Michael Moore fans- get this!

[bienville]

@gaffa

Sorry for not qualifying my claim . . .

O.K., I don’t know if commasense is a Moore fan, a Moore hater, or Moore indifferent, but you threw out a question/challenge and commasense responded with a perfectly legitimate answer, well explained and put into context- no thumbing of the nose nor any pissing on anyone’s parade.

[gaffa]

@commasense

Sorry. I forgot that IMAX films shown in museums are just like porn. :rolleyes:

“Deep Throat” showed in one New York theater for more than a decade.

(BTW, about half of all IMAX theaters in North America are now located in multiplexes.)

Granted, but it’s in response to a trend to making IMAX versions of Hollywood films, not showing the traditional IMAX short films.

As for the “nebulous” $100 million, see here, Box Office Mojo’s page on Everest, which shows it has made $128 million. I believe that figure may actually be years out of date.

And “Deep Throat” has, according to estimates, made more than “Titanic”. But because it’s not considered to be in a competition to regular Hollywood fare, they don’t count it.

Sorry I wasn’t able to read your mind and understand your bizarre and counterintuitive definition of “success,” which apparently is “no longer financially viable after a few weeks in theaters,” as opposed to “still in demand decades after opening,” as is the case with To Fly!, Everest, and many others of MacGillivray’s films. And “making less money, as long as it’s in the right kind of theater.”

The success of “Deep Throat” is a more fair comparison to “To Fly” than to compare “To Fly” to and of Michael Moore’s films. If Moore’s films showed in special “Michael Moore” theaters, carried a 50% higher ticket price and were only one third as long, then “To Fly” might be a fair comparison. Moore’s films show in regular theaters, at regular ticket prices, are the same length as most Hollywood films and compete with regular Hollywood films. In that world, the world of the multiplex, he’s the most successful documentary filmmaker ever.

Finally, remind me exactly where I “negated” Moore’s accomplishments or talents as a filmmaker. You asked for a more successful documentary filmmaker, and I provided an answer. MacGillivray has been in the business longer than Moore, has made more films which have been seen more people, and made more money than Moore’s. All these facts don’t take one whit away from Moore’s accomplishments or his “cultural phenomena.”

Yes, but your example opens the door to calling ride films like “Captain Eo” the “most successful science-fiction film ever”.

But by any reasonable and ordinary definitions of the terms “success,” “documentary,” and “filmmaker,” MacGillivray is a more successful documentary filmmaker than Moore.

Stretch any definition far enough, you can get it to fit anything apparently.

[commasense]

@gaffa

In that world, the world of the multiplex, [Moore]'s the most successful documentary filmmaker ever.

Agreed. And if you don’t constrain it that way (which you didn’t originally), you get a different answer.

Stretch any definition far enough, you can get it to fit anything apparently.

I wasn’t stretching anything. You made a statement that included implicit restrictions and then wanted everyone else to agree to definitions you changed after the fact.

I wasn’t trying to negate Moore’s accomplishments. Why are you trying to belittle MacGillivray’s? What makes you think that success in multiplexes is better or more important than success in IMAX theaters? Do you imagine that IMAX films have some kind of unfair advantage? (I can guarantee you that MacGillivray would find that a very amusing concept.) They use different business models, but they still reflect the level of interest of their respective audiences. And IMAX films manage to attract millions of viewers without multi-million-dollar national TV marketing campaigns.

And BTW, you’re mistaken in thinking that ticket prices are higher for IMAX documentaries than Hollywood features, in case you thought that that inflated IMAX grosses. Although the IMAX editions of Hollywood films are usually about $3-4 more than the conventional version, these days ticket prices for traditional, non-fiction, IMAX films at most theaters are about the same as, or less than, a regular movie. And until about ten years ago, most IMAX tickets were substantially cheaper than going to a regular movie. When To Fly! opened in 1976, tickets were 50 cents for adults and 25 cents for kids. Hollywood movies at that time were at least four or five times higher.

[Just_Some_Guy]

@commasense

I wasn’t trying to negate Moore’s accomplishments. Why are you trying to belittle MacGillivray’s? What makes you think that success in multiplexes is better or more important than success in IMAX theaters? Do you imagine that IMAX films have some kind of unfair advantage? (I can guarantee you that MacGillivray would find that a very amusing concept.) They use different business models, but they still reflect the level of interest of their respective audiences. And IMAX films manage to attract millions of viewers without multi-million-dollar national TV marketing campaigns.

Just to side with you on this, commasense, I and several other people I know specifically went out to see Everest. It was a legitimate commercial success that drew in people beyond families who happened to be visiting the museum.

[mangeorge]

@gaffa

You know that if you rent a film, the filmmaker doesn’t get any portion of that money? The rental place buys a copy outright, then rents it out. When it is no longer renting, they sell it at a discount. So Michael Moore makes money from seeing the film in the theater, and gets a portion from the sale of the DVD. But after that, you can rent it at your local video store, assured that he is not going to make one cent from it.

Note: Blockbuster may have a revenue-sharing deal with studios. As if I needed another reason to no rent from Blockbuster.

You just ruined the day for a lot of NRA members.
Peace,
mangeorge