|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Sept 11, 2024 18:02:27 GMT
in the past than it is today? Why, let me tell you.
It seems like that if a film came out back then and it didn't make any money it wasn't a big deal. Because they could just air it on television a billion times and it would make it's money back that way.
However, they can't really do that today. Too many things have changed.
The film industry today isn't what it used to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Sept 11, 2024 19:55:06 GMT
I always compare the 1930-70s to 1980-present and it's simple to me. If the movies are no longer good, I blame the film industry. I also blame actors who were prominent in the 70s for not taking a paycut and help a great independent movie gain attention like Ben Gazzarra did with multiple directors because he cared about movies, like John Cassavetes. Test audiences even influenced Sidney Lumet in the 80s (who started in the 50s) to change his ending because the studio figures whatever the majority prefers would mean a majority of the entire country's viewing audiences would prefer it. CGI is another factor. Side-stepping the writing, acting, etc., and to hear people comment on the special effects, or "You see Halle Berry's tits", etc.. Then you have "social media" conformity. But it can work the other way, but I'm not too engaged with it. But when I see Top 10 lists on sites like these for people who actually care about movies, the movies are usually older. And just because a movie sells a lot, it doesn't mean they liked it - they just paid for it.. Regardless of the quality of the movie Beeatljuice 2, it would have amassed a ton simply because they liked the first one. I'll also add how these superhero movies can bring a lot more business than intended. They know a 10-yr old can't see it himself, so his parents have to come along = 300%
I love reading things that were written in the past, as well as listening to conversation, and around 1964 when the American movie business was lagging, they thought censorship was the problem, but eventually it became exploitative. Seeing a woman's entire body wasn't crucial to the story, but if they liked the woman (most guys like any woman's nude body) they'll like the movie.. It's like being in a theater and being jerked off in the dark. You might enjoy but that's partly because you have no idea who's doing the jerking.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Sept 11, 2024 19:58:18 GMT
I don't like professional critics (and prefer populist critic from people on here, IMDB, etc) and haven't seen this in a while, but someone else might learn or get a better vantage point. youtu.be/Ia7FO5NydZ0 |
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Sept 11, 2024 20:01:39 GMT
...Maybe getting older makes us looking behind and be tempted to say it was not really important to us, we were teens, at school.
And now, we are older, we know what failure at behaving in a professional way might lead to, we care much about it ?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Sept 11, 2024 20:17:11 GMT
If I had a dollar for every post on this board about how much better life and movies used to be, I could dick slap Elon Musk while floating around together in a zero g space cruise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Sept 11, 2024 20:18:49 GMT
If I had a dolar for every post on this board about how much better life and movies used to be, I could dick slap Elon Musk while floating around together in a zero g space cruise.  |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 11, 2024 20:23:02 GMT
The top period for film in terms of audiences was 1900-1940s something.
Film was like seeing a rocket take off.
But when television came along--that started to wane, and publicity made stars less of a big deal.
Plus there was a boom in lower budget film thanks to cheaper 35 mm film so the 1960s was the worst time for Hollywood but the best time for global and independents.
Having watched a lot of forgotten films out of Hollywood in the late 60s-early 70s--you can see why these films didn't do so well--they had stars but the stories--while competently written, were often complete downer endings.
The Games
The Nickel Ride
Castle Keep
etc
The main thing though is that the actor and the writer were the most important elements to any film out of Hollywood in that period--but they gradually shifted to spfx and stunts.
That--in addition to computers and other entertainment offerings, made movies less special and less professional.
If they wanted to do a Dogma 96 and try to shift back to the star and writer--maybe they could -but at the same time--they are aiming at the globe. A Hollywood movie made in 1970 was not trying to appeal to China or Thailand--the main audience was North America and western Europe if that much.
The asian market was Japan mainly and an afterthought.
SPFX aren't exciting any more--the bag of tricks is used up so people aren't going to be impressed by some new FX that they have never seen before.
