|
Post by hi224 on May 19, 2017 14:07:51 GMT
Its certainly an interesting perspective and didnt recently speilberg say something similiar.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 19, 2017 17:24:35 GMT
What worries me is the death of Obi Wan Kenobi, who was supposed to be an invincible role model, but instead he dies like a demented faggot. haha
|
|
jesper
New Member
@jesper
Posts: 17
Likes: 3
|
Post by jesper on May 19, 2017 19:33:19 GMT
funny they mention great shows on tv, as the tv ratings are dropping every year also as ticket sales and dvd sales plummet, the streaming bubble will burst eventually also. The problem with hollywood they make 200m dollar movies or 5 million dollar movies. They could create more great low risk movies for 50m or so that have a great shot to make lots of money. Those 50m "low risk" as you say aren't really low risk since they're marketed for about the same amount as 200million+ films, they end up being more of a gamble to be honest.
|
|
mattjoes
New Member
@mattjoes
Posts: 40
Likes: 14
|
Post by mattjoes on May 20, 2017 4:05:44 GMT
Streaming and the increasing production values of TV shows are having a major impact, I don't really know how the studios can effectively respond. I think it was possibly covered in another thread, but it's interesting that the idea of a 'movie star' seems to be much less of a spectacle these days. It used to be that you could simply put a famous name on the trailer/poster and you'd be guaranteed at least X number of sales. More and more, Hollywood seems to be taking a risk on unknown or young performers, because they won't demand as much money and essentially if they don't want to work, the studio can just drop them and find a replacement. I think a possible way forward is to partner up with the world of TV and release big-budget movies based around TV shows. You'd be pretty much guaranteed that at least all the regular viewers would go and see it. Win-win for TV and Hollywood. I think movie stars are a definite way of differentiating film from TV. While it's clear TV has its share of stars, it seems to me distinctive personas are much harder to develop and successfully sustain throughout a TV career. More shows are sold on their premises than on their stars. Even today, with TV seeing an influx of relatively big movie stars, it seems the actors that are actually making the jump bring mainly a certain level of prestige, instead of a vivid persona. I'd like to see films today make more and better use of the movie star concept. A star is a brand unto himself, and can make a film more interesting, whether by virtue of sticking or, once in a while, deliberately going against his established image. When an actor becomes a big star, his presence can be evocative and representative of social and cultural trends, and in fact, in some cases, enhance a film's thematic depth. In that sense, a star can be not only a means of differentiation between the film and TV mediums, but also, a means of differentiation between a film and the others.
|
|
Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
|
Post by Flynn on May 21, 2017 4:34:36 GMT
Luke isn't beta? He is like Marty McFly. Hollywood loves those types of heroes. Unsure, nerdy, flawed, needs his father to save him. I think I may watch The Day of the Owl, starring Franco Nero and Claudia Cardinale. The alpha waves emanating are so thick you can cut them with a light saber, wielded by mega alpha Hayden! ;p I am not worried about Luke SKywalker character. The writer tried to depict him as very young and unexperienced. The problem is that the writer was not very good, so he exaggerated and made him basically an average teen moron, instead of a gifted jedi. What worries me is the death of Obi Wan Kenobi, who was supposed to be an invincible role model, but instead he dies like a demented faggot. Obi Wan Kenobi's absurd death is what made me realise that the writer was mentally handicapped, not Luke Skywalker's simplistic depiction. I think I read somewhere that Kenobi survived in the film's original script but that Lucas' wife (and the film's editor) convinced him that Kenobi should die.
|
|
Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
|
Post by Flynn on May 21, 2017 5:00:32 GMT
I have disliked almost every movie that has come out for the last 15 years. It's sad (for me, I mean). I just never feel anymore that the scripts are good. The storytelling is too efficient, there's often too much spectacle, filmmaker's are never willing anymore to let the camera be still for fear that the audience will be board, and when you do finally get a good story, the editor chops it up and presents it out of order to make dramatic things that don't need to be made dramatic. There's also so little fun that comes through the filmmaking process.. In short, I feel that movies lack substance.
