After seeing The Dark Knight Rises last Thursday night and spending the weekend reading about it and discussing it with friends, I've come to the realization that there are virtually no upcoming movies that I'm looking forward to.
Before I go any further, I want to emphasize how important it is that everyone who reads this goes out and sees The Dark Knight Rises. If you enjoyed Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, you'll love this movie. It's absolutely epic in scale and does a fantastic job book-ending the trilogy. More succinctly, Nolan is a genius whose trilogy feels more like a great set of novels than a series of movies; he is truly a master storyteller.
Anyway. I realize this isn't typical WSO-fodder, but I think it's worth having a chat about the current state of Hollywood and the endless slate of sequels, reboots, and miscellaneous watered down garbage we have coming our way.
Stated bluntly - With few exceptions, Hollywood is completely bankrupt of ideas
I'd like to first highlight a major exception in today's landscape of Hollywood junk.
Christopher Nolan
He is, in my view, the only Director consistently putting out high quality, original, and thought provoking material that appeals to a wide audience. Together with his brother, he crafts original stories that appeal to both mainstream and hardcore moviegoers.
It goes beyond the Batman movies. If you haven't seen Inception yet, stop reading immediately and watch it. Then watch it again. It might be the most original movie of the last 10 years and it also works great on a superficial action-movie level.
Frankly, I don't think anyone else could have even made Inception. Hollywood studios simply don't take risks and more or less only let Nolan do it because of how massively successful the first two Batman films were.
After Nolan, the mainstream of Hollywood is filled with an endless onslaught of mind-boggling sequels, unnecessary reboots, and dumbed-down PG-13 non-sense. Here are some examples of upcoming movies that absolutely, positively have no right to exist even in the abstract:
- A Judge Dredd remake
- A "dark remake" of Short Circuit (not kidding here, folks)
- Scary Movie 5
- A Total Recall remake
- A remake of Evil Dead
- Sequels to Independence Day
- A Jumanji remake (simply baffling)
- and many, many more...
First off, there is absolutely zero reason to remake Total Recall. The original is an absolute classic, must watch movie. And the fact that the remake is PG-13 can't possibly help its case. But at least the original is awesome. Do we really need a Judge Dredd reboot? Fucking Jumanji?!? And I'm pretty confident that ID4 worked just fine as a standalone feature.
Would it be so difficult to create new characters and story lines? I don't even necessarily need creativity to lead to classic movies, but new and "meh" would be better than the constant flood of recycled non-sense.
At this point, cable television is absolutely blowing film out of the water. Yeah, I'll go to the movies once or twice a year to see one of the few creative exceptions that comes out, but I'll damn sure be glued to my TV every time Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones is on.
So, is there any way for Hollywood to get out of this rut and start producing better and more original movies more consistently?
Frankly, I'm not sure. The complete focus on the bottom line has led to such a strong risk aversion that it's almost impossible for something truly original to break out. Without a known commodity and an audience-friendly MPAA rating there's too much perceived risk involved. But, you have to wonder, perhaps if studios thought "outside the box," so to speak, and took some perceived risks, they'd end up with some counter-intuitive success. For example, remember 300? Remember how awesome the trailer was? That had an R rating and a massive opening weekend. I remember hearing how stunned people in the industry were about its success, and that showed me how utterly foolish and myopic Hollywood had become.
This ended up being more of a rant than I meant it to be, but I'm sure there are fellow monkeys on WSO that feel similarly. I can't imagine there are too many folks on here who are eagerly anticipating the new Jumanji. I'd also be interested to hear from anyone who disagrees with me. Am I being too harsh? Has this always been the case? Is there simply a lack of good ideas left in general?
short circuit remake? maybe they can use a real indian this time..
Nobody's had an original idea in Hollywood since like 2002, this isn't a new phenomenon.
All we hear anymore is: "based on the novel..." "based on actual events..." "the highly anticipated sequel to..." "you've seen the TV show, now see the movie..." "the true story of..." "a gritty re-make of the classic..." "from the director who brought you Memento, comes Memento with a more recognizable lead actor..." "you've seen 18 of the movie-versions of these comics, now... see them all come together in STUNNING 3D!"
Hollywood thinks we're retarded, and Hollywood's right. Just look at who's been breaking the box office.
What really gets me, though, is how fucking hard would it be to create a new character? I mean, look at the 1980s. So many action movies were cranked out with new characters all the time. AND they were rated R and didn't rely on CGI out the ass to make entertaining movies. I'm not saying Commando is the greatest film of all time, but it's enjoyable and not a remake of Judge Dredd.
I mean, seriously...Judge Dredd? Why not just make a similar movie, darken it up a bit, and create a new character? I understand wanting name recognition, but that's just ridiculous. How about you make a good movie and market it well. Eventually, even our stupid populace will grow tired of this crap.
Lastly, I blame so much of this on big studios' complete lack of backbone when it comes to making rated R movies. So much shit gets watered down to appeal to larger audiences. Right now, a remake to Robocop is in the works, if that comes out as PG-13 then all is truly lost.
+1, This plus remaking the last spanish hit (many nice films, thesis, almodovar's).
My favorite movie is Blade Runner, and id be pressed to have a top 5, however I believe Ciudad de Deus and Amores perros are among my top 10, along with 7 samurai and ran from kurosawa and sen to chihiro.
Amorres Perros is an amazing movie as is Blade Runner (It's Harrison Ford) City of God is one of the hardest films to watch, but if you can get through it, it's amazing. You should try watching Y Tu Mama Tambien, it's one of Alfonso Cuaron's best movies, and it also has Gael Garcia Bernal.
Never saw the original Total Recall, but Biel and Beckinsale in the same movie? Can't be too bad.
Speaking the truth man. I mean their fucking remaking a spider man series that ended like 4 years ago! Same goes for video games. Im tired of having to fucking gush over the next call of duty.
Not looking forward to Man of Steel? You must have seen the teaser trailer during TDKR. Nolan will be pretty involved, although technically not a director but a producer in this one, though he will be heavily involved in the creative process, or so I've heard.
Also I think Aronofsky is another good modern director (he made Requiem for a Dream, Black Swan, The Wrestler, etc). He's coming out with a new film called Noah in 2014 - could be good
re: Man of Steel - I actually managed to see TDKR at a pre-midnight screening through a buddy of mine who had a broker connection. Started at 7pm and had no previews whatsoever, which was fucking awesome. That said, it could be solid and includes Nolan, one of the shining beacons of hope for big budget hollywood movies.
That said, I've always sort of found Superman to be a shitty superhero. He's just too powerful, to the point that I have trouble suspending disbelief (even for a comic book movie) and feeling that he's in any danger without plotlines that are way over the top. Plus, I mean, we just had a Superman movie like 6 years ago.
Aronofsky is definitely awesome, though. The Wrestler was tight as hell. I think my beef is way more with more mainstream movies. It wasn't always the case that big budget stuff had to be an endless slew of garbage.
Eh The Dark Knight Rises was by far the weakest of the trilogy. 6/10
Man of Steel looks like it's going to be epic!
Most film now adays are just remakes of older films as they cannot come up with new ideas other than pushing the boundaries of what is no longer taboo so they can be seen as breaking new ground.
Films are going the way rnb songs and videos went over the last 10 years
I personally was extremely disappointed by the new Batman. Contrived plot and cool effects do not make for an interesting movie to us snobs. Good popcorn flick though and definitely was going to sell tickets, so I understand the reasoning I guess. Give me the arthouse film with the schizophrenic genius director that does a better job of depicting reality than his less-than-schizophrenic brethren anyday.
Totally agree with you!!! With that said, I can't wait for The Wolf of Wall Street.
It may not be your thing, but there are a lot of really great indie flicks out there if you're tired of the crap that Hollywood keeps churning out.
The Artist was fucking abysmal if that counts for anything, and I'm a huge indie guy. The Academy always wants to make the Best Picture winner some sort of "dark horse" candidate to make themselves seem brooding and deep in their decision making. They did the same thing with The King's Speech and The Hurt Locker, though IMO both were much better than their competition but still not worthy of Best Picture. Movies have just sucked that badly lately to me.
I thought Safety Not Guaranteed was pretty good, it's an indie film that came out recently
Completely agree - I can see why The Aritist was critically acclaimed, but it's just not my type of thing. I found The Hurt Locker to be superb, but not "Best Picture" good.
