Movies are not dead

[deadpool]

I just read an article online basically saying that good movies are dead and that hollywood is just out to make money now. This is only one of many articles with the same claim. As a movie buff I find it insulting that people would make such claims. I believe movies are the same as they ever were and it is merely the people who have changed (mainly due to the internet).

First of all the idea that hollywood is just out to make money. I would partially disagree. They are out to both entertain us and make money. Let's be honest with ourselves we don't just do our jobs because we may or may not like them we do them for money so who are we to judge hollywood. I think that we has people are jealous of success. We see people make millions of dollars making movies and we wonder why. Making movies is a very stressful business that can tear apart familes and relationships. If you fail in even the slightest way you will have thousands of internet nerds insulting you. Plus only the biggest of names make millions and they have worked really hard to get where they are.

Secondly the idea that hollywood has no origional ideas left. As a screenwriter I know this for a fact that this is not true. I went to a screenwriting expo last year and there were thousands of screenwriters there and those were just the ones who made it there. When you ask why hollywood dosn't put out a lot of origional movies ask yourself this who is hollywood's boss? Us. They make sequels and remakes because we goto them in flocks even if they are not all that good. People hated transformers 2 but it made hundreds of millions of dollars. So please don't blame filmmakers for what you yourself cause.

Now for the idea that there are not as many good movies as before. The oscars have had to extend there best picture nominees for the first time in decades and that tells you that there are not as many good movies anymore? The amount of masterpeices hasn't changed we are simply making a lot more movies now so it looks like there are less. On the whole I think that is a good thing. The idea that almost anyone can go out there and make a movie is truly a beautiful thing. Also I don't understand why everyone demands a masterpeice from every movie. Not all movies are made to be master peices not all movies should be masterpeices. If they were then the oscars would have to have thousands of slots and the whole ideal would be lost. There is nothing wrong with a simply good or average movie. If it entertains me or makes me feel good then is that not good enough?

[Dr Handsome]

I've had that article bookmarked for a couple of days now (here it is on GQ) so I'll look forward to reading your response and replying myself once I get around to actually reading it.

[deadpool]

That was actually the article I was talking about I completly disagree with it.

[bouncingbrick]

I'm glad you brought this article up because I wanted to bring it up myself but I'm far too lazy.

First, the title of your thread is misleading. The point of the article is not that films are dead, but that the Hollywood, big studio system is dead. In fact, he talks about The Coen Brothers, Aronofsky, and David O. Russell in a positive light so I'm sure he's not talking about all film being dead.

Second, having said the above, I completely agree with the article and disagree with what you said. The people in charge in Hollywood (the executives, the people with all the money) are not interested in entertaining us...unless it makes them money. Yes, movies are the entertainment business, but the top people, the people making the decisions about what films get funded, are only interested in making money. You're insane if you honestly believe anything other than that.

As far as original ideas go, sure there's thousands of original screenplays and outside-the-box thinkers writing them. But how many are being made (within the Hollywood system, where the real money is)? Inception? The Matrix? I'm racking my brain trying to come up with $50 million+ budget films out of the last ten years that are original ideas. That's sad.

And don't you dare blame the people. Don't you even dare. The Matrix made $463 million world wide. Inception made $823 million world wide. Oh, but the people ask for unoriginal material...my butt. The studios green light sequels and adaptations of board games and theme park rides because there's a brand there that makes them feel safe putting millions of dollars into it. It's because they think you're too damn stupid to watch something original. Yes, you and everyone you know. They think you're dumb. That's why the attitude in Hollywood is so dismal when it comes to Inception. Like he said in the article, they didn't learn a single thing from its success.

The thing I will agree with you is that it's not a new problem. I will never find the comic now, but back when Titanic was the most financially successful film of all time someone made a comic whose caption said "what studio executives should learn from the success of Titanic" and it showed executives sitting in a board room saying "You know, we should just get out of the way of the creative people and let them make the films." Then there was another picture and the caption read "What they will really learn from Titanic". And the executives were saying "Boats. We need to make more movies about boats!"

