# Unoriginal Hollywood



## unclejack (Nov 3, 2007)

Okay we all know that Hollywood is dying of starvation for originality but I really don't know why. They have alot of options out there as far as good movies they could make but instead they choose to keep makin remakes and keep makin big superstunt films and cheap laugh goof movies that they know will draw big crowds. Here's some things I would like to see more of in Hollywood: Mafia Movies...I just can't get enough of that and there are a thousand undtold true stories out there about the mafia not to mention the possibilities for makin somethin new. History Movies...I'm a history buff and nothin is more fascinating than american history and some of the best movies I've seen have been based on historical events which took place in our nation's history...Glory, Saving Private Ryan, Dances with Wolves...need I go on? Plus, I know their comin out with a documentary but that doesnt count cuz there are already a million of those out on it as it is...I've been wanting for a long time to see a movie about Jim Jones and the Jonestown Massacre. I guess one reason they haven't made that movie is because the facts of that event are already dramatic and creepy in themselves and it would be hard to recreate that on film without doing it injustice. More movies about England!! LOL, only kidding, I thought I would throw that out there, those have to be the most boring movies on the planet. Anyway, my point is there are alot of things throughout history that Hollywood can look to for inspiration but instead they just look to other movies in Hollywood and that is gettin really old.


----------



## Pyan (Nov 3, 2007)

UJ said:
			
		

> instead they choose to keep makin remakes and keep makin big superstunt films and cheap laugh goof movies that they know will draw big crowds.



Aye, that's the rub, though....Big crowds = good box office = lots of money....


----------



## Connavar (Nov 3, 2007)

You can make quality movies that sell.   Memento,Godfather,Scarface etc


Instead making lame us comedies and a new Saw movie every year.  But those are easy to make and less hard work than the really good movie that takes and an effort and that is not what hollywood want....

Nowadays CGI effects are the stars of the movies not the actors, just look at movies like Spidey 3,Pirate 3....


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Nov 3, 2007)

All too true. I've worked in Hollywood and while I've had the distinct pleasure to have worked with men who could easily be accused of brilliance, the same cannot be said of producers and their collateral support group of sycophants and other camp followers. 

To go further with the point I'm driving at, many of the folks who labour at the bottom of that very greasy totem pole we call the Hollywood hierarchy are true fans and some have excellent and original ideas that easily top anything their bosses can concoct. A few - a _very_ small minority - are able to make the big breakthrough and get their dreams realized. All too many cannot. And so, the same cycle of garbage creation/garbage consumption is perpetuated.


----------



## Connavar (Nov 4, 2007)

I couldn't care less of how bad hollywood anymore.  Im not only about them like before.  I watch more oriental,euro movies.   Im like 60% oriental movies, 30% euro movies,10% hollywood, that is the few hollywood movies that interest me the few real quality movies and the indy ones cause as Curt says those people are true fans with original ideas.  


Plus there are 1000's movies from the golden eras of hollywood i havent seen. Old SF movies, Bogart movies, old Marlon Brando movies etc


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 4, 2007)

The reason is really fairly simple: people keep paying to see regurgitated plotlines, sequels, retreads, and similar bilge; producers are almost exclusively interested in the profit to be made with as little expenditure as possible (except in the special-effects department, where they -- and far too many audience-members -- equate big budgets with quality filmmaking, rather than quality special effects... not necessarily the same thing); and writers are paid not a whole hell of a lot more than they were 25+ years ago (hence the strike that -- unless something has changed in the last few hours that I'm unaware of -- is set to begin Monday), so why the devil should they strain their brains to do good scripts when they're being paid peanuts in comparison to everyone else connected with the project -- and then usually get to see their blood, sweat, and tears eviscerated by rewrite hacks who put it more in line with what the producer (seldom a person with any creative acumen at all) thinks will sell to an audience. (After all, without their words to begin with, there wouldn't be much in the way of film; but Hollywood has _veeerrrrry_ seldom recalled that unpleasant little fact....)


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Nov 4, 2007)

Yup! Spot On J.D.!

And don't forget that when these talented writers do hand in something of value, it's often corrupted and meddled with by lesser hands (like, say, the directors) for reasons of ego and one-upsmanship . . . .


----------



## The Ace (Nov 4, 2007)

Well yes, but when they do make something decent, don't they usually bin the facts ?  "JFK," was a travesty, every WW2 film tends to concentrate on a handful of yanks winning the war without outside help, and films about Vietnam (Even good ones like, "The Deerhunter," "Platoon," and "Born on the 4th of July,") start off on the premise that the gooks had the gall to defend their country.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 4, 2007)

Curt Chiarelli said:


> Yup! Spot On J.D.!
> 
> And don't forget that when these talented writers do hand in something of value, it's often corrupted and meddled with by lesser hands (like, say, the directors) for reasons of ego and one-upsmanship . . . .


 
Yes, well.... On producers, I keep thinking of the tale of how Ellison reamed out a studio exec and told him he had the intellectual capacity of an artichoke because he wanted to make the robots in Ellison's screenplay of *I, Robot* "cuter"... like R2D2 and C3PO... all without having read the script that his studio was planning on spending one of (if not the) largest budgets to date on producing a film from....

