- 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: Jodie Foster: Big Budget Superhero Movies Are Ruining The Future of Hollywood
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:02 pm to Bench McElroy
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:02 pm to Bench McElroy
I like Big blockbusters. I see them all at the theater. I don’t go to a theater to watch indie movies. I’m not cultured.
0
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:04 pm to DelU249
quote:
The only guys given license to make movies they want to make are the directors of yesteryear.
This is how it's always been. Guys don't get to do whatever the hell they want until they prove themselves.
Even Spielberg had to cut his teeth doing TV and shorts before he got a little freedom.
quote:
I’m discussing the topic in the OP. You’re the one who flips his shite. Shall I refer to the Zelda thread?
Sure, refer me to it. It's so old I can't even remember it. The one thing I've been constantly disappointed in and made it known is the DCEU and that's about it.
and
at using that as another boom when you complain oh so much more than I ever have here.This post was edited on 12/30/17 at 5:10 pm
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:09 pm to Dr RC
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/27/23 at 7:45 pm
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:10 pm to Dr RC
quote:
Even Spielberg had to cut his teeth doing TV and shorts before he got a little freedom.
Ever watch the DVD commentary on Jaws?
He had no freedom.
They almost fired him 3 times. It was budget, budget, budget...Hollywood was getting over the Director as an artist...from the last decade.
Directors were grunts in the 30's and 40's and 50's and then became delicate geniuses in the 60's and especially the 70's.
Jaws was considered just a monster movie - make it cheap and make it quick.
He says he thought his career was over because he was from that 70's auteur sensibility and shooting way too much film.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:17 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/27/23 at 7:44 pm
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:23 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/27/23 at 7:44 pm
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:26 pm to Gnar Cat21
quote:
Comparing movies to fracking
Exactly. I agree with her overall premise but the comparison with fracking is stupid.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:33 pm to GurleyGirl
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/27/23 at 7:44 pm
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:35 pm to DelU249
quote:
Oh really? Again, answer the question of scale...what percentage of movies over the past 10 years have been remakes, reboots and/or sequels?
Do you really expect me to go and count it all up? You don't even know the answer to that so why should I do all the leg work?
Again, there are more movies being released than ever before by a long shot. If you can't find new shite it's on you.
quote:
the next generation of directors never came and it’s because of the way the studio system works now
This is total horseshite. Like 100% garbage and it's embarrassing for you to even try to make that claim.
There are plenty of young directors who may or may not become all time greats. Neill Blomkamp, Drew Goddard, Rian Johnson, Andrew Dominik, Tom Hooper, Steve McQueen, Martin McDonagh, Jeff Nichols, Edgar Wright, Jennifer Kent, Jon Watts, Ryan Coogler, Robert Eggers, Adam Wingard, Damian Chazelle and many, many more...
When you say nobody takes risks that's also laughable. Handing a giant tent poll movie to people like the Russo Bros, Josh Trank, and Rian Johnson is a massive risk. Changing characters w/preconceived notions in well known IPs like Mandarin or Luke Skywalker is a huge risk. Making a big budget musical about PT Barnum is a huge risk. Hiring perpetual frick up Robert Downey to play a C list hero in Iron Man and getting the fat guy from Rudy to direct was a huge risk. Making an all female Ghostbusters was... wait for it... a huge risk.
Are the movie theaters dominated by big budget action flicks now? Sure. But it always has been that way to a degree. The only reason it feels more so now has more to do with the fact that people are now generally only willing to spend money on those kinds of movies at the theater. Why go see low key movies The Witch or Three Billboards in theaters for $15 when there is literally ZERO reason to do so? They aren't special effects heavy. They aren't in 3D. They don't benefit from being on the big screen. They will be streaming at home on your 50 inch TV less than a year after release. Never mind the fact that those big budget comic moves fund all the smaller releases. They are necessary for the entire system to even function.
This post was edited on 12/30/17 at 5:43 pm
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:42 pm to Dr RC
Wow, don’t know if I can read the whole manifesto but let’s just look at the top grossing films by year for the past 10 years since you probably won’t believe me that it’s over 90%
Jurassic world
Star Wars
Batman
Transformers
The avengers
Frozen and avatar would stand out as the most original concepts
I think drama has been pigeon holed and I think action/adventure/fantasy has been too and been kept mutually exclusive
I will say it’s been a really good run for the horror genre the last several years.
but let’s just look at the top grossing films by year for the past 10 years since you probably won’t believe me that it’s over 90% Jurassic world
Star Wars
Batman
Transformers
The avengers
Frozen and avatar would stand out as the most original concepts
I think drama has been pigeon holed and I think action/adventure/fantasy has been too and been kept mutually exclusive
I will say it’s been a really good run for the horror genre the last several years.