If you have a Netflix account, I highly recommend the flick "Pi". It's a refreshing twist on the psychological thriller genre.
the batman movie sucked. the fight scenes looked like some kids re-enacting wwe in their back yard. bat wing was retarded and the story was cheap. with everyone able to film hd on their cell phones and cg jim carry's face on lady gaga, it blows my mind that movies can still cost so much to make. i hope indy movies are on the rise because hollywood reprocesses the same garbage time and time again. although some like this. im still pissed off about madagascar 3 not living up to the hype
They are also making a sequel or remake of another Paul Verhoven classic, Starship troopers. So you have ST, Total Recall and Robocop getting redone. There is no way you can take a hyper-violent Paul Verhoven film and water it down PG-13 style and expect it to be successful. Those movies were great because Verhoven had a disturbing style to his films; the gov't was always ultra oppressive fascists, lots of gore as well as excruciatingly painful death scenes.
Since we are on the subject I figure I should share this story with everyone. When I was in ugrad we had a hollywood movie exec come to class to talk about the business. He went on about falling sales figures and narrow profits. I raised my hand and asked him politely "isn't it the movie industries fault? Each move that is put out is marketed based on how much is cost to produce. Why not make cheaper films that are light on special effects and heavy on story or comedy?"
He didn't really have an answer. This was 5 years ago or so. Remember Avatar? All you really heard leading up to lease was that it costs a Krillion dollars to make with super duper cameras that were made just to shoot this one film and perhaps the technology would catch on at a later point.
The Coen brothers and Paul Thomas Anderson consistently produce masterpieces.
Sadly most of the stuff the Coen brothers kick out doesn't get commercialized. Not surprised or anything, but the actually good movies just get glossed over while a movie like Avatar (Dances with Smurfs) is praised by all. There's really nothing you can do about it though, some people like film as art, other people like film as lolztimekillercooleffectsmichaelbayomgmeganfox.
I was saying this a few months ago to a group of my friends, completely agree about TV. Where did AMC come from, just back into the game dominating the TV market. Movies will continue to be bad as long as the market for PG-13 movies keeps growing.
Everything is a damn remake these days, or a sequel. They are making a Toy Story 4, Monsters Inc 2, and a Finding Nemo 2. They re-released The Lion King, The Titanic, and Star Wars Episode 1. I totally agree with you in that respect; it's just embarrassing. Unfortunately, the general populace doesn't give a shit and gobbles shit like Avatar and The Avengers up.
On another note, I was disappointed with TDKR as well.
Agree with you. The worst producer being Quentin Tarantino by far. I love how everyone say that he is making masterpieces with mind-bloing dialogue... He is just making ultra violent movies with a lot of sexes and attractives girls. I really can't stand him. I think it truly reflect what you're saying in the way that his movies are reaching a new high (or low as you want) on the shitter scale every time he made a new one.
sorry double
It's too risky to be creative. Just remake garbage that all the idiots will flock to the movies to see and make the easy money
Two Words - Pacific Rim
Maybe not entirely original, but off-beat enough to be different from the crowd of remakes and toy movies.
op, wrong
[quote=Ron Paul]op, wrong
]
hahahahaha
It's very easy to watch the trailers of the crappy movies, do no research of your own, and completely write off hollywood. However, good movies are still being produced. Two movies that I'm looking forward to in the next year alone are The Master and Looper. You really don't have to look very far to find good films, but it won't always come to you.
Looper could be interesting, especially since it has Gordon-Levitt who is great. Although sci fi movies about time have been hit or miss lately - Niccol's In Time had an interesting premise but was a huge flop (though admittedly I never saw it)
Completely agree, and I can't wait for The Master. Expecting it to be the best movie of 2012.
It doesn't seem like it'll matter though. Audiences just want a dumb, fun movie.
Avengers - crappy acting, amateurish storytelling, good action : 200mil first weekend TDKR - awesome acting, epic storytelling, great action : 161mil first weekend
Avengers had 3D and IMAX releases meaning viewers had to pay a premium TDKR viewers didn't, so with all things equal, the opening weekend figures between Avengers and TDKR is a lot closer.
I want to point out that I think there's a huge age bias not being taken into account here. As monkeys and prospective monkeys, I think everyone here should take a moment to question, "has this ever been said before? Surely, this is NOT the first time someone said, "movies in the last 15 years have been ass."
People in the 80's didn't walk into the theatre with inexplicable excitement about the latest Arnold movie. Fight Club blew total ass in the box office. Many of these flicks become good after time, and it goes without saying that some movies we hate will be "cult classics" to our children.
Here's a test: ask a 5th grader right now what he thinks of the 80's Predator (we've all seen violent movies by 5th grade lol). Chances are he won't find it very appealing.
I know what you are getting at, but again...I'm not even saying "we need all movies to be GREAT!" Rather, I'm saying that some originality and less dumbing down is what we need, especially in the mainstream. I'm fine with dumb action flicks getting cranked out, but not if every one of them is a remake or a sequel that gets rated PG-13 and has Shia Labouf and Megan Fox or some other shit combo attached to it.
You forgot Mad Max 4...
To reiterate:
I am not saying that good movies aren't made, I'm saying that the vast majority of movies are so absurdly awful, unoriginal, and dumbed down and it only seems to be getting worse due to the reliance on remakes, sequels, and PG-13 ratings which are driven by an insane risk aversion that will only continue to grow stronger.
re: Looper. I'm looking forward to that because I'm a lunatic about time travel and sci-fi.
If Hollywood really wants to remake an interesting movie, they should make a bigger budget version of Primer. For anyone that hasn't seen it, it's on Netflix and is awesome. Especially if you're a time travel nut like me.
It's helpful to remember that you and most people on this board are not the target market for these films. These films are made for the average American consumer, who to be blunt about it, prefers stupid, easily digested, recycled material. Hollywood knows people like you represent an increasingly small fraction of the viewing audience, and they tailor their movies accordingly.
It's simple math with regards to qualitiy movies. Only a handful each year will be high quality movies while the vast majority will be average at best. It's Hollywood's job to convince us viewers that the movie is going to be box office gold through their amped-up marketing.
You're in PE, so you must have some cash - why don't you produce something original?
1) $$$, 2 part finales 2) "Hip", "artsy", "sophisticated" ideas != Academy Award winners 3) Passive genpop 4) Irony of tech: now used to substitute, rather than to advance 5) w/no political undertone meant, present-day liberal oversexualized portrayals
btw, Coen movies aren't "masterpieces", either.
re: Lebowski, Fargo
Lebowski is definitely one of the funniest movies I've seen - was pretty obsessed with it at one point. Not sure how it's art though...
I'd like to see more movies with black men dressed up in fat suits as older black women.
I'd give TDKR a 7 out of 10--very good.
I'm not nearly as passionate about movies as I am about music, but I hear similar arguments being made about the music industry all the time. "All the good stuff has been done already, nobody is making anything good and original anymore, etc." And there are many, including myself, who would argue that they are wrong because we know of so many exceptions that require a bit of homework to find/appreciate.
I'm thinking the same argument that we music fans make can be made by and for the truly passionate, proactive, movie fans.
Here's a list of my favorite movies:
1) In the Mood for love (Tied for my favorite movie) 2) My Blueberry Nights 3) Y Tu Mama Tambien (Tied for my favorite movie) 4) Cronos 5) Pan's Labyrinth 6) Godfather (all 3 parts) 7) Waitress 8) The Diving Bell and the Butterfly 9) Watchmen (The city is scared of me. I have seen its true face.) 10) Poetry (only good South Korean film) 11) The Reader (great to watch with a girl) 12) The Shining 13) North by Northwest 14) Rosemary's Baby 15) Donnie Darko 16) The Graduate 17) Animal House 18) Unbearable Lightness of Being 19) Memento 20) Aguirre, Wrath of God 21) Taxi Driver 22) Better Luck Tomorrow (It's about over-achieving asians) 23) Blade Runner 24) Star Wars (Entire thing) 25) Harold and Kumar Series
Anyways a lot of you guys might think my taste in movies is quite hipster/independent and that's pretty much fine with me. I've always known that Hollywood sucks because it hardly produces movies that have cultural or aesthetic significance. Now, every movie someone watches shouldn't be like Schindler's List. Not all movies should be heavy like that. But I don't think I'd pay almost 15 dollars in NYC to be in a cramped theater watching explosions, fake tits, and product placements. Hollywood is run like a corporation, but I'm fine with it and apathetic. As long as I can watch good movies that you get something or learn something from I'll be fine. Sundance films and independent films are usually really good, just give them a try.
Solid list. Glad to see people out there appreciating Wong Kar Wai, who is one of the greatest directors of all time. I don't think most people would enjoy his very visual and slow paced style, but he has made some incredible films. I count 2046 and Days of Being Wild among my favorites.