Oh, and for anyone interested in seeing what a truly great film could be made from Asimov's book... read the screenplay by Harlan Ellison. It's very easy to follow, and a damn' fine example of what science fiction _can_ be (but seldom is) on the screen.... (It was published in book form some years back.)


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Nov 4, 2007)

The Ace said:


> Well yes, but when they do make something decent, don't they usually bin the facts ?  "JFK," was a travesty, every WW2 film tends to concentrate on a handful of yanks winning the war without outside help, and films about Vietnam (Even good ones like, "The Deerhunter," "Platoon," and "Born on the 4th of July,") start off on the premise that the gooks had the gall to defend their country.



It would appear that all nations (at least the ones who have any longevity) must pass through a period of maturation, a confrontation with their own shadow - a transitional period analogous to adolescence, if you will. 

In relative terms, America is an exceptionally young nation and the mistakes of America have been the mistakes of England and every other world power since the dawn of time. All have passed through these stages and all voluntarily let go of their imperial designs because the cost - both ethical and economic - would have been far too costly. 

The time is at hand for the United States to choose between either the light and the darkness, between life and death.


----------



## GOLLUM (Nov 4, 2007)

Curt Chiarelli said:


> The time is at hand for the United States to choose between either the light and the darkness, between life and death.


Comrade Curt, you're beginning to sound like Mr Bush, Scary!...


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Nov 4, 2007)

GOLLUM said:


> Comrade Curt, you're beginning to sound like Mr Bush, Scary!...



You maybe scared, but can you imagine how much more terrified I'm feeling right now?!


----------



## GOLLUM (Nov 4, 2007)

Curt Chiarelli said:


> You maybe scared, but can you imagine how much more terrified I'm feeling right now?!


I can only imagine, you poor fellow!!...

Actually on a side note, after watching Al Gore's Incovenient Truth the other day I kept on thinkg to myself, why couldn't *that* guy have won the election/maybe should have won following all that legal stuff at the time. At least, he comes across as being a reasonably inteligent and articulate human being, unlike the 1/4 brain encumbent you guys are stuck with now LOL!..


----------



## unclejack (Nov 4, 2007)

GOLLUM said:


> I can only imagine, you poor fellow!!...
> 
> Actually on a side note, after watching Al Gore's Incovenient Truth the other day I kept on thinkg to myself, why couldn't *that* guy have won the election/maybe should have won following all that legal stuff at the time. At least, he comes across as being a reasonably inteligent and articulate human being, unlike the 1/4 brain encumbent you guys are stuck with now LOL!..


 
lol, if you say so man. Personally I think that Al Gore is a moron and a hypocrite but hey, that's just my opinion.


----------



## Connavar (Nov 4, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> The reason is really fairly simple: people keep paying to see regurgitated plotlines, sequels, retreads, and similar bilge; producers are almost exclusively interested in the profit to be made with as little expenditure as possible (except in the special-effects department, where they -- and far too many audience-members -- equate big budgets with quality filmmaking, rather than quality special effects... not necessarily the same thing); and writers are paid not a whole hell of a lot more than they were 25+ years ago (hence the strike that -- unless something has changed in the last few hours that I'm unaware of -- is set to begin Monday), so why the devil should they strain their brains to do good scripts when they're being paid peanuts in comparison to everyone else connected with the project -- and then usually get to see their blood, sweat, and tears eviscerated by rewrite hacks who put it more in line with what the producer (seldom a person with any creative acumen at all) thinks will sell to an audience. (After all, without their words to begin with, there wouldn't be much in the way of film; but Hollywood has _veeerrrrry_ seldom recalled that unpleasant little fact....)




Thats why i feel proud not to fall in the trap of seeing crap movies you will regret later on.  Thats why i go the movies like once two-three months unlike three-four times a month like before.  Less good movies and not as much urge to see crap movies  

I spend my money on renting DVD movies that dont come to the cinema over here just cause they arent hollywood.

Seriously only three good/great hollywood movies i have seen this year.   The Simpsons,300,Bourne Ultimatum.  Last year only Casino Royal was great.


I have a friend that goes and see every crappy horror,comedy movie hollywood ever makes in the cinema.  I think when he is talking about how horrible the movie he saw was " damn you people like you are the reason that makes crappy movie sell and they dont have to actually make a good movie"


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 4, 2007)

While I've seen my share of really bad films (being married to a film major for 16 years, I saw a _lot_ of films -- sometimes as many as 15 or more a week!), I've become much, much more selective in my film watching. I've only been to the cinema about 3 times (or less) in the past year... and maybe 4-6 times the year before (and one of those was for the Austin branch of the Lovecraft film festival).