Are films dead? Did you see Winter's Bone, Black Swan, True Grit, The Fighter, The Social Network, or Enter the Void this year? No, they're not dead. But did you look at the projected big studio releases? Obviously, since you read the article, you did. I'd say the article is a defining nail in the lid of the coffin of big studio films.

[deadpool]

I did see the fighter but thats it. I am more of a popcorn movie guy and I do like sequels and adaptations however I'm not against origional peices of work. And yes hollywood is intrested in making money primiarly but be honest does the guy working at Mc Donolds really care about seeing people get their food first and the money second? Hollywood producers are not greedy animals they are simply human. I still believe in big studio films and nothing will ever change that.

[bouncingbrick]

Feb 22, 2011 22:07:08 GMT -5 deadpool said:

I did see the fighter but thats it. I am more of a popcorn movie guy and I do like sequels and adaptations however I'm not against origional peices of work. And yes hollywood is intrested in making money primiarly but be honest does the guy working at Mc Donolds really care about seeing people get their food first and the money second? Hollywood producers are not greedy animals they are simply human. I still believe in big studio films and nothing will ever change that.

Well, why did you even start this thread if you're not interested in debate and unable to change?

[deadpool]

I think you misread my intentions. I didn't come here to debate or change people why would I want to change peoples opinions? I came here to talk about something and see what others feel about it. I don't feel there is really anything to debate here. I am kind of looking to see why people think that there is a problem with the movie industry. A lot of people seem to think that there is a major crisis in film and that we need to change things. I feel the opposite I mean every year the movie industry brings in the revune of a small country so why is it in danger? The industry has worked for almost 100 years and is virtually ression proof. Why do people want it to change and if so then how?

[Dr Handsome]

Brick makes most of the points I would've made, one being that your original post (which seems to argue that there are in fact quality movies being made) seems to miss the point of the article.
In the end there's not a lot to argue with because the writer never once claims that Hollywood is fresh out of ideas or that there aren't a handful of fantastic American movies being released each year.

As for the article itself...

I like that "chicken versus the egg" analogy the creator Breaking Bad brings up: are the studios at fault for perpetuating a system that monetizes these trashy movies or is the audience at fault for purchasing the tickets that make it profitable? I for one think audiences are smart and that executives are stubborn. Audiences do demand quality but studios are too busy running themselves into a ditch trying to come up with some guaranteed formula to make money.

[Mladen]

Agree with bouncingbrick, in that I agree with the article, and disagree with everything deadpool said.

All movies should aim to be excellent. Whether they fail due to technical limitations, or lack of skill on the part of the film-maker is far more excusable than aiming for mediocrity and putting out a sub-par product designed to appeal to recognizability and first week marketing (in order to satisfy some nebulous marketing goal or cost/profit ratio).

I appreciate that film is an expensive exercise, and film-makers are obligated to make cuts in their vision in order to fulfill their financial obligations, but the cost has been allowed to balloon out, to the point where a film has to satisfy a series of lowest common denominators in order to break even. If a film is built to satisfy the results of market research, you would expect all films to look the same, and they do. Its affecting the quality of the product thats being released, and its keeping the potentially great product from ever being made.

The studios seem to count films as successful if they spend $100 million and make $200 million. Thats a poor gamble, and a model which any other business would laugh hysterically at.

They should be looking to make PROFITABLE movies, not high grossing movies. There's a difference. Guess what the most profitable movies of all time are? Avatar? Titanic? Not even close.

Hold onto your pants:
My Big Fat Greek Wedding $6m budget, 6150% return on investment
ET $25m budget, 3170% return on investment
Slumdog Millionaire $15m budget, 2520% return on investment
Pretty Woman $23m budget, 2013% return on investment

It stands to reason that the film with a smaller budget is more likely to have more creative freedom than the $100 million project which stands to lose a lot more. The model is broken, and is due to collapse as the cost to profit ratio continues to climb and reach critical mass.

