The movies and americans

[Iwata]

Alright, first of all, I don't want this to collapse into an "americans are stupid, ahyuck" flame war. What I am asking comes from genuine curiosity and unless you have something to contribute, please think before you post.

I am a movie buff. I love cinema, and as such, there were a couple of circumstances that kinda puzzled me, in the way distributors see the american public in general. In short, they seem to think that the average american moviegoer has an IQ of -75.

Three examples:

- "Enemy Mine", a science fiction classic about two enemy fighter pilots who are forced to collaborate to survive in a hostile environment. Well apparently the distributor thought that americans would not get the title, so they forced a whole sequence with an actual enemy mine into the movie.

- "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone", in this case they decided to retitle the movie in the american market because they seem to think americans don't know what a philosopher is.

- "Robin Hood", the latest one by Ridley Scott, was originally supposed to be a twist on the legend, in that the Sheriff would be the hero, and Robin the villain, but the idea was scrapped as it would, apparently, be too "confusing" for american audiences.

Now, maybe this is just me, but I happen to know a few americans personally. They strike me as no smarter, nor dumber, than any other people. So why this seemingly shameful selection of stupid decisions?

 

[JoJo]

I recekon these kind of decisions are made by the cinema's of all countries: the sad truth is that most people of any nationality or race are idiots.

 

[etherlance]

It's not the American people in general who are stupid, but in fact it is the movie creators themselves.

They come from another world and believe that we mortals from all reaches of the earth are so moronic that we all need to wear crash helmets and swimming bands when we leave our homes.

 

[Tydanubus]

The Robin Hood one especially bummed me out. I was really looking forward to an alternate take on the story. We've already seen Hood as a good guy, Hollywood. Many, many times.

 

[JordanJefferson]

About Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, they changed it because Scolastic, the owners of Harry Potter's book publishing rights in the US, thought that kids wouldn't know what the Philosopher's Stone is, not what a philosopher in and of itself was.

 

[Dags90]

The Philosopher Stone has nothing to do with philosophy. The Philosopher Stone is a mystical object in the mythos of alchemy, so yeah. I wouldn't be surprised if most Americans aren't up on their medieval alchemy. I prefer the Sorcerer's Stone to the Philosopher's Stone because the Philosopher is a specific object in another mythos. There's no discernible alchemy practice in the Harry Potter universe, it seems like it would make potions rather redundant anyway. Calling it the Philosopher's Stone is more confusing to people who already know what the Philosopher's Stone is, because they're going to expect something else. It's like if I made a book called, "Sally Porter and the Bigfoot" and said halfway through the book that my Bigfoot is nothing like Bigfoot.

For one, you're relying on a lot of what other people think of average Americans. I can guarantee that no one making these decisions is an average American, they may not even personally know any average Americans. Another thing is that, as is the case of averages across a large population, a large portion of the U.S. has an IQ below average. Things targeted to a lower IQ be enjoyed by people with lower IQs while still getting some purchases from higher IQs. The reverse is somewhat less true. It's much easier to "turn your brain off" than it is to go out and do research to enjoy a movie.

 

[MetalDooley]

Other things are sometimes changed as well like movies being given happier endings.

Army of Darkness is a good example.I watched it when it was first released here in Ireland and the ending was the one where

Spoiler

Ash sleeps too long and wakes up way in the future where everything is destroyed

.When I bought it on DVD some years later though it included the "American Theatrical Version" which had a completely different ending where

Spoiler

Ash makes it back to his own time and rescues a woman and is a hero in the end

Are Americans just not able to handle non-happy endings or do studios just think that?

 

[TheDist]

I don't think it's anything to do with "american people" but rarther what the people in charge think "will get more people to come see it/buy it"

Titles and endings by business committee as it were. Just likely taken from whatever statistics they seem to think show the best ways to make the cash moneys.

 

[Casual Shinji]

They also wanted to change the title of Four Weddings And a Funeral when it was distributed in the States, because they thought Americans wouldn't want to go see a movie with such a long title.

Hollywood bigwigs usually tend to treat the American public as if the were fainting goats.

 

[Tony Murlin]

It is, I feel, due to "focus groups" and the "formulization" of film making. In the last, oh, 20 years or so, films have become ultra friggin' expensive. This means investors absolutely must have assurances that the film that they are going to at least break even on their $100 Million+ investment for the film to get made at all.

This leads to production companies refusing to take risks and dumbing it down for the lowest common denominator. Also, in an industry predicated on contract work, the concept of reliability (both as an employee and as a money maker) becomes even more important. This is why lower cost films and indie films seem so "avante garde," they don't have the business machine that is Hollywood breathing down their necks.

Testing is done with Focus Groups, whose opinions are distilled into easily digestible formulatic answers that can be easily graphed and tracked on expense reports. This is also the reason why it costs $10+ dollars to see a movie nowadays and why there is such a big push for 3D (anything to add a few extra dollars onto the Gross).

Now, as to the whole "stupid American" bit, one should not rate the intelligence of a nation by the films or Television they produce. Foreign Nations should also not judge Americans based upon the individuals interviewed on our News programs, as ratings dictate what gets shown more than "truth" (for, pretty much, the above reason... ratings are needed to pull Ad revinue to justify the existence of a television show, including even the nightly news).

As a Representative Republic, the only thing the rest of the World should judge American intelligence on is our Elected Officials. When they do something dumb, greedy, or just plain destructive, and they do not suffer any consequences for it, then that's own dumb ass fault.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.