I just watched the Island and I have to say I can't believe that Hollywood greenlighted such a pile of pants.

Beyond all the directorial and acting issues (and god there are many - the film looked the same as Bad Boys 2... even ripped off it's best set piece) the script and story was just dire.

I love the fact the film cost almost $200 million USD and made less than $30 Million USD. Maybe, just maybe, it will teach Hollywood to look at the idea and script before anything else!

It's not just The Island ... Stealth, XXX2, Into The Blue, War Of The Worlds, Star Wars Episode 3... this was a bad year for quality script writing and bloated movies.

When will they learn!

Dang, man. You sure are hard on your movies.
I kind of liked The Island. It did it's job; entertained me. And I didn't really have that high of expectations of it. But for popping it in the dvd player and watching it while I ate my dinner, I enjoyed it. :)

I'll tell you 2 movies that were so aweful I had to turn them off because I found them too boring, The Cave and Dark Water. Laaaaammmeeee.

Dang, man. You sure are hard on your movies.I don't blame him. Hollywood is under this impression that if you spend 200 million dollars on a movie, it HAS to be good. Right?

NOT!

Big budget Hollywood films today do have a bad rap because of the high blockbuster-bomb rate.

I firmly believe that Hollywood should send out scouts to find and meet all the big name independents and throw cash their way for a production (A large number of them are on this site).

I think Hollywood would be happy with the effort: Everyone wins! We get our movies made with Hollywood money, we get the recognition, we all make the cash. It's a win-win situation.

Hey, Hollywood, call me! :D

Not hard just honest! I'm fed up paying my money to watch the shite that passes as film these days. Even the Indie's are producing dull films.

to be honest the best quality out put at the moment is coming from TV. With shows like BattleStar, the Sheild, 24, Sopranos, Smallville, Desp. Housewives... TV is doing a far better job of entertaining me than film is.

Few films this year have wowed me. Batman, War Of The Worlds (In places), Sin City were all great but appart from that it was the year I visted the cinema and blockbuster less and turned on my TV more.

I'm fed up paying my money to watch the shite that passes as film these days.

Man, you make it sound like these guys are coming to your house, dragging you to the theater, taking your money and forcing you to watch the film at gunpoint.

I've seen The Island with friends who got it from NetFlix. It reminded me a little of THX. Other than that, there's not much there, but I knew that from the trailer.

Man, you make it sound like these guys are coming to your house, dragging you to the theater, taking your money and forcing you to watch the film at gunpoint.

I've seen The Island with friends who got it from NetFlix. It reminded me a little of THX. Other than that, there's not much there, but I knew that from the trailer.

No.

But...

If you bought a TV or a meal and weren't satisfied would you complain? I would. And do.

So why when we pay for a movie and we walk out and say 'that was shite' do we not say or do something about it? After all we are paying. Cinema is unique in the fact that we just accept something that is poor. Why should we be happy with average? Or sub-par?

And when we are not happy why shoulnd't we voice our opinions.

And when we are not happy why shoulnd't we voice our opinions.Unfortunately, we voice our opinions about a bad movie after we shelled out $8 to see it. By then, Hollywood dosen't care what our opinion is, they already have our money.

True. But still it doesn't hurt to rant

This thread kinda reminds me of that episode of South Park where Stan and Kenny see "The Passion of the Christ" and thought it sucked so bad, they drive to Hollywood, go into Mel Gibson's house, and steal back their $20.

Ha! I did ask for my money back after Alexander. From the cinema AND the studio... never heard anything back!

And when we are not happy why shoulnd't we voice our opinions.

Certainly nothing wrong with that or not liking a movie.....BUT....

This is a filmmaking forum and I would imagine that your rants would be a little more informed or guided. For example, unless you've read the script itself, you don't really know what was changed from script to screen. The script might not be the problem. Micheal Bay, McGregor, and Johannson all have sufficient pull to be able to make changes if they want, and they almost always excercise that right. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Bay jazzed much of it up to play up the action.

And why would the studio (Spielberg called him personally) hire Bay to make this movie? Gee, could it be the fact that Bay had never had a bomb. His track record before The Island was incredible. Audiences seem to like what he's dishing out.

