Hollywood’s current state of failure and the reasons for it

[VonMagnum]

I think a lot of the cost is just the overall perfection. You look at a modern movie and everything* has a level of polish that wasn't there 30-40 years ago.

Look at Star Wars ANH. Never mind the space battle shots, today they wouldn't have released it with a stormtropper hitting his head on a door. The Obi-Wan/Vader swordfight scene would have been deemed unusable and re-shot. Etc.

Hollywood has been doing car chases for decades but they are going through A LOT more cars than they used to. The 1977 'Smokey and the Bandit' was filmed with 3 Firebirds. The Steve McQueen 'Bullitt' movie was done with 2 Mustangs and 2 Chargers. Today they would build about 10 copies of those cars to get the same scenes done.

*everything, that is, except bad CGI. For some ridiculous reason that gets a pass. They would never let a scene get by with bad hair/makeup or a boom mic showing in the frame, but they have no problem with phony CGI blood spatters and cartoon physics. I don't get it.

Well, if they want to get their costs down so they make actual profit instead of losing money, my point is maybe they should be studying how they did it so "unpolished" back then because most of those movies are WAY better despite any supposed flaws. I'd take Smokey and the Bandit over Fast X any day of the week and I liked the original The Fast & The Furious movie, but Fast X is so far gone compared to where they started they just don't know when to stop and that reason is sadly, once again, money (and in Vin Diesel's case, he can't seem to accel at any other role except perhaps Riddick, which really hasn't done that great since Pitch Black was a sleeper hit (once again, because they raise the bar so high it becomes a superhero movie instead of an extremely well done B-Grade horror flick).

I could easily imagine Transformers which a much better story and lower costs if they toned down the CGI and blurry constant action and got better actors and another director. Oh wait. That was Bumblebee....

Agreed. While there is a tendency to blame storytelling for being bad for being “woke,” thats because its the predominant ideology in Hollywood. Its not like non-woke conservative movies arnt also terrible.

But even in the base definition of woke used as their criteria is pretty stupid. Dune is not “woke” despite being a story with a strong matriarchy? Again with MI DR with Grace (hell you can even criticize the earlier entires as “woke” for having a black female spy in Ghost and Isla being a very capable female in Fallout and RN). They also conveniently leave out Barbie despite being a recent movie, super “woke,” and being a huge success.

There's a blur point between progressive and "woke" just like there's a difference between conservative and caveman. Sadly, they often get parked together because they look a little bit alike.

 

[Cephus]

But even in the base definition of woke used as their criteria is pretty stupid. Dune is not “woke” despite being a story with a strong matriarchy? Again with MI DR with Grace (hell you can even criticize the earlier entires as “woke” for having a black female spy in Ghost and Isla being a very capable female in Fallout and RN). They also conveniently leave out Barbie despite being a recent movie, super “woke,” and being a huge success.

It's not because it's following a nearly 60 year old book. Here's what makes something woke. It's when they make these changes for no reason other than "to appeal to a modern audience". It's when they swap gender or race or sexuality, only because they think it'll draw in more young people. It has nothing to do with the quality of the story or the actors, it has to do with ideology. It would be one thing if they had a phenomenal actor first and changed the script for that actor. I've said it before, a decade or so ago, I think Idris Elba would have made a fantastic James Bond. I wouldn't have complained at all if they had cast him and then altered the character in response. However, that is not what Hollywood does. They make changes and THEN they cast actors specifically to fit their ideologies. It's not the quality of the actors or the quality of the stories that studios care about. It's getting people with the "right" skin color, gender or sexual identity.

It's like they never understood that the whole point of acting is to do something OTHER THAN YOURSELF!

