Sharknado It Is

SeanSmithSounds

SeanSmithSounds

I'm off to see a riffing of the film Sharknado, and my filmmaking friend brought up an interesting point. Throughout the years, people who watch a certain group of films tend to be influenced by them. If someone sits and watches Bergman every day and all day, chances are if they make a movie, there will be hints of Bergman influences. Woody Allen constantly over the years has spoken out about his desire to never watch new comedies or films that he thinks might influence him too much and create a loss of original vision. Now I'm someone who believes a good half and half of these philosophies is a good way to go. But as someone who loves watching b-films (grew up on Mystery Science Theater 3000) as a filmmaker, might it not be the best for me to watch so many (and man do I mean it) many crappy films?

This coming from the guy who adores French new wave cinema, classic cinema, and experimental cinema (thats me justifying my viewing habits mentioned above).

Thoughts?
 
My thoughts

1 I don't like woody allen or his films

2 If something is slightly less original but a lot more entertaining to the audience, I am all for it. Most of all I want my audience to enjoy their experience. I'm not making documentaries or art house films.
 
"Most of all I want my audience to enjoy their experience."

Does this not apply to documentaries or art house films?

And I respect your opinion about Woody. He's not for everyone, but I love Annie Hall and what it brought to cinema.

So I'm curious, how would you define "audience" when you say "a lot more entertaining to the audience." There are series of films that are universally looked upon as rubbish that continue to be released as blockbusters. Maybe thats where I draw the line. With bad b-movies, theres the heart. Yet with some of the super-unoriginal blockbusters, theres just existence because it makes money.
 
"B" movies are a genre all their own. They definitely filled a niche, especially in the 40s and 50s. TV fills much of that role today.

However, there's nothing that says that you can't do films in that style.

Wouldn't it be fun to see a bunch of "A" list actors and an "A" director do a "B" style film with everything that implies - minimal budget, short schedule, etc.?
 
SeanSmithSounds said:
"Most of all I want my audience to enjoy their experience."

Does this not apply to documentaries or art house films?
Click to expand...

No. I don't believe entertainment is the bottom line for either of them.

And an audience is just whoever seeks out and watches your film
 
sfoster said:
No. I don't believe entertainment is the bottom line for either of them.

And an audience is just whoever seeks out and watches your film
Click to expand...


I certainly disagree - I think that documentaries certainly have the primary motive to inform or question - but that doesn't mean they don't do so through entertainment. I've seen many documentaries that were both incredibly entertaining and informative. (Comes to mind - No Direction Home (Scorsese) - Super Size Me - 10 MPH, etc)

If a documentary doesn't entertain, it loses it's audience and can't provide the information it set out to do. HBO regularly releases great documentaries, so does History Channel. (America, recently) - and HBO is the ultimate consumer model of pay-for-entertainment. (HBO did the series of Scorsese documentaries on rock icons, they're doing a Tom Hanks directed 1960's one this fall, etc)
 
Beatlesfan1225 said:
I certainly disagree - I think that documentaries certainly have the primary motive to inform or question - but that doesn't mean they don't do so through entertainment. I've seen many documentaries that were both incredibly entertaining and informative. (Comes to mind - No Direction Home (Scorsese) - Super Size Me - 10 MPH, etc)

If a documentary doesn't entertain, it loses it's audience and can't provide the information it set out to do. HBO regularly releases great documentaries, so does History Channel. (America, recently) - and HBO is the ultimate consumer model of pay-for-entertainment. (HBO did the series of Scorsese documentaries on rock icons, they're doing a Tom Hanks directed 1960's one this fall, etc)
Click to expand...

Yes ideally a documentary will entertain, but I assert that it's primary motive is to document something. Otherwise it's not a documentary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top