[deadpool]

I believe that the most profitible movie of all time is paranormal activity. I do understand why people would want every movie to be a masterpeice but I don't agree with it. It puts a lot of pressure on people who just want to tell a story and express their art. Is green hornet any less great than the godfather no because they are both art and one peice of art is no greater than the other. I feel it is our jobs as movie fans to accept the good with the bad and just show our love for the whole of movies. When you start picking movies apart all the time you stop becoming a true fan.

I still believe that there is no such a thing as a bad movie. When I see a movie that I didn't enjoy I don't hate it or think it sucks I simply say that it wasn't meant for me. This is why I don't think that it is fair for adults to be the voice for movies directed to little kids. A good reviewer admits it is not for them and says that someone else may enjoy it. It is the difference of opinions and tastes that make the movie industry. For example I never saw inception I opted out and saw the other guys instead and thats my choice and I stand by it. Just because inception is popular and is winning all kinds of awards does that make my decision wrong?

[Dr Handsome]

I think what you (Deadpool) are saying is "well look at X and Y and tell me Hollywood doesn't put out good movies" but that's not really what's being argued in the article. The article argues that the studio system largely ignores the artistic quality of their successes, dismisses any notion of a discerning audience, and thinks it can rely solely on demographics and data to create money making movies.

What the studios are really doing is pushing audiences who demand some semblance of quality away from theaters and blaming this on market research. I'd argue that some of these institutions (ie: women don't go to the movies) are really just self imposed limits put in place by studios who think they can find a way to print money.

Deadpool, the article only argues that our idea of a truly decent movie has been downgraded to the point where we'll accept something like The Bounty Hunter as decent. I would never say that The Green Hornet is bad because it's a fun movie but there is such thing as a bad movie and it's our job as consumers to expect quality.

The article doesn't fault the artist (who idealistically wants to produce something entertaining) it faults the studios who are suffocating artistic creativity by relying on cold data instead of artistic quality.

I think what might be getting you is the word "intelligent" which doesn't necessarily mean intellectual. Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the funnest (apparently that's a word) movies out there but it's only as great as it is because it's made by intelligent artists who know what their doing.

[deadpool]

Oh I'm not argueing that the studios don't have problems with creative control. Hell some studios (fox) don't give their writers/directors any breathing room unless their last name is lucas. I guess that particular article is not the main one I was reffering to. I have seen some articles and blogs saying that movies are dying and that I just don't agree with. I also know some indie fans who hate big studio films and that I do not understand. Indie films useally make a profit espeically if they are really good.

Now don't get me wrong I have nothing agaisnt origional and intellectual film I mean the matrix was awesome and I do plan on seeing inception at some point I just havn't gotten around to it. I do hope for quality in films but I feel that the term quality can be defined in different ways. Also a bit of a tangent here but hey it is a battleship forum. Has there ever been a movie that you guys have loved but everyone else hated?

[Dr Handsome]

I think by 'indie fans' you mean 'snobs' and that's a group (or opinion at least) best ignored. Nobody here will tell you that studios can't produce great cinema, it's just not true. The snobs are, by nature, irrational and irrationality can't be argued with.

Nobody is saying that there aren't recent examples of great studio cinema, they're saying that the studio's are trying to use data to create guarantees instead of focusing on the clear demand for quality. They create great products and we reward them with cash, that's (basically) how it's supposed to work.

I should also mention that I don't fault studios for wanting to make money but they're trying to game the system at the expense of the industry. Studio control is an inevitability but it's up to them to decide how it affects their profits.

[Mladen]

whoah, whoah, back up: Did you just give "The Matrix" and "Inception" as your main examples of original and intellectual films?

"Is green hornet any less great than the godfather"
(yes)
"no because they are both art and one peice of art is no greater than the other."

Quality is a criteria by which we judge a piece of art's cultural worth. This is the real world, and no, not all art is equally great just because you throw a tag 'art' onto it.

"I feel it is our jobs as movie fans to accept the good with the bad and just show our love for the whole of movies. When you start picking movies apart all the time you stop becoming a true fan."

