AARP and the Movies
There is a new editor at AARP magazine. In this months rag he took issue with the movie industry. (His page is titled EStreet, catchy, eh?). His rant was why the movie industry is not trying to attract the older movie fan. Well..duh, as my grandchildren are found of saying. This editor, Steven Slon, has a newspaper background and it shows up. His opinion in this particular editorial is: 'You get a kind of vicious syscle in which fewer movies are created for the over-50 viewer, so fewer older people go to the movies'. Well..duh, again.
Don't get me wrong, even though I'm a captive member of the magazine (it and the AARP Bulletin are inclusive with my dues) and I belong to the organization mainly because they still are the strongest voice we older folks have to protect us against the government and they continue to support no-change social security. But, to rant about movie makers? I think most older folks could care less...and most of us wouldn't go to a cineplex if the movie were free. We have the patience to wait because we know, whatever the theme, the movie will soon move out of the theatre and land on the boob tube wherein we don't have to stand in line (listening to the insane teenage babble going on around us as they yakity-yak on those infernal cell phones), we don't have to sit in elbow-to-elbow in uncomforable seats and eat day old popcorn.
The magazine itself was slicked up a few years back but still remains mostly a non-humourous rag now trying to be trendy...and sometimes I wonder if the editor even reads his own rag. For instance, after espousing the movie industries directing their attentions toward the 'youth' culture, further back in the magazine is an article about--guess what-- 'Sex 2005' with this accompanying blurb: 'Men say the new sex drugs make them feel young again...and their spouses are delighted too'. Whoopy-do! And further back is 'Saving Face' with the blurb: 'Lose wrinkles without going under the knife'. Doesn't this make his 'rant' kind of out-of-place?
I think the movies are as they always have been since the novelty of the talky wore out: a place for young people to hang out and spend their bucks... and with the affluency abounding nowdays they are the movie maker's market. Isn't that what capitalism is all about?
Even if the movie makers decided to try and create a marketable product for us oldsters, I seriously doubt if they could make it worth their while...and I, along with millions of my peers, I say again, could care less.
Don't get me wrong, even though I'm a captive member of the magazine (it and the AARP Bulletin are inclusive with my dues) and I belong to the organization mainly because they still are the strongest voice we older folks have to protect us against the government and they continue to support no-change social security. But, to rant about movie makers? I think most older folks could care less...and most of us wouldn't go to a cineplex if the movie were free. We have the patience to wait because we know, whatever the theme, the movie will soon move out of the theatre and land on the boob tube wherein we don't have to stand in line (listening to the insane teenage babble going on around us as they yakity-yak on those infernal cell phones), we don't have to sit in elbow-to-elbow in uncomforable seats and eat day old popcorn.
The magazine itself was slicked up a few years back but still remains mostly a non-humourous rag now trying to be trendy...and sometimes I wonder if the editor even reads his own rag. For instance, after espousing the movie industries directing their attentions toward the 'youth' culture, further back in the magazine is an article about--guess what-- 'Sex 2005' with this accompanying blurb: 'Men say the new sex drugs make them feel young again...and their spouses are delighted too'. Whoopy-do! And further back is 'Saving Face' with the blurb: 'Lose wrinkles without going under the knife'. Doesn't this make his 'rant' kind of out-of-place?
I think the movies are as they always have been since the novelty of the talky wore out: a place for young people to hang out and spend their bucks... and with the affluency abounding nowdays they are the movie maker's market. Isn't that what capitalism is all about?
Even if the movie makers decided to try and create a marketable product for us oldsters, I seriously doubt if they could make it worth their while...and I, along with millions of my peers, I say again, could care less.
posted by porchwise at 7:30 AM
4 Comments:
this issue?
I am 43 and a science fiction and fantasy fan so my genre will always be in abundance.
The older movie fan goes to the movies less and less. I hardly go my self.
Net Flix keeps me supplied.
I have tried going to movies on the weekends, but the theatres are full of teenage garbage that have zero respect for others.
I could care less too....
Go visit this Republican Guru's blog
http://bitheads.blogspot.com/
I read bitheads blog quite often, and quite often disagree with him. Hope he doesn't buy into Edward Klein's 'facts' (read, personal and anonymous opinions) about Hillary but sometimes he's such a dunderhead I suppose he will.
Much better, informer, although I'm not a fan of the movie..haven't seen it but not my cup of tea, so to speak. Your reviews, however, are excellent. Good luck and keep posting.
Post a Comment
<< Home