Agreed, Kar Wai Wong's films are awesome. His slow pace and cinematography make him this generation's Kubrick in my opinion.
I had never seen 'The Waitress'; I just finished watching it and it is now on my favorites list... thank you sir.
Hey congrats! It's one of those indy movies that really got pushed under the rug. It's slightly feminist/progressive, so I don't think it got played on national theaters. This is a good movie to watch with your girlfriend/significant other because it's romantic in a unique, not-so-cheesy way.
Anyways, I have a very "hipster" mentality of not liking what other people like. For example, I would never buy a BMW. It's one of the best engineered cars in the world, and it's nice all-around, but it's too trite, and too many people have one. I would definitely buy an Alfa Romeo 159, and it's pretty self-defeatist to say that on a public forum, but whatever. If you liked Waitress, I think you would really like Manhattan (Woody Allen) and Rosemary's Baby, which are both neo-feminist movies. Also, North by Northwest is really good, but more good-guy-saves-innocent-girl.
Nolan is great but so is Ridley Scott.
Alien Black Hawk Down Gladiator Promethus
Moonlight Kingdom was interesting and somewhat unique. Les Miserables should also be awesome.
Sure they don't have a lot, but every once in a while "Big Fish" comes along.
You mean Moonrise Kingdom.
I enjoyed that movie too.
I think you're failing to take into consideration the increase in the amount of movies being released today as opposed to say the 80's or 90's. It really does seem like output has increased and quality has suffered. But that is not to say good movies are not being made, just that you have to search them out. There's a lot of diamonds in the rough. Actually, the current state reminds me a lot of the music industry--most new music is the opposite of timeless, is tasteless, and is only made for a quick buck and forgotten about pretty fast. It's definitely the same with movies, especially horror movies (which usually break even because people see them for the feeling of being scared rather than the actual quality of the movie).
And if you think only Nolan is the last good director left, you're missing out on one of the greatest directors of our time: Danny Boyle. This guy not only kills almost every genre he touches, all his movies are pretty accessible. I mean look at his track record:
127 Hours Slumdog Millionaire Sunshine (amazing) 28 days later Trainspotting
Expendables is a good idea
I'll probably go see the hobbit when it comes out but other than that I don't really see anything appealing coming out in the next 6 months. Also Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy had superb acting and top-notch story-telling
OP is right about Hollywood movies, but it has been that way for some time. I never watch movies in theatres anymore. There's no point. I get much more enjoyment out of finding a flick that's a bit older, or foreign perhaps, and watching it at home.
Did someone just list "My Blueberry Nights" at second place of their favorite movies? Over The Godfather 1 and 2?
You need some glasses or something. Try rereading my post. Anyways, I try to never rank my favorite movies lol
I agree with TheKing, watch "The Deer Hunter" ASAP if you haven't... Hollywood can't make a film like this anymore as the studio exec's have too much say in the creative process. I mean, look at the description...
"An in-depth examination of the way that the Vietnam war affects the lives of people in a small industrial town in the USA."
That film won 5 Oscars (which used to mean something) and was a commercial success. It was beautifully shot, had real character development and the film made you feel something. You rarely see this in major films nowadays. It was art. Today, the script probably wouldn't even make it past the first executive.
Industry Structure? I wonder what is it about the industry structure / economics that makes it so difficult to make quality films with both artistic merit and mass appeal, while TV shows us that there is an appetite for this with great series like Mad Men, Games of Thrones and The Wire (admittedly, I've only seen a few episodes of the latter two as I don't generally watch TV).
Any of you WSO guys involved in film or knowledgeable enough about the industry to enlighten us?
TV shows are inherently a lot safer to make. You make a pilot, one season max, if it sucks they drop it.. In effect there's a sort of darwinism going on on TV, where (for the most part) only the good shows are lasting.
Off the top of my head, there's a decent amount of quality shows on right now: Breaking Bad, Dexter, Game of Thrones, Suits (i still enjoy it even though it's a bit cheesy), etc etc
I guess making TV show involves less risk and so they gamble more with the content.. where as in a movie you dump $100M into making it, and if it flops you're screwed.. i understand Hollywood not wanting to take gambles when there's $100+mil involved...
There is no creativity anymore, or practically none in Hollywood because the only thing people want when they go to the movies is to relax while watching the new blockbuster "popcorn" movie.
Hollywood is not out of ideas, it's the people around the world who don't want to watch movies that will make them think too much, that will make them reconsider their way of living. People prefer to watch a movie whose budget includes >5M$ in marketing like captain america or thor.
People don't want to go watch the classics anymore, a black and white movie (sure, there's exceptions to rule, I prefer to anticipate with people who are going to tell me that the Artist did good). Look at the big movie theaters, can you watch an old movie there? Sure, they might do some Star Wars or LOTR marathons but you'll probably have to go to a specialised movie theater to watch an old movie and chances are, it won't exist anymore.
The world still has ideas, if people stopped thinking that the only place in the world where movies were produced was Hollywood, it would already be a victory in itself. Polish movies, french movies, japanese movies, looks like everybody forgets about them.
Bottom line, Hollywood still has ideas but they prefer to keep them in a safe and produce blockbusters to make millions of dollars with movies that people will go watch while eating their 500 grams of popcorn with a diet coke, because sugar is bad.
Movies will continue to be bad as long as the market for PG-13 movies keeps growing.
http://www.dogcarseats.cc
Did anyone notice that the upcoming Judge Dread Movie is a total ripoff of the raid?:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1899353/
In the raid - Swat team has to fight through a building floor by floor to capture a drug dealer
In Judge Dread - Team of Justices has to fight through a building floor by floor to capture a drug dealer
Still, the Raid was kickass, and the concept alone is badass enough that I don't mind seeing it again w/ the Judge Dread treatment.
Whether new or not, I'm looking forward to:
Django Unchained (Tarantino) Gambit (Cohen Brothers) Skyfall (new 007) The Great Gatsby
Hollywood as always been lacking inspiration... doesn't mean there aren't the occasional standouts.
There are still 3 movies I'm looking forward to this year
Hobbit, Skyfall, and Django Unchained.
I know the headline is meant to be sensational, but it's a bit of an exaggeration.
It's not that Hollywood is bankrupt of ideas, they have plenty. The studios just aren't willing to make them. I read plenty of spec scripts that have great original ideas but unless a mega movie star that can open attaches themselves to a project like that it's not getting off the ground.
Consumers vote with their dollars. They're voting to see Avengers and Spider-Man and remakes, sequels, adaptations, etc. So the studios are giving them what they want.
The business model now is either huge tentpole movies that cost $100M+ and are based on an existing property or small projects less than $20M that might get Awards recognition and strike lightning. The $50M movie that might be original and would get pushed to mainstream audiences is becoming increasingly rare.
I tend to agree with John August on this point: screenwriters are the R&D of Hollywood. They've become increasingly marginalized. Until that's fixed the amount of truly successful original movies will be limited to indie films and whatever Focus Features or The Weinstein Company have on their slate.
As for TV, nobody really watched The Wire. Compared to top shows, Game of Thrones, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Boardwalk Empire, they all have lower ratings(The Walking Dead does pretty good but I thought last season was poor). So comparing them to Avengers is dubious at best. Compare them to Moonrise Kingdom or Beasts of the Southern Wild or [insert awesome indie movie here] and you'll be more in the ballpark.
I also find it funny people agree with the premise of this article(no original ideas, etc.) then list movies that are based on books or other properties as their favorites and what movies used to be.
If you want original, it's definitely out there. Can't really fault Hollywood for trying to make money, although I agree they are going about it the wrong way.
If you've read spec scripts, then you know it's very rare to find a good script.
99% of the stuff out there is garbage - not only from Hollywood - so it's pretty hard to filter out the good ones.
If you're familiar with John August's blog, then you've read "Carson Reeve's" blog. Rarely is an original script praised on that site. And that's just a small sample size of all the specs out there. Go to Triggerstreet and try to read a few - your eyes will undoubtedly begin to bleed.
I think the main problem with Hollywood (everyone pretty much agrees on this point) is that there are executives whose jobs are on the line during every consideration they make about a movie , so they rather green-light a safe one compared with one, rather than one that might get them fired.
Yeah I've read both, and most of it is crap, but I've come across some that are great ideas/great scripts that will never get made because of the way Hollywood is set up.
I'm not saying there's hundreds of original ideas that can be made into mainstream tentpole movies that will be blockbusters(I should've used a different word than "plenty"), just saying that I've come across some and they'll never be made anyway.
from my point of view, i don't know whether others on WSO agree, the issue i have with most hollywood films isn't that they are adaptations, its that they are rubbish.
