- 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 9:12 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Posted on 12/30/17 at 9:12 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
know everyone wants to live in fantasy-land but real dramas enrich/educate or enlighten people more than just - I had a fun time tuning out of life by watching fireballs explode from someone's hand.
I don’t disagree with you. But how often do we get these movies anymore?
What’s the last movie you saw that just made you go “wow”?
I was pretty blown away by Ex Machina and it didn’t even get nominated for anything. And Logan, although I understand it’s superhero but not at all like anything we’ve seen before.
LaLa Land was good, Birdman was boring. I’ve got to go all the way back to Inception to find a movie that made me truly just go “wow” and that’s going on 8 years ago.
So if I’m shelling out a small fortune to go see a movie, I want it to be worth experiencing. And there really haven’t been a ton of these types of movies lately outside of your big budget superhero flicks that have made me want to go to the theater to see.
This post was edited on 12/30/17 at 9:16 pm
1
Posted on 12/30/17 at 9:19 pm to elprez00
quote:
I don’t disagree with you. But how often do we get these movies anymore?
Almost never, and I guess that's the gripe.
Hollywood doesn't want to risk it - even on a small nothing budget...
As has been said, they are more interested in spending $200 million to make $500 million.
Tried and true.
Ex Machina is a good example of a movie that you are shocked to see it made it into the theaters.
But we had a thread about 70's thrillers...and you don't get those anymore.
3 Days of the Condor, Marathon Man, The Conversation, etc, are now...
Fast and The Furious.
You basically have two movie templates today that gets greenlit:
1) Magical abilities - superhero, wizard, make believe land guy;
or
2) Car chase movie, on land, sea, in space, etc.
This post was edited on 12/30/17 at 9:21 pm
Posted on 12/30/17 at 9:25 pm to DelU249
Post-postmodernism
Posted on 12/30/17 at 9:25 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Hollywood doesn't want to risk it - even on a small nothing budget... As has been said, they are more interested in spending $200 million to make $500 million.
I’d say they take risks on smaller budgets, but there’s basically no in between. It seems like they’re either making a $100M+ movie or a $5-10M movie.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 9:27 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Ex Machina is a good example of a movie that you are shocked to see it made it into the theaters.
Whiplash as well. Ended up doing very well because it was so good, but a movie about a college jazz drummer? That’s hard to sell to the general public
Posted on 12/30/17 at 9:36 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
We've also had some great drama and comedy writing on TV in the last decade. A lot of people would rather watch a ten episode story arc than sit in a theater for 3 hours waiting for that one moving scene.
I just think it's really disingenuous for anyone to complain about the range of viewing options available today. Hollywood might not make the Deer Hunter today, but 1970's TV never would have given us Mad Men, Twin Peaks, Breaking Bad, etc etc.
I just think it's really disingenuous for anyone to complain about the range of viewing options available today. Hollywood might not make the Deer Hunter today, but 1970's TV never would have given us Mad Men, Twin Peaks, Breaking Bad, etc etc.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 9:57 pm to PowerTool
Most of my thoughts have already been posted so I'll just frick you Jodie your movies suck. Also there are so few movie makers that have great ideas and can execute them well on the big screen. Of course Speilberg is one but others I trust are Ridley Scott and Tarantino. I'm not spending 10 bucks for a movie and deal with people talking, kids crying, kids kicking the back of my seat, phones ringing,etc...I'd rather sit at home and watch on my big TV where I can pause it when needed and eat better food. Lastly I don't want to give libs like her my money and watching at home they'll get less of it.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 10:04 pm to Bench McElroy
Jodie Foster doesn't understand one shite about simple economics.
All she's doing is complaining that studios are just simply following the demand where it is and putting their money into the right supply.
If she really hates comic book movies, she should be bitching about the audience, not the people who are taking advantage of that demand.
All she's doing is complaining that studios are just simply following the demand where it is and putting their money into the right supply.
If she really hates comic book movies, she should be bitching about the audience, not the people who are taking advantage of that demand.
This post was edited on 12/30/17 at 10:05 pm
Posted on 12/30/17 at 10:15 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
fracking
quote:She likes making shite up, I guess
you wreck the earth
Posted on 12/30/17 at 10:30 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Hollywood doesn't want to risk it - even on a small nothing budget...
I'd be interested in seeing the total number of movies generated now vs the 70s out of Hollywood. Just as a casual observer I bet it's way more.
If they'll churn out shitty movies by the truckload for instant release to on demand I don't see how they wouldn't risk producing something decent. It seems to me like they make anything with a script more than 3 pages.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 10:35 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
It seems to me like they remake anything with a script more than 3 pages.
