When hollywood made good films.

[jmgrice]

Im a big believer in that not much as changed. We just get old. So we complain at the new stuff. I dont always see the need for ott CGI. But what I hate more is CGI bashing. Why shouldnt they make it look better? Everytime a new film comes out someone whines that its just all CGI. I was horrified when I started putting Disney on for my 1 year old and it was all computerised. But the kids love it. We are just grumpy old men and women one way or another lol.

J

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

 

[Michael Bergeron]

The thing about formulas is they eventually get tired and even the general public gets wind of that and tunes out. I think it will happen. It's happened before.

In the 60's it was a lot of formulaic big budget stuff which then led to the new "avant garde" stuff that was fresh. Eventually that to became formulaic and then in the 80's we got Star Wars, Indy, Ghostbusters, BTTF... A huge boom of original stuff (albeit playing off of old formulas in a new way). Then as the 80's dragged on those adventures too got formulaic until films like Forrest Gump, Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, etc.

The film industry is ALWAYS changing. When something is new it's lauded and then copied until that formula dies. It'll happen.

 

[cboath]

Im a big believer in that not much as changed. We just get old. So we complain at the new stuff. I dont always see the need for ott CGI. But what I hate more is CGI bashing. Why shouldnt they make it look better? Everytime a new film comes out someone whines that its just all CGI. I was horrified when I started putting Disney on for my 1 year old and it was all computerised. But the kids love it. We are just grumpy old men and women one way or another lol.

J

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

I'm with you. I don't have a problem with cg. I do have a problem with some of the incessant bashing i've seen on it (not saying this thread mind you). I've seen good and bad and i've seen good and bad matte painting and miniatures as well. I think i've had bad miniatures take me out of a scene more than anything else to be honst. But that's beside the point.

It could be age in that we grew up with mattes and miniatures and those born in the last 15 years or so have grown up with cg. It's what they know.

To an extent you've got to be able to roll with the flow. It's entirely possible for a cg shot to be cheaper or just more plausible dependin on what it is. It has the benefit and detriment also of being able to work on it/tweak it til the last second.

Those in and of themselves though aren't what make a movie good or bad. At the end of the day, you CAN have a good move with bad effects that's still good because of the story. You never seen amazing effects make a movie good - more tolerable perhaps, but not good.

What I see is it's just about what returns the biggest profit, not what makes the best product. That may be something you see more cynically with age, i don't know, but to me, the decline seem to hit in the early/mid 90's with the whole point being profit line 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, and everything else being after that. You make a good product, people will buy it. See the Avengers for example, superhero movie raking in over a billion. It wasn't eye candy, it was story. RDJ as IM doesnt' equal the success of avengers if the story sucked. So far, marvel seems to be adhering to the story aspect being important and not trying to jsut get money out of people's pockets. At the same time, you know there are too many out there try to cram a story into a 'how we can make a buncha money' objective.

I may be wrong and that may have been occuring in the 30's-80's as well, but without being around until the 70's and not having a good grasp on what was released through all those years it's hard to be sure.

Look at stuff like Ben Hur, the Ten Commandments, Cleopatra, The Great Escape. None of those were created with maximum profits or making a bankable franchise as the original/main goals.

 

[Solo4114]

Personally, my issue with CG isn't that it's used, but that it's used instead of telling a good story, and that it's often done extremely poorly. Twenty years after Jurassic Park and we still don't regularly see that level of CG in films. The other issue is green-screen acting. I mean, ok, obviously the Death Star trench run did not involve actors sitting in actual X-wings, but I think when you at least have physical objects with which to work, you get better performances.

It's less about the use -- at all -- of CG, and more about overreliance on it and poorly done CG work itself.

 

[jmgrice]

Personally, my issue with CG isn't that it's used, but that it's used instead of telling a good story, and that it's often done extremely poorly. Twenty years after Jurassic Park and we still don't regularly see that level of CG in films. The other issue is green-screen acting. I mean, ok, obviously the Death Star trench run did not involve actors sitting in actual X-wings, but I think when you at least have physical objects with which to work, you get better performances.

It's less about the use -- at all -- of CG, and more about overreliance on it and poorly done CG work itself.

That's what I mean though. It seems your blaming CG for a film sucking. The use of CG doesn't take over good story telling. That's down to the story tellers.

An actors job is to act. Be it a cardboard box or a lemon they're talking to (I assume you mean green screen including the motion tracking objects?). Don't forget that although to an extent its easier to focus on an actual person. Often are scenes with no CG where an actor isn't looking where it appears they are. Green screen can't be much more distracting then being chased by a bunch of cameras pretending that your being chased by what or whoever else is on screen.