This post was edited on 12/30/17 at 5:43 pm
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:43 pm to DelU249
quote:
I really like the horror genre because the movies are cheap so the directors have a lot of freedom to do something different
The gap is staggering.
Blair Witch, Open Water, Evil Dead, Halloween, 28 Days Later, Cabin Fever, etc.
Blair Witch made 250 Million and cost 60 grand to make. And it was avant garde and no studio control - it was a student film basically.
But Hollywood doesn't want to take those chances because people lose jobs if they go out on a limb.
If a movie doesn't recoup they can fall back on "industry standard" - I was just following the blueprint, nothing unique or different.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:44 pm to DelU249
Just because those are the movies that make the most money does not mean those are the only movies being made. Good god that's a horrible way to try and prove your point.
There was a time that most of the movies being made were by the numbers Westerns. We aren't anywhere near that kind of over-saturation of a single genre.
This post was edited on 12/30/17 at 5:59 pm
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:51 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
But Hollywood doesn't want to take those chances because people lose jobs if they go out on a limb.
How in the world is buying up a cheap indie film for wide release a major risk that will lose somebody a job if they miss on one? Blair Witch may have been a bigger success than most but the process it went through to becoming a HW release is incredibly common. What do you think happens at Sundance and all the other major film festivals? They aren't just there for critics to thumb their noses at mainstream fare. HW execs go to try and find the next big director and films they can purchase for wide release.
For example, Sony Pictures Classic didn't make Whiplash. They bought the distribution rights after their people saw it at Sundance.
The way to lose your job is to be the one behind a huge big budget flop that was supposed to fund the rest of your operations throughout the rest of the year.
This post was edited on 12/30/17 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 12/30/17 at 5:53 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
How is something like Blair Witch considered taking a chance when it cost almost nothing to make? John Carter and Battleship were taking a chance and failed miserably. Even a more known property like The Lone Ranger was a massive failure. If Blair Witch flopped, so what? Hollywood producers spend more on coke in a week than that movie cost to make.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 6:00 pm to Brosef Stalin
It's not risky - but that's Hollywood's thinking. There's the proof.
Why the dearth if they bought into it?
Hollywood thinks it's safer to spend 200 million on a known product.
Proof is in the pudding and releases. Movies like Blair Witch or whatever always have to be some outside ring.
And they don't give directors freedom. Directors have to bring them a finished product.
Last director with no credentials who had freedom was probably John Singleton.
Why the dearth if they bought into it?
Hollywood thinks it's safer to spend 200 million on a known product.
Proof is in the pudding and releases. Movies like Blair Witch or whatever always have to be some outside ring.
And they don't give directors freedom. Directors have to bring them a finished product.
Last director with no credentials who had freedom was probably John Singleton.
This post was edited on 12/30/17 at 6:03 pm
Posted on 12/30/17 at 6:11 pm to DelU249
quote:
what percentage of movies over the past 10 years have been remakes, reboots and/or sequels?
Curious what the answer is to that. Do you know or asking?
It’s feels like the big budget films are remakes/sequels. But there is a ton of new content out there. But most of the new content is TV or streaming.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 6:16 pm to Dr RC
quote:you avoid answering simple questions because they’re effectively subversive to your entire premise
does not mean those are the only movies being made
So what original movie this year was so awesome in the sci-fi, action/adventure or fantasy genre?
pirates of the Caribbean 5? Power rangers? Guardians of the galaxy 2, XXX 3? Transformers 6? Planet of the apes? Blade runner 2? John wick 2? Star Wars? Wolverine 3? Wonder Woman? Justice league? Spider-Man 6? Baby driver (drive 2) A couple of those movies are good, but I’m totally wrong, I see it now...Hollywood isn’t 90% recycles ideas. It’s just as you claim. people complaining about Hollywood’s lack of originality are stuck in the past...we’re blinded by nostalgia and not Hollywood.
We’re ending the year with critics praising how original the new STAR WARS movie is for christ’s sake.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 6:18 pm to kciDAtaE
quote:
But most of the new content is TV or streaming.
Call me old fashioned. There’s something about going to the movies. I agree. That low budget unabomber mini series was better than most (not all, most) movies released this year.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 6:24 pm to DelU249
No doubt. I enjoy going to the theater as well. But when looking at what “Hollywood” is putting out, it’s unfair not to look at what Netflix, HBO, Amazon, etc. is putting out.
And shows like Black Mirror or even GoT couldn’t exist in the old format of cinema.
And shows like Black Mirror or even GoT couldn’t exist in the old format of cinema.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 6:32 pm to kciDAtaE
GoT looks like it costs hundreds of millions
Movies that cost that much spend their budget on actors with BO appeal
Movies that cost that much spend their budget on actors with BO appeal
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News