Do Hollywood flicks seem to be getting crappier?
 

Why? Any thoughts?

Crappier than Earnest Goes To Camp and King Kong vs. The Three Stooges?

It's not getting crappier, you're just starting to notice it.

Don't dis the Stooges!
 

Nothing like a classic like Police Academy 5! Timeless!!!

Heck Rick, your dad was on some of the greatest films of all time. Regardless, Ernest Goes To Jail and Ernest Saves Christmas- I saw both of those in an, uh, altered state of mind and they were awesome. That old dude in Ernest Goes to Jail was genius. I guess you're right in that crappy flicks have always existed but I used to be able to walk out of the theatre on a fairly regular basis after some great movie and the world would seem different. Do you know what I'm talking about? Everything seemed more alive, vibrant, the world full of possibilities. Does that make any sense? I know it sounds like complete bs but there are films that can do that to me. Maybe it's because I find the movie inspiring or something. I don't know. Anyway, the last movie where I had that kind of experience was The Ring. Or at least that's the last one I remember. I don't know, it just seems like I used to have that experience on a fairly regular basis. Maybe I was just drunk more. Full Metal Jacket, Alien, Blade Runner- I want that kind of feeling when I leave the theatre. Or I can give you a rundown of movies Rick's dad worked on that did that to me. :-) I'm tired of going to movies just so I can waste a couple hours.

Thanks Brack, you are absolutely correct about some of the movies my Dad worked on. I remember going on many a set with him and the only one that really comes to mind that had any kind of effects was "The Exorcist". The amazing part is that what I refer to effects was all done mechanically, on the set, not in a computer or against a blue screen. On of the most impressive effects in that movie was the use of music, pacing and camera work to build a tension that cannot be duplicated any other way.

I think one of the biggest problems with some of today's films is that they rely quite a bit on special effects, CGI, etc. This oftentimes leaves the actual content of the movie lacking. If you stripped some of these films of all the bells and whistles you'd have nothing but an empty shell.

Don't get me wrong, I sometimes crave "mindless" entertainment too. Movies should, above all else, entertain you and in today's world, sometimes you just need to disconnect from reality and not have to do too much thinking, so the occasional goofy movie is fine with me.


Here is one classic that was shot on one set with no special effects...Hitchcock's "Rear Window". Ahhh, those were the days!

RB

Yeah, they just keep re-packaging the same thing over and over again - especially the special effects.

One of the things that really annoys me now is how EVERY monster is just the T-Rex or Velociraptor from Jurassic Park in different costumes.

You know the whole, bristle, let out the EXACT SAME SCREAM, and then chase the hero, with the exact same loping gate. The Alien queen in AVP is just the T-Rex in drag. Makes me wish they'd go back to mechanical sharks or even little rubbery "things" skittering across the floor.


The good thing is that it leaves room for us, I just rented the original Diabolique and was mesmerized the whole way through. It was B&W and had no special effects you couldn't do in your own garage. Quite satisfying to watch, and it left me with the good feeling that I didn't waste my time.

Bruce!!!
 

The reason that "Jaws" worked so well is that Bruce, the mechanical shark, malfunctioned so much that they actually shot less of it than they had planned and made up for the deficit with acting and suspense building instead of hitting you over the head repeatedly with shots of Bruce.

RB

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Wisniewski : Yeah, they just keep re-packaging the same thing over and over again - especially the special effects.

Check out the queen Alien in AVP, for example, just call her the T-Rex in drag. -->>>

Many people could argue that the T-Rex is really just the queen Alien on steroids, seing as how ALIENS CAME OUT SEVEN YEARS BEFORE JURRASIC PARK....

Anyway, I do see your point somewhat.


Rick, you're right about the Stooges. Hmm....
How about.... Godfather III?

In space, no one can hear you scream!
 

I still LOVE...Alien, Aliens and BladeRunner!

Alien III was somewhat disappointing, kinda like Godfather III but without the cool ethnic dialog!

"Senator, we're both part of the same hypocrisy..." Godfather 1 & 2 ROCK!

RB

True, but after Jurassic Park, it's like all the monsters were cloned from the same CG DNA. The queen in Aliens still has a nice unique gritty persona and movement. Calling her a B!$*& feels like you're talking about a real creature.

More like QUEEN BITCH OF THE UNIVERSE!!!

