Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2018 16:48:55 GMT
There used to be a time when Hollywood came out with new and innovative ideas for Summer Blockbusters.
I remember when you would go to the movie theater and get excited to see a popcorn action flick that was designed to do nothing but create a 2 hour spectacle to dive into.
Jaws, E.T., Star Wars (OT), Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Speed, Jurassic Park, Independence Day, Terminator, Armageddon, Men in Black, The Matrix etc... and so on and so forth.
You never knew what brand new adventure awaited you. We didn't let pretentious film critics dictate what we like or don't like (Rotten Tomatoes).
However, nowadays studios poll audiences to see what they want, reshoot half their movies if the trailer is negatively received, reboot old franchises, and if something is a hit (MCU) make 20 new Marvel Movies with the same formulas.
I loved it back when Blockbusters were unique and different. That's why I loved AVATAR. At least it was something outside of reboots or franchises. I also applaud Pacific Rim, albeit not that great, but it was something new and fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jul 2, 2018 16:56:04 GMT
Feels like so long ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 2, 2018 19:01:31 GMT
Sums up my thoughts on Pacific Rim: Uprising. The increasing creative dearth in blockbusters is a problem. Now whileI don't want to give studios a pass, but I can't blame them for falling back on their franchises. Especially when audiences ignore movies different from the rest but then complain about the studios not trying.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jul 2, 2018 19:43:01 GMT
I don't think nostalgia goggles have ever been thicker than calling Independence Day and Armageddon innovative and creative. Then again, you also say that of Avatar.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jul 2, 2018 19:53:40 GMT
Too much of it feels like assembly line product made by profiteers instead of filmmakers.
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jul 2, 2018 20:13:03 GMT
There used to be a time when Hollywood came out with new and innovative ideas for Summer Blockbusters.
I remember when you would go to the movie theater and get excited to see a popcorn action flick that was designed to do nothing but create a 2 hour spectacle to dive into.
Jaws, E.T., Star Wars (OT), Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Speed, Jurassic Park, Independence Day, Terminator, Armageddon, Men in Black, The Matrix etc... and so on and so forth.
You never knew what brand new adventure awaited you. We didn't let pretentious film critics dictate what we like or don't like (Rotten Tomatoes).
However, nowadays studios poll audiences to see what they want, reshoot half their movies if the trailer is negatively received, reboot old franchises, and if something is a hit (MCU) make 20 new Marvel Movies with the same formulas.
I loved it back when Blockbusters were unique and different. That's why I loved AVATAR. At least it was something outside of reboots or franchises. I also applaud Pacific Rim, albeit not that great, but it was something new and fun.
I'm going to assume you only mean the first installments because all those were franchises. And they weren't all that original. Jaws was based on a book. ET was a spiritual successor to Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Star Wars was cribbed from Kurosawa. Indiana Jones was an homage to adventure serials. Jurassic Park was also a book. Independence Day is War of the Worlds with more explosions (they even win with a "virus"). Terminator was ripped off from The Outer Limits. Men in Black was based on a comic. And The Matrix was derivative of Ghost in the Shell. Studios always polled audiences and did reshoots. Reboots are nothing new either. Those franchises seemed new because we were younger. If the purpose of a blockbuster is to create "2 hour spectacle," I'd say they're still doing that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2018 20:21:37 GMT
There used to be a time when Hollywood came out with new and innovative ideas for Summer Blockbusters.
I remember when you would go to the movie theater and get excited to see a popcorn action flick that was designed to do nothing but create a 2 hour spectacle to dive into.
Jaws, E.T., Star Wars (OT), Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Speed, Jurassic Park, Independence Day, Terminator, Armageddon, Men in Black, The Matrix etc... and so on and so forth.
You never knew what brand new adventure awaited you. We didn't let pretentious film critics dictate what we like or don't like (Rotten Tomatoes).
However, nowadays studios poll audiences to see what they want, reshoot half their movies if the trailer is negatively received, reboot old franchises, and if something is a hit (MCU) make 20 new Marvel Movies with the same formulas.
I loved it back when Blockbusters were unique and different. That's why I loved AVATAR. At least it was something outside of reboots or franchises. I also applaud Pacific Rim, albeit not that great, but it was something new and fun.
I'm going to assume you only mean the first installments because all those were franchises. And they weren't all that original. Jaws was based on a book. ET was a spiritual successor to Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Star Wars was cribbed from Kurosawa. Indiana Jones was an homage to adventure serials. Jurassic Park was also a book. Independence Day is War of the Worlds with more explosions (they even win with a "virus"). Terminator was ripped off from The Outer Limits. Men in Black was based on a comic. And The Matrix was derivative of Ghost in the Shell. Studios always polled audiences and did reshoots. Reboots are nothing new either. Those franchises seemed new because we were younger. If the purpose of a blockbuster is to create "2 hour spectacle," I'd say they're still doing that.