If the definition of 'movie fan' means throwing away all discernment and having to 'love' all movies regardless, then no, I'm not a movie fan. Its like you're eating out of a dumpster and then proudly proclaiming that all food is great food.

[deadpool]

I think that you misunderstand me. I do not love all films however I do respect them. For example one movie I will never watch again is radio however radio is an amazing movie and cuba gooding jr's preformance was incredible I just didn't like the movie. And yes Inception and the matrix are origional and intellectual films. Now as to my point that there are no bad movies my reasoning for that is that even the worst rated movies of all time have people who love them so they can not be all that bad. There are poorly made films but that dosn't make them bad. For example Kevin Smith admits his films look bad and he is not a very talented filmaker but his films are incredible.

Now this is proboly going to get me some bad points but it is the way I feel. Some people just may not have the skills yet to make truly great films but that dosn't mean they should stop. Filmaking is not reserved to those who are good at it but those who truly have a passion for film.

[Dr Handsome]

The words “there are poorly made films but that doesn't make them bad” makes me wonder why I’m even bothering arguing here but let’s go...

What you just said there is a very different story than "there is no such thing as a bad movie." I would never say that I don’t respect any artist with sincere intentions or even that a terrible filmmaker should stop making movies.

But the bottom line is that a poorly made film is a "bad movie" whether or not you respect the artists intentions or not. While art may be subjective (you say that every film has its champions) we are forced to acknowledge bad films not because we want to trash untalented artists but because we want to encourage a creatively rich film industry.

Let me also say, there are also movies that I just play don't respect: easy cash grabs, torture porn flicks, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (I kid!). I'm also going to have to strongly disagree that Kevin Smith's films are “quote” incredible (I don’t kid.).

[deadpool]

They are for a specific audience he is a cult filmaker and completly comfortable in that fact. Here is the only thing I don't understand why do people hate the bad movies with such a ferocity. What harm are bad movies doing to good movies. Why can't they both exist?

Also there are two ways I respect films I don't like. One I will aknewledge the fact that it is actually a well made film just not my genre. Ie radio like I mentioned or white fang or the lovley bones. Oherwise I admit that they are not meant for me. Ie I have no intrest in the justin beiber movie but then it's not meant for me. Does the fact that I don't like it make it a bad movie? Also sometimes I feel about a movie the same ways the south park guys feel about family guy. I respect it in the fact it entertains some people but I personally don't like it.

[bouncingbrick]

Feb 23, 2011 20:16:44 GMT -5 Mladen said:

whoah, whoah, back up: Did you just give "The Matrix" and "Inception" as your main examples of original and intellectual films?

Whoa, Whoa, back up, yourself! The whole point of the articel is that all the studios are putting out films based on existing properties and films that are basically safe bets. The Matrix and Inception, while having sometimes clear roots in their genre, are not based on any kind of existing property. They are original.

To deadpool: I have a question for you. Would you rather see Monopoly: the Movie or one of the thousands of talented original screenplays you refered to earlier be given a green light with a $50 million+ budget?

Isn't it more fun and exciting to watch a film that is the direct product of a certain person or persons imagination? As opposed to Monopoly, Ouiji Board, Battleship, etc.: the Movie? Or yet another sequel? Because that is the true point. No one wants to stifle creativity or deny anyone the chance to make a film. We just don't want to watch crap that is spawned completely out of a marketing room with the sole intent of making money on all the promotional tie-ins (Star Wars Prequels, anyone?). And, for the record, it is crap. You can say you respect it all you like and you can argue for it's existence all you want, but that doesn't make it a good film.

On that note, it's time for me to get on my soapbox (I've done this on other forums before, but I don't think I've done it here). There is a difference between a film that is good and a film that you like. A person is capable of watching a film with a critical eye while also seperating their personal enjoyment of the film from their critique. You can see bad acting, directing, editing, sound, effects, etc. in a film, even if you like it, and declare it a bad film. For example, my wife and I love the Friday the Thirteenth films (not the remake) though we admit they are pretty terrible. So you can claim that there are films that are "not your thing" and pretend that good and bad is subjective, but it's just not true. A poorly made film can be described as a bad film, despite your "respect" for all films. Quality is not subjective, personal taste is.

