Definitely agree with you there. I mean, when you really think about it, its just a stepping-stone towards fully immersive technology that will one day allow us to be Gods in our own virtual Worlds. If and/or when that happens we'll be having the same debates about those. "We should be harboring virtual Worlds so that we can better ourselves. They're not for mindless indulgence!"
What's wrong with Hollywood?
- Thread starter Firm1
- Start date
Definitely agree with you there. I mean, when you really think about it, its just a stepping-stone towards fully immersive technology that will one day allow us to be Gods in our own virtual Worlds. If and/or when that happens we'll be having the same debates about those. "We should be harboring virtual Worlds so that we can better ourselves. They're not for mindless indulgence!"
One of the best examples that comes to mind is "Fight Club". That said sooo much but all the while, maintained an absurd level of entertainment. That's the kind of balance I'm personally looking for in the films that I plan to create. I definitely want to say something but, I don't want to bore the audience. I want to mind-fuck the fucked up World that we live in...If that makes any sense. Easier said than done, though...
Aw man...I honestly want to tell you but, I'd rather show you later on. That is, if my plan works. I'll just say this, though. As of right now, every institution from politics to film is showing a growing trend in networked de-centralization.
damnit...For some reason my computer lagged and I can't delete this post...sorry.
Last edited:
There we go!
Have you seen this image? Haha. Even though I believe 1960s still had some adaptations in them, Hollywood is basically the place where re-adaptations/adaptations/and reboots exist most now. On one side, it is working to bring back the money they put out to make these films without any real risk involved. Making money this way is the easiest option for now given this constant dark cloud of the economies today.
I do think that sure, people will be tired of this eventually, but not until we have a little more money in all our pockets to spend on that unknown film that nobody's ever heard about. So in that respect, I think Hollywood is totally communicating our state of the world, from an economic and social point of view: They just will not put our money into anything that poses as a risk.
On the other hand though, this trend is starting to whither out, and we as an audience I think, are getting smarter. Not to say that we were dumb in the first place but with film now more at our disposal than ever before, we now have more power to chose what we wish to view. It isn't just limited to whats out at the cinemas or what Hollywood is producing. We can support people more on our turf who have these amazing ideas with things like Kickstarter etc. The things we want to see and put our money towards, we can! I think cinema and entertainment as a whole right now, is going to be a real treat just because of this!
[rant over]what? movies have never been better? what are you talking about. what exactly do you like about crap acting and no originality. I 'd like you to name some of these movies.
I mean how old are you why are you here? are
Ah, nostalgia. It's easy to forget all the crap films that were made in the 60's (or any other distant era) because, well, they were forgettable. We only remember the ones that stood out for some reason - and even then many of those were adaptations, remakes or even 'reboots' (they just weren't called that back then), we've just forgotten the source material.
Here's the top 10 grossing films of the 60s (more than 10, actually, because a few are tied with each other):
The Sound of Music - adaptation (musical)
101 Dalmatians - adaptation (novel)
The Jungle Book - adaptation (short story collection)
Doctor Zhivago - adaptation (novel)
The Graduate - adaptation (novel)
Mary Poppins - adaptation (childrens books)
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid - original (based loosely on historical fact)
My Fair Lady - adaptation (musical)
Thunderball - adaptation (novel)
Funny Girl - adaptation (musical)
Cleopatra - adaptation (novel)
2001: A Space Odyssey - adaptation (short story)
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner - original
Goldfinger - adaptation (novel)
Back to emotionally charged films about race, religion, and social classes. Studios, Indies, and amateurs can only come so close to realism without offending people in a mixed culture society. So, filmmaker soften the tone and use different names than what we hear in the real world.
The Human Stain, starring Anthony Hopkins, is a very unappreciated film about race. It was shown a few years ago at a Producers Guild of America gathering.
In The Heat Of The Night starring Sydney Portier and Carol O'Connor is a story about racism in the deep south of the USA and the movie led to a spin-off series on TV.
The Jazz Singer shows us what it is like to be a Jewish immigrant in the USA, a talented singers, and the son of a cantor who breaks away from tradition.