At least with the latest batman films (i haven't seen the last one), Christopher Nolan has bothered to make something with a proper plot, multi-dimensional characters (for a superhero film) and it is shot well with some good acting. You can see that he cares about making a good film, not just selling tickets/merchandise/product placement, even though there is a lot of that too.
My issue, is why can't you have the same care with other mainstream films?! Does good taste and caring about making a good film cost that much more when your budget is already in the $50-200MM range?
I don't expect every film to be completely original from the script to the costumes, but directors like Ridley Scott, Michael Mann and Christopher Nolan have shown us that you can make something that's commercially successful that is worth watching more than once. Why can't the other hordes of mainstream directors/studios at least make an attempt?
I think it's because (as someone said earlier) that the mass audience wants rubbish, or simply doesn't care as long as they get their popcorn and extra large soda. If people stopped paying money to watch the garbage that's put out, things would change pretty quick.
Everyone has to forget that the people on this site probably represent like than 20% of the world and even less than that of Americans. American people are stupid simple minded people, there is no arguing that. So when the people on this site say Hollywood is making rubbish are they really making rubbish or are they making what sells because they are still in a business to make money. It's just like when GM, Ford etc American car makers we making shitty as cars before the Japs came in. The same thing has to happen in Hollywood or else you'll keep seeing the garbage that we see on the big screen right now. The same thing has happened with mainstream music, think about rap, rock and country they all single about the same things. Money and woman/heartbreak, because that's what the zombies we call the mainstream audience wants to hear. We can complain all we want but until the mainstream audience becomes more educated nothing will change.
I thought you were going another way with this statement but you didn't, so I'll point it out here. The reason why you see so many shitty movies coming out (from a critical perspective) is the same reason why most cars on the road are Japanese or Korean or whatever. The have mass appeal, and everyone can afford them. In the case of the film, the equivalent is that they have universal and simplistic themes with good effects and are not intellectually demanding. That's how you sell to the entirety of your market, not with a Bentley that only the top 1% is going to be able to afford.
Advocating for the Japanese car version of film is not the best analogy for what you're saying, but just to clarify I also get what you were saying.
Thank you BH, always there to give a brother a hand swagon would be proud.
If you guys haven't seen any of these movies, watch them. - The Ghost Writer - The Departed - The Boondock Saints - Good Will Hunting - After The Sunset - Safe House - Inception
Good article last year in GQ about state of movie biz:
http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201102/the-day-the-movies…
Want original? Check this out:
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/cloud-atlas/trailer
[quote=Edmundo Braverman]Want original? Check this out:
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/cloud-atlas/trailer[/quote]
Wow that looks awesome
[quote=Edmundo Braverman]Want original? Check this out:
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/cloud-atlas/trailer[/quote]
uhhhhh...
its based on a best-selling novel brah
So was the godfather...
Crossing my fingers that maybe all these crappy movies will spur an MST3K comeback.
Personal favorite: Space Mutiny.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8590533394044637016
Another upcoming movie that seems awesome is Elysium, the second film from Neill Blomkamp (director of District 9). It's a sci-fi film about a futuristic society where the wealthiest of the wealthy live in a luxurious space station that is a kind of man-made utopia, and an ex-con who tries to invade it. Similar to District 9, it uses sci fi to explore social issues, in this case immigration and extreme wealth disparity. The film was inspired by the Stanford torus, an idea proposed by NASA in the 70s.
Apparently in Comic Con 2012, Blomkamp released 7 minutes of initial footage from the film. I'll give 2 SB for any monkey that can find that footage online, and also the satisfaction of knowing that your googling skills are decidedly better than mine.
Doesn't fucking exist. I'm pretty much a Google wizard, and I'm coming up with bupkis. I even registered on the Sony site and "liked" Armadyne on Facebook thinking that might unlock the footage. As impossible as it is for me to believe that some fucking nerd at Comic Con didn't record the sonofabitch on his iPhone, it ain't out there.
Damn...kudos for the effort. It's just hard to believe that it's not out there somewhere on the blogosphere...
TEEN WOLF 3....complete the trilogy hollywood...
@AQM Agree on the movies, all three were great, but the cars? And just for the sake of eschewing convention? If you're choosing an Alfa Romeo over a BMW, hipster life has to be a regular Greek tragedy.
On the other hand, I'm betting you have an iPhone and drink coffee at Starbucks. Aren't hipsters into irony too?
This might be a little TL;DR, but I wanted to just preface that before I began. I read through all the comments and I'm going to make a couple of stray observations. First, I think there is a difference between producing a quality remake of a film versus a remake for the sake of a remake. Judge Dredd, for example, was an awful movie that had no relation to the source material and should have been burned from the collective conscience. Now, with Dredd, there is a chance to redeem the alt-comic franchise. Evil Dead, on the other hand, should not be touched with a 10 foot pole because of the direct association it has with one man who can never be replaced from the film - Bruce "The Man with the Golden Chin" Campell. I'm going to give a little doublespeak though, as both Campell and Sam Rami are heavily involved in all aspects of the project (seeing as this is their film to being with) I am waiting with baited breath.
There are a few things that everyone needs to realize. Most basic stories are twists on the same 10 basic story ideas - and this covers everything in literature, film and TV. The problem is not the film itself, but how you turn that basic story into something creative and brilliant. Sometimes the stories are a combination of the same basic story ideas. It doesn't matter where the story comes from, what matters is the medium for which you tell the story. The reason why TV has such a great product is because a lot of it is the ability to patiently tell a story versus film which has a very limited time to do so. Take Braking Bad, you can't tell that story over a 2 hour window without destroying the entire context. You guys need to remember that, particularly when discussing the great product on TV versus whats out in the cinema. If you haven't heard, The RZA is releasing The Man with the Iron Fists, which looks like a fantastic way to bring out the beauty of Martial Arts films. His original cut was 4 Hours. He cut it down to just under 2, cutting out things that if he was doing this for TV, he would be able to expand upon during a much longer time frame. Look at Babylon Five, which was a Sci-Fi series, and the prototype for shows like Mad Men and Braking Bad, where everything was reasonably fleshed out with a time frame for the entire story to be told. This was unheard of when Babylon Five came out because J. Michael Strazynski wrote out his entire overarching series as well as a full arc of each season when he pitched the show to the Network Execs. There was a difference in the way the series was supposed to end and how it actually ended because of a last minute change in plans (the networks were going to end it after the 4th season and JMS expected it and altered the script to end after four seasons but in the 11th hour after the season was all wrapped up, they got the renewal), but that happens with TV in general and when an exec renews a series for more seasons, then the story needs to change slowly to adapt to it. The fear tends to be as you go out longer, the quality drops, but that's a testament to the choice of using a shorter 13 episode season to keep the story very tight and tied together.
And then there's the issue of cost. With film, the accounting is absurd before you even begin to talk cost. Not just that, some films are going to make their costs back so they are made regularly. It's easier to make cheap horror films because of the cost funding mechanisms through tax credits and the like plus they can produce a good return on the cheap. It's easier to make tentpole films because they will draw a huge audience and work to recoup a great portion of the budget in the US. This also fails to account for foreign box office returns, which make the film "break even" cost wise. Comedy is about who is branded to star in a film and sequels are all about brand recognition. Why else do you have the entire Marvel Universe being turned into films and Samuel L. Jackson having a 20 film deal to appear as Nick Fury in every single film? Unlike most major films, creating Indie Films or backing an indie film project is too much of a risk for the studios unless you have something so ridiculously inventive (a la an indie idea on the Black List - the 20 most awesome scripts that are produced each year), you're backed by a guy who has indie cred either in a production role, a direct film making role or a well known indie actor (ie Lawrence Bender as producer, a guy like Rain Johnson as director or an actor like JGL who has been tied to the indie scene) nowadays. Occasionally, you have a major backer like Peter Jackson for District 9, but most of the times, you don't.