With that said, I LOVE going to the movie theater, and I do it as much as I can afford. There's just something about seeing a movie with strangers in a darkly lit room with walls covered in draperies that seeing it alone in your living room can't compete with.
If movies went back to being $5 for standard general admission, I'd go to the theater almost every weekend.
By the way, this article seems to assume that Holywood's business model only goes so far as theatrical exhibition, but I highly doubt that that is the case. In fact, one if the things I've grown to dislike about current movies is the reliance on the part of the studios on multiple viewings to make sense of the plot and to provide viewers the opportilunity to find Easter eggs. A movie today is less about the movie and more about all the non-movie-related activities surrounding it.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on May 21, 2017 5:41:41 GMT
What disturbs me a little is the idea of remaking or "rebooting" things that are really quite recent—movies from the nineties and early 2000s. I am not necessarily referring to Baywatch, because that is more of a joke, but entities such as The Blair Witch Project or The Matrix or Tomb Raider. I am not sure that the technology will even be appreciably better (granted, I never saw the original Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and I will not see this one), which creates even less of a reason to remake such recent products.
There are still good movies out there, but so much money is funneled toward comic book adaptations, special effects bonanzas, and remakes or reboots, like the Jurassic World movies. The studios might want to recognize that there is an audience for mature material (American Sniper, Sully, Hidden Figures, and even the surprisingly respectable gross of Fences).
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on May 21, 2017 5:43:07 GMT
funny they mention great shows on tv, as the tv ratings are dropping every year also as ticket sales and dvd sales plummet, the streaming bubble will burst eventually also. The problem with hollywood they make 200m dollar movies or 5 million dollar movies. They could create more great low risk movies for 50m or so that have a great shot to make lots of money. Those 50m "low risk" as you say aren't really low risk since they're marketed for about the same amount as 200million+ films, they end up being more of a gamble to be honest. .... not sure about that ... $50M films are not necessarily "low risk," but they are not "high risk," either.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on May 21, 2017 5:46:57 GMT
"Sequels, reboots, and franchises are supposed to be “sure things” at the box office; that’s why Hollywood makes them." ** They make them because a) 6 Wall Street-based companies control most of the media and distribution and b) they shut out anyone who does not have the same ideological outlook and or background and c) they have no imagination (that is how someone like Shia Labouef gets promoted as a star). They think of art like shoes, this is why we have so much shit. 60 years ago when the studios were smaller, they were forced to hire people from the general population as artists and writers. They may have chosen those who followed their ideological guidelines but there was talent involved, as well as adhering to the tradition of theater and literature (something alien to the company owners). Nowadays most of the people are promoted from nepotism or because they are obedient to the narrow dictates of the money handlers. They have money so it has nothing to do with risk. They choose not to take risks because they have an agenda to push. It becomes more obvious by the day. The agenda is called "making money." Indeed, having money is not an antidote to greed. Why are NBA teams going to start featuring corporate sponsorships on their uniforms next season?