 

[batguy]

Well, if they want to get their costs down so they make actual profit instead of losing money, my point is maybe they should be studying how they did it so "unpolished" back then because most of those movies are WAY better despite any supposed flaws. I'd take Smokey and the Bandit over Fast X any day of the week and I liked the original The Fast & The Furious movie, but Fast X is so far gone compared to where they started they just don't know when to stop and that reason is sadly, once again, money (and in Vin Diesel's case, he can't seem to accel at any other role except perhaps Riddick, which really hasn't done that great since Pitch Black was a sleeper hit (once again, because they raise the bar so high it becomes a superhero movie instead of an extremely well done B-Grade horror flick).

I think a lot of it is just catching talented people in their groove. A raggedy live recording of a Beatles concert is gonna pack more artistry than an expensive flawless studio album by Nickelback.

There was about a 10-year period where almost anything that Speilberg or Lucas touched was gold. Today you can give Michael Bay triple the resources but the results are still gonna be phoned-in junk. 'Smokey and the Bandit' was when Hal Needam + Burt Reynolds were in their peak groove.

And there's a ton of selective memory. Everybody remembers 'Smokey and the Bandit' but nobody remembers 'Smokey Bites the Dust.'

'Fast & Furious' has jumped a Megaladon shark. They should have retired that series after #6 or #7. Vin Diesel is rumored to be pretty much phoning it in these days. They say he barely remembers his lines and he doesn't give a crap about the scripts beyond the action scenes. The franchise was peak tentpole filmmaking 10-15 years ago but it's not healthy anymore.

'Pitch Black' was fun. It was an oddball flick that probably wouldn't get made today. (It's too big for a cheap movie but it's too small for an expensive movie.) The sequels should have been done differently.

I could easily imagine Transformers which a much better story and lower costs if they toned down the CGI and blurry constant action and got better actors and another director. Oh wait. That was Bumblebee....

I have never understood why Michael Bay gets so much work. One time several years ago I got into a long debate on this forum about it. I think he is only good at making hits out of slam-dunk projects.

 

[VonMagnum]

And there's a ton of selective memory. Everybody remembers 'Smokey and the Bandit' but nobody remembers 'Smokey Bites the Dust.'

Selective memory? I never even heard of it. I can't remember some cheap b-movie I never saw in the first place.

Smokey and the Bandit 2 was bad enough (stupid to bring in a flipping elephant and Dom Delouise and turn it into a Cannonball Run type movie (except those were actually better), but 3? Hell, even it could have been salvaged to an extent into a halfway fun movie, but come on, Snowman doesn't even kiss the girl he picks up? What's the point of her character???

 

[Lightning]

but nobody remembers 'Smokey Bites the Dust

That's because its not part of the series, its just an unrelated film named to rode the coattails.

Smokey and the Bandit 2 was bad enough (stupid to bring in a flipping elephant and Dom Delouise and turn it into a Cannonball Run type movie (except those were actually better), but 3? Hell, even it could have been salvaged to an extent into a halfway fun movie, but come on, Snowman doesn't even kiss the girl he picks up? What's the point of her character???

I wonder if the original version of the third film, with Gleason playing both roles (titled "Smokey is the Bandit"), would have been better. Probably not, its supposed to have the same plot.

 

[HeartBlade]

It's not because it's following a nearly 60 year old book. Here's what makes something woke. It's when they make these changes for no reason other than "to appeal to a modern audience". It's when they swap gender or race or sexuality, only because they think it'll draw in more young people. It has nothing to do with the quality of the story or the actors, it has to do with ideology. It would be one thing if they had a phenomenal actor first and changed the script for that actor. I've said it before, a decade or so ago, I think Idris Elba would have made a fantastic James Bond. I wouldn't have complained at all if they had cast him and then altered the character in response. However, that is not what Hollywood does. They make changes and THEN they cast actors specifically to fit their ideologies. It's not the quality of the actors or the quality of the stories that studios care about. It's getting people with the "right" skin color, gender or sexual identity.

It's like they never understood that the whole point of acting is to do something OTHER THAN YOURSELF!

