| vlad321 said:
|
First off, I didn’t say they had broad appeal; in fact I said the opposite. Twilight only really appeals to a very small portion of the population but it does it so well that it has almost ubiquitous appeal within this group. Twilight targeted teenaged white middle-class girls, and because it was so successful at doing this it couuld sell tens of millions of copies around the world ... If Twilight had broad appeal it would be successful across mutliple demographic barriers, but it really doesn't
Harry Potter certainly has a broader appeal but only because it is significantly better than the Twilight series. While I'm certain you won't see the challenge, to write something that is accessable to children with limited reading skills and not too simplistic for experienced adult readers is not easy; and is made remarkably more complicated by trying to make a story and characters that appeal to both groups. I challenge you to read any series of books at a similar reading-level to Harry Potter and then question the quality of the Harry Potter books ...
For people like Michael Bay who is (rightfully) hated for producing movies with terrible writing and acting the quality of their work that leads to their success is easy to explain. If I'm going to be convinced to pay $10 to $15 per movie ticket, and another $10 to $20 for snacks per person, to see a movie in the theater I want the movie to provide an experience that can only truly be appreciated in the theater; and with 40+ inch HD televisions and surround sound systems this is becoming a harder thing to achieve. In this environment, in a competition between a well written and acted drama and a movie where two robots beat each-other up while tearing up the city the robot movie wins.
Michael Bay makes movies that are high quality spectacles and gets rewarded for that. Movies that combine better writing and acting while creating high quality spectacles (The Dark Knight, Avatar, etc) are also rewarded very well.