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 21, 2017 15:05:46 GMT
The agenda is called "making money." Indeed, having money is not an antidote to greed. Why are NBA teams going to start featuring corporate sponsorships on their uniforms next season? Yet they cancelled Tim Allen's show which was making money. No--it isn't about money--it is about control. This is why many singers were afraid to sing at the inaugural--the manager for the Dixie Chicks even said that anyone who did better have a big pay check because it would be the last time they ever work--because the big media companies which control music and live performance would shut them out, Soviet-style. Nothing to do with making money. That's the scam--claiming it is all about capitalism. They already got more money than they need. The private bank Federal Reserve can even print money for them--so the real purpose is control. Especially media control. "I’m damned if it doesn’t make me see red—in a city which was once a part of the real American fabric, & which still exerts a disproportionately large influence on that fabric through its psychologically impressive size & its dominance both in finance & in various opinion-forming channels (drama, publishing, criticism, &c.). Gawd knows I have no wish to injure any race under the sun, but I do think that something ought to be done to free American expression from the control of any element which seeks to curtail it, distort it, or remodel it in any direction other than its natural course." HP Lovecraft from a letter written November 8, 1933
|
|
|
Post by conspirologist on May 21, 2017 15:36:49 GMT
Yet they cancelled Tim Allen's show which was making money. No--it isn't about money--it is about control. This is why many singers were afraid to sing at the inaugural--the manager for the Dixie Chicks even said that anyone who did better have a big pay check because it would be the last time they ever work--because the big media companies which control music and live performance would shut them out, Soviet-style. Nothing to do with making money. That's the scam--claiming it is all about capitalism. They already got more money than they need. The private bank Federal Reserve can even print money for them--so the real purpose is control. Especially media control. "I’m damned if it doesn’t make me see red—in a city which was once a part of the real American fabric, & which still exerts a disproportionately large influence on that fabric through its psychologically impressive size & its dominance both in finance & in various opinion-forming channels (drama, publishing, criticism, &c.). Gawd knows I have no wish to injure any race under the sun, but I do think that something ought to be done to free American expression from the control of any element which seeks to curtail it, distort it, or remodel it in any direction other than its natural course." HP Lovecraft from a letter written November 8, 1933 I have noticed that you are very intelligent, bro. Do you post on any conspirology forum?
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 21, 2017 16:31:34 GMT
Do you post on any conspirology forum? You mean the forum on this site? No but I will check it out. I am more recently attuned to this deep state stuff--I was naive for a long time. A little George Carlin helps though: www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU
|
|
|
Post by conspirologist on May 21, 2017 20:11:20 GMT
Do you post on any conspirology forum? You mean the forum on this site? No but I will check it out. I am more recently attuned to this deep state stuff--I was naive for a long time. A little George Carlin helps though: www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxUMany people have watched Carlin, but they are still stupid to understand. You are welcome to post on my forum: conspirology.freeforums.net/
|
|
|
Post by phreaker1997 on May 22, 2017 4:40:27 GMT
We are currently living in the dark age of movies, you like it or not
|
|
Stuart "2-D" Pot
Sophomore
Guess who's back?
@startrekkie1202
Posts: 315
Likes: 71
|
Post by Stuart "2-D" Pot on May 25, 2017 11:10:09 GMT
You mean the forum on this site? No but I will check it out. I am more recently attuned to this deep state stuff--I was naive for a long time. A little George Carlin helps though: www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxUMany people have watched Carlin, but they are still stupid to understand. You are welcome to post on my forum: conspirology.freeforums.net/And this is probably why no one can take you seriously. I smirked reading one of your posts and the part above where you mention your site, where you say that may have watched carlin but are too stupid to understand cannot be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 25, 2017 11:39:04 GMT
Article makes no sense. Hollywood is making plenty of money, and they've been making plenty of money for about 100 years now, which is far more successful than most other businesses. And that's why they're producing the films they're producing. They could very well make less profit this year than last year, but if they were to push new things rather than the latest installment of franchises, they'd probably have more of a profit drop. Say that last year a studio made a 500 million profit. Well, even if this year they're only going to make 250 million, they'd rather make that than 100 million. When the latest franchise installments are no longer making a profit, then they'll make a change. That's the strategy they've always followed, and that's why the movie business has been so successful for so long. There's no "fatal flaw" in their business model. It's not as if the industry is on the brink of completely falling apart.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on May 25, 2017 12:36:47 GMT
We are currently living in the dark age of movies, you like it or not That's happening now?!?! The Nostalgia Critic told me it was from 1996 to 2001! (Jk. That was one of his worst and most biased editorials)
|
|