Fixed
Posted on 12/30/17 at 10:39 pm to Sentrius
I would argue they are creating that demand. Which is fine. That’s another discussion on economics. For what it’s worth I agree with her on a basic level, but only because I think most superhero movies are trash.
But we still have excellent movies being made. It’s not like original film has dissolved.
But we still have excellent movies being made. It’s not like original film has dissolved.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 8:03 am to cas4t
quote:And we still have excellent Superhero movies being made.
But we still have excellent movies being made. It’s not like original film has dissolved.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 9:02 am to mattz1122
quote:
Trump because he’s “alpha.”
Don't care one way or the other on this. But I do love the fact that he's cut my taxes and the economy is booming.
What is it with the Trump haters that you can't even have a discussion on movies without throwing in a Trump comment?
This post was edited on 12/31/17 at 9:04 am
Posted on 12/31/17 at 12:09 pm to Bench McElroy
She's right, you know (insert Morgan Freeman meme here)
Posted on 12/31/17 at 12:15 pm to Bench McElroy
As everyone descends into madness claiming movies were better back then/movies were the same back then.
Hollywood has always, always, rode with what is working. From the 30's till early 70's that was Westerns. A lot of which were sequels and most of which sucked. But those Westerns made enough money that the studio could make other movies as well.
Hollywood tried to make super hero movies for decades, the special effects just weren't there to pull it off more often then not, the same for Sci-Fi movies.
Lets take a look at a classic though, when they did movies right and there were directors willing to take risks!
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (and helped to completely screw up our mental health care system which is why we have so many homeless people now). A great movie, a hallmark of the auteur director. Came out in 1975.
Would that we could go back to such a rich year for movies that saw such classics as the Apple Dumpling Gang, Blazing Stewardesses, Bugs Bunny: Superstar, The Candy Tangerine Man, Crazy Mama, The Happy Hooker, One of our Dinosaurs is missing, Supervixens, Trucker's Woman, and The Werewolf of Woodstock.
At least 8 of the movies released were... sequels. Quite a few of which were the big money movies. Another 6 or so would spawn off sequels in the next few years.
There were also some very good movies released in 75. A great year actually for classics. There was also a heaping helping of suck. Only know a days the heaping helping of suck is on cable or Netflix.
I'm fairly certain that were Blazing Stewardesses to be released today it would not see a nationwide release.
Maybe the Werewolf of Woodstock. Maybe.
Jaws was the top movie of 1975. Today it is regarded as a classic. I dare say, however, that is far more of a theme park movie then The Wind and the Lion.
Are there big budget dramas being made today? Well considering that the Crown burns through a hundred plus million dollars each season I would say yes.
While she has made some great movies lets not forget, Jodie Foster has been in her share of cringe worthy projects as well. She followed up Silence of the Lambs with big budget action movie Maverick. She voiced Pugsly Addams in a cartoon series. The Amazing Chan and the Chan Chans. She played three different roles on both My Three Sons and Gunsmoke. And Elysium was not exactly an art house movie considering it cost 115 million to make.
She's probably not proud of all those roles but they paid the bills.
Superhero movies and big Sci Fi epics are the Westerns of today. Some suck. Some are decent. A few are classics. They pay the bills and keep the lights on. If an actor or actress really wants to land a good dramatic role they have a ton of options today. Maybe it plays on cable or Netflix or Amazon, but the budgets are solid and the audience is there.
Hollywood has always, always, rode with what is working. From the 30's till early 70's that was Westerns. A lot of which were sequels and most of which sucked. But those Westerns made enough money that the studio could make other movies as well.
Hollywood tried to make super hero movies for decades, the special effects just weren't there to pull it off more often then not, the same for Sci-Fi movies.
Lets take a look at a classic though, when they did movies right and there were directors willing to take risks!
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (and helped to completely screw up our mental health care system which is why we have so many homeless people now). A great movie, a hallmark of the auteur director. Came out in 1975.
Would that we could go back to such a rich year for movies that saw such classics as the Apple Dumpling Gang, Blazing Stewardesses, Bugs Bunny: Superstar, The Candy Tangerine Man, Crazy Mama, The Happy Hooker, One of our Dinosaurs is missing, Supervixens, Trucker's Woman, and The Werewolf of Woodstock.
At least 8 of the movies released were... sequels. Quite a few of which were the big money movies. Another 6 or so would spawn off sequels in the next few years.
There were also some very good movies released in 75. A great year actually for classics. There was also a heaping helping of suck. Only know a days the heaping helping of suck is on cable or Netflix.
I'm fairly certain that were Blazing Stewardesses to be released today it would not see a nationwide release.
