- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Making Movies: The Samuel L. Jackson Approach
Posted on 10/21/14 at 3:55 pm to Breesus
Posted on 10/21/14 at 3:55 pm to Breesus
quote:It's a lot more complicated than that. To chalk it up to our thought process, come on. The internet and illegal downloads and a million channels have a lot to do with it. The fact that Hollywood had grown stagnant and unprofitable is what directly led to the New Hollywood revolution of the 70s that changed the industry. And Brooks, Stallone, and Thornton still operated within the framework of the industry even if we (perhaps rightfully so) consider them true auteurs and outsiders pertaining to those films. It's always been about money.
Sadly this thought process kills movies like Rocky. And it has killed the outliers that made the industry.
Rocky could never and would never get made today.
Same goes for Sling Blade.
And the scare of a public backlash is insane as well. Mel Brooks couldn't make a movie today.
The money then said: this ain't working, try something different!
The money now says: we know what we want, give us what we want!
When Hollywood stops working as it currently is, things will change. And it'll happen eventually. Or maybe not. That's up to consumers. Y'all are the ones so satisfied with a million superhero movies. It ain't me
This post was edited on 10/21/14 at 3:58 pm
1
Posted on 10/21/14 at 3:59 pm to genro
quote:
It's always been about money
I agree, but there is a massive difference between Stallone making money of of the original Rocky when he wrote and directed it and the Smith's making After Earth.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 4:03 pm to genro
quote:
I get what you're saying, but this paragraph sort of highlights the flaw. Hollywood movie-making is (obviously) not some pure form of auteurism. Even the major "artists" we consider pure (let's say Kubrick, Lynch, Solondz) have to operate within this framework, receive producer backing, hire known actors, promote their films, and make them palatable to their audience. If they want to survive, anyways. It is a product, not a piece of art. And we seem to have accepted this reality. It's sort of the logistical reality of film-making. We don't have the time and money and space to analyze the subjectivity of film for film's sake, the way we do modern art. I can hang a painting of an empty canvas with a smear of dung in one corner and it's real easy for us to sit around and analyze it artistically. Try to do the same thing for Warhol's Empire. frick that. Ain't nobody got time for that.
Fair point.
quote:
Film has to be packaged as a product. It is necessarily a for-profit venture that costs millions to make. Thus, the resources are limited.
Cost escalate based on certain factors, but there are plenty of high-quality films that don't cost a fortune to make.
quote:
If someone invents a double-ended hammer, not only is it fricking stupid, it's a waste of valuable metal, wood, and time, that could be spent on something better. And no one will buy it. Isn't it better to tell them that ahead of time? Especially when you consider that profitable amateur tinkering outside Hollywood is basically impossible in film-making (Kevin Smith's Clerks notwithstanding).
I think of something like Inception though. Granted, that was a product of the current system so it may invalidate the point. But the studio took a risk on a director, an unknown property and what had to be a partly strange script. That was before Nolan really had carte blanche (the movie was his carte blanche moment though). I just think there might be more movies out there like that that don't get made. Nolan is often the exception, not the rule, but if you've scoured sites for scripts, you'd see the amount of cool scripts that never get made. That sucks.
And a lot of time this has to do with initial "that looks stupid," reactions.
quote:
Now, you're right that we don't really know what we want. "That looks stupid" is sometimes wrong. They force it on us anyways, and prove us wrong. Or some shitty movies make money anyways, because people are stupid and think they need a double-ended hammer even though it doesn't fricking work.
Some people liked Jack and Jill (maybe the quintessential double ended hammer), I'm sure of it. And that's cool.
quote:
But the idea of "just let them make all the movies they possibly can" doesn't make sense. They ARE making all the movies they possibly can. It's just a finite number. Shouldn't we try to make sure those limited number of movies we receive are good?
I mean we should, but I think people jump to conclusions with film far too often, both audiences and studios, because we either 1) Put too much stock in our own opinions 2) Have ridiculous opinions 3) Don't care about everyone else.
In terms of 1, I'm guilty of that, a lot. But I like to dissect film to it's core so that's inevitable. I'm usually still on the side of "to each his own," see something like BvS. I'm glad people are excited for it. I'll be there on opening night to, that doesn't mean I don't want to discuss the why's and how's the film or it's artistic choices. And just because something is a bad choice, doesn't mean it won't work out in the end.
On the flip side, it's studio arrogance that can lead to some of the decisions in BvS.
On 2, you saw this with Edge of Tomorrow. "I won't see it because it's a Tom Cruise movie." WTF. That irks me too. We all have our ridiculous opinions, we should let them go.
On 3, that's kind of where this all comes together. With movies, someone is probably going to like it. There's enough market research to know. Any "bad" film will find it's audience. And sometimes I might be a part of that audience. Heck, even GREAT films can turn people off. (See the Requiem for a Dream thread).
