Whats wrong with hollywood - a few thoughts

[EyeofSauron]

So, i`ve been thinking about writing this for a long time, and finally decided to do so.
Really, nowadays, Hollywood isn’t what it used to be. Remember the good old times, where movies where magical, and you sat in the cinema, in those old school theatres with maybe 2 to 5 screens, and still were amazed?
Nowadays, it’s all about how big stuff is. Every movie today seems to try to be bigger and better than the one before that, more explosions, more sex, more everything. And in all of that, the magic gets lost.

Now for the big problems Hollywood has:

1. 3D:
   Seriously, which movie was out there(except maybe avatar) that was a GOOD Movie because of 3D? Its eye candy, that, in my opinion, has gone terribly wrong. Its just so far away from perfection, that it shouldn’t be used. For one, it decreases the luminosity of a movie DRASTICALLY. For example in the new pirates of the Caribbean, it was horrible to watch as it was dark as hell. Another thing is: Real Life Movies do NOT work well with 3d. CGI movies, I can understand, but other than that, it’s stupid. Also, those glasses give me a serious headache, and if you just tilt your head slightly, you will get a bad picture.
   And what’s the worst part of it, big companies invest WAY to much in that crap, and it goes on the cost of story, acting etc. Avatar may have been good for its 3D, but it was basicly Pocahontas. The rest of the movies where just short in so many ways, that its really harmful for the film.
   
2. CGI:
   OK, I get CGI, I do CGI myself. It’s a nice, really nice thing. But everything should be consumed in the right portions. The CGI might be beautiful as hell, but if it’s the only thing in the movie, it will suck. Those old classics, they didn’t have this kind of technology, so they had to invest in good story and be tricky to get the good stuff going. Remember Star wars, Back to the future etc? We were blown away back then by those movies.
   
3. Money:
   That’s what its all about now. Yes, I agree, it was always about making money, but today, it got out of hand. Just the example of the new green lantern movie, they cut about half an hour of (fairly important) material, so they could do more shows a day. Those movies have huge budgets, if I recall correctly, the hobbit has 500 million dollars. That’s more than all the lord of the rings parts had altogether. And im pretty sure, its not gonna be more impressive graphically, even though it has more money shoved into it. My point is: its not all about how much money you put into it. They should rather use the money wisely, and get the most out of what you get.
   
4. Customers:
   North American (sorry for this) audience is the main target for those blockbusters. And no matter how bad it gets, those people will watch it. And afterwards cry about how bad the movie was. And then go to the next one that looks exactly the same. And that’s a thing that will never change. There are so many good independent films, that don’t come out of one of the big blockbuster studios, but the mayor audience is never gonna watch these, because its not their main focus. I already made a thread about the remaking of troll hunter, which just got to the US cinemas. For the money. I watched the film, it’s amazing. And it’s not lacking effects even though it doesn’t have a million dollar budget. What im saying is: the filmmakers should go back to their roots and think about this. Its not all about money. But this wont help anyway, they just love money too much. James Cameron redoing Titanic in 3D - What for? Just one example of the greediness of those companies.

Well those are just my thougts, i wrote down, and I had to get this off my heart, and I know it’s a TLDR text, but for those who actually read my thoughts, I would appreciate your comments

Cheers
EoS

 

[JPolacchi]

Hollywood will make films these days out of almost any half ass S&*&%@!$&y script.Case in point: Transformers 1,2 and soon to join...3!The Twilight Saga(yeeeesh),Drive Angry(HOLY SHNIKIES!), Skyline(I wanted to blow my brains out after seeing this P.O.S), Sucker Punch(its all about the T[EMAIL="T&%@!$"]&%@!$s[/EMAIL] and the P*^&$!@%*?) to name a recent dissappointment and some crappy films that never should have been made.All it takes is a mountain of money (maybe some cocaine and a few stripper or porn star dates),some back scratching and "who ya know",a new director either desperate or stupid enough to want to put his/her name to a crappy film on their resume and TA-DA!!Instant Hollywood crap film!