On the off chance you have a film like Margin Call - it would have never been filmed if it weren't for Zachary Quinto getting the script in front of Michael Benaroya to secure funding for it. It wouldn't have cost so little if it weren't for Kevin Spacey being the first to take a huge pay cut to do the film because he loved the script and that helpeld bring Jeremy Irons, Demi Moore and Stanley Tucci on board at significantly reduced rates as well. Take Moon, which was done for $5MM - it had a fantastic script that was written for Sam Rockwell and drew in Kevin Spacey after he read it because it was a thought provoking piece. You also had Duncan Jones directing a piece that he knew inside and out, having written the script. And it didn't hurt that he had connections to Sony Media through his father's dealings with Sony's music subsidiaries. Jone's father, by the way is David Bowie. It was a risk that Sony Pictures Classic took that paid off in spades for everyone, but not all films are like that. At the end of the day, most independent films and non-mainstream brand films (think Sony Pictures Classics, Fox Searchlight, Miramax, The Weinstein Company, Focus Features, Lionsgate Films) are too much of an expensive risk to make. For every Traffic, Godsford Park, Lost In translation The Full Monty or Brokeback Mountain that garner so much success and recognition, you have 10 Hamlet 2s, The Limits of Controls, Adams, Club Dreads or repo: The Genetic Opera that either abjectly fail to or just barely break even. Occasionally, you get the Napoleon Dynamite, Open Water or Clerks where the Sub-$1MM Production Cost can justify the risk and you end up with a film who pays out in spades. And what happens when an indie film risk doesn't work out? Sometimes you end up with an Office Space or a Fight Club with its huge cult following because it brought something to the table that people realized after rewatching the film. Other times, you're left with "The Room" or a film by Uwe Boll. Anyone here knows about risk and reward. The problem is that most indies films are your high risk stocks. They don't always work and there's a huge chance to lose alot of money on them, so why take the risk?
Finally - to whoever said to get involved in making films... I think it was Febreeze, I say good fucking luck. It's one of the hardest businesses to really understand. The same guy who told me the story on Margin Call also tried to explain Hollywood financing to me. He has a background at Allen & Co, ran his own hedge fund and still does capital raising for a number of people, and has been working in various film production capacities for the last 10 years and he couldn't do it without taking less than 2 hours to cover the absolute basics. Film Production is a very hard business to really excel at and having a PE Background does not make you a good fit.
As to remakes and reboots - some of it is definitely for the better. Some of it is definitely for the worse. A reboot on a Philip K. Dick based story or a Robert A. Heinlein novel may not be needed or wanted. Rebooting a Sam Rami film, in my humble opinion, is not a great idea. Part of it is a testament to the source material. Part of it is a testament to the director, the cast or something specific. Sometimes it might be to reboot a seriously dormant franchise or idea. How many people here actually saw the original 3:10 to Yuma with Van Helfin and Glen Ford? How many people here actually saw the original True Grit? Or Ocean's Eleven? The original version with Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Joey Bishop, Angie Dickinson and Cesar Romero. Sometimes the reboot is made to bring an audience to see a great story begin retold to a new audience who would have never seen it unless they were film scholars. Look at what Nolan did with Batman, reviving a dormant franchise. Other times, it's an unnecessary waste. All you can really do with Hollywood is hope for the best and pray they see past easy films. that's not to say that releasing film adaptations of amazing books is a bad thing to do either. There have been some amazing adaptions, like Apocalypse Now (which was adapted from Heart of Darkness), Good Morning Vietnam (which was loosely based on Adrian Conauer's life), and A Clockwork Orange (of which Kubrick adapted from the book of the same name). At the same time, not every adaptation is worth it's weight in gold. At least with a bit of source material, it's a little easier for a studio to make a decision on whether to adapt a film or not. With original scripts, as has been repeated over and over again, having a fantastic script worth getting on film is hard to do. Even scripts on The Black List have a hard time getting made into films.
Oh, and for the guy who compared Dredd to The Raid, I think it's the opposite actually. In the 45 Years that Dredd has been published, I wouldn't be shocked if Dredd had done a major tower climb during at least a few of the storylines in the Dredd Universe.
Which one does Pootie Tang fall into? ;-)
Solid post btw. Definitely a fan of many of the films you mentioned (Moon, Clockwork Orange, Clerks, etc), and totally agree that there's nothing wrong with a film adapation of an amazing book, especially since film is a completely different art form.
It think you touched on what is a key issue for me and what I think is a major failing in the current film making system globally: Why are big studio films so bad and devoid of artistic merit?
I think it is more to do with the fact that the large studios/distributors don't need to make "good" films to make money, as opposed to the limitations of film as a medium to tell as story. I watch a lot of plays and they aren't that much longer than most full length feature films (especially the director's cut editions), yet your average West End play is significantly better than your average film (even when compared with the best in each respective medium). The incentives are different. In Theatre, distribution and production seems more sensitive to the needs/expertise of the artists (actors/directors/writers) and word of mouth than in film, where big budgets controlled by MBAs/executives, advertising and product placement are more influential and important for commercial success.
I have no issue with a horror film not having interesting character arches or interesting themes. You watch them to scare your girlfriend. What I do have an issue with is the huge number of comedies that aren't funny (you can predict the scenarios, punch-lines and such and even when you don't they disappoint). Or the thriller/crime films where each of main characters can be described in less than 5 words and you don't care who dies or who the killer is, etc...
I have to admit though, there are several people who are doing things right with some big budget Hollywood films. The current bond films (the last 2) knock the socks off of the ones produced in the preceding 2-3 decades in all departments. The Bourne films are great too. More than just a muscular guy running around the world shooting people, or being pseudo PC like 1990s style action heroes, although I wonder if they can continue to sustain the quality in that franchise.
FYI guys, the seven (some people say there are more) basic plots are: Man vs. Man, Man vs. Nature, Man against God, Man vs. Society, Man in the Middle, Man & Woman, Man vs. Himself.
Now if there was only a way to sift through independent films and find out which were the good ones and get to see them in a cinema instead of at home...
Huh? I didn't imply that a PE background would make anyone a good fit in film-making. TheKing was complaining about the quality of films out there, if he's got the money he can go out and try to make something better. When people start reviewing his screenplay, it'll put things in perspective.
Fact of the matter is, those mainstream "shitty" movies have stories that are much better than most of the garbage I've read from the people who complain about them.
Febreeze, I reread the original comment and there are two things. First, I wasn't trying to call you out - with the giant TL;DR post I wrote, I thought it was you who made the comment. Second, I was implying that it doesn't matter your background, it's a fucking hard business to get into or excel at.
As to the shitty scripts and garbage that comes through, I'll make it a point to try get a hold of at least a script or two on the black list to read. What gets me are the scripts that are produced that don't make the black list. You would figure that if the scripts on the black list are so good, Hollywood would take risks by producing those scripts. Speaking of which, I try to read at least one or two scrips a year on the black list just to figure that one out.
Touché. This shit pisses me off like no other. The only people to blame are ourselves. As long as mindless fucks continue to flock to box-office openings of Spiderman 15, the producers will continue recycling the same shitty stories and characters. I for one refuse to watch (or at least pay for) any more new movies involving a god damn superhero. What happened to originality?
A friend of mine just sent me a link to an article in the New Yorker lamenting the fact that major studio movies are no longer made for grown ups. It's worth checking out. Apparently the guy also wrote a book about it, but i'm not sure if he goes into the economics of it.
from the article it seems that there is a lot of talent out there and some ability to raise money to make good quality films. It's the distribution that costs tens of millions. any film industry expert out there that can verify this?
I saw the dark knight rises recently. it was very good. also watching boardwalk empire now, which is much better than i thought it would be. At least TV is starting to get its act together.
People that are lamenting about the film industry need to stop. Just in the last month or so I have seen one phenomenal film (The Master), one excellent movie (Looper), and one decent movie (Arbitrage). Just because a lot of crap is made doesn't mean there aren't plenty of quality films for those willing to seek them out.
Yeah, who says there's no new ideas in Hollywood? lol
I think that has the potential to be one of the most ridiculously hilarious things I'll ever see.
Eddie, you know that was originally filmed in 2010, right? That took 3 years to see the light and the only reason why it did was because of the all star cast. And the best part is the trailer is so fucking funny it's unbelievable how it took so long for this to get released.
Classic, Frieds. Thanks for the tip.
If its so obvious that there is an opportunity to make real films for adults, then why hasn't someone figure out a way to make it happen on a large scale? Is it a matter of distribution channels?
Why isn't there a new United Artists? Or it's 2012 equivalent, i.e. film-making by artists rather than MBAs/Accountants/Marketing Executives.
Maybe some WSO kid will figure it out and come up with something new.
Rel, how do you define a film for adults then? Some of the best adult films I have seen are children's films if that makes any sense. Wall-E, Ratatouille, Up, Ponyo by the Sea, Howl's Moving Castle and Spirited Away (Which, by the way, I recommend to anyone that hasn't seen it and I humbly believe to be the best film created by Studio Ghibli over such works as My Neighbor Totoro, Here Come the Yamadas, Laputa: Castle in the Sky, Grave of the Fireflies and Princess Mononoke) all have great adult themes built into them that take a little bit of age to appreciate them for more than the childlike quality all of them have. As to making adult films, a great deal of it either comes down to having a great script and a well made film or the creation of something so earth shattering that it changes everyone's perception of film like Star Wars did in '77. It also depends on what your definition of an adult film.
