What is wrong with movies today?

[Fenris]

After my reply to the Jurassic World thread, I realized that this could be a good discussion.

What exactly is wrong with movies today?

For me it would be: making movies to cater to all classes

That statement alone, I think, summarizes everything. They want to broaden their audience so they add a lot of action, special effects and dumb down the story to make everything fit into a 2hr (or less) movie.

What are your thoughts?

 

[ghostryder]

Broken Hollywood: The Biz’s Top Players Call Out Ways Industry Needs to Change

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/b...out-ways-industry-needs-to-change-1201416866/

 

[PoopaPapaPalps]

Marketing.

A good lot of money now is in marketing and distribution when it comes to movies because the industry isn't dealing within the USA, anymore. When a movie opens, it's gotta open loads more places across the seas and that means more money to try and sell the thing for "foreigners''. In order for a big movie to make a return, I think the rule of thumb is that it's gotta make it's budget and a half to cover the marketing costs.

That's why franchise stuff is so hot right, now. I mean, magma hot. Everyone wants to get in on the action with a notable and iconic character that everyone knows, that way, you don't have to go out and try to sell a movie as hard; people already know of the character by name, alone. This accounts for all the reboots/remakes/revitalizations in Hollywood, right now. Remakes have always been a staple in the industry but it's explosive now because it's an easier sell.

For smaller movies around this time and fall, word of mouth from critics and audiences are what sells it, and if you can get Academy recognition for it; then that's how your money. Take a look at American Sniper, right now. Making bank at the cinemas right now because it's got good word of mouth, audience/critic alike, and now Oscar support, giving more incentive for people to see it. This all started back in November when it was screened for critics, too; time enough for the hype to build up.


Not being in the 'biz', myself, this is only observation and conjecture from a serious film-fan. If I would add any suggestion to try and curb this problem with movies, it'd be this: make good films and take your movies to the internet. It's still in the early stages but streaming and online distribution, I think, is the way of the future and the key major player to getting films back to on track. If there were refined system of getting good movies online and seen by a great many people, and lauded critically across the board (and it were consistent) to the point where people started to decrease visits to the cinema, I think that'd get the big wigs to look at the system and think to remodel their system. Nothing gets peoples' attention more than when you start messing with their money.

Circling back, that's what it's all about: money. If the potential in making money in the thing isn't seen, it ain't happening. Until people start getting sick of these big, dumb, franchise, special-effects flicks, I don't think the system's gonna get shaken up so much to the point they need restructuring. At least, not for a good, long time. Everybody is gonna see the next Iron Man movie despite its previous movies. Spider-man is still gonna be seen despite its revamps. People are still gonna go to cons to see the next big thing, and Disney is still gonna work its mules to the bone until people get fed up with what they have to shuck out.

I know it's a long way off for many but, as for me, I'm quite burned out of these things myself.

 

[VilleLeskinen]

With fewer movies being made (in Hollywood) and faster and bigger profit turn in expected, is it really any wonder?

 

[Apollo]

Simple The Studios are run by the bean counters

 

[Riceball]

Simple The Studios are run by the bean counters

That's nothing new.

 

[Apollo]

True, but it's all about the almighty dollar now, back in the day the moguls could and did take chances, ie Fox with cleopatra, and Planet of the Apes.

The studios are all corporate run now

That's nothing new.

 

[Riceball]

I'd argue that they still do take chances every now and again and the studios of yesterday are not that different from the studios of today except that instead of a single owner or small group of owners they now answer to a corporate board and that's really only because the original founders of some of the studios have long since passed and they never managed to, or whatever reason, keep ownership in the family. The other difference is back in early days of the studio system actors used to be tied to specific studios and they used to crank out films by the truckload because the actors were theirs and theirs alone

While we look back at the films of yesteryear fondly and with rose colored glasses we tend to forget that there just as many turds being pushed out back then as there are now, it's just with time we've forgotten about them and only remember the good ones and as a result think those gems were representative of the era. I'm sure the same will happen in another 20 - 30 years when people look back at the early 2000s and remember it only for the good movies and forget about all of the lousy reboots and countless sequels. Just look at the '70s, where we now have reboots and sequels they had their disaster movies that featured a different form of disaster starring big named actors; they were all very formulaic and not very creative and some actually managed to spawn sequels and/or copycat films. Is that really all that different from today?

 

[mistymills]

Too many forms (and formats) of visual entertainment with less of a draw for the theater experience.

 

[Birdie]

I don't think you should leave the audience out of the 'bad movies' equation. If you go on the IMDB message boards, you'll find a bunch of kids complaining about how movies like Alien are boring and have bad effects. The studios are giving the audience want they want - fast, mindless trash where CGI allows every effect to be over-exposed, killing tension and imagination. When good story telling, pacing and character development is dismissed as boring its no wonder artless crap like Transformers is raking in the money.

 

[scarf man]

Teal & orange.
http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hollywood-please-stop.html

Lazy editing, i.e. quick cuts that trick the audience into forgetting they're watching awful stunt choreography, scene blocking, & cinematography.
Jackie Chan explains why http://youtu.be/Z1PCtIaM_GQ

Lazy, inept writing.
The lack of respect for the audience's intelligence is rampant in hollywood today. Far too often, a film will dazzle the eye, while leaving the brain wanting more... substance.