CG is just used because everyone is so used to seeing it and it is practically expected these days.There are heaps of CG FX houses that can do it, but the almighty dollar dictates how good it will look.ILM is no longer the "first and only" choice when someone wants something made "on the cheap". CG is also used to hide how BAD a film is.The thought of,"Isn't that cool,or doesn't that look cool?"With the hidden,"Please don't notice how big a P.O.S our movie is,look at the boobies!"
3D is just the trendy "in thing" now.I personally despise it.It doesn't add anything to the film,and really all you get is a movie that sucks in 3d for 1 3/4-2+hrs and a headache from the eye strain.

Lastly,Hollywood is BANKING on gullable,easy to please(not so smart) consumers so they can at least bank some of their money back on their 50-200 million dollar disaster of a film.I guarantee you Hollywood these days knows,ABSOLOUTELY KNOWS if the film they made is a DOG and is going TO BOMB BIG TIME in the box office.They have number crunchers and what not to do projected figures for opening weekends.They know pretty much "right away" if their film sucks and that they have to get it to PPV or the DVD shelf right away before people forget about it to make a killing in sales and rentals because there is enough money in that that they can break even with a film that pretty much sucked all their money away.

That's my"realistic and honest" insight,and unfortunately I don't expect Hollywood to change at all.In fact,it will probably get worse.So, you can expect to continue to see S&*&%@!? films being made year in and year out with the very,very elite few that are either "worth the money" or happen to be extrodinary.Just be selective in what you pay to see and "don't always believe the hype".Often(these days),the really cool looking trailers LIE.Case in point..."Sucker Punch".What a freak'n disapointment.

 

[EyeofSauron]

see, sucker punch was actually a movie i liked. But not because its an amazing movie, but as an indie filmmaker, i can appriciate a good camera work, and work on details. Dont get me wrong, it was over all a hit or miss film, but if you watch it from the right pov, you can get a nice movie out of it

 

[tcsmit29]

Agreed! My wife is from Germany and I have been watching some german films trying to pickup a little of the language. I recently watched "Goodbye Lenin". It was really an awesome movie! Another good one was "Lives of Others". Very different from a Hollywood blockbuster. Both had good acting and good stories.angel

 

[KnightAsylum]

I don't think Hollywood changes - I think people grow up and change perspective - this change happens slowly over time and much like looking back on many childhood things people always seem to feel that the "thing" changed, when it reality it was them.

 

[Solo4114]

I don't think Hollywood changes - I think people grow up and change perspective - this change happens slowly over time and much like looking back on many childhood things people always seem to feel that the "thing" changed, when it reality it was them.

While I suspect that's part of the issue, I think the current environment is noticeably different from what came in the past. There's far FAR more emphasis on marketing and branding now -- with brands themselves driving films -- than before. Look at all the 80s remakes and the optioning of toy lines, board games, etc. Sometimes it works, but much of the time it's just a mediocre also-ran film.

 

[rodneyfaile]

I don't think Hollywood changes - I think people grow up and change perspective - this change happens slowly over time and much like looking back on many childhood things people always seem to feel that the "thing" changed, when it reality it was them.

I agree.

In 30 years some will complain that they don't make movies like Transformers 3 anymore and how nothing will ever be as great as Harry Potter.

 

[BrotherWilliam]

I don't think Hollywood changes - I think people grow up and change perspective - this change happens slowly over time and much like looking back on many childhood things people always seem to feel that the "thing" changed, when it reality it was them.

