|
|
Post by lune7000 on Oct 11, 2021 19:40:14 GMT
I can help you against my own thread by throwing in Patch Adams but the title of the thread is NOT MANY movies in hospitals. I did NOT write NO movies in hospitals. Movies have been around for 100 years and the number of films listed here so far in paltry for that volume. Plus people are stretching the definition by throwing in mental hospitals, war hospitals, etc. Now compare this to TV land where the good old fashioned hospital we all use is a regular staple of every network every year for as long as TV has been around- the difference is staggering and I don't think anyone can seriously argue this point. So my question to you is why? Why has hospital based drama been the province of TV not movies?By way of answers, I submit an anecdote that may provide a hint. In late 1933, director Frank Capra had a script in which he very much believed, titled Night Bus. Columbia exec Harry Cohn was dead set against it. But when a big male star from a different studio became available for loan-out, and an equally big female star from another agreed on the condition of an accelerated production schedule so her holiday plans wouldn't be disrupted, Cohn grudgingly relented in spite of his boilerplate reasoning: "Nobody wants bus pictures. They always lose money." (I note in passing that the film was retitled just before its Feb '34 release: It Happened One Night.) It's only a guess, but it may have been as simple as that: "conventional wisdom" among producers and execs that hospital pictures weren't box office. Of course, that wouldn't stop a going concern like MGM from occasionally dipping a toe in what might have been considered a risky genre. That same male star's very next film back at his home studio was 1934's Men In White, which took place almost entirely within the confines of a large metropolitan hospital. And a studio with the prolific annual output of MGM could afford a certain percentage of gambles each year, as well as collections of modestly-priced B features like the Dr. Kildare series. At other studios, hospital-centric pictures were more often than not equally budget-conscious Bs, like Warners' 1936 The Murder of Dr. Harrigan and 1938's The Patient in Room 18 (which were, like phantomparticle 's submission, Green For Danger, hospital-centered whodunits). While there continued to be occasional big-screen visitations, like 1956's efficient Emergency Hospital and 1961's quite good The Young Doctors, perhaps the answer to your second question is that the intimacy of such human dramas was felt to be more suited to the equally intimate, small-screen home-viewing experience. Still, if memory serves, hospital TV dramas had lost their popularity by the close of the '60s other than for daytime drama, and didn't become trendy again in prime-time until the 1980s/'90s. This makes sense
|
|
|
|
Post by lune7000 on Oct 11, 2021 19:41:55 GMT
I do find it peculiar you picked hospital. That aren't that many movies, if any, take place mostly in the supermarket or grocery store, in park, inside the cinema either. Other than My Diner with Andre, I don't know any other movie that takes place mostly inside a restaurant. Okay, maybe Ratatouille. Lots of people in those places too. because there have been a thriving hospital based dramas on TV for decades now- which can't be said about the other items on your list (grocery stores, etc.)
|
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on Oct 11, 2021 20:56:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Oct 11, 2021 21:45:45 GMT
If you are going to complain that the answers are running far afield of your original question, then I suggest you be more specific about your restrictions in your opening statement. I do not care for your attitude, phantomparticle. Especially after lune7000 has been (to quote his own word) "charitable" to you. You were caught flagrantly "stretching", and the least you could do would have been to apologise, delete the offending post, and take garden leave for a couple of weeks. There was obviously no need for lune7000 to have excepted military and mental hospitals. Anyone with common sense would have realised that only the "good, old-fashioned hospital we all use" was acceptable. It is just standard social convention. If I ask for a pound of bananas in the corner-shop, I am not required to specify "do not give me military bananas or mentally-deranged bananas". It goes without saying that I want the "good, old-fashioned" bananas we all eat.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Oct 11, 2021 23:17:16 GMT
48 minutes ago london777 said:
If you consider a mild suggestion to lune7000 "attitude" all I can say is you are really thin skinned. And I don't need anyone to be "charitable" to me if it means I have to withhold my true opinions just to be a nice guy. As for "flagrantly stretching," several posters have added films that take place in various medical institutions without you inflating like a blowfish. I see no reason to apologize for a post I don't consider offensive simply because I ask for clarification on subject.
As for your "anyone with common sense" statement, you might want to look up the standard definition of the word hospital.
Here are two examples:
I fail to see anything in those definitions that rule out wartime and emergency hospitals.
One final thought. I've been on the boards for well over a year now and if I have most likely expressed contrary views to many posters, but I have never taken a belligerent or offensive tone with anyone. At least, not until today, and only because I don't deserve it from someone who was not even the recipient of my disagreement.
If lune7000 has an issue with me, I'm willing to listen to his opinions and share mine. I'm sure he doesn't need a front man to fight his wars.
And that, I may say, is real attitude on my part.
|
|