At the end you go to it being more about where CG is poorly done and over relied on where as at the start you said its about the story telling. Are you meaning two points separately I take it? I rarely see CG over relied on. That's the thing. A film may have lots of CG (A film about talking robots for instance), but that doesn't get in the way of it being a good story. And that's what I never get. People usually blame CG as though it got in the way of the story.
I would more point to it being about ignorance of the people that do the story telling. Those up top I'm sure don't go
"Well, we gonna make a good story or shove some CGI in there cos that will keep the wads in?". In the end I'm sure they want the audience to enjoy the films so they can keep the cash flow coming in. Not that they will lose any sleep over it I'm sure.

In the end as long as we keep paying to watch sequels they're gonna keep em comin'. I chuckle watching TF director interviews with Bay going "I think you gotta stop at some point, and for me that point is Dark of the moon"

On a separate note I always ponder and think if a bad movie nowadays really Is a bad movie. Or if its just got too much competition. I usually don't change my mind but I like to think twice before making my mind up. I go back to playing Sonic on the Mega Drive for hours and hours on end. I had that console 4 years and only owned 5 games and I was on it more then my Xbox nowadays. But cos im used to all the selection I could never play a game that much any more. Its like my attention span has shortened vastly and I'm generally harder to please.

Anyways, enough with my waffling. The boss wants the computer!

 

[cboath]

Don't think it's too much competition - at least on the creator's end. But maybe you're onto something there.

Prior to the 90's movies were made to run for a good while. It wasn't unusual for a movie to be 'first run' for 2, 3 or 4 months AND still be a draw. Today, it's a rarity. I think avatar made it 2-3 months before enough new came along to knock it down. But not til it trucked in nearly 2 bil. Aside from that, i've seen commercials for DVD's/BR's of movies release in march and april. They can't get any closer to release without skipping the big screens all together and going straight to disc.

But again, a large portion of it goes back to the studios. It's all or nothing on week 1. Using that strategy they frequently show crap in trailers that tells you jack about the movie. Maybe i'm a rarity, but i don't think 'cool shot, gotta see that'. I want to know what it's about. Not that it has flashy graphics or whatever. But the whole push is to get people in the door week 1. Seems like they couldn't care less about week 2 and they expect it to be gone in week 4 so the dvd can be out after 3 months.

I think the country has become a bunch of petulant spoiled brats who feel that, under no circumstances, should they ever have to wait for a damned thing. I'd bet if you did a poll, people would say the dvd should be on sale as you walk out the door of the theater.

 

[Riceball]

Part of what has changed in cinema these are two big things, the home video market (DVD & Blu-Ray) & the overseas market. I think that studios like to take the week 1 approach in part because of all of the competition and secondly because they know that if they get a good take in the first week then DVD/Blu-Ray sales & the overseas release will be gravy for them and will make the film profitable in the end even if it didn't knock the ball out in the theaters. That's why we see sequels to movies that we didn't think would rate a sequel because it probably sold well enough on DVD & Blu-Ray or did well enough overseas that it actually made a profit causing the studio to greenlight a sequel.

As far as the budgets for movies go, that's something that needs to be looked at with inflation in mind, just like box-office receipt numbers. Sure, movies cost a lot more to make now a days then a couple of decades ago but that's just in terms of raw dollars, the real question is, do they cost that much more after being adjusted for inflation?

 

[Rotwang]

Blaming CGI is like blaming anamorphic lenses, THX sound, computer controlled keys, steadycams 70mm film or go-motion for ruining cinema ...

 

[Michael Bergeron]

See the Avengers for example, superhero movie raking in over a billion. It wasn't eye candy, it was story. RDJ as IM doesnt' equal the success of avengers if the story sucked. So far, marvel seems to be adhering to the story aspect being important and not trying to jsut get money out of people's pockets.

Was with you all the way up until this line. :lol

Avengers, while a very fun film, is a perfect example of over the top CG and killer marketing in place of a great story. The story of the Avengers is along the lines of "Bad guy enters scene, heroes enter scene, both do a bunch of stuff that makes no sense but is surrounded by awesome graphics". Marvel did an epic job of building this film up for all the fans. Four films were made as preludes (re: marketing vehichles) for it.

The pay off was a visual spectacle for sure. Not much more than that though from a substance standpoint.

 

[The Wolf]

Story and character are always key. The CGI, or really any special effects have to support that. The Matrix had huge special effects but they all helped tell the story and had good actors for the parts.
I like to say that I don't mind bad language, nudity or violence in a movie but when it is used wrong it distracting.