Yes and no. Certainly we've changed. Those of us who grew up in the 70s and 80s now look at modern films with a much more cynical eye.
Kids who grew up in the 90s and Naughties came to movies with the expectation not of "sequels" but of "franchise" as the norm. Lucas started it, but tie in toys, burger meals, lunchboxes and bed linen were now a standard of the movie industry.
Today, if a movie doesn't do well in its opening weekend it's considered a flop. There's no opportunity for word of mouth to seep in. Sure Fazebook and Twatter plug the thoughts of the ADD crowd but not everyone can get to the opening night any more.
And think of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Running continuously for 35 years has made an estimated 11,500% return on its initial investment. Yes it's the exception, but if studios spent the money on scripts and acting instead of CGI and explosives, they might get some better bang for their buck. :love

 

[Unlucky Berman]

Regarding money and Hollywood or movies in general, I think the problem is that movies have been nowadays also discovered by investors of the banking sector and funds. So they get a lot of money just if a studio can wink to them with some big names, a well known director (someone like Micheal "the licenced blaster" Bay) and every movie fund will throw in a lots of bucks.
And the problem is as always with such constructs that the investor does not want to have something very new, intriguing, experimental which could be too risky but just something that is tested and is deemed to get them a lot more money back than they invested at the first. So most of the money is invested in those big names, lots of advertising and effects/CGI because that seems the only way to get many people into a cinema and later to buy all those licensed merchadise crap, DVDs and the like and thereby the money and some plus back to the funds and investors. And in the end those fund managers can also turn up and show themselves as the great good doers for culture and art.

So all in all the studios at least in Hollywood can not do anything experimental or away from the mediocre and blockbuster-promising stuff, because they fear to loose all the money of the movie funds and in the end it is all about those little bucks and a bit glamour.

I think the change in Hollywood also came in the past from the outside. New Hollywood was born away from the big studios and first made by people who did not want to be part of the machinations there (think of Easy Rider). But when it got the audience Hollywood took those rebels back and was changed by them. So there is hope that someday independent studios and directors will do similiar things and this can happen again. In small steps it even happens since there are those movies away from the mainstream kind of making and to some aspects they are successful. Even while some of them may be more successful outside of the USA I think even Hollywood or the big studios will see that there are all in all big markets too and someone else is making the money there. So it may be just a question of time until they try to get this different style too and hire other people which are better than those boring directors who always do the same lame stuff and where the viewer always know what and in which kind the movie will be even before he sees it.

Regarding CGI I agree to some parts with the first post. If it is overdone and maybe just as said to mislead the viewer about some real flaws in the movie or the making then it isn't very helpfull. But that is right for almost anything, not only CGI. If you just overdo it with something, then it can not become somthing good. Too much salt in the soup is too much and adding more pepper won't make it taste better.
But with CGI it is the same as with every major change in development and techniques. We or some of us grew up in another time and are used to what was then state of the art. But even I think of effects or to some parts even the style of movies (and other art too) from past times that they are really weird or even boring. It is not my time and I don't see it with the eyes of someone from that era where it was something really new and en vogue.
But if I would ask my grandfather what he thinks of movies like SW, Indy or even The Godfather and similiar things he would tell me that they are all a P.O.S. and then I would no longer dare to ask him about Jourassic Park, Terminator, Alien and other things that I like most.

 

[Bobtherocker]

Re-makes.

 

[Solo4114]

Re-makes.

Also, re-makes.

 

[Lord Boron]

The studio's are all run now by brainless corporate idiots.

 

[CB2001]

The studio's are all run now by brainless corporate idiots.

This is the true and number one reason why films of Hollywood have lost their quality. The second is the MPAA (seriously, where's more NC-17 films at? There are none, because Hollywood considers NC-17 rated movies as "dirty" and "nasty" as porn. I recommend a great documentary about the rating system and the board behind it called This Film is Not Yet Rated).

Seriously, think about it. When it comes to Hollywood, the big wigs nowadays don't trust the filmmakers to make their movies and those that they do trust are complete idiots. Seriously, there is a scene from a film adaptation of a collection of stories by Brett Easton Ellis called The Informers. Though the film is set in the 1980s, there is one line of dialogue that pretty much rings true about filmmaking nowadays. Billy Bob Thorton's character, who is a producer on a film about an Alien. When he is told the director doesn't like the alien's design because it looks like a "talking tomato", his character responds by saying, "That's bull$#it. Ron, listen to me. Let me inform you of something, okay? We don't let 25 year-olds tell us how to make movies." If you look at this line, and the character, you can see he's being a bit of hypocrite because of the fact that he probably started off as a 25 year-old working on movies during the Counter-Culture movement in films, where filmmakers were given a chance to tell their stories the way they wanted to, in a period of time where we got so many films we consider classics such as Easy Rider, Taxi Driver, Star Wars, Jaws, and many others.

