something. that is true but no one .admits..

[bonanzataz]

I'm affraid the critics just don't want to look stupid, so what they do is pass a hot potato(I belive that's the way to say it).

molly,

i don't know anything about you, seeing as you are a relatively new member on the board, but to actually believe what you have just written is pure idiocy. the critics saying they like something so as not to be lambasted by the public? kind of defeats the whole purpose of criticism, don't you think? the reason lynch gets so much praise is because he is one of the ONLY people in the industry today whose movies push the art of film while still generating box office and a huge fanbase. i don't think anybody's been able to make an artistic and original movie that still appeals to the public since kubrick. lynch is the beacon of light in a sea made up mostly of what can only be described as boring, unoriginal cinema.

taz.

[Find Your Magali]

the reason lynch gets so much praise is because he is one of the ONLY people in the industry today whose movies push the art of film while still generating box office and a huge fanbase.

Well, that depends on how you define "generating box office." ... The last Lynch film that had a U.S. gross that was higher than the film's budget was "Wild at Heart," which grossed $14.5 million and had a $9.5 million budget.

Since then, his films have had relatively meager U.S. box offices:

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me ... $4.2 million ($10 million budget)

Lost Highway .... $3.8 million ($15 million budget)

The Straight Story ... $6.2 million ($10 million budget)

Mulholland Dr. .... $7.2 million ($15 million budget)

----

Of course, early in his career he had one big hit (The Elephant Man grossed $26 million on a $5 million budget) and one big bomb (Dune grossed $27 million on a $45 million budget).

[bonanzataz]

forget box office, what about video sales/rentals? lynch has to make money SOMEHOW!

but that's besides the point. he's still able to get money to finance his films, so obviously people believe in him and he has a big following.

[Weak2ndAct]

Yes, but most of his financing comes from France, and he usually breaks even/makes a profit overseas.

[bonanzataz]

guess i should do my research next time, eh?

heh heh... heh...


*crawls into a dark corner and cries for days on end*

[Cecil]

your point still stands, taz

[Weak2ndAct]

guess i should do my research next time, eh?

heh heh... heh...

*crawls into a dark corner and cries for days on end*

Replied to the above, not yours (we posted at the same time).  You can get out of the corner.

[Find Your Magali]

Your point definitely still stands, Taz. ... I just had a hunch that Lynch is no more of a commercially successful director than PTA or anyone else that we admire as "cutting edge" directors.

And while I'm sure there is, at the end of the day, a profit after all the foreign box office and video sales are tallied, the numbers show that the name "David Lynch" doesn't put people in the theatres in the U.S. Never has.

[molly]

I'm affraid the critics just don't want to look stupid, so what they do is pass a hot potato(I belive that's the way to say it).

molly,

i don't know anything about you, seeing as you are a relatively new member on the board, but to actually believe what you have just written is pure idiocy. the critics saying they like something so as not to be lambasted by the public? kind of defeats the whole purpose of criticism, don't you think? the reason lynch gets so much praise is because he is one of the ONLY people in the industry today whose movies push the art of film while still generating box office and a huge fanbase. i don't think anybody's been able to make an artistic and original movie that still appeals to the public since kubrick. lynch is the beacon of light in a sea made up mostly of what can only be described as boring, unoriginal cinema.

taz.

I wasn't saying that I think Lynch is bad in any way, I just wanted to say that I haven't read a good critic ( I meant a good written text) that says about Lynch anything new and original. I think that critics just repeat general things that go around about Lynch, that he's a genious, but not saying anything inspirable. Or I haven't read the right stuff.

[SHAFTR]

I'm affraid the critics just don't want to look stupid, so what they do is pass a hot potato(I belive that's the way to say it).

molly,

i don't know anything about you, seeing as you are a relatively new member on the board, but to actually believe what you have just written is pure idiocy. the critics saying they like something so as not to be lambasted by the public? kind of defeats the whole purpose of criticism, don't you think? the reason lynch gets so much praise is because he is one of the ONLY people in the industry today whose movies push the art of film while still generating box office and a huge fanbase. i don't think anybody's been able to make an artistic and original movie that still appeals to the public since kubrick. lynch is the beacon of light in a sea made up mostly of what can only be described as boring, unoriginal cinema.

taz.

I wasn't saying that I think Lynch is bad in any way, I just wanted to say that I haven't read a good critic ( I meant a good written text) that says about Lynch anything new and original. I think that critics just repeat general things that go around about Lynch, that he's a genious, but not saying anything inspirable. Or I haven't read the right stuff.

Read Ebert's review of Blue Velvet.

[Weak2ndAct]

Read Ebert's review of Blue Velvet.

That review just plain blows my mind.  I disagree w/ it on every level.  I don't even bother w/ Ebert's reviews in regards to Lynch's work anymore.  He slams the guy for years, now he's the biggest supporter: **** for SS and MD (and even screened MD for his frame-by-frame analysis-seminar-thing).  How he could rave about his last 2 films (which I find to be the *safest*, if there is such a thing regarding Lynch) and dimiss the others doesn't quite wash w/ me.

Oh yeah, and by Ebert's math, Radio is a much better movie than BV

[molly]

And, BTW, two TV products marked my childhood: Dynasty(some might remember that) and Twin Peaks - the first one as especially and unforgettably bad, and the other one as especially and unforgettably good.

[SHAFTR]

Read Ebert's review of Blue Velvet.

That review just plain blows my mind.  I disagree w/ it on every level.  I don't even bother w/ Ebert's reviews in regards to Lynch's work anymore.  He slams the guy for years, now he's the biggest supporter: **** for SS and MD (and even screened MD for his frame-by-frame analysis-seminar-thing).  How he could rave about his last 2 films (which I find to be the *safest*, if there is such a thing regarding Lynch) and dimiss the others doesn't quite wash w/ me.

Oh yeah, and by Ebert's math, Radio is a much better movie than BV

I actually agreed with Ebert's review on Blue Velvet.  It described in words how I felt after the 3 times I saw the movie.

[bonanzataz]

And, BTW, two TV products marked my childhood: Dynasty(some might remember that) and Twin Peaks - the first one as especially and unforgettably bad, and the other one as especially and unforgettably good.

you don't have to watch dynasty to have an attitude.


i wasn't trying to "diss" you molly. it came out as harsh because i get defensive over lynch. i can see you are a fan and i'm completely insane. i wasn't calling you an idiot, but saying that the only reason critics like lynch is because they don't want people to think they're stupid couldn't possibly be true. if a work went over a critic's head, i'm sure most would admit it. maybe they're not as enthusiastic about lynch as die hard fans, but if they hate a movie, they'll say it. that's their job.

[Cecil]

if they hate a movie, they'll say it. that's their job.

no, acting like their opinion is more important and "accurate" then everyone else is their job. where would we be without these brave souls, telling filmmakers exactly whats wrong with their films?