Also corporate culture... yada, yada, yada. Almighty dollar.... hubba, hubba, hubba. Widest audience possible.... bingo, bango, bongo.

 

[0neiros]

Network television is just as bad if not worse. Living with Jack, From A to Z, Bad Judge, and Constantine, 3 sitcoms, and 1 series I felt should have gotten a better chance than their token 13 episodes. Now, Big Bang Theory would have been 13 and out. They just don't allow time for word of mouth to get out about a show considering how many are in development.

 

[Probe Droid]

Agree with much of the above, but another factor is the filmmakers. Many of them don't really seem to know much about movies. They grew up on MTV and video games where there's little plot, no character development, it's all dazzle cut fast. Why do you need a plot and multidimensional characters if the audience is only watching the hot girl shake her cans or something blowing up?

Hollywood always was about making money but studios also wanted to make quality products. And there always were terrible movies, but many of them were produced cheaply with the bottom-shelf talent for fillers. Now the "A list" films are being made by second raters.

Frankly, all the really good drama is on TV now. Plenty of junk there, too, but TV has become the conduit for top talent.

 

[mistymills]

The teal and orange thing amuses me because it's not anything new. It's been around forever. We were learning about it in the early 90s. The problem isn't the colors, it's the oversaturation.

 

[CutThumb]

Again, I think a reality check is a bit needed here. I have to say that I find films these days are better and often just as risky as movies released decades ago. Go see Kingsman if you don’t believe me.
Take last year. There were half a dozen sci fi and fantasy movies that I thought were simply excellent be they brand new or franchised. “Guardians of the Galaxy” was simply huge fun on all levels. “Edge of Tomorrow” was unexpectedly thrilling and cleverly different. “Captain America TWS” was a superbly scripted and tightly directed piece of Marvel cinema. “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” looked superb and told a strong almost Shakespearian story “X men Days of Future Past” was one of the strongest ever in the franchise and superbly rebooted the series. And then there were the ones that were good if not great for me but plenty of others liked them. “Interstellar”, “Godzilla”, “Lucy” ,“The Hobbit: BOTFA ” ,“ Amazing Spiderman 2”.
The only ones that I felt cheated on were “Transcendence” and “ Under the Skin” but for very different reasons.
And that’s not counting the none genre movies like “Locke”, “Gone Girl”, “The Babadook”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel” ,“The Imitation Game” and “Fury” which were all very different but great cinema in each of their own ways even if one or two had their slight faults. 2014 was a greatly enjoyable year for me , one of the best and honestly, have you REALLY looked at what’s out this year???? Its not looking too bad at all.
Part of the problem is that certain films , perhaps like “Transformers” just repeat the same formulaic faults and themes that we constantly dislike yet do depressingly very well at the box office. And they seem to confirm a stereo type ie too much CGI, poor story telling, over loud soundtrack.
But its becoming a much rarer thing and I’d argue audiences are educating the studios by rewarding them for having taken the risks and getting it right. Just look at what happened with "Guardians OTG" . And the bulk of the releases just seem to be getting consistently better. Given the cost of a reasonable movie is in the tens of millions, taking a gamble with hundreds of millions is not for the faint hearted. People will always settle for the safest bet , and studios are no different. But they are finally learning to hire directors that love making the type of films they wanted to see as youngsters, instead of one off pop videos makers, whoe idea of a story can't last longer than three minutes.
And I’d argue that television drama is stealing a portion of cinema audiences hearts by being stronger in one particular area. Complex story telling. And that’s because movies don’t have the time to explore the longer evolving multifaceted dramas that make characters really interesting.
It used to be TV was the very poor cousin of film, but these days the money being poured into the most successful series are equal as grand and spectacularly interesting as anything we got a decade ago. But now the gap has narrowed massively. The visual effects are reaching such a parity now that in some cases either media can out do the other.
And the volume of high standard product being released now allows us to be VERY picky. Thirty years ago you’d be lucky to get one or two major hit’s a year. Now huge box office returns worldwide are a regular reason why films are getting made.

 

[mistymills]

See, I thought TWS as a terrible script and poorly directed, not to mention an hour too long.

Sent from my cm_tenderloin using Tapatalk

 

[glunark]

There is nothing wrong with the movies, just the entitled people who watch them.

You don't like this film, here's 50,000 different ones.

Sooner or later you'll find one you like, if not, maybe movies aren't for you.

 

[Birdie]

There is nothing wrong with the movies, just the entitled people who watch them

Yeah, it's outrageous paying 20 bucks to see a movie and expecting it to be good. Poor, poor, Hollywood, victim to all those selfish movie goers!

 

[Dreddful]

Here is my list:

1. CGI (when used on/for characters rather than for environments)
2. Little to no character development
3. Too much action
4. Explosions & destruction

 

[Shadow345]

I'd probably blame action and special effects.

Except I actually like action and special effects. They were both in a fairly popular film around here called Star Wars, for example.

I guess I must be a bad person.