Its fun to play with numbers.

So Forbes can show that two movies, playing in October and
November 2009, made a lot of money. They could also show that 100
low budget movies with no big stars offered for sale at AFM in
November didnt even find distribution. And the reason no
distributor would take the chance is because they had no name
stars.

Did the distributors make a mistake and miss the next Precious
or Paranormal Activity or Blair Witch?

Or is that just as irrelevant?

Do 2 movies in a 60 day period indicate a change in movie goers
habits? Or a wave of the future?

You arent so sure - Im certain it does not.

Taking a look at the box office for the week of Nov. 6 (when
Precious made its $1.8) youll see 4 low budget, no name star
films that didnt crack the top 30. And 9 low budget films with
names that didnt crack the top 30. Thats 13 out of 15 in the
theaters that seem to be failing. And I only included films on the
chart that were released the week Oct. 30 and Nov. 6.

That doesnt look to me to be a trend towards audiences making low
budget, no name star movies big money makers.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

You hit the nail on the head.

Haha, wow.

certified instigator has it right. I wouldn't have been proud to write that article.

I looked at Box Office Mojo where Ms. Pomerantz got her stats. She says
"Precious" is the 12th-highest-grossing movie per-screen of all time. It's
actually number 11. It was number 12 highest grossing film of the week
of Nov. 6. She isn't a very good researcher, either.

Interesting that "Precious" is the third highest-grossing movie per-screen
if you take out the animated films. They account for 8 of the top 12 highest
grossing movies per-screen since 1982 when BOM started calculating numbers.

By her logic, not only are movie stars becoming irrelevant, but live action
films are irrelevant - and have been for years.

When I read the Forbes articles, my first reaction was to say that, since big name stars have been around since the 1930's, they'll continue to be around for the forseeable future.

That said, I'd be curious to know how the internet would change things - if people can watch movies for free, would they pay to see a big-name star?

I thought this article by Alex Dobuzinskis is well thought out and researched
and much less reactionary then the one by Ms. Pomerantz.

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE5AC5AI20091113

Two genres have always been "star" proof. Horror and comedy. We can all site
many examples of horror and comedy films that did very well with no stars. A
good fantasy or Sci-Fi can also do well without stars, but they are more
expensive to make so few are made on the ultra-low level.