Okay, but they didn't milk the cow until blood came from the utter either. There were only 3 Star Wars films until 1999. There were only 3 Indy films, until that 4th sequel.
You had trilogies, and sometimes a 4th one. I'm talking about franchises that share universes, make the same formula based films, over and over and over, and reboot, remake, etc... It's getting old.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jul 2, 2018 20:24:19 GMT
There used to be a time when Hollywood came out with new and innovative ideas for Summer Blockbusters.
I remember when you would go to the movie theater and get excited to see a popcorn action flick that was designed to do nothing but create a 2 hour spectacle to dive into.
Jaws, E.T., Star Wars (OT), Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Speed, Jurassic Park, Independence Day, Terminator, Armageddon, Men in Black, The Matrix etc... and so on and so forth.
You never knew what brand new adventure awaited you. We didn't let pretentious film critics dictate what we like or don't like (Rotten Tomatoes).
However, nowadays studios poll audiences to see what they want, reshoot half their movies if the trailer is negatively received, reboot old franchises, and if something is a hit (MCU) make 20 new Marvel Movies with the same formulas.
I loved it back when Blockbusters were unique and different. That's why I loved AVATAR. At least it was something outside of reboots or franchises. I also applaud Pacific Rim, albeit not that great, but it was something new and fun.
I'm going to assume you only mean the first installments because all those were franchises. And they weren't all that original. Jaws was based on a book. ET was a spiritual successor to Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Star Wars was cribbed from Kurosawa. Indiana Jones was an homage to adventure serials. Jurassic Park was also a book. Independence Day is War of the Worlds with more explosions (they even win with a "virus"). Terminator was ripped off from The Outer Limits. Men in Black was based on a comic. And The Matrix was derivative of Ghost in the Shell. Studios always polled audiences and did reshoots. Reboots are nothing new either. Those franchises seemed new because we were younger. If the purpose of a blockbuster is to create "2 hour spectacle," I'd say they're still doing that. It's worth noting the blockbuster only really came into existence with Jaws. So the entire concept was relatively new when these films were released. We've seen just about everything now, so of course today's blockbusters are going to seem derivative. And I'm assuming this guy is just goofing around with his entire post, particularly when he calls Avatar original. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jul 2, 2018 20:37:59 GMT
I'm going to assume you only mean the first installments because all those were franchises. And they weren't all that original. Jaws was based on a book. ET was a spiritual successor to Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Star Wars was cribbed from Kurosawa. Indiana Jones was an homage to adventure serials. Jurassic Park was also a book. Independence Day is War of the Worlds with more explosions (they even win with a "virus"). Terminator was ripped off from The Outer Limits. Men in Black was based on a comic. And The Matrix was derivative of Ghost in the Shell. Studios always polled audiences and did reshoots. Reboots are nothing new either. Those franchises seemed new because we were younger. If the purpose of a blockbuster is to create "2 hour spectacle," I'd say they're still doing that.
Okay, but they didn't milk the cow until blood came from the utter either. There were only 3 Star Wars films until 1999. There were only 3 Indy films, until that 4th sequel.
You had trilogies, and sometimes a 4th one. I'm talking about franchises that share universes, make the same formula based films, over and over and over, and reboot, remake, etc... It's getting old.
Universal's Horror franchises, Godzilla's shared universe, Batman, Superman, Freddy/Jason, Halloween. Star Wars was milked with all the merchandising, tv shows, and that Christmas special. Heck, Terminator 2 is just Terminator 1 with Arnold playing the hero. |
|
|
|
Post by James Bond on Jul 2, 2018 20:45:05 GMT
There used to be a time when Hollywood came out with new and innovative ideas for Summer Blockbusters.
I remember when you would go to the movie theater and get excited to see a popcorn action flick that was designed to do nothing but create a 2 hour spectacle to dive into.
Jaws, E.T., Star Wars (OT), Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Speed, Jurassic Park, Independence Day, Terminator, Armageddon, Men in Black, The Matrix etc... and so on and so forth.
You never knew what brand new adventure awaited you. We didn't let pretentious film critics dictate what we like or don't like (Rotten Tomatoes).
However, nowadays studios poll audiences to see what they want, reshoot half their movies if the trailer is negatively received, reboot old franchises, and if something is a hit (MCU) make 20 new Marvel Movies with the same formulas.
I loved it back when Blockbusters were unique and different. That's why I loved AVATAR. At least it was something outside of reboots or franchises. I also applaud Pacific Rim, albeit not that great, but it was something new and fun.