The Witness acquaints us with world of the Amish community in the USA. They are a group, who for the most part, still live like people from the 1700s.
The Best Of The Best series of martial arts films deals with racism and honor and family from the Asian culture.
I'm sure people from here can add to this list.
The Human Stain, starring Anthony Hopkins, is a very unappreciated film about race. It was shown a few years ago at a Producers Guild of America gathering.
In The Heat Of The Night starring Sydney Portier and Carol O'Connor is a story about racism in the deep south of the USA and the movie led to a spin-off series on TV.
The Jazz Singer shows us what it is like to be a Jewish immigrant in the USA, a talented singers, and the son of a cantor who breaks away from tradition.
The Witness acquaints us with world of the Amish community in the USA. They are a group, who for the most part, still live like people from the 1700s.
The Best Of The Best series of martial arts films deals with racism and honor and family from the Asian culture.
I'm sure people from here can add to this list.
It was initially inspired by a short story but it turned into something completely different, not sure if it should count as an adaptation in the traditional sense.
Uhh, did you not see Cap 2? Cuz it very plainly paints the NSA and CIA as the bad guys, by proxy of Hydra. That's kinda daring, in my opinion, for a Hollywood movie.
On a side-note, Hollywood in the 60's sucked. From an entertainment perspective, we've never had it better than right now. Name the top-ten movies of the 60's, and I can name just as many that are equally entertaining, that were made in the last year.
On a side-note, Hollywood in the 60's sucked. From an entertainment perspective, we've never had it better than right now. Name the top-ten movies of the 60's, and I can name just as many that are equally entertaining, that were made in the last year.
Last edited:
On a side-note, Hollywood in the 60's sucked. From an entertainment perspective, we've never had it better than right now. Name the top-ten movies of the 60's, and I can name just as many that are equally entertaining, that were made in the last year.
Haha, I highly disagree with this. I think this is just a matter of taste. But the 60's was at least known for starting one of the greatest eras of Hollywood history, the New Hollywood wave of filmmakers that continued into the 1970's.
Psycho
Inherit The Wind
Breakfast At Tiffany's
Lawrence Of Arabia
Charade
Dr. Strangelove
Mary Poppins
Guess Who's Coming To Dinner
The Graduate
Night Of The Living Dead
Take The Money And Run
The early James Bond films
Planet Of The Apes
2001: A Space Odyssey
Jason And The Argonauts
Spartacus
Doctor Zhivago
Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid
Bonnie And Clyde
Rosemary's Baby
The Sound Of Music
The Apartment
The Great Escape
My Fair Lady
To Kill A Mockingbird
The Wild Bunch
In The Heat Of The Night
Cape Fear
The Haunting
The Birds
Easy Rider
Midnight Cowboy
The Time Machine
True Grit
Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf?
It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
West Side Story
and many more.
Admittedly, I personally think that the 60's is one of Hollywood's weaker decades when compared (I think it's a decade where foreign cinema was definitely much more interesting) with the previous decades or the 1970's but it's still a hell of a lot better than post-1990 Hollywood.
I think that if we're looking for ephemeral, superficial pleasure from the cinema then the most recent decade will always be best, but if we look at the best enduring work, I think it's likely that the 2010's won't be remembered as well as the 1940's or 1970's when we look at Hollywood cinema. Heck, I think that 1939 alone is better than what Hollywood has produced this decade so far.
Last edited:
What Hollywood depicts is exactly reflective of our time! Or rather, reflective of our time to the vast bulk of cinema-goers. Hollywood films are a part of popular culture, if Hollywood films didn't reflect, identify with or influence popular culture, it wouldn't meet the expectations of the cinema-going populace, it wouldn't be "popular" and box office numbers would be falling.
Who is this "us"? Current affairs/issues are either of little direct interest to cinema-goers or if they are, the Hollywood product is selling an escape from them! It's a product which is in great demand, so I think the opposite: Namely, I would be more concerned if a lot of big budget films were taking more risks because long term Hollywood would either end up being a monopoly or there would be no Hollywood and the whole cinema economy would collapse.