Maybe the Werewolf of Woodstock. Maybe.
Jaws was the top movie of 1975. Today it is regarded as a classic. I dare say, however, that is far more of a theme park movie then The Wind and the Lion.
Are there big budget dramas being made today? Well considering that the Crown burns through a hundred plus million dollars each season I would say yes.
While she has made some great movies lets not forget, Jodie Foster has been in her share of cringe worthy projects as well. She followed up Silence of the Lambs with big budget action movie Maverick. She voiced Pugsly Addams in a cartoon series. The Amazing Chan and the Chan Chans. She played three different roles on both My Three Sons and Gunsmoke. And Elysium was not exactly an art house movie considering it cost 115 million to make.
She's probably not proud of all those roles but they paid the bills.
Superhero movies and big Sci Fi epics are the Westerns of today. Some suck. Some are decent. A few are classics. They pay the bills and keep the lights on. If an actor or actress really wants to land a good dramatic role they have a ton of options today. Maybe it plays on cable or Netflix or Amazon, but the budgets are solid and the audience is there.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 12:39 pm to Bench McElroy
She's just being an elitist snob, putting people down for their "mindless entertainment". Screw her.
I'm sure there have been over a dozen thoughtful, introspective, philosophical films released just this year; I don't know them because I'm not interested. In time, some of these films will be perceived as 'really good', and will assume their place in the viewing rotation of people who like that sort of thing.
Superhero movies and Star Wars don't prevent their making; if anything they prime the field for them. Lots of money is made by all parties involved in those films, opening up capital to make other ventures, like... artsy films. Just for example.
Viewers get out to the theaters for the blockbusters, and are exposed to reasons they might come back for the others... like- wow, that's a really comfortable setup, I may go see another film here just for the relaxing experience. They might see, for example, the theater's ads for special presentations of classics, and decide "hey, I sort of remember Casablanca, I might go see that in this comfy setting".
Now, as for myself, I have little desire to see such things. I go to an action blockbuster as a release, to catch some escapist fantasy with amazing special effects, the way I might go catch a concert or a sporting event. I want a few hours of being wowed, of seeing something and saying "that's fricking cool to look at". A good such movie is like a ride at a theme park, but lasts longer and involves a few different sensory inputs.
Some people like Chris Nolan. They say he has a good artistic vision. Well, he earned a ton of money and general audience respect with the Batman films, and so he has free reign to make other films without worrying about budgets. That's how films like Interstellar and Dunkirk get made at the scale they were.
Some people are old enough to remember Robert Downey Jr as one of the faces of the 80's thoughtful decadence exploration movies; he reappeared in Iron Man with basically the same character. And again, he's ultra-cool to everyone but himself, as he finds emptiness and fear creeping in around his excess.
A whole lot of people aren't interested in artsy films, and just wouldn't go to the theater if that's all there was showing. The blockbuster films serve to circulate money back into the system.
I'm sure there have been over a dozen thoughtful, introspective, philosophical films released just this year; I don't know them because I'm not interested. In time, some of these films will be perceived as 'really good', and will assume their place in the viewing rotation of people who like that sort of thing.
Superhero movies and Star Wars don't prevent their making; if anything they prime the field for them. Lots of money is made by all parties involved in those films, opening up capital to make other ventures, like... artsy films. Just for example.
Viewers get out to the theaters for the blockbusters, and are exposed to reasons they might come back for the others... like- wow, that's a really comfortable setup, I may go see another film here just for the relaxing experience. They might see, for example, the theater's ads for special presentations of classics, and decide "hey, I sort of remember Casablanca, I might go see that in this comfy setting".
Now, as for myself, I have little desire to see such things. I go to an action blockbuster as a release, to catch some escapist fantasy with amazing special effects, the way I might go catch a concert or a sporting event. I want a few hours of being wowed, of seeing something and saying "that's fricking cool to look at". A good such movie is like a ride at a theme park, but lasts longer and involves a few different sensory inputs.
Some people like Chris Nolan. They say he has a good artistic vision. Well, he earned a ton of money and general audience respect with the Batman films, and so he has free reign to make other films without worrying about budgets. That's how films like Interstellar and Dunkirk get made at the scale they were.
Some people are old enough to remember Robert Downey Jr as one of the faces of the 80's thoughtful decadence exploration movies; he reappeared in Iron Man with basically the same character. And again, he's ultra-cool to everyone but himself, as he finds emptiness and fear creeping in around his excess.
A whole lot of people aren't interested in artsy films, and just wouldn't go to the theater if that's all there was showing. The blockbuster films serve to circulate money back into the system.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 5:53 pm to kingbob
Wow bravo. What an excellent post.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News