No one sets out to make a bad movie. And in this case, the ingredients seemed to be there: A relevant topic played out in a sci-fi actioner, a hit director, two movie stars with both studio and indie credentials, and the most successful filmmaker of all time as an executive producer.

But as we all know, and I hope appreciate, even the best efforts sometimes misfire. That's just filmmaking.

I firmly believe that Hollywood should send out scouts to find and meet all the big name independents and throw cash their way for a production (A large number of them are on this site).

I think Hollywood would be happy with the effort: Everyone wins! We get our movies made with Hollywood money, we get the recognition, we all make the cash. It's a win-win situation.

Ugh. The only winners here would be the indie filmmakers, and only for a moment. The big losers would be Hollywood and audiences. And when audiences stayed away in droves, the big studios would lose billions. And the funding for indie films would go back to what it was.

For example, unless you've read the script itself, you don't really know what was changed from script to screen.This is true. I've read some dynamite scripts of lousy Hollywood films.
No one sets out to make a bad movie.Again, true. Who wants to make a blockbuster that dosen't want to make any money?


I just believe that Hollywood needs to stop and evaluate the changing face of film. Times change. Hollywood hasn't.

I have seen many good "Hollywood" films over the years. Some of my favorite films are Hollywood films, some are even big budgeted Hollywood films. I love a lot of Hollywood films from the past, especially the 40's and 50's and even some from the 30's. I saw a film with Claude Rains and Bette Davis the other night, Mr. Skeffington, an RKO picture I think. It was great - would I have cared whether it was independent or a film made for $50k? Probably not. But I also think that I end up really liking films that are built more by the mind of the filmmaker - usually a writer and director - than a studio exec looking to mix plot 3a and 2b and give it some flash, although I really enjoyed Pirates of the Carribean which was all put together like that type of film with a producer throwing all the pieces together.

That said, Ive also enjoyed some indies recently, like ESoTSM, Garden State, and Napoleon Dynamite, a couple of Ed Burns' films, and earlier, a couple of Woody Allen's and some of Hitchcock's later more indie type stuff. I think its the control factor that really makes a difference. A clear, good vision seen all the way through - Hollywood or indie.

But really, in general, I think the overall quality of filmmaking and especially dialog and writing has gone down the tube. No more great scenes of romance or discussion, its just plot point to plot point, someone drops someone else into bed and you see some simulated sex or its some type of slasher or horror film where everybody runs around scared of zombies or something. No more 5 minute onners with incredible dialogue. No more sweeping themes or solid dialogue. Nothing that I want to watch.

And I think audiences are dying for those types of films, but nobody gives it to them anymore. Is it the political climate? Are we all so jaded that were tech junkies and not just good writers trying to tell a really great story that people will want to see?

I see so many filmmakers who think the answer around all of this is to make horror films because they sell. Well, I dont want to watch modern horror films. Pretty much no normal adults I know want to go watch horror films. Some of the male 18-26 demographics do. They live for Return of the Zombies on elm street vs. Jason Part XXII. But their girlfriends and their parents probably don't. In fact the only reason why I think movies like Narnia and Potter and Kong do so well and draw so well is that even if the the film isnt 100% solid, you know with that much money thrown at it its at least going to be a lot of entertainment for your buck.

And so thats where we find ourselves. The cinema has turned into a place to go and pay for cheap thrills, like a rollercoaster or something. Something we know we can kill a couple of hours and escape to. Maybe we'll really like it, but at least it will entertain us.

Then you look at the flipside. A movie like Napoleon - that some absolutely cannot grasp because it isnt simply cheap entertainment - and it was made for $400k and it does 44m box office. Thats an interesting response is it not? Or maybe ESoTSM which was estimated budget for 20m (of which we know where a good chunk of that money went and it wasnt for crew) and it grosses 34m in box office alone. Then you have Garden State made for under $3m and it does closer to 30m in box office.

So you know, I dont want to say indies aren't responding right, but I'm looking at the formulas for these successes and they seem fairly straight forward - great script, incredible acting, great cinematography, etc. Solid films. And yet, no massive violence, no constant profanity, no drug dealers and junkies.