It's obviously "just a matter of" your personal taste, not of taste in the general population.
I don't get it, why the "if"?
I take it that your use of this "if" is just a hypothetical "if"? Because of course, there is no "enduring" cinema!
G
You and I have very views about cinema, and you know this very well so I won't reply with a lengthy post.
If you think that The Searchers, Citizen Kane, Intolerance, Metropolis, Rashomon, Tokyo Story, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and many other masterpieces of cinema are not enduring works, well then we're not even on the same page (out of curiosity, do you like any films that are not made within the past five years or so?). I see these films constantly being praised decades after being released and they are among my favorite films. I might be wrong about this, but I think the reputation that these works have will endure and will continue to have popularity long after Michael Bay's work is forgotten or most blockbusters. Again, this is a hypothesis, we'll have to wait and see.
I said "if" because I think that's a very important condition in order to compare today's Hollywood cinema to today's Hollywood cinema in terms of quality. I think there's good reason to believe that Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, Charlie Chaplin, Jacques Tournier, Billy Wilder, James Whale, Stanley Kramer, Stanley Kubrick, David Lean, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Frank Capra, Howard Hawks, Francis Ford Coppola (in the 70's), Martin Scorsese (in the 70's/80's), John Huston, William Wyler, and many other Hollywood directors from previous eras are superior filmmakers to most of today's Hollywood filmmakers. Again, this is my personal opinion, and one shared by many that have actually watched films from the past and today. Most (but not all) people that praise this decade as the best of all-time for Hollywood cinema have a limited view of cinema as many of them have not seen films from other eras.
Last edited:
We do have different views but in this and some parts of our other discussions you seem to be missing the point entirely, namely that you are talking about your personal views; what you personally like and how you think cinema should be/is (based on your personal views). I on the other hand am talking about professional opinion/fact, or at least fact as I understand it. For example:
This is what I mean, we are on a completely different page but the page you are on appears to be a total fantasy based on your personal love of old cinema. Give me a rough answer to the following question and maybe we can start getting on the same page: There are very roughly about 130,000 cinema screens worldwide, how many of them last night screened one of the 7 films you listed? Let's make it a bit easier, how many of these cinema screens screened one of your enduring cinema masterpieces in the last year? Or, how about since their original theatrical run ended?
That says more about your personal tastes and the communities you inhabit than it does about the films themselves. I for example, rarely hear those films even being mentioned (except here), let alone "constantly being praised". And, it's extremely unlikely you'll hear average cinema-goers "constantly praising" those films because the vast majority probably only know of the existence of a couple of them, if they know of any of them at all!
Again, making that comparison is nothing more than your personal agenda. If it were even possible to make that comparison, it should be obvious to you that the vast majority of cinema-goers would find films by the filmmakers you mentioned to be boring and of significantly lower quality than those of recent films. However, that comparison is not possible in reality, there is no such thing as an enduring cinema masterpiece and therefore your "if" was purely hypothetical!
G
Last edited:
Okay, this is not even my agenda at all, so you are just completely inaccurate. Anyone who knows me, knows that I would want someone like Mikio Naruse to be as well known as Ozu or Kurosawa, or someone like Patrick Tam as well known as Wong Kar-Wai or someone like Dmitri Kirsanoff mentioned alongside D.W. Griffith. I am all about expanding the canon (which is why I even make the effort to reappraise films that I originally dismissed such as action films or blockbusters), and if you think I'm someone whose agenda is to preserve the canonized classics then you are mistaken.
I have no fantasy, these are films that are constantly praised. Search them up. Tokyo Story recently was voted the best film of all-time in a poll by directors for Sight & Sound. Citizen Kane is almost universally hailed as the best film of all-time. 2001: A Space Odyssey is one of Kubrick's most important works, and still fills the screens where it plays (at least yes, in the community that I live in). To say that these films are not praised as some of the greatest films of all-time is a pure fantasy of yours. They are on countless 'greatest of all-time' lists made by film critics, film scholars, film directors, cinephiles, and other people that study film. It's my opinion that Tokyo Story is a great film, but it is a fact that it is one of the most highly praised works of cinema of all-time. As much as I love Mikio Naruse, I can't say that even his most well-known films are among the most highly praised works of cinema outside of Japan, so I don't even make that claim.