Another reason the movie worked so well. They continued to tease your imagination with lightning fast shots of the beast without actually revealing what she looked like. The anticipation of the reveal and the build-up of how vicious she was did the trick!

RB

I think it is a mixed thing. Movies do tend to get worse (in my
opinion), but then again my standards have gone way up in the
last view years. Especially since I'm now "in this craft" basically.

It seems like two camps of people where one doesn't much
seem to care about the intellectial nature of a movie and the
other camp wants more and more challenging movies.

Good thing we have pixar with some grown-up-kids-movies eh <g>

nah. th more you talk about it the more it seems that way but the fact remains, there have always been an exuberant number of crappy movies compared to 'classics'. and even people have diff standards of 'classics'. some younger kids (20s) have said dude where's my car is a classic just as graduate is to baby boomers. go figure.

as far as film history is concerned even back in the 1910s-1920s for every hit that DW Griffith made he's also made blunders. crappy artistic mediums have always been with us. for every odyssey or oedipus there'll be uknown works lost in time that were crappy. even beethoven's symphonies are not ALL (every single note) good. so rest assured it's been going on since waaay back. heck i bet even the cave drawings that survived today may not have been "a classic" ;).

but on the other hand i have not seen another film top two of my favorite 'classics'; citizen kane & 7 samurai.

The best of the best don't come out that often. Director's don't rely on CGI now any more than they did on mechanical effects (just watch some of the really corny James Bond movies, like Moonraker). The real difference is that mechanical effects, even back then, are more time consuming and expensive, so there was a much smaller number of films that could use them as a crutch.

Save that for the choir!
 

First of all, there were NO REAL James Bond movies after Sean Connery! :0

The Roger Moore years were more a parody of the originals, if anything else. (Pay special attention to the LAST name and interpret my ensuing silence!) Sorry Chris...I couldn't resist!

It seems that a solid story, compelling dialogue and solid acting are not that important in today's film world...

but, what the hell do I know!?

RB

Rick, I think as you get older you start seeing that the supposedly 'new' movies are nothing more than retreads of other films but with different actors, better FX and switched around settings. What is novel to someone who has only watched films for ten years is a boring cliche to someone who has seen the previous two iterations of the formula.

The source for good stories needs to be shaken up. It seems like many projects now are based upon things the creators have seen before instead of looking for new sources. This is why there is such a vogue in doing comic book adaptations. Producers who have lost their instincts are going to mine other genres. There is nothing wrong with that, ... until the next iteration.

People who wrote original stories may have experienced them personally.

Then other writers wrote stories based upon the retold experiences of the participants.

Then other writers created formulas based upon the written stories.

Then they made TV adaptations of the written stories.

And the new creators watch only TV.

Obviously, a generalization.

But in our world there are many sources of stories and creators need to look everywhere for inspiration, not just in previous films but from the newspapers, from people they meet, from first hand accounts, from their own lives. The only thing really novel is the way each of us lives our lives. Whether or not our lives are actually dramatic is for the audience to decide.

I think the real difference you're seeing can be traced to the corpratizing of Hollywood.

Up through the 60s and early 70s, the major studios were still mostly run by their founders (or founders children). Sure, these people were primarily interested in money, but they also knew a good story when they heard one, knew a bad story when they heard, shepherded smaller pictures along if they believed in them - and straddled as well as they could the line between commerce and art.

As the founders died off, the studios one after another began to get bought up by larger corporations, who only care about one thing - money.

The people at the top of the studio chain now don't, for the most part, really care about stories, they care about keeping their jobs and they do that by making the studio money. They rely more heavily on marketing and demographics and what has come before and less on taking chances that may or may not pay off. They've got corporate overlords to appease.

In the 40s and 50s it was very, very rare to hear of a studio head getting fired, because he normally owned the studio. It only happened on those rare occasions where the studio went bankrupt or was bought out (like Universal and RKO in the 30s). Nowadays, studio heads are like professional football coaches, one bad season and their out on their looking for work somewhere else.

That being said, I don't think our movies are any crappier than the crappy movies of the golden age, and there's less of them. The studio system used to churn them out by the bucket. At least we don't have put up with that anymore (when was the last time you went to see a double feature anyway?) The flipside though, is that the best stuff isn't as good as some of the old stuff.