Studios should trust that they can probably find an audience. If rule 47 can be true, then everything finds an audience eventually.
Yes, Yes I know, I'm an idealist and balancing the front end cost and managing the ROI is important, I get it. But they KNOW that people just like movies, they know that. How else would Jack and Jill exist?
This post was edited on 10/21/14 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 10/21/14 at 4:04 pm to Freauxzen
Does your position assume an infinite amount of resources for making movies?
Posted on 10/21/14 at 4:05 pm to Dr RC
quote:
they already made Cabin Fever 2 and Cabin Fever 3
the one announced today is just a remake of the original
Right, seen them both, regardless of quality
I was just connecting to the other thread in case people wanted to check it out. (And that title reads Cabin Fever 2)
ETA: Wait no it doesn't. Damnit 2002
This post was edited on 10/21/14 at 4:08 pm
Posted on 10/21/14 at 4:08 pm to Freauxzen
ahh, I see what you meant now. 
that reminds me, I just found out there is a Wrong Turn 6
that reminds me, I just found out there is a Wrong Turn 6
This post was edited on 10/21/14 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 10/21/14 at 4:11 pm to uway
quote:
Does your position assume an infinite amount of resources for making movies?
It assumes the price of making movies can be driven down.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 4:12 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
It assumes the price of making movies can be driven down.
This i completely agree with.
Take a chance on a lesser known director, or lesser known script or lesser known actors. This happens sometimes, but it seems to be happening less and less.
They'd rather produce After Earth because Will Smith pitched it than any of the other unknown pitched projects that year.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 4:49 pm to Breesus
Hollywood is exploiting properties (or actors) with "built-in" audiences because they're safe. The thing is, they've always done that.
1920s film: dominated by minstrel shows
30s: gothic monster movies
50s: biblical epics
80s: teen movies
90s: action movies
(We were at war in the 40s, and the 70s are the one and only time Hollywood truly embraced variety)
We only remember the good ones (Jazz Singer, Dracula, Ten Commandments, Breakfast Club, Die Hard). We forget about the million crappy imitations they spawned. That's what we're experiencing now. Eventually people will grow tired of the same old convention and an outsider will turn everything on it's head by being hugely profitable defying that convention and (through influence) transform Hollywood. This cycle has repeated itself several times going back to the 20s. I actually think that is already happening. It's a gradual process. Freauxzen mentioned Inception, also Gravity was hugely successful. I think people truly want something new and different and original. Give them a taste of that, and they become turned off to the same old convention. If the convention now is "remakes and superheros and Jaden Smith," then yeah, that will eventually die out. Unfortunately, some other convention will take its place. We'll have something else to bitch about.
The time when new and different artists are truly given a fair chance only occurs once the convention dies out. It's only ever been a short-lived transitional time. Except for the 70s. The 70s were awesome.
1920s film: dominated by minstrel shows
30s: gothic monster movies
50s: biblical epics
80s: teen movies
90s: action movies
(We were at war in the 40s, and the 70s are the one and only time Hollywood truly embraced variety)
We only remember the good ones (Jazz Singer, Dracula, Ten Commandments, Breakfast Club, Die Hard). We forget about the million crappy imitations they spawned. That's what we're experiencing now. Eventually people will grow tired of the same old convention and an outsider will turn everything on it's head by being hugely profitable defying that convention and (through influence) transform Hollywood. This cycle has repeated itself several times going back to the 20s. I actually think that is already happening. It's a gradual process. Freauxzen mentioned Inception, also Gravity was hugely successful. I think people truly want something new and different and original. Give them a taste of that, and they become turned off to the same old convention. If the convention now is "remakes and superheros and Jaden Smith," then yeah, that will eventually die out. Unfortunately, some other convention will take its place. We'll have something else to bitch about.
The time when new and different artists are truly given a fair chance only occurs once the convention dies out. It's only ever been a short-lived transitional time. Except for the 70s. The 70s were awesome.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 6:13 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
I mean we should, but I think people jump to conclusions with film far too often, both audiences and studios, because we either 1) Put too much stock in our own opinions 2) Have ridiculous opinions 3) Don't care about everyone else.
Oh I'm definitely guilty as charged. The thing is though I think my opinions have made me a better movie watcher. I never really see any movies that are outright bad.
I think that's because the more movies I watch the better I am at recognizing movies that I will enjoy or at least find watchable for one time.
If I didn't have a strong opinion I'd probably stumble into watching a lot of bad movies. Now I might also stumble into some surprises but I do think that outweighs sitting through bad movies.
So that would be my advice/opinion for everyone. Watch what looks interesting to you and the more you watch the easier it is to find movies you like.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News