How can you prove that there is no such thing as an enduring cinematic masterpiece if I've already mentioned several. How can you honestly say that Citizen Kane (to mention the most popular example) is not an enduring masterpiece of the cinematic art? People still watch it today, and people who watch it today still praise it, and it is studied by almost everyone who is involved in the medium (including yourself) many decades after it was made.
It's okay if your views of cinema are limited to the past five years of commercial American cinema, but that does not make your views correct or "facts" as you call them.
I talk about my own views just as others do, but I don't talk about them as if they were facts. I always mention that I could be wrong, I may be wrong, and maybe Citizen Kane will be forgotten and perhaps Transformers may be considered the crowning achievement of cinema, or maybe you are right and all cinema will be forgotten and none of it will be enduring, but as of right now the evidence doesn't convince me of this.
And I don't love old cinema, I just love cinema that I consider to be good whether it is made in 1965 or 2013 or 1914, you are the one who is only in love with new cinema (apparently).
The films I mentioned aren't exactly obscure films, they are well-distributed and are constantly on repertory screenings. I'm not sure how you haven't heard of them, having dedicated yourself to film for such a long time but I'm sure it's possible especially if you specialize more in just American films. Again, I purposefully chose canonical films to demonstrate my point, if you don't know them, it's more likely that you haven't explored much of world cinema beyond commercial American films made within maybe the last 10 years.
And yes it is also possible (I would argue even likely) that audiences would consider these films to be 'boring' after watching them, but what makes them a qualified judge of cinematic art? Most people that dedicate their lives to studying cinema and watching it passionately have their own opinions, and at a certain point many of them point to a group of films that are universally praised among those passionate about the medium. Anyone can have a different opinion, however, as with any other medium, it is those who have studied the medium and understand it better that make more qualified judgements (and don't get me wrong, I have problems with a lot of film critics/scholars as well, but I'd choose the least of scholars/cinephiles over the casual film goer when it comes to evaluating a film). These people that study films often back up with their opinions with essays and cogent arguments that have much more value than a simple "that film was boring" remark made by a casual film goer that doesn't know the film's history or aesthetics.
Oh and I never claimed that casual film goers constantly praise these films, if you think I did then no wonder you think I live in this fantasy land. Many of my friends, even within the Cinema Studies department haven't even heard of Tokyo Story, that doesn't mean it isn't constantly placed on 'greatest of all-time' lists and is an enduring work of cinema (it's still viewed and enjoyed by many people over 60 years after its release, but obviously not as large an audience for a Hollywood blockbuster). I never equated "good" or "great" with "popular" in the first place, so I don't see how this matters.
Last edited:
You haven't mentioned a single one, let alone several.
Huh, that's exactly what you're doing!! You're stating as fact that a number of films are "enduring cinematic masterpieces" when the evidence clearly indicates there is no such thing as an "enduring cinematic masterpiece".
You seem to be ignoring the obvious: Except for a tiny fraction of one percent of cinema-goers Citizen Kane has not only already been forgotten, it was forgotten decades ago!
Actually, that is exactly what they are! They're not obscure to me personally but then I'm in the business and am part of that insignificant "tiny fraction of one percent" of cinema-goers.
What evidence? By not even attempting to answer my question and by going off on a complete tangent you've proved my point, although you apparently don't realise it! Thanks for playing
G
I agree, especially about us (the public) having a little extra money to spend on the unknown. When the recession hit (2008, 09....) all the obscure titles disappeared from the shelves and it was just known blockbusters on display. Sad.
Off-topic: is that Dave Gahan in your avatar? I'm a big DM fan.
Last edited:
Haha then my list loses all credibility to you because it comes in 2nd place just behind Late Spring. I think it's just a matter of personal taste, Tokyo Story isn't exactly a controversial choice for a greatest film of all-time list as noted in its high placement in pretty much all best of all-time lists that are on world cinema (not American-centric lists).