But it doesn't have anything to do with the writers or directors or other people who just want to tell a good story. It mainly has to do with the corprorations on top deciding what gets made and what doesn't. And mindless drek has proven to be a fairly risk-free proposition, while good films are a tougher sell, financially. So perhaps the real culprit in the slide of quality filmmaking is ourselves - the audience.

A couple years ago I saw an interview with the head of Sony pictures. He came right out and said that when they find a script they like they usually suggest the addition of a couple big name stars and some CGI effects because that's what audiences expect. How depressing...

There has been endless discussion about the Hollywood system. It was only a brief time that there was any thing resembling freedom for directors..(late 60s' early 70's). The Studio system has always been about product, not art. If they happen to get art, well, they got lucky or didn't know what happened.

Cassavetes made a movie about it (Faces) that put a human side to the issue. Books have been written. Loads of money, careers on the line....

How many of us would risk 100 million dollars of someone elses money with a less than 50% chance of success and not be conservative? If you fail, your a clueless idiot and your career is over. If you succeed, your a genius.

How about 5 million?

I know what you're thinking, you would do it different. Thats what everyone thinks. I pretty sure there are less than 5 A-List directors in Hollywood that get final cut.

They keep doing it, because people have been trained accept crap. Unfortunately, most people don't want to go see a movie with deep insights that requires them to think. They want to be led around by the nose and that is what Hollywood does best.

I once talked to a video store clerk who refused to see any scifi/fantasy that didn't have at least a 100 mil budget. He got upset I even suggested well written/acted low budget alternative.

So the formula/template keeps getting used over and over. Till an avant garde type creates a new sensation that quickly gets adopted by Hollywood as the next great thing and within a couple of years becomes just another template.
I guess we could call it the circle of crap.

I've also found most 'Independent' movie makers are just studio hack wannabes with no budget. Look at what gets posted on line...just low budget versions of the same old stuff.

Soemetimes idiots make good.
 

Case in point...

Michael Cimino...Deer Hunter...BRILLIANT!

Michael Cimino...Heaven's Gate...CLUELESS IDIOT!

Always remember, in this business...You're Only As Good As Your Last Job!

RB

Re: Soemetimes idiots make good.
 

Michael Cimino...Deer Hunter...BRILLIANT!

Michael Cimino...Heaven's Gate...CLUELESS IDIOT!

I don't know, I always sort of liked Heaven's Gate.

Re: Re: Soemetimes idiots make good.
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Joshua Starnes : Michael Cimino...Deer Hunter...BRILLIANT!

Michael Cimino...Heaven's Gate...CLUELESS IDIOT!

I don't know, I always sort of liked Heaven's Gate. -->>>

And I hated Deer Hunter. :)

I wanna see Heaven's Gate. I've seen clips and the cinematography is just incredible. I think the critics went into a feeding frenzy in tearing it down. There was a really good book written about the film and the ordeal surrounding it. Still, the cinematography is the only reason I want to see it. Apparently Cimino is living in France where he is considered some sort of genius.

I think it was specially re-released for the Toronto International Film Festival along with a documentary about it.

France?
 

Yeah, they also think Jerry Lewis is a genius...what's that tell you?

RB

More on Cimino.
 

One of the things that absoultely KILLED him was that he was always looking for the all-ellusive nuance. Many, many, many takes. Concentrating on the tiniest detail that would never be picked up on the screen.

On "Deer Hunter", the crew would actually start betting pools as to how many takes it would go before Cimino was satisfied and called "Print". One guy won with 67 takes!

My Dad was a camera op on "Deer Hunter", he always wore a patch on his non-operating eye to alleviate the stress of having to shut his eye during the course of a shooting day.

Cimino would sometimes go so long, my Dad would actually fall asleep while behind the camera and his assistant would have to nudge him awake!

Yes, the cinematography was beautiful, the story was worth telling and the movie had a good cast but with a run time of 220 minutes, a bit ponderous. And the fact that he ran the budget into the ground probably didn't help him much either.

RB

The only real problem with Heaven's Gate was that it cost so much. It was widely reported how much Cimino spent and how long it took to make and, coming off of Deer Hunter, people were expecting who knows what and didn't get it. The movie itself is okay - it's not great, but it's not awful. However, many people, critics included, couldn't get past their expectations of what they expected it to be and were harsher to it than it deserved. It's interesting that many of those same critics, looking back, have said that the movie is not as bad as they initially thought.