Frieds,
When I say films for adults, I'm talking mostly but not exclusively about serious drama. About films like Network (1976), or The Deer Hunter (1978) in the past which speak to the human condition/experience and the way we live. They're even more relevant today. Or more recently films like Margin Call (2011), Traffic (2000), Moneyball (2011) or The Descendants (2011) i.e. films that don't have to hide their complexity behind comic book heros, massive explosions/FX, or fantastic animations/cartoons/graphics.
They don't even have to be set in our current time like There Will Be Blood, nor do they have to be realistic, e.g. The Royal Tenenbaums .
Surely there is some space for films that aren't simply defined by marketing categories.
Or even be focused on adults, i.e. Moonrise Kingdom, which is also neither current nor realistic.
What was your point again?
Moonrise Kingdom isn't a big studio film. My point is that the major studios won't make another "The Deer Hunter" or "Network" anytime soon, even though there are talented directors, writers, actors and artists who are willing and able.
The major studios account for 85-90% of releases and control a great deal of the distribution. That means a lot of Michael Bay movies...
You have to watch those two films. Keep all of your Tivo / film / youtube watching on hold and watch those two films. Two of the best ever made.
I'll check out Side-by-Side.
I ended up watching these bad boys, both pretty solid, thanks for the rec.
Though I must say, films like Network and The Deer Hunter, along with say A Clockwork Orange, are somewhat controversial films that seem to be products of their time, products of the 1970s, products of counterculture sentiments and disillusionment. I think that is part of the reason why you wouldn't see these films made today (or at least be brought into the mainstream), because today's time isn't the same. Just like you wouldn't see a film like Gattaca made in the 70s, which I would argue reflects the advent of the Human Genome Project and its bioethical implications.
Even then though, that's not to say that films like Network were eagerly scooped up by major studios right away. From what I can tell the producer had a hard time getting a major studio to take it on initially. Also looks like there was a bunch of clashing between Deer Hunter's producer and executives at Universal before the film was finally pushed through.
Also, quick poll for everyone, which films are you looking forward to coming out during the next few months?
I'm looking forward to Cloud Atlas, Flight, Lincoln, Skyfall, The Hobbit, Zero Dark Thirty, Elysium, Oz The Great and Powerful, Man of Steel, Pacific Rim, and The Prototype. Many of these are rife with special effects and CGI which isn't ideal from a film standpoint but they could still be great movies. Also I'm sure there's tons of other good stuff coming out.
.
Rel, I think your view of the world might be limiting if you say that "adult" films are serious drama. Although Network, The Deer Hunter and The Descendants are all fantastic, there are a number of amazing films that speak to the human condition without falling in the realm of "serious drama". Three of my Top-20 Favorite films (One is Top-10 and the other two are Top-20) are Studio Ghibli films that really speak to the Human Condition. I would check out Grave of the Fireflies if you don't believe me. Serious drama can be fantastic to enjoy and watch, but the medium used to tell the story and story telling device used in a film is just as important as the film itself. If you've seen Carnage or 12 Angry Men, if they were set anywhere else then the human condition wouldn't have had such an impact on the story.
GC, the Golden Age of Hollywood generally is considered to go from the late 1920s to the late 1950s. Personally, I'm with you on the best era of Hollywood and think it was at its best during the late 60s and 1970s. But you are right in that some of what came out in the 1960s and 1970s was a reflection on the culture at the time. There are tons of films, not just drama, that wouldn't have been made under today's system. Films like Blazing Saddles, Kramer vs. Kramer, Animal House, Taxi Driver and Annie Hall would never be made today.
Regarding Side-By-Side, I think it's a hell of a concept for a documentary. I'm actually looking forward to seeing this. It should be interesting as I think we really are at the junction of a total shift from film to Digital. It will be interesting to see where we go from here.
For your informal poll, my movie list is as follows: Argo, Seven Psychopaths, Smashed, Wreck-It Ralph, The Man with the Iron Fists, Skyfall, Hitchcock, Killing Them Softly, The Hobbit, Django Unchained, Broken City, Movie 43, Gangster Squad, A Good Day to Die Hard, Elysium, GI Joe: Retaliation and Pacific Rim. Really, with the exception of maybe 3 movies on that list, I doubt most of them are going to be more than a good popcorn flick. It's too early to talk award bait for next year. Lets wait until Sundance and reassess the 2013 Award Circuit lineup.
I saw Grave of the Fireflies a long time ago. I remember it being an excellent film. I can't remember if the version I saw was dubbed in English or not, however, one point I will make in general is that I find it a little frustrating to watch films in languages that I don't understand at all. I think something is definitely lost if you don't understand the native tongue and have to resort to the ol' back-and-forth between the subtitles and the main picture. That's not to say I wouldn't watch a foreign language film, after all I do know more than just English. I quite enjoyed Amelie, but part of that is because I know some French so I could at least soak up something without being glued to subtitles every second, even though I couldn't have gotten through the film comfortably without them.
I saw 12 Angry Men pretty recently actually, such an amazing film. Just goes to show that you don't need supercomputers and a bajillion dollar budget to make a spectacular movie. You just need good actors and good dialogue at the very least. Similar to The Man From Earth.
With regards to The Man with the Iron Fists, I noticed that this film claims to be "presented by" Quentin Tarantino. I have no clue what presented by means. Does that mean he gives his blessing? Was he involved in directing? Producing? Artistic vision? Definitely unclear to me. But, on the flipside, looks like Django Unchained is indeed directed by my good pal Quentin.
My guess is that Tarantino "Produced" it or used his pull to get it made. I know that he the Rolling Thunder Picture imprint during the mid-90s to get a number for Martial Arts films released in the states and he's used it when he's helped present a film like Larry Bishop's Hell Ride. I mean The Man with the Iron Fist was all the RZA, so I think it's definitely a production credit. Django Unchained is all Tarantino though.
I'm not convinced of the argument that "the deer hunter", "network" and similar films are only relevant to their periods... if anything major themes in those two films, the effects of war on bonds within rural American communities and the young recruits who serve, or how the mass media interacts with capitalism and democracy are all very relevant to America today... maybe even more-so as the American empire has extended it's reach and has redefined itself since the collapse of the soviet union...
There is a lot of dramatic material that US thinkers and artists can tackle with these themes and film is a powerful medium to do so.
Good films definitely have timeless themes, I personally never said that those films are only relevant to their periods, but the point remains that in today's time I don't think it's conceivable that a major studio can widely distribute films that show Arab extremists forcing POWs to play Russian Roulette or a major US news network collaborating with a terrorist organization, even considering these as fictional scenarios. That's a reflection of the age we live in. There seems to be a limitation of the freedom of expression that is allowed vs the 1970s, and that limitation affects the kinds of films that can be greenlit in the first place. (I think that limitation is for some reason less in the television space, case-in-point is 24 and Homeland).
I don't think it is a matter of the "age we live in", in the sense that people aren't ready or that the public can't handle it. People discuss these issues in private and in public (in person, not on TV). I think it has more to do with the fact that filmmaking is dominated by large corporations. So the importance is on feel good messages that sell to the masses, rather than tackling real issues that Americans face.
I mean, is it that difficult to draw a parallel between the guy in "Network" and angry screaming guys on fox news, or even the sarcastic populism of the "left" version of that. i.e. that Jon Stewart = Bill O'Reilly?
There are so many other topics that don't get tackled either. I can't remember seeing a non-documentary film that effectively tackles the effects of de-industrialisation on US working communities... on actual families. I did see one that tackled the financial crisis's effect on some upper middle class corporate types and their families, "the company men". It was quite good actually, but wasn't a big studio film, even though it had major actors and wasn't dystopian at all (actually ends up quite optimistic/stoic).
It's as if these very real topics are off limits too. At least in 1999 Fight Club, a big studio film, managed to touch on the consumerism of global culture, manhood in modern times and such themes. I don't see that kind of film being made today by a major studio or on that scale of distribution. Maybe I'm too pessimistic.
You're harshing my buzz man.
It seems like this is the crux of your point, so let's see if I have this straight. From what I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, but there are approximately 5 major film studios (not counting Disney): Columbia, 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros., Paramount, Universal. Each of them used to be independent studios in their early days, but are now large conglomerates that are owned by large parent companies. Each of these major film studios also has subsidiaries that focus on independent films, such as Fox Searchlight for example. Now, is your point that these large studios are not independent and their decisions are too heavily influenced by their parent companies?