I'm going to assume you only mean the first installments because all those were franchises. And they weren't all that original. Jaws was based on a book. ET was a spiritual successor to Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Star Wars was cribbed from Kurosawa. Indiana Jones was an homage to adventure serials. Jurassic Park was also a book. Independence Day is War of the Worlds with more explosions (they even win with a "virus"). Terminator was ripped off from The Outer Limits. Men in Black was based on a comic. And The Matrix was derivative of Ghost in the Shell. Studios always polled audiences and did reshoots. Reboots are nothing new either. Those franchises seemed new because we were younger. If the purpose of a blockbuster is to create "2 hour spectacle," I'd say they're still doing that. Not all those were franchises. We've only had one E.T., we've only had one Armageddon. As for them not being all that original, ALL stories are drawn from other stories. |
|
|
|
Post by James Bond on Jul 2, 2018 20:48:57 GMT
I'm going to assume you only mean the first installments because all those were franchises. And they weren't all that original. Jaws was based on a book. ET was a spiritual successor to Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Star Wars was cribbed from Kurosawa. Indiana Jones was an homage to adventure serials. Jurassic Park was also a book. Independence Day is War of the Worlds with more explosions (they even win with a "virus"). Terminator was ripped off from The Outer Limits. Men in Black was based on a comic. And The Matrix was derivative of Ghost in the Shell. Studios always polled audiences and did reshoots. Reboots are nothing new either. Those franchises seemed new because we were younger. If the purpose of a blockbuster is to create "2 hour spectacle," I'd say they're still doing that.
Okay, but they didn't milk the cow until blood came from the utter either. There were only 3 Star Wars films until 1999. There were only 3 Indy films, until that 4th sequel.
You had trilogies, and sometimes a 4th one. I'm talking about franchises that share universes, make the same formula based films, over and over and over, and reboot, remake, etc... It's getting old.
3rd sequel. |
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jul 2, 2018 21:23:32 GMT
I am surprised that you would call “Avatar” in any way “creative.” It is just another example of the execrable “white savior” movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jul 2, 2018 21:28:14 GMT
I am surprised that you would call “Avatar” in any way “creative.” It is just another example of the execrable “white savior” movie. I just thought that, filmmaking- and story-wise, it was awful—shockingly dull. Ugh. Weird thing to be praising, but I think the modern Mission: Impossible series is surprisingly creative—OK, OK, folks, hear me out! The last one had this wonderfully clever and creative Hitchcockian sequence at the Viennese Opera that I found a particular surprise. They’re summer blockbusters, to be sure, but they’re not mindless: there’s craft put into them. And, nowadays, craft is really all I’m seeking in a big-budget summer blockbuster. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jul 2, 2018 21:40:45 GMT
I originally attached this to the post above, but I think it may warrant its own post if only for size…
Concept-wise, yes, I agree with you about the lack of “new and innovative ideas,” @thegodfather. With that said, now that I think of it, I can’t agree completely, though. As others have pointed out, even the summer blockbusters you praise (and I’d agree with many of them) were not necessarily “unique and different”—and some of the modern ones are.
I like the Mission: Impossible flicks as goofy and, as I wrote, well-crafted fun, and even the Marvel flicks have some conceptual diversity, especially with the early movies. Iron Man is still an excellent summer superhero flick, and there’s a delightful and joyous ‘40s atmosphere to Captain America. Captain America: The Winter Soldier, which I recently saw, is far from perfect but gives us some creative and surprising suspense sequences, including one in an elevator that’s just a marvel of directorial craft. (Seriously—I didn’t see the pun until after I’d written it.) I’ve criticized modern summer blockbusters many times, but there are still signs of craft (and even art? Ça dépend) in unexpected places.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2018 22:16:29 GMT
I hate alternate endings. Pick your ending and go with it. Whether test audiences hate it or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous Andy on Jul 3, 2018 0:22:54 GMT
I hate alternate endings. Pick your ending and go with it. Whether test audiences hate it or not. To that end, I hate test audiences. You can always tell when a movie was fine-tuned to a dimwitted test audience. |
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jul 3, 2018 1:16:56 GMT
I agree, but why is Independence Day of all things always cited as an example of some amazingly creative, original blockbuster? It was a trashy update of 1950s alien invasions movies that offered nothing else except for better special effects.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jul 3, 2018 3:18:39 GMT
Avatar, Inception, John Wick... fairly slim pickings. CBM era not helping matters, never mind just reboots.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 3, 2018 3:42:37 GMT
I am surprised that you would call “Avatar” in any way “creative.” It is just another example of the execrable “white savior” movie. Avatar is visually impressive and it immerses me into a whole new world (even without the 3D) and is full of fantastic action sequences. The movie is truly beautiful in it's use of colors. Yes, it has similarities to Hayao Miyazaki, Furngully etc. but I've never seen it look so real in a movie before. While watching the movie I feel transported to another world and very few movies pull that off as well as Avatar imo. And yes, it takes it's story from not only the two animated movies I already mentioned but also from Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai etc. I think they difference with Avatar is the movies it is borrowing from aren't all bunched together like the superhero genre and was also innovative with it's cgi. I have never seen cgi characters look so convincingly real, with the exception of War for the Planet of the Apes which came out 8 years after Avatar. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 3, 2018 4:12:01 GMT
Yeah, I am also getting sick of franchise movies.
They are just shitting them out.
|
|