But what I see out of 95% of all indies is violence, profanity, and drugs.

I liked Braveheart, Reqium, and Clerks. But those were solid films in their own ways besides the formula they used. They embraced whatever they used as a necessary point to tell their stories, and their stories were fresh. It wasn't like I read on half of the summeries at film festivals, "A junkie and a pusher go for a joyride through the inner city only to end up turning on each other at the worst possible moment." Dear god, I have zero interest in seeing that. Very few people I know would feel compelled to watch that movie. And yet, if its a solid effort I *might* check it out based on buzz or something. But never in a million years would I be drawn to that film. Or, I hear about a film that has some buzz around it but it reads, "A female prosititute decides she wants to become a man but not before her adopted son reappears in her life." It could have the worlds best script but for gods sake I dont want to see that. YMMV, but I think in the end it doesn't matter who we are or where we are, we all like solid films, and to be honest, I'm just not seeing it out of Hollywood or independents.

If you want to make The Godfather, great, make it but it better be damn good. You wont get me to see it or my friends most likely but many who enjoy that type of movie will. Want to make a M Night type? Go for it, but it should be great and fresh because everyone and their dogs are making horror films it seems and most of them are bad. How about another film about drug usage? Fine, but decide, am I going to make Blow or Requiem or am I going to make a film that sucks?

Hitchcock said there are three things to making a great film. A great script, a great script, and a great script. Whatever happened to those days? Days when people poured their heart and soul into a script about topics that appealed to people instead of seeing green or success, writing a decent script and trying to sell the movie?

You want better movies? Make them. Whether its with a studio backing you or a private investor.

WideShot, you get my vote for Rant of the Century(TM).

This whole 'if you want better movies make them' argument never flies with me. yes it's true and I am. But does that mean I should still expect or accept lower quality from studios?

I agree with the script comment however. And for me this is where 99% of all Hollywood and indie films fall down. Not the bad language, violence or dugs but the poorly written screenplay.

Hey I guess I'm in the minority here actually wanting a change.

This whole 'if you want better movies make them' argument never flies with me. yes it's true and I am. But does that mean I should still expect or accept lower quality from studios?

It's not an "argument." I'm simply saying that wanting better movies is a lot easier than making better movies. And that the lack of quality films isn't from lack of trying, as you seem to suggest. If it were as easy as picking great scripts and hiring great talent, every film ever made would be a success.

I agree with the script comment however. And for me this is where 99% of all Hollywood and indie films fall down. Not the bad language, violence or dugs but the poorly written screenplay.

You don't know if the scripts are the downfall unless you've actually read them. From my experience in the industry, chances are that the scripts are good but that the execution of the movie itself is what goes awry.

Hey I guess I'm in the minority here actually wanting a change.

We all want good quality movies. But we don't all have such misguided criticisms of where the blame for bad movies lies. And you're definitely not in the minority as far as that goes.

"You dont know if teh scripts are the downfall..."

I don't need to read the script for The Island to know it was shite. You can tell through the ideas, themes, and diaglogue on screen. Same with most Hollywood films.

As for misguided criticisms of where the blame lies? Thats bullshite. I have been in this business for 12 years. I have worked on big films and small films and I see the problems across the board ... but hey I guess opinions are like arseholes. And mine's a big and smelly as everyone elses!

I don't need to read the script for The Island to know it was shite.

Wow. Sad. Very, very sad.

Wow. Sad. Very, very sad.

Why Expalin? Why is not reading the original screen play for a film that exhibited no engagement and min talent sad?

Why Expalin? Why is not reading the original screen play for a film that exhibited no engagement and min talent sad?

Why is it sad to judge as "crap" a screenplay you've never read? Does that really require explanation?

What makes it "very" sad is that you make films and really should know better what happens between script and screen and how more often than not the writer's words bear little or no resemblence to what ends up in theatres.

Again I'm lost. I don't care what was written before. I care what is up on screen. I don't wtach a film, go away, read the screenplay and then form my opinion. Screenplays don't always change that much.

As for writers being so hard done by. Thats not always the case. And more often than not it isn't the case. Making sweaping statements like that makes no sense.