Assuming that I'm interpreting your view correctly, let's see the details on the films you mentioned. It looks like The Deer Hunter was primarily put out by Universal, which was at the time owned by MCA, a relatively large company that at least owned several record labels as well as a guitar manufacturer. And Network was put out primarily by MGM (which arguably wasn't one of the "major" studios, and at the time independent) and United Artists (which was at the time owned by Transamerica, a large holding company that at least owned different types of insurance companies). So it seems like even several decades ago the film studios that did put out these good films were either independent or still owned by large companies yet somehow unaffected by them.
Or is your point that the problem is that the percentage of films put out by large film studios is much greater today than it was decades ago, due to mergers and acquisitions and overall industry consolidation? And this studio monopoly hinders the amount of quality films that are made due to less risk taking?
United Artists was, at the time, run by the creative people in terms of controlling the budget for films and control over the creative process. That ended when Heavans Gate went over-budget a multiple of times and the accountants took more control (there's a documentary about it). Funnily enough, it was Michael Cimino that directed Heavans Gate and clashed witht the corporate types over this after his massive success with "the deer hunter". a film he wrote and directed and was pretty much left alone creatively (he actually rewrote part of the deer hunter when the guy they originally hired didn't do a good job).
big studio films nowadays are financed by product placements and made to fit market segments for advertisers. the production budgets are controlled by the MBA/accountant types. This wasn't the case 40 years ago and mainstream film-making has suffered artistically as a result. imo.
There will always be a struggle between the creative people and the bean counters. the balance is much more in favour of the latter nowadays. as an analogy, if you're familiar with auto racing (Le Mans & F1) you'll find the same thing there. over the decades it has become less and less about drivers competing against one another and more about adversiting wins or technology for the large auto companies.
thankfully with advances in technology fim makers can produce quality films on smaller budgets. the issue is distribution and getting them to theatres globally. that is still controlled in a more consolidated manner by the big corporate studios... i wouldn't exclude Disney. they're as corporate as you get. hopefully with more regional and global film festivals focusing on independent films we'll see an alternative network for distribution or at least learning about good quality new films that aren't designed by MBAs. maybe that will force the major studios to up their game in response.
Having said that... I'm looking forward to the latest james bond film, skyfall.
hah!
I think this is where I've reached an impasse of sorts. I would be interested in seeing some data or articles or documentary to support this claim. I was briefly trying to search through articles on film financing but couldn't find any actual statistics or aggregated percentage breakdowns. From my limited knowledge it seems like there are many ways to finance a film, including banks loans and debt and equity and gifts and grants, along with product placements.
But even accepting what you say is true, how do production budgets of similar quality films compare now versus 40 years ago (inflation adjusted of course, so in real terms)? If good films today require a larger budget in real terms, then I think it suggests the audience of our time has undergone a transformation such that they value more expensive elements and require them to applaud a film. Now I'm talking about quality films here. It's pretty clear that even adjusted for inflation the most expensive films have been made almost entirely in the last 10 years. Of course they're not all terrible - I definitely loved The Dark Knight Rises and Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong.
PS: speaking of film financing, I was reading that the only reason The Master could be made was because Megan Ellison, daughter of billionaire Oracle CEO, agreed to finance it, after Universal dropped it and Paul Thomas Anderson tried rewriting the script several times. Ellison has created a new studio called Annapurna Pictures, which produced The Master and is producing Zero Dark Thirty, and supposedly will be producing another PTA film that will be an adaptation of a novel called Inherent Vice by Thomas Pynchon. I do think we need more people with excess wealth financing more artistic cinema so that more filmmakers can take risks and more freely express their creative vision.
"Mature" films are being made all the time. Who cares if they're produced or distributed by huge studios? If you really want to watch something like that, you just need to keep your eye out. Obviously, most aren't going to be shown in every theater (mostly limited to NY and LA,) but they do eventually get to DVD and Netflix. You also have IFC, which shows a few every now and then.
Besides that, it's pretty obvious why most studios don't go after films like The Master. They just don't make enough money on average. How much has The Master made back? Doubt it has broken even. I remember when Synecdoche, New York came out. Burned.
Also, Rel, Fight Club may have touched on all of those things, but that's not why people went to see it. Most people aren't after that sort of thing. Just look at half the ass-holes wearing those soap-bar Fight Club shirts... Completely missed the message. It's especially ironic, because the dude in Mr. and Mrs. Smith wears one right in front of Pitt...
Anyway, if you liked Network, watch Hospital (I think it's better.)
I don't think it's made back even half of its $35mn budget yet. People suck.
Prime example of a script people think is amazing and hasn't gotten produced because of Hollywood, when, in fact, it's just because it's not that great of a story.
http://scriptshadow.blogspot.com/2010/11/edward-ford.html
And the fact that worse films come out is not a defense for it to be made.
And another:
http://scriptshadow.blogspot.com/2010/02/titan-week-fahrenheit-451.html
I definitely agree that most of them are "cute" and not all of them are worth making. However, to make it on the list (especially if it garners a significant number of votes a la "The Imitation Game", "When the Street Lights go Out", Chewie", and "In the Event of a Moon Disaster" in 2011 or "College Republicans", "Margin Call", and "Argo" in 2010) is something to be said. The hard part is that the films that are in the Top 10 have a good enough buzz about them when they make the list that most of them should have a good shot at getting made. There are also a number of great films lower down on the list. Not everyone is worth it (like Balls Out - and no, I won't be reading that one), but there are a ton of hidden gems that make it on the list and are worth producing. I mean, look at the 2008 list with "The Descendants" - 14 votes, "Inglorious Bastards" - 21 votes (I know, not so hidden gem but it wasn't a top ranked film on that year's list), "Up in the Air" - 10 Votes, "The Debt" - 4 votes. I can't speak to the bulk of the 2009/2010 list yet, but that low ranked Number 59 flick on the 2009 list, "The King's Speech" was pretty good from what I hear.
Well, yeah. But half of those scripts that you mentioned have been made. So I don't really see the problem there.
The other thing is, at this point, those lists are extremely biased - it's not what it used to be. People have agendas. And when you compare those readers with the ones that are working on behalf of the studio, you shouldn't really be wondering why the entire list isn't being produced. But let's say that certain interests wren't being represented, most of the people who vote on this are decidedly smarter than the average American. Not a very good measure to go by when deciding on whether a movie is going to make back it's budget. Remember The Beaver? Jesus.
The point is, this is a very subjective thing to talk about. And while I'm not a fan of 99% of what's being spewed out by the studios, I can't say that it's worse than 99% of the stuff that isn't.
Oh, and definitely read Balls Out. That shit is great.
Since y'all are very familiar with The Black List, could you kindly point me to a complete list of Black List scripts that ended up being made into films? From what I can tell there are somewhere around 130 made to date since the list was started in 2004. I tried searching the internets but my googling skills are subpar.
There is no list of Black List scripts that were made into films. There's just the Black List. But you can google the scripts to find out. Like, College Republicans is supposedly being made with Paul Dano playing a young Carl Rove (should be interesting.)
But it would be pretty naive to think that many of those scripts that were on the BL wouldn't have been made otherwise; I mean, a good chunk of them are written by professionals, if not most. It's just that they are not produced at the time the list is made, so they make it on there. That was my point, by now the Black List has already become part of Hollywood. That's just an extension of the people involved in it.
Not to jump back to Django, but if you guys haven't seen it yet, the new trailer for Django Unchained is out...
http://www.youtube.com/embed/tgPAQnQAcpk
Looks promising. Not quite cult classic fare a la Pulp Fiction, but still a decent Christmas present.
I dunno about that. It looks like it might have a bit of Sukiyaki Western Django style flair to it. It definitely looks fun.
Yeah, that trailer is boss.
This is a great site to keep updated: www.hsx.com
[quote=Febreeze]This is a great site to keep updated: www.hsx.com[/quote]
Thanks for the link, good site.
yeah, too bad the recession hit - cantor fitzgerald (owner of hsx) was lobbying a movie box office derivative market. It was right before avatar came out, and I was gonna drop all of my money on that son of a bitch.
Who saw Cloud Atlas? Ridiculously awesome movie. Definitely need to see that a second time. Not too shabby for an indie film.
I'm adding another movie to my want-to-see list: Transcendence. It's the directorial debut from the Wally Pfister, who has been the cinematographer for pretty much all of Nolan's films. Nolan is also going to be a producer for film, which is supposed to be something akin to 2001: A Space Odyssey meets Inception.