Plus the forced multiculturalism is also damaging dramatic potential since even historical stories are turned into airport adventures where they have to have people from different continents in the same place.
Art is supposed to be a fakery that reveals truth, not a fakery that reveals falsehoods.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Sept 11, 2024 21:49:38 GMT
There are no rebels now. Those are the guys who make the best movies. Those who will not sell-out their art.
|
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Sept 11, 2024 22:13:09 GMT
The top period for film in terms of audiences was 1900-1940s something. Film was like seeing a rocket take off. But when television came along--that started to wane, and publicity made stars less of a big deal. Plus there was a boom in lower budget film thanks to cheaper 35 mm film so the 1960s was the worst time for Hollywood but the best time for global and independents. Having watched a lot of forgotten films out of Hollywood in the late 60s-early 70s--you can see why these films didn't do so well--they had stars but the stories--while competently written, were often complete downer endings. The Games The Nickel Ride Castle Keep etc The main thing though is that the actor and the writer were the most important elements to any film out of Hollywood in that period--but they gradually shifted to spfx and stunts. That--in addition to computers and other entertainment offerings, made movies less special and less professional. If they wanted to do a Dogma 96 and try to shift back to the star and writer--maybe they could -but at the same time--they are aiming at the globe. A Hollywood movie made in 1970 was not trying to appeal to China or Thailand--the main audience was North America and western Europe if that much. The asian market was Japan mainly and an afterthought. SPFX aren't exciting any more--the bag of tricks is used up so people aren't going to be impressed by some new FX that they have never seen before. Plus the forced multiculturalism is also damaging dramatic potential since even historical stories are turned into airport adventures where they have to have people from different continents in the same place. Art is supposed to be a fakery that reveals truth, not a fakery that reveals falsehoods. Do you mean there’s only room now for epic poetry* in movies (action, which in 24 means superheroes) but none for dramatic (eg labyrinth of silence ?) nor lyrical (musicals) ? *breakthrough, imagination, nothing whatsoever typical, niceness |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 11, 2024 22:30:45 GMT
Do you mean there’s only room now for epic poetry* in movies (action, which in 24 means superheroes) but none for dramatic (eg labyrinth of silence ?) nor lyrical (musicals) ? *breakthrough, imagination, nothing whatsoever typical, niceness I don't think there is room for breakthrough in superhero or action films either. That's why the SPFX value has decreased. The peak was probably Avatar. Since then it has gone downhill. But I am speaking about the kind of creative innovation in visual imagery that is truly groundbreaking.
Dinosaurs were groundbreaking. Liquid metal terminator was groundbreaking. Twister tornados, Balrog...
Some of the Avatar scenes were groundbreaking. A CGI Peter Cushing--not so much--even if they did a perfect celebrity double--it would not be as amazing as the Death Star trench or digital dinosaurs or something that is completely impossible to see for real.
Imagination is something else. There is lots of room for imagination in action or superhero or dramas or musicals. It won't be groundbreaking--but it may be memorable or interesting. But that require ingredients---enthusiastic people who are creative and excited.
I just wonder how possible that is now since the gold rush of cinema is over--we are in the jewelry shop, mail order gold necklace phase of it.
I think musicals and drama depend a lot on the actors---having interesting people to watch. They are not recruiting people to the standards of theatrical presence that they did in 1940 or 1960 or even 1980. And that says nothing of writing--I don't know how you would get the level of professionalism to compare to the period say--from the 1940s where they had studio writers on staff who sat around thinking up stories to put actors in.
does the star vehicle exist today?
Not when everything has to be a brand name franchise. It puts actors into a position where they can't even have a character created for them--it must be anchored to some known story or plot--no room for improvisation which is a big part of creative design.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 11, 2024 22:48:10 GMT
dramatic (eg labyrinth of silence ?) nor lyrical (musicals) ? If they focused on actors and writers again--and tried to do something more basic in story intensity--I mentioned Dogme 95?--I think that was a movement--an effort to make films that were not centered around FX or spectacle--but probably too avant garde in plot and theme---if they focused on finding interesting actors with strong screen presence-and did stories that were more familiar--crime dramas, coming of age stories, or romantic intrigue---they probably could develop a film culture that is more exciting and create interest around stars.
