Comment by triceratops | Hacker News Reader

Comment by triceratops | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The Shawshank Redemption has a similar story. Didn't do well when released. Its video release fared a little better, maybe because people could re-watch it at home. Then Turner picked up TV distribution rights cheaply and showed it again and again.

Now, just like It's a Wonderful Life, it's considered one of the best movies ever made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shawshank_Redemption#Criti...

Groundhog Day is like this too. Although it was a "modest" box office success its critical reputation grew massively as the years went by. To the point that again it's consistently on best-ever movie lists.

"[12 years later] Ebert raised his original score for the film from three stars to a full four stars [saying] that he had underestimated the film"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)#Post-rele...

It's befitting that watching Groundhog Day again and again makes you like the movie more.

Btw I mentioned It's a Wonderful Life's copyright situation in my original post.

You cannot attribute their success simply to repeated TV runs though. Some films are just not that appealing for the cinema, more art than entertainment, and slowly convert each viewer into a fan until it joins the collective consciousness as a classic. It's a story that all of these have in common - some level of critical acclaim before release, flops at the cinemas, slowly builds up a reputation.

> You cannot attribute their success simply to repeated TV runs though

I'm arguing that repeated TV runs allowed audiences and critics to deeply ponder and appreciate these films. Sustained attention over time, which caused a re-evaluation of their artistic merit.

I think about music albums on cassette that I listened too in the car. I enjoyed some of those deeper tracks after repeated listening.

Also Sony India is posting older movies on YouTube. I don’t know if there are gems in the rough there but they don’t seem to attract a lot of viewers.

https://youtube.com/@sonypicturesindia-english?si=G20TZ6NnVk...

I'm a fan of this theory.

You basically have 2 chances:

1: the media hits you like a ton of bricks and enraptures the audience from the start

2: you watch it a few times (or in TVs case you catch a few episodes), think about it, ponder the lore for a bit, and get invested over time

Outside of that, media will blow by you and never leave a mark.

I've had other experiences

Saw "Saving Arizona" right after losing my girlfriend. Saw every problem they had as tragic instead of comedy. Didn't like the movie. Some relatively short time later. Saw it again. I was my favorite movie for years after.

It's funny - I watched the Shawshank Redemption for the first time a couple years ago, after hearing forever about what a great film it is, and thought it was so lackluster I wasn't sure if I was missing something.

"Did he die in the end? Was it a dream sequence?" But no, both the intention of the creators, and by far the most common interpretation from viewers, is that it's all literal.

I tried watching Groundhog Day just once, and couldn't make it though it because (I assumed) it had aged so terribly.

Your comment made me reevaluate this though. I assumed the main appeal of these gonna was just nostalgia, and I've missed a key window, but perhaps it's the repeat viewings and predictability that make these films comfort food.

Same here. I'd never seen parts of it on TV or anything until I watched it for the first time, since I'd seen it was ranked #1 on IMDB. There wasn't anything about it that made me feel like it was the best movie ever. The plot was very conventional, the shots were fine, the performances were pretty good - it seemed like a 7-8/10 movie, there are lots like it. Then I watched Lawrence of Arabia and 2001 and I got the "best movie ever" kind of feeling from them - great cinematography, big themes, bombastic soundtracks. But I can see why Shawshank could be the least controversial movie of all time, it's fine at everything and that helps when there are so many people ranking it.

> perhaps it's the repeat viewings and predictability that make these films comfort food.

There's a simpler explanation, which is that different people like different things.

people are different people at different times in their live as well.

In my mid 20s I saw Casablanca and was not impressed.

In my mid 50s I saw it again and cried until I trembled. The 20 something me didn't get what the 2 main characters were giving up. The 50 something me with life experience of loves lost by choice and circumstance had a very different reaction.

Your summary of the reception of The Shawshank Redemption doesn't seem to fit the wikipied article you linked to

> Leading up to its release, the film was test screened with the public. These were described as "through the roof", and Glotzer said they were some of the best she had seen

> nominated for several Oscars in early 1995

> It went on to become the top rented film of that year

"Best movie" lists tend to have films with both critical acclaim and audience appeal.

It got critical praise but was a flop at the theater. The home video market redeemed it (haha) with audiences. From the article:

"Despite its disappointing box-office returns, in what was then considered a risky move, Warner Home Video shipped 320,000 rental video copies throughout the United States in 1995. It went on to become the top rented film of that year. Positive recommendations, repeat customer viewings, and being well received by both male and female audiences were considered key to the film's rental success."

All 3 movies (It's a Wonderful Life, Groundhog Day, and The Shawshank Redemption) had critical praise upon their initial release. Groundhog Day was even a solid hit. But no one could've predicted what they became later.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com