Barbie isnt mentioned at all in the website, hence my criticism. The movie selection is selective to push their agenda that woke movies are bad as shown with the narrative that the “top” rated movies are pretty much all “non-woke” by their definition. More just criticizing the website than any specific ideology.

Woke is such a catch-all term now though that it seems devoid of meaning. The new romcom Red, White, and Royal Blue would definately be “woke” because its about a gay couple (honestly was a decent rom com although I was surprised with how graphic one notable scene was). Barbie would be “woke despite good casting imo because it is focused on matriarchy (which is Barbie’s MO so I really dont see what the deal is. The movie also points out both patriarchy and matriarchy is bad). These movies are “woke” because they cover more progressive leftist ideals although I do think they do them pretty well.

Then there is Star Wars ST or Rings of Power. These are “woke” in a bad way because they make caricatures of characters with clear delineations of morality based on whats between your legs. Got a stick and two berries, you are either incompetent or evil (likely both). If not, you are perfect in every way, face no obstacle that only offers a minor inconvenience, and are always right both morally and objectively. Having some pigmentation adds some competence but doesnt overcome the gender barrier.

To be honest with the later, its not the gender swapping but just bad stories though. Rey could be a white dude and it would still suck.

 

[batguy]

That's because its not part of the series, its just an unrelated film named to rode the coattails.

That's my point. The same era of Hollywood produced both movies.

We tend to have cherry-picked memories of past eras.

I wonder if the original version of the third film, with Gleason playing both roles (titled "Smokey is the Bandit"), would have been better. Probably not, its supposed to have the same plot.

Gleason playing both roles would have been more interesting & memorable.

Better? I dunno.
I doubt it would have been GOOD.

But then again it only has one direction to go. The existing Smokey#3 is a real dud.

 

[Psab keel]

 

[joberg]

I think a lot of the cost is just the overall perfection. You look at a modern movie and everything* has a level of polish that wasn't there 30-40 years ago.

Look at Star Wars ANH. Never mind the space battle shots, today they wouldn't have released it with a stormtropper hitting his head on a door. The Obi-Wan/Vader swordfight scene would have been deemed unusable and re-shot. Etc.

Hollywood has been doing car chases for decades but they are going through A LOT more cars than they used to. The 1977 'Smokey and the Bandit' was filmed with 3 Firebirds. The Steve McQueen 'Bullitt' movie was done with 2 Mustangs and 2 Chargers. Today they would build about 10 copies of those cars to get the same scenes done.

*everything, that is, except bad CGI. For some ridiculous reason that gets a pass. They would never let a scene get by with bad hair/makeup or a boom mic showing in the frame, but they have no problem with phony CGI blood spatters and cartoon physics. I don't get it.




Tom Cruise has gradually built it into a selling point for the movies. Like the way Chris Nolan is known for disliking CGI work. Cruise doesn't just come up with a wild new stunt for a M:I movie, he also makes sure the world knows he did it for real before the movie is released.

All these movies still have tons of CGI by 1990s standards. Modern claims of "We didn't use CGI" can be translated to "We didn't use CGI for everything." There was CGI all over 'Top Gun Mav' but it was used well.

And that's fine. Nobody was sorry when 'Back to the Future 2' used CGI to erase the actors' wire rigs in the hoverboard scene. But everybody would have been sorry if they had used CGI-fabricated images of flying actors. There are different ways to "use CGI."

I don't know if they look more polished than 30-40 years ago?! I can still find projectors lighting into cars, or the mike protruding from the top of the frame At the end, the director is the captain and says: "We'll keep that take, 'cause it's the best one!"
Now with a direct monitor view of each take, he can see immediately if the shot is good or not. Not something that was available 40-50 years ago.

