I’d say the fact that there’s Bollywood (BOmbay+Hollywood) and Nollywood (Niger+…) and other similar nomenclatures indicates that yes, Hollywood is the entertainment capital of the world.
Never seen one of their little flicks huh? I would say that all of their movies include at least four of the six you listed in a mix and match pattern but the distinguishing feature is that they are all musicals too. Seriously, song and dance numbers spontaneously erupt from Bollywood movies like a spoiled can of Wolf Man chili from a redneck. It is the damnest thing you will never want to see again. The next time you are feeling bad about America, watch a few minutes of a Bollywood film to help put things back in perspective. You will never appreciate any Hollywood movie more than the one you watch right after theirs.
Sorry for all you Hollywood detractors. That is the best thing going in the film world by miles as a general rule. You have to be really selective to find foreign TV that doesn’t suck too.
what are the most expensive non-Hollywood titles? i’m guessing not alot, price and number.
Here’s a list of the highest worldwide grossing films of all time, not adjusted for inflation (the list on the right side):
http://www.filmsite.org/boxoffice.html
The answer to your quesition is probably the Harry Potter films. I don’t know where the money to make them came from, but they were filmed in the U.K. with British actors.
I’d argue not, because they were done by Warner Bros., who definitely count as Hollywood.
Come, now: Everyone knows Hollywood’s one big building. The externals are all done in Vancouver. Saves money that way.
(Seattle is in the backwash of the Vancouver rain machine. Saves more money that way, eh? ;))
I live in Austin, and it would surprise the hell out of me. There’s a pretty decent indie moviemaking scene here, but there’s absolutely no way it will ever be a dominant player in the movie world.
It’s the movie capital of the world, for sure.
Video games are - I believe - much bigger than movies these days, and probably take the #1 entertainment slot. Music is obviously massive, too, and fairly well spread around geographically. And TV is - probably - focused more in Hollywood than anywhere else, but gets much more competition from the rest of the world (e.g. the world’s largest broadcaster is in the UK) than movies do.
And I have no real idea what all those Chinese people watch, so the movie capital of the world could really be in China for all I know. Plus Bollywood’s been mentioned, which is enormous.
And, of course, a hell of a lot of movies are filmed elsewhere these days. Pinewood in the UK, New Zealand, Canada, and so on.
I think we have to acknowledge permeability though. I don’t know how many US movies make dent on Indian screens, but I know that Bollywood films don’t make a significant impact on US screens. Those I have seen have been a deliberate sought out choice on DVD. Of course, as far as I know Bollywood could permeate all non-US markets, or vice versa. So shear numbers is not enough if they are not also promiscuous.
In Australia, most of the movies running in the big multiplex theaters are American. Australia is an English speaking market, and Hollywood beats everyone else on sheer quantity of English language films made. Hollywood else tends to sell its films as packages too – so local distributors don’t buy films individually but in lots.
The exception to this would be the small independent theaters and theaters that show films in foreign languages (in Sydney, Chinese theaters would probably be the most common).
I’d add that after American movies, the next biggest share of English-language films here (Australia) come from the UK, followed by local films (of varying degrees of quality In Many People’s Humble Opinions).
The US market is pretty small compared to the Indian market.
The term can bs used for mass market movies in general or fir the typical mishmash of genres – musical/drama/romance/comedy/action. “Serious” non-Bollywood movies are referred to as “parallel Cinema.”
it’s not “formerly” known as Bombay. It’s still known as Bombay.
Regional language cinema also has a reputation of bring more adventurous and diverse than Bollywood, which aims for the mass market.
I don’t know about all non-U.S. markets, but Bollywood movies have significant popularity throughout Asia, Africa, Russia and the other former Soviet republics. I’m not sure about Latin America. I think there’s little permeation in Europe, Japan, or the Anglosphere.
True. Part of the reason is that even their own filmmakers can’t make much money from the biz: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-24/entertainment/nollywood.piracy_1_nollywood-piracy-film-industry?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ
The “mix of everything” Bollywood films are referred to as Masala (spice) and my Indian friends tell me that they’re very popular with the mass-market in India but less so with people who want to be seen as “Cool” or “Hip”, apparently.
Right. They go for the Parallel Cinema output. There’s a significant, if small production capacity for low-budget, low-margin films.
Not a chance. Don’t underestimate the weather’s role in the success of Hollywood. For full disclosure, I work as a location scout in Hollywood.
What keeps Bollywood movies from being shown widely in the US? Are they that culturally different? Is there an untapped market here?
There are also “Serious” Bollywood films which aren’t full of colourful costumes, random song-and-dance numbers, and cliched plots, too. Some of them are pretty good, or at least no worse than any “Straight-to-video” film from The West.