|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Sept 18, 2021 17:47:45 GMT
I love Critical Drinker's movie comments. He does have a point.
I was excited before the new Star War sequel trilogy came out. Now I don't care anymore about any new Star Wars movie . I used to be look forward to about any new reboot for comparison. My expectation now fall so low that usually I don't have much interest.
There are some that are really good. I like the Rebecca remake last year. I thought the new Little Women was quite good. However, there are overwhelmingly more disappointment than good.
I was just talking with my brother the other day about how good the story telling in the earlier movies were, go as as late as the 1990s. There is a downward slide of movie making in this century. I think spiderwort has a thread about what is wrong with today's movie. I can't find the thread at this time. I'll link it if I find it.
Anyway, do you agree with the rant in the video?
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 18, 2021 19:58:25 GMT
Didn't the new Star Wars movies focus on a hero who was female?
Is that what he's mad about?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Sept 18, 2021 23:00:36 GMT
Didn't the new Star Wars movies focus on a hero who was female? Is that what he's mad about? Actually, the first of the new Star Wars was a promising start. It was the 2nd one that got the fans turned away.
He generally upset about the lack of creativity in the new generation of film maker. These film makers consider the ripping apart of classic franchises as their own creativity, i.e. destruction is creativity. That is my take.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 18, 2021 23:27:59 GMT
Didn't the new Star Wars movies focus on a hero who was female? Is that what he's mad about? Actually, the first of the new Star Wars was a promising start. It was the 2nd one that got the fans turned away.
He generally upset about the lack of creativity in the new generation of film maker. These film makers consider the ripping apart of classic franchises as their own creativity, i.e. destruction is creativity. That is my take. But he seemed to define destruction of creativity as inserting your political message - like gender equality. Hence, a female hero signals the destruction of creativity. I betcha that's what he's mad about.
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Sept 18, 2021 23:49:16 GMT
Not really a gentleman, is he?
|
|
lune7000
Junior Member
@lune7000
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 678
|
Post by lune7000 on Sept 19, 2021 17:37:51 GMT
I agree that the modern sequels of old blockbuster franchises are pretty underwhelming. Most of this has little to do with politics and everything to do with "ultra safe" decision making where formula writing is slavishly followed. Women/minority heroes and political messages can make a movie seem new and up to date but disguise the fact that the plot is the creation of a corporate committee so scared of losing their investment that they are afraid to take any chances with new storylines.
Movies today are investment vehicles pure and simple. Any chance taking risks that investment. So they try to cover up the blandness of story and character with dazzling computer graphics. And you know what? It works. Most viewers just want a cheeseburger movie that is what they expected to eat. The problem isn't the movie makers- it's the public. And nobody want to say this b/c there is no solution to that problem.
My only hope is that, as movie making becomes cheaper due to technology, more directors will be able to make money on a movie which is viewed only by the few who really want fresh new stories. I would take a cheaply made, innovative family drama or thriller over a big budget computer graphics explode-a-thon any day. Our only hope is the independent film maker.
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Sept 19, 2021 21:17:56 GMT
My only hope is that, as movie making becomes cheaper due to technology, more directors will be able to make money on a movie which is viewed only by the few who really want fresh new stories. I will never accept that lack of money is the issue. Lack of talent and originality is the problem. As it happens, the last two movies I have watched, and enjoyed, were made for peanuts. I do not see how throwing more money at them would have improved them in any way. They were: The Daytrippers (1996) dir: Greg Mottola. Not normally my favorite genre, a family comedy/drama, and the 'reveal' has dated badly, but still a good movie that won a lot of awards and has been added to the Criterion Collection, filmed in 17 days on a $50,000 budget. Saved money by shooting on location, but this actually added a lot to the movie.  After Life (1998) dir: Hirokazu Koreeda, one of the world's best currently working directors. He took a derelict building (former school or hostel?), a few C-list actors, a score of non-pro actors and a totally original concept, and created a pocket multi-layered masterpiece. No idea what this one cost, but it must have been very little indeed. Again, I cannot see where more money would have helped rather than hindered. 
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,519
Likes: 9,318
|
Post by spiderwort on Sept 19, 2021 23:49:24 GMT
I was just talking with my brother the other day about how good the story telling in the earlier movies were, go as as late as the 1990s. There is a downward slide of movie making in this century. I think spiderwort has a thread about what is wrong with today's movie. I can't find the thread at this time. I'll link it if I find it.
Rufus, I've posted often about this subject, in which we are in absolute agreement, so I'm not sure this 2017 thread is the right one. But it's all I can find right now.
(If I can find the other one, I'll post it, too. This is a subject about which I have profound feelings, as I think you know.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Sept 20, 2021 16:36:15 GMT
Not really a gentleman, is he? He is not, at least not on YouTube. His persona on his usual video is a drunken asshole, for comedy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Sept 20, 2021 16:43:54 GMT
Lack of talent and originality is the problem. That is the guy's standpoint, and I totally agree. Some of the best movies were made on a limited budget. Even the Godfather was made on a very tight budget according to Francis Ford Coppola in the Godfather commentary track. On the other hand, some big budget movies were terrible. They bragged about the spending for Pearl Harbor. I was bored to death in the theater for much of the 3 hours movie.
|
|
lune7000
Junior Member
@lune7000
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 678
|
Post by lune7000 on Sept 20, 2021 20:52:37 GMT
Money always matters in the film business. 98% of all indie films lose money. Investors want a return on their money. The only other path is to get rich patrons or crowdsourced money for an idea that they are willing to lose money on. But then you are a captive to the likes and dislikes of the money-crowd as a charity case. The films cited (Daybreakers and Afterlife) were only possible to be made because they were very cheaply filmed by limiting sets, actors, etc. This proves that money is the driving force still.
Great, cheap films can be made today by severely limiting costs. Yet, this also reduces the types of films that can be made (no historical films w/ extensive costumes or sets, no crowd scenes, no FX, no extensive music score, etc.)
My point is that, as technology improves, we will be able to get budget films that don't feel like budget films. At some point- almost anybody is going to be able to make cheap, interesting films if they want to- in any style, genre, historical period, FX, etc.
I agree that imagination and talent are very important- but they are not the only factors. Money strongly limits what types of films can be made.
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Sept 20, 2021 22:47:09 GMT
Great, cheap films can be made today by severely limiting costs. Agreed. So do it!Yet, this also reduces the types of films that can be made ... ... no historical films w/ extensive costumes or sets Good! 99% of those are complete rubbish.... no crowd scenes There are ways round that with existing technology, but no great loss anyway. Shakespeare managed OK.
no FX I have seen ingenious FX that cost very little. Even better is when the director fools the audience into believing they have seen something without even using FX. Kirk Douglas made that point in The Bad and the Beautiful.... no extensive music score, etc. That would be a tremendous blessing. Far more movies are ruined by the score than enhanced by it. Usually employed to steer the audiences feelings. The script, direction and acting should be doing that job.
My point is that, as technology improves, we will be able to get budget films that don't feel like budget films. If you are watching a film and it feels like a budget film then something is wrong. But never did it cross my mind when watching "The Daytrippers" that they were stinting on costs. "After Life" was different and unusual in that the director actually highlighted cost restrictions in the scenario in a humorous and clever way. I will give examples of that if I post a review here.I agree that imagination and talent are very important- but they are not the only factors. Money strongly limits what types of films can be made. We seem to be managing OK. As many good films are being released each year as at any previous time. Just do not look to the US studio system for them.If your cut-price innovations arrive, they will be a welcome bonus, but they will not be a substitute for good writing and direction.
|
|