I ahve worked with writers for years and never had this the case.

What Beeble is saying is you can call the movie crap because you've seen it, but don't call the script crap cause you haven't read it. He's also saying that in this case, with the factors involved (Bay as Director, McGregor and Johansson as Stars), there is a good chance that a lot was changed on set from the original script.

I think somes it up - sometimes SHIT starts out as Steak, other times SHIT starts out as Stawberyy Short Cake. The Steak or Short Cake wasn't shit, but the SHIT was.

I also like Beeble's thought that no filmmaker ever sets out to make a bad movie. Every production starts out with the principles thinking that this will be a good flick, but something goes bad in the execution. That's an idea we seem to think less about as indie filmmakers.

Poke

Two points : Whatever changes were made to the script the story and plot remain the same for the most part. Both were shite on the Isalnd.

As for no one makiing a bad film on purpose... UWE BOLL. He must do. No one can be that shite!

Again I'm lost. I don't care what was written before. I care what is up on screen. I don't wtach a film, go away, read the screenplay and then form my opinion.

You're talking about the screenplays being crap from the beginning. And you simply can't know that without reading the scripts and following the process to the end.

But at least you admit that your opinion isn't an informed one.

As for writers being so hard done by. Thats not always the case. And more often than not it isn't the case.

How would you know? You never read the scripts.

Making sweaping statements like that makes no sense.

That's hilarious coming from the guy who said this: "And for me this is where 99% of all Hollywood and indie films fall down." You've made nothing but broad and inaccurate sweeping statements from the get-go.

I ahve worked with writers for years and never had this the case.

We're talking about HOLLYWOOD movies here and how they're made from script to screen. Maybe the UK is different, but that's not what you're ranting about.

Okay again to qualify. I dont read scripts of ever film I ever wqatch. But films like the Island have inherant issues from teh start with bad plot, dialgue and story.

As for indie. I get sent 10 scripts AT LEAST a week. Most a rubbish. The occasional one (1 in 20 ) is readable. Even less frequantly I get a gem. Maybe 1 in 30. I take time to read them out of respect but I see some crap as well.

I think that makes it a somewhat informed opinion. Sorry if I touched a nerve!

Oh and to add to qualify my POV (but not to boast) I have won awards for writing and had scripts in development at major studios.

Okay again to qualify. I dont read scripts of ever film I ever wqatch. But films like the Island have inherant issues from teh start with bad plot, dialgue and story.

Again, without having read the script, particularly for a movie like this one, you have no idea what the plot of the script was. Can they change that much? Absolutely. I've been involved with Hollywood projects that were virtually unrecognizable by the time they were done. Others more closely followed the script, but that was rare.

As for indie. I get sent 10 scripts AT LEAST a week. Most a rubbish. The occasional one (1 in 20 ) is readable. Even less frequantly I get a gem. Maybe 1 in 30. I take time to read them out of respect but I see some crap as well.

I think that makes it a somewhat informed opinion.

Again, unless you're reading the scripts that Hollywood gets, that Hollywood greenlights, and that Hollywood produces, and comparing the finished product, your experience in this specific case doesn't really inform you of very much.

Sorry if I touched a nerve!

It's not like it's a huge deal, and I'm not usually one to go around defending Hollywood writers. I just think in this case it's not a particularly fair or accurate observation based on my experience in Hollywood.

Ha! I did ask for my money back after Alexander. From the cinema AND the studio... never heard anything back!
What you pay for is to see it, not like it. If they did offer money-back guarantees, I imagine they'd be taken advantage of.

I like horror movies with zombies. I'm 30. I think what makes a good movie is completely subjective. But besides that, did anyone see "A History of Violence?" That was a great movie. "Batman Begins" of course was excellent. I really liked "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." In a given year, how many truly great movies can you expect?

Great ? maybe one or two. Good ? Maybe 3 or 4? Avereage ? 10+

The issue here is also my cinema which hasn't shown films I want to see. Transporter 2, Unleashed, History Of Violence, Saw 2... no I get Herbie on 3 screens. Probably why I'm so down at the mo... missed most of teh good films!