,
> Najib
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  --- Silvia Groniewicz <LinaInverse at blackbox.net> からの
> メッセージ：
> > >Dear List,
> > >I hope some members find interest in the following
> > three questions:
> > >1- I don't know how statistically sound my
> > observation is, but I have
> > >noticed a decline in the American "catastrophy
> > movie" phenomenon (volcanos,
> > >earthquakes, floods...) since September 11. Do
> > people here agree with me?
> > 
> > I disagree with you in that point. It's always an up
> > and down for those
> > kinds of movies and after we had seen nearly
> > everything a break is only
> > natural. Besides there have been a few "catastrophy
> > movies" even though
> > they are either fantasy ("Reign of Fire" a.k.a.
> > "Dragons take over the
> > world" and "Eight legged freaks" a.k.a. "Giant
> > Spiders take over a town")
> > or in the true life segment ("K19-The Widowmaker",
> > the true story of
> > Russian incident that could have caused a 3rd
> > worldwar). I think that it
> > only seems less, because those movies are not the
> > summer-box-office hits
> > that "Titanic" or "The Perfect Storm" were. Besides,
> > it's too early to
> > really see any possible decline. The major movies
> > that are coming out now
> > have started production before September 11th. 
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Silvia
> > 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! BB is Broadband by Yahoo!  http://bb.yahoo.co.jp/
>