[deadpool]

As an answer to your question yes I would rather see the new screenplays be adapted compared to monopoly the movie even though I do like the board game. However I would rather watch iron man 2 than kings speech simply because thats more of what I'm into. There are tons of adapted screenplays and sequels so I don't see a problem with the sequels existing. Also an adaptation can still come from a persons iminagation everything is based off something one way or another wither it be an event, a dream or just a different version of another idea. Pixars Up which has been hailed as one of the most origional movies in years was inspired by a man who attached balloons to his lawn chair and actually managed to go 15,000 feet into the air and travel.

Also once again this is going to get me a lot of hate but in terms of the star wars prequels sucking. Episode 1 is my favorite star wars film. I feel of all the prequels it is the closest to the origional star wars formula. And if you ignore the problems in the movie (jar jar) then it is a solid film. Liam Neison was amazing and his character is the living embodiment of what I feel a jedi is. Darth Maul was an awesome villian and anakins preformance really makes you intrerested in the story of how the nicest kid in the galaxy can become someone as villianess as Darth Vader. However I will say there is no deffence for jar jar that was a terrible choise?

Also for the record how would you define a poorly made movie. Are we talking the look and the directing or the story. Like for example Evil Dead is a very cheap movie (a shaky cam is used for a villian.) But it is one of the best horror movies ever made even steven king thought it was amazing.

[bouncingbrick]

Feb 25, 2011 0:04:31 GMT -5 deadpool said:

As an answer to your question yes I would rather see the new screenplays be adapted compared to monopoly the movie even though I do like the board game. However I would rather watch iron man 2 than kings speech simply because thats more of what I'm into. There are tons of adapted screenplays and sequels so I don't see a problem with the sequels existing. Also an adaptation can still come from a persons iminagation everything is based off something one way or another wither it be an event, a dream or just a different version of another idea. Pixars Up which has been hailed as one of the most origional movies in years was inspired by a man who attached balloons to his lawn chair and actually managed to go 15,000 feet into the air and travel.


Also for the record how would you define a poorly made movie. Are we talking the look and the directing or the story. Like for example Evil Dead is a very cheap movie (a shaky cam is used for a villian.) But it is one of the best horror movies ever made even steven king thought it was amazing.

And how many action figures or board games were made based on the crazy person with the ballooons tied to his lawn chair? How many people sat down in a board room to adapt that into a film?

Evil Dead is a technical marvel. What Raimi did with no money is astonishing. There's nothing "bad" about blowing people away with a little inovation and a shaky-cam bad guy. Especially when your film has wit and creativity dripping off every frame.

Look, I'm not here to debate "bad" and "good" films. I've already stated my opinion on quality versus taste, but you chose to ignore it. What I want is for you to acknowlegde that there's probably something wrong with a system that embraces marketing departments as creative forces while ignoring that fact that one of the most successful films of the year was Inception, the vision of one creative person. Logic would tell you that seeking out the creative people and allowing them to craft films would be not only a better financial move for Hollywood, it would show that they've accepted film as an artistic and creative endeavor. Which it should be. But they didn't learn that at all. The article cited above shows that based on the upcoming roster of Hollywood films is nothing but the same old crap.

Here, I'll give a different example, because you still seem to be missing the point. The Social Network is adapted from other material, but it has a good chance at winning the Best Picture Oscar. Why? Because the people involved in making it are creative and talented people. The studio didn't have any marketing tie-ins or toys, but they felt they could take a chance with talented people because Facebook is an instantly recognizable brand. But, they let the creative people make it and that worked out to the films credit.

I don't want to stop adaptations. I want to stop the Monoply movies and the endless parade of comic book films, or at least slow them down. And I want more creative people, like Nolan and Raimi and Fincher to have the creative freedom to make the big budget films that they want to make, even if some of those films don't work.