Also, say what you will, but I am shamelessly looking forward to Les Miserables with Anne Hathaway.
Well, I'm looking forward to seeing Cloud Atlas. It's high up on the list of movies to see. It's definitely not an indie filck though. Between the cast, the directors (really, The Wachowskis - 'nuff said), the fact that Warner Brothers distributed it and it cost 100MM+ (I don't even know the marketing budget on that, but it's rumored the film alone was over 100MM), to make - it's not an indie film. It's an Oscar Bait Tentpole. Just sayin.
I'm looking forward to Trancendence too. It'll be interesting to see what the Nolan school can produce. As far as movies I'm shamelessly looking forward to - Wreck It Ralph is on that list. Not going to lie - it looks AWESOME!
Hold on a second. I think you're saying one thing and meaning another. What you're seemingly saying is that Cloud Atlas is literally not an indie film, which is not true. It is indeed an independent film, in the sense that it was not financed by any of the major studios, who all turned it down. The Wachowskis raised their $100mn of financing from foreign investors, including Media Asia Group and German company Ascension Pictures. It is only later that Warner Bros. paid a paltry $15mn for distribution rights in certain countries. Now what I think you mean to say is that it does not resemble most indie films in style or content. Which is true. It is very grand in scope.
I'm currently reading the David Mitchell book that Cloud Atlas is based on. It won a few awards and was nominated for a Booker prize. Might be worth checking out ahead of the film seeing as it is a pretty good book.
I feel the film will be more faithful to the spirit of the book given that it doesn't seem to have been molested by the big studios. We'll see.
Speaking of book-to-film adaptions, I watched David Cronenberg's version of Don Dilio's Cosmopolis recently. It was good. So much so that I will get the book.
Are any of you guys reading the latest Stephen King novel, 11.22.63? I'm pretty sure someone will turn that into a film.
Cosmopolis was soooooooooooo pretentious.
I mean, there were some great parts - the barber, the way the bodyguard died - but I don't even remember the ending. Paul Giamati's character??? He was great, but I just didn't get it...
best part:
Expectations exceeded, the proverbial goods delivered; I just saw Skyfall in IMAX.
Masterful job by Sam Mendes. Between this and Casino Royale there is no doubt that Daniel Craig is the best bond ever.
P.S. Good call on the Cosmopolis clip Febreeze, Mathieu Amalric is a treat to watch.
The first 3/4 of it was an excellent stand-alone film, almost akin to The Dark Knight (which Mendes has admitted as serving as inspiration for Skyfall). Beautifully shot, and excellent suspense and background music with superb acting from Javier Bardem. I did not much care for the last quarter of the film. Basically when they got to Skyfall and onwards. In some ways contrary to the tone and style of the rest of the film - if you want to make a work that's filled with explosions and fire, then make that film, but don't just tack it onto the end in a feeble attempt to remain true to a franchise when you're clearly making something that is fundamentally different. But still a good film overall, just not quite a fully Bond film or fully artistic film.
Also for what it's worth: -- Moneypenny doesn't count as a Bond girl (and she's not particularly attractive) -- Severine doesn't count as a Bond girl, given this romantic interest is not developed at all -- A hand-recognition pistol and radio transmitter do not count as Bond gadgets -- An Aston Martin from the 60s is a stretch for a Bond car in the current day and age
Also, as far as this opening weekend goes, in all honesty, I thought Lincoln was a better film. Kinda sweet how in 1865 every single bro had a thick beard.
Going to see Skyfall on Monday and really looking forward to it.
Just watched Ted and laughed my ass off. Wife sat across from me utterly disgusted. After the movie she asked me, "How can someone as intelligent as you be so fucking juvenile." Ha! She thinks I'm intelligent.
The plot for Skyfall was too simplistic. Basically, the only thing I liked about it was the change that's to come for the next films - I'm not talking about the secretary.
What resemblances were there to The Dark Knight?
http://heyuguys.co.uk/skyfalls-over-a-dark-knight-a-bond-and-batman-com…
http://www.theestablishingshot.com/2012/11/we-look-at-similarities-betw…
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/11/skyfall-dark-knight/
Long story short (comparing skyfall w/ dark knight and other two of nolan's batmans): each involves a traumatized-orphan-turned-hero who fights a joker with a dark past that knows how to break out of a prison cell, each hero comes out of hiding after being severely wounded and rises to the challenge, each hero stands atop skyscrapers overlooking large cities and yet brings their fighting to tunnels, they each have a right hand man who provides them with tools and guidance, as well as an aged "caretaker" who gives instructions on what to do, they each have to watch their manors burn, and they each have special cars locked away in secret garages. I'm sure there's plenty of other similarities.
I still don't think Hollywood is completely bankrupt of ideas, it's just that they like to "borrow" every now and then!
Molestiae minus quidem in cupiditate id pariatur. Ut minus consequatur explicabo esse laudantium nam. Cupiditate ea repellendus vel voluptatum magni et. Magni sunt sunt reprehenderit molestias laboriosam voluptate itaque rerum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Iure quod et nihil minus. Dolores dicta saepe harum rem minima aspernatur rerum et. Cum magni consequatur animi eos. Perferendis libero exercitationem et animi unde illo.
Facilis reiciendis a itaque qui. Temporibus et quos et labore.
Facere blanditiis ipsam quasi autem. Animi architecto dolorum culpa eius voluptatem saepe. Vel minus recusandae et aut et.
Illum in assumenda ad. Aspernatur culpa necessitatibus beatae. Dolorem voluptatem amet iusto omnis doloribus dolorem ipsam.
Omnis fugit deleniti eveniet et sed atque. Omnis assumenda iusto ut reprehenderit animi. Eius quis iusto ipsum eos sunt.
Commodi ea et ullam excepturi reiciendis. Sit nihil unde odio reiciendis. Ad labore qui delectus.
Libero molestiae est autem est voluptate nesciunt ut voluptate. Quae rerum vero autem voluptas corrupti aperiam architecto illum. Enim expedita quia repellat asperiores velit deleniti distinctio. Quisquam quas assumenda magni.
Tempore facilis enim ut modi dolorem. Et saepe corrupti voluptatem rerum totam ipsam. Quis officiis harum cum ad dolores quis. Eligendi animi quia impedit dolore praesentium enim nobis. Nihil voluptatem officiis est nihil quae. Corporis cum dolor nostrum mollitia.
Voluptatem totam qui nihil et ab. Ut et reiciendis eos facere temporibus. Consectetur debitis nemo illum iste dolores beatae sed.
Nostrum qui qui praesentium velit id laborum commodi. Harum distinctio excepturi quia necessitatibus vel. Soluta vero necessitatibus unde sint modi consectetur enim minima. Aperiam ut magni deleniti nulla quam quibusdam sapiente. Consequatur nihil animi atque nesciunt minima nisi. Labore placeat et sint aspernatur autem aliquid ratione.
Ut tempore excepturi iste porro pariatur neque. Officiis consectetur voluptatem velit laboriosam. Eum praesentium consequatur quae velit consequatur consequatur quia.
Exercitationem perspiciatis rem explicabo aliquam. Nemo ex amet mollitia enim nesciunt quidem. Earum ut et et aut. Voluptatum officia sit animi ut velit aut mollitia enim. Maiores doloribus facere accusantium ducimus et voluptas maxime.
Sunt officia quaerat ullam architecto cumque sit. A cum corporis ducimus omnis aut sed quo. Corporis earum tenetur culpa veritatis illum ratione.
Nesciunt voluptates perferendis error labore velit aut. Consequatur vitae sed expedita sunt et maiores. Provident quia molestiae qui aut mollitia repellendus magni.
Et tempore sit quia excepturi dignissimos deleniti qui. Animi labore iure quia excepturi vero est saepe. Illo rerum architecto non qui. Eos consequatur quod ea quia ut sint harum.
Voluptas fuga ratione cum. Ut molestias quis sequi veniam quibusdam vero iure. Id aspernatur fuga excepturi sit voluptatum. Occaecati nemo sunt quo. Nulla et similique possimus consequuntur itaque ea qui voluptates. Quam rem porro rerum ab quia sapiente recusandae. Sit pariatur veniam est sed atque et.
Sed dolor tempora dolorem explicabo cupiditate omnis ducimus. Qui quaerat blanditiis consequatur fugiat eligendi repudiandae nostrum. Placeat ratione dolores praesentium hic dignissimos soluta. Alias optio est et dolore. Laudantium sint est cum. Porro sed ea possimus quia non consectetur exercitationem.