CGI is another tool for filmmakers and it needs to be handled correctly. The reason old movies (whichever time period that means to you) seem better is they had fewer tools to use and had to rely more on acting and story. However there were bad movies in the 1930s and 1970s and I'm sure we'll get more great movies mixed in with grot in the years to come.

Wolf

 

[ghostryder]

DreamWorks Eyes View-Master Pic | DreamWorks Studios

 

[Michael Bergeron]

DreamWorks Eyes View-Master Pic | DreamWorks Studios

Ya, that's pretty bad. :lol

 

[cboath]

Was with you all the way up until this line. :lol

Avengers, while a very fun film, is a perfect example of over the top CG and killer marketing in place of a great story. The story of the Avengers is along the lines of "Bad guy enters scene, heroes enter scene, both do a bunch of stuff that makes no sense but is surrounded by awesome graphics". Marvel did an epic job of building this film up for all the fans. Four films were made as preludes (re: marketing vehichles) for it.

The pay off was a visual spectacle for sure. Not much more than that though from a substance standpoint.

I never said it was a great story, but I believe it's story/script played a big part in it's success. Whedon frankly did the impossible in giving 4 major heros and 2 other heroes equal screen time and fairly equal parts of the plot. If the story flat out sucked and they just ran around doing stupid stuff for 2.5 hours it wouldn't have made nearly what it did. The effects enhanced stuff and it was a visual spectacle, but it was a very orchestrated piece.

More to the point, too, you mention they spent the previous couple years building to it as well. If those stories weren't good there wouldn't have been an avengers. Marvel took their time and created a detailed plan and took the time and effort to make sure things were done right. That's the type of thing (doing things right) that was much more prevalent in the past. Marvel didn't just sit down and say 'lets figure out how to make a pile of cash'. Their first goal was to make a good flick and go from there. But they didn't start with primary goal being a mountain of cash which is what most movies these days seem to be geared at.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

But they didn't start with primary goal being a mountain of cash which is what most movies these days seem to be geared at.

Hate to break it to you but the primary goal of all of those films (and 99% of other films, even some of the greats over the years) is big $$$. I never said it was a bad film, quite the contrary, but to think that it was made purely out of love for cinema is naive to an incredible degree. The amount of money they invested in it alone suggests they expected a huge pay off. Of course though a well marketed GOOD film will often do better than a well marketed bad film.

 

[Riceball]

Hate to break it to you but the primary goal of all of those films (and 99% of other films, even some of the greats over the years) is big $$$. I never said it was a bad film, quite the contrary, but to think that it was made purely out of love for cinema is naive to an incredible degree. The amount of money they invested in it alone suggests they expected a huge pay off. Of course though a well marketed GOOD film will often do better than a well marketed bad film.

Agreed, that's pretty much the case for just about every film that comes out from one of the major studios, about the only exception would be those rare films that a studio is obliged to make by contractual agreement with the director; case in point are some Clint Eastwood movies, he has or had an agreement with the studios that he stars in of their if they let him in turn make one of his. Movies made purely for the love of making movies are generally released by independent studios and generally released in art-house theaters, typically don't get wide releases, and rarely (if ever) are big summer blockbusters.

 

[Solo4114]

I think the difference is in the level of contempt that the films have for their audience. That, to me, is the key difference behind the Avengers vs. Transformers. The Avengers seems to be partially born of a love of the genre (which Whedon clearly has -- it's influenced much of his work), and is respectful to the characters and the audience, even while it's a summer blockbuster.

Transformers, on the other hand, hates its audience and thinks ill of it, and it shows in the film.

 

[jmgrice]

Transformers, on the other hand, hates its audience and thinks ill of it, and it shows in the film.

Yes im sure thats what they all said in the board room lol

J



Sent from my GT-I9505 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

 

[Solo4114]

Watch that movie and then try to tell me it's a paean to a beloved and respected audience.

Go on. I dare ya.

 

[jmgrice]

Your in a thread thats discussing films not just being made for the love of it and for a wide audience. I actually didnt mind them. I tried watching the origionals again the other week. Couldnt handle it. Times change... people change.... move on. The figures are there. They did it three times. They did it right....ish.... lol

J

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

 

[Solo4114]

I'm saying that Transformers stands as an example of the kind of calculated, designed, and heavily marketed BAD movie with a BIG budget that has come to typify much of what Hollywood offers anymore. It's formulaic and engineered for maximum profit. It's a bad, bad movie. It's not just made with a "wide audience" in mind. It's made to be as big, loud, and dumb as possible, and is contemptuous of its audience.

Even if you compare it to other summer blockbusters, Transformers seems to assume its audience is a bunch of idiots.