Basically, I'm saying is that nowadays, studio heads do not trust the filmmaker to tell the story the way they wanted to. If Steven Spielberg was young again and just starting out in the business now, he wouldn't even be given the chance to make a movie with studio backing (hell, even at the time when he was hired, people thought he didn't have a chance at being a director, and proved them wrong when he made Duel). Lucas probably wouldn't have been able to make it in the film industry these days if he was starting off. In fact, if Lucas was young nowadays, and starting off his film career, if he pitched Star Wars nowadays, he'd probably be laughed out of the office. Seriously, most of the movies and filmmakers that were given a chance back during the Counter-Culture movement wouldn't have a chance at even being pitched because studio executives nowadays have their heads way up their own butts. Anyone that has an interesting and somewhat original idea wouldn't be given the time of day to even pitch. That's why most independent films nowadays have much more solid stories and why some of them are even more lasting than most of the Hollywood crapbusters nowadays.

And, yes, the audience is partly to blame for this too. Everyone is so starstruck that they don't bother to go watch movies that are good. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a clear example of this. It's a unique story and visual style. It's so unique that there's those in the industry who are recognizing it. But what did it lose out to? It lost out to The Expendables, starring many actors from the action movies of the 1980s and 1990s. People chose nostalgia over a film that had a solid story. Many films in Sci-Fi that are considered essentials nowadays lost out to E.T. because they were dark in tone. Blade Runner and John Carpenter's The Thing both lost out because people wanted the feel-good movie (in the case of The Thing, they wanted the cute little alien who wanted to be your friend, not the monstrous alien that wanted to consume you).

What Hollywood needs is another Counter-Culture movement, giving a chance to those who truly can tell a story without the need of all the CG and flashiness. But I doubt that'll ever happen again.

 

[Solo4114]

I could see it happening, but not in movie theaters. More likely we'll see stuff like that appear on the internet, and in fact we already are. Why the internet? Simple: it's less expensive, and you aren't beholden to corporate theater chains who have to fill seats. I expect Hollywood will be late to the party when it comes to the internet stuff, but other content development houses will eventually centralize to provide funding...and the cycle will repeat itself.

 

[rodneyfaile]

Will movie theaters die out like video game arcades?

 

[Watson]

Will movie theaters die out like video game arcades?

I see a time when this happens

 

[outlander]

I do also see an end to movie thwarted as we know them.

I remember going to see STAR TREK with Tripoli. Two "sisters"
were yakking it up non-stop, cackling over the volume of the
film so they (and we) wouldn't miss out on a single scintillating
witticism. I kept shooting annoyed glances at them fantasizing
they might notice that there were other people in the theatre
and they were disturbing us.

Eventually they noticed we were there. "What you looking at?"
I believe was their challenge. It was all name calling, head
bobbing, and "Yo mama" references after that. Maybe one or
two "tell it to my hand."s got thrown in there too.

Eventually things concluded in a satisfying manner but at one point I
was thinking "I am 41 years of age. Why am I here arguing
with two room temperature I.Q.s about what constitutes
acceptable behavior at a public theater?"

When flatscreens get a little better/larger/cheaper why would
I want to put up.with the antics of the great unwashed public?

 

[rodneyfaile]

The great experiences I can attribute to movie theaters far outnumber the bad ones. It is more than just the screen size, I love the atmosphere of the theater. I miss video game arcades.

 

[Bassari]

What's wrong with Hollywood is that we see the same regurgitated "types" over and over again. More variety visually, culturally and within character personality would bring people to theaters that just aren't interested anymore.

 

[teecrooz]

The main problem with Hollywood is that it's in California. Munchies and re-runs don't = new ideas.

That is a joke. I've been in California twice, and it was only in the airports. I'd love to visit for more than a layover.