 

[joberg]

It's not because it's following a nearly 60 year old book. Here's what makes something woke. It's when they make these changes for no reason other than "to appeal to a modern audience". It's when they swap gender or race or sexuality, only because they think it'll draw in more young people. It has nothing to do with the quality of the story or the actors, it has to do with ideology. It would be one thing if they had a phenomenal actor first and changed the script for that actor. I've said it before, a decade or so ago, I think Idris Elba would have made a fantastic James Bond. I wouldn't have complained at all if they had cast him and then altered the character in response. However, that is not what Hollywood does. They make changes and THEN they cast actors specifically to fit their ideologies. It's not the quality of the actors or the quality of the stories that studios care about. It's getting people with the "right" skin color, gender or sexual identity.

It's like they never understood that the whole point of acting is to do something OTHER THAN YOURSELF!

 

[Cephus]

Woke is such a catch-all term now though that it seems devoid of meaning. The new romcom Red, White, and Royal Blue would definately be “woke” because its about a gay couple (honestly was a decent rom com although I was surprised with how graphic one notable scene was). Barbie would be “woke despite good casting imo because it is focused on matriarchy (which is Barbie’s MO so I really dont see what the deal is. The movie also points out both patriarchy and matriarchy is bad). These movies are “woke” because they cover more progressive leftist ideals although I do think they do them pretty well.

The question is, why was it a gay movie. There's nothing wrong with gay movies, but it's not about the existence, but the why that matters. Why did they make a gay movie? Because they had a good script, or because the filmmakers wanted to preach to the audience? I think that's the underlying factor that makes a project woke. Sometimes it's hard to tell. Sometimes it's painfully easy, like with the new Snow White live action remake, where Disney went out of their way to tell everyone that their movie was diverse, Rachel Zegler wouldn't shut her fool mouth and they're already calling anyone who doesn't like the concept a racist. That's woke and that's why it's going to fail. Had they simply not said a word, hired whoever they were going to hire, kept their employees under control and just put out the movie, it would have performed how it performed, based on the quality of the movie itself.

That's not how Hollywood behaves anymore.

Then there is Star Wars ST or Rings of Power. These are “woke” in a bad way because they make caricatures of characters with clear delineations of morality based on whats between your legs. Got a stick and two berries, you are either incompetent or evil (likely both). If not, you are perfect in every way, face no obstacle that only offers a minor inconvenience, and are always right both morally and objectively. Having some pigmentation adds some competence but doesnt overcome the gender barrier.

They are woke because Kathleen Kennedy came out and declared the force to be female. They're both girl power projects, made by people who don't even like the IPs, they have an agenda and are preaching to the audience. Yes, making all of the men inferior is just a quick way to make the female leads "stunning and brave" because Hollywood doesn't know how to write actually interesting characters anymore. They're all stereotypes.

To be honest with the later, its not the gender swapping but just bad stories though. Rey could be a white dude and it would still suck.

Absolutely agreed, but they wouldn't make Rey anything but the Mary Sue that she was because that was the entire agenda behind the movie. The people at Disney would never have done otherwise. They weren't there to make an entertaining film, they wanted to preach.

 

[VonMagnum]

They are woke because Kathleen Kennedy came out and declared the force to be female.

What!?! Just female? That's so sexist! We all know there are 42 primary genders. It's the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything!

The Force is a non-binary quad hexadecimal illusion of power's principle of gendering nature's fury upon the weak and futile desolation of discovery!

What that means is, buckle up your seat belt Dorothy because Kansas is going bye bye.

 

[VonMagnum]

Actually, the more I think about it, The Force being a woke female makes real sense.

Think about it. The Force causes more pain, suffering and misery upon the "normals" in the Galaxy by fostering endless wars between two quasi-religious groups of extremists who ultimately blow up planets and even entire star systems to force their brand of ***** down ordinary people's throats. If that doesn't describe a woke female, I don't know what does.

No wonder Disney wanted Star Wars so bad....

 

[Birdie]

The question is, why was it a gay movie.

It's based on a novel, the writers and director are all gay. Imagine if they'd 'straightened' it....