They would have to create opportunities for them--a venue for development, and probably that would foster a new wave of interesting film production. I don't see why it couldn't happen but it needs patronage and distribution---and also an interest in storytelling that is more kinetic.
Because westerns are pretty basic in concept and yet can be dramatic and exciting--it is entirely dependent on the ingredients. The actors, the directing, the writing, the music...
But it ultimately depends most on the actor side of it. Have to find people who stand out.
|
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Sept 11, 2024 23:32:48 GMT
Do you mean there’s only room now for epic poetry* in movies (action, which in 24 means superheroes) but none for dramatic (eg labyrinth of silence ?) nor lyrical (musicals) ? *breakthrough, imagination, nothing whatsoever typical, niceness I don't think there is room for breakthrough in superhero or action films either. That's why the SPFX value has decreased. The peak was probably Avatar. Since then it has gone downhill. But I am speaking about the kind of creative innovation in visual imagery that is truly groundbreaking.
Dinosaurs were groundbreaking. Liquid metal terminator was groundbreaking. Twister tornados, Balrog...
Some of the Avatar scenes were groundbreaking. A CGI Peter Cushing--not so much--even if they did a perfect celebrity double--it would not be as amazing as the Death Star trench or digital dinosaurs or something that is completely impossible to see for real.
Imagination is something else. There is lots of room for imagination in action or superhero or dramas or musicals. It won't be groundbreaking--but it may be memorable or interesting. But that require ingredients---enthusiastic people who are creative and excited.
I just wonder how possible that is now since the gold rush of cinema is over--we are in the jewelry shop, mail order gold necklace phase of it.
I think musicals and drama depend a lot on the actors---having interesting people to watch. They are not recruiting people to the standards of theatrical presence that they did in 1940 or 1960 or even 1980. And that says nothing of writing--I don't know how you would get the level of professionalism to compare to the period say--from the 1940s where they had studio writers on staff who sat around thinking up stories to put actors in.
does the star vehicle exist today?
Not when everything has to be a brand name franchise. It puts actors into a position where they can't even have a character created for them--it must be anchored to some known story or plot--no room for improvisation which is a big part of creative design.
Poetry can’t blend in marketing... Another way to say what’s on my mind ... The ancient Greek did not praise creativeness same as we do. Only poetry and science could be creative. Which is another way to define truth, niceness in older times. |
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Sept 11, 2024 23:41:29 GMT
If they focused on actors and writers again--and tried to do something more basic in story intensity--I mentioned Dogme 95?--I think that was a movement--an effort to make films that were not centered around FX or spectacle--but probably too avant garde in plot and theme---if they focused on finding interesting actors with strong screen presence-and did stories that were more familiar--crime dramas, coming of age stories, or romantic intrigue---they probably could develop a film culture that is more exciting and create interest around stars.
They would have to create opportunities for them--a venue for development, and probably that would foster a new wave of interesting film production. I don't see why it couldn't happen but it needs patronage and distribution---and also an interest in storytelling that is more kinetic.
Because westerns are pretty basic in concept and yet can be dramatic and exciting--it is entirely dependent on the ingredients. The actors, the directing, the writing, the music...
But it ultimately depends most on the actor side of it. Have to find people who stand out.
Well, let’s hope IA is not reading this ! Do you realize one scene in Life of Pi took them months (the cargo going down in the tempest and one life boat escapes), and after that it’s mostly one almost unknown artist, and the beauty of nature, helped with cgi and the voice of the narrator with amazing results ? |
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Sept 24, 2024 14:01:51 GMT
Here, what do you think,poetry or marketing ?
|
|