However... on the subject of bad horror films... I have to admit to a great fondness for a lot of the cheesy films in that genre from the 1950s and 1960s, including Mexihorror (which often was ridiculously bad in many ways, and yet had a charm and an occasional chilling moment that kept them from being _boring_) and AIP (ditto). I don't mind a film that's not high-quality but has something genuinely creative and sparkling about it; something that conveys a sense of fun or genuine entertainment or playfulness (without being egregiously stupid, which is why I can't stand most comedy: too moronic); but something that's poorly made (and imagined) but pretentious I'll shred in 30 seconds or less, regardless of who's connected with it, without a qualm....


----------



## unclejack (Nov 4, 2007)

*Re: Unoriglbinal Hollywood*

I'm the same way J.D., I mean, I don't like horror films, but I almost never go to the theater anymore unless it is another comic book adaptation. As a fan of the comic scene I'm satistied with the transformation but I can undersand those who aren't being wearied with the constant presentation of yet another superhero movie. I will admit that although they do a good job with those movies for the most part it still doesn't qualifiy as an original thought on the part of Hollywood. The only movie I've seen a trailer for that I want to see is Awake starring Hayden Christenson and Jessica Alba. It looks pretty cool and it's a very original premise from what I can tell and reminds me alot of the movie The Eye Inside starring Ryan Phillippe which is excellent in my opinion. (two totally different premises in those movies though) I almost wanted to see Jumper but the more I think about it the more I realize how the issue of transportation has been done before, most recently in the person of Nightcrawler in the X-Men movies and although it is not a direct rip off of another movie it is close.


----------



## clovis-man (Nov 5, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Oh, and for anyone interested in seeing what a truly great film could be made from Asimov's book... read the screenplay by Harlan Ellison. It's very easy to follow, and a damn' fine example of what science fiction _can_ be (but seldom is) on the screen.... (It was published in book form some years back.)


 
I agree 100%. A very compelling screenplay incorporating many of the elements of the actual Asimov book into a coherent and entertaining whole. Too bad we got a "blockbuster" instead. 

If anyone is interested, there is a thread running in an SF forum sponsored by Amazon on what SF books would make good movies. There are over 400 posts so far. So it isn't for lack of ideas that it doesn't happen. Here's the link:

Amazon.com: Which Sci Fi book or short story should I make into a movie? - science fiction Discussion Forum

Regards,

Jim


----------



## GOLLUM (Nov 5, 2007)

unclejack said:


> lol, if you say so man. Personally I think that Al Gore is a moron and a hypocrite but hey, that's just my opinion.


Perhaps but compared to Bush he comes across as a veritable genius..HMMM..then again that's not so hard to do...


----------



## Connavar (Nov 5, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> While I've seen my share of really bad films (being married to a film major for 16 years, I saw a _lot_ of films -- sometimes as many as 15 or more a week!), I've become much, much more selective in my film watching. I've only been to the cinema about 3 times (or less) in the past year... and maybe 4-6 times the year before (and one of those was for the Austin branch of the Lovecraft film festival).
> 
> However... on the subject of bad horror films... I have to admit to a great fondness for a lot of the cheesy films in that genre from the 1950s and 1960s, including Mexihorror (which often was ridiculously bad in many ways, and yet had a charm and an occasional chilling moment that kept them from being _boring_) and AIP (ditto). I don't mind a film that's not high-quality but has something genuinely creative and sparkling about it; something that conveys a sense of fun or genuine entertainment or playfulness (without being egregiously stupid, which is why I can't stand most comedy: too moronic); but something that's poorly made (and imagined) but pretentious I'll shred in 30 seconds or less, regardless of who's connected with it, without a qualm....



I have seen my share of good old cheesy horror movies.

The new pretentious ones from hollywood cant make me feel what you want to feel from a horror.

I recommend korean,japanese horror. Not Ring though  They can actually creep me out. Stuff like R-Point.  My heart feels like pounding out from my chest seeing some of those movies.


----------



## McMurphy (Nov 9, 2007)

*Hollywood, a Simple Formula*

This is all really being over-thought.  Hollywood is interested in always having the bulk of its production on whatever will get as much of the general public as possible.  That means it is going to be familiar (even recycled in forms of remakes or proven ideas), won't challenge (read: threaten) the viewers, and be the product with the surest and most predictable return in profit.  I don't like that trend, and most people also working in the industry does not, either. 

While I don't find it artistically of merit, Hollywood's actions are absolutely akin to the actions of other industries.  Most of the books with the best sales on supermarket and bookstore shelves are overly familiar. Most games in stores are merely re-rendering of more famous games.  Television sitcoms tell the same jokes that have been played out twenty years ago.  The list could go on and on.  It is the nature of the industrial beast, and Hollywood is only one of its horsemen.

[*LOL* Did I actually see someone muscle in political commentary in this discussion!?  I am quite impressed. ]


----------



## unclejack (Nov 9, 2007)

I know Hollywood isn't the only culprit, but they are the most popular in my opinion which is the reason for the thread. That and the fact that Hollywood used to be alot more genuine than it is now.


----------



## iansales (Nov 9, 2007)

*Re: Hollywood, a Simple Formula*



McMurphy said:


> It is the nature of the industrial beast, and Hollywood is only one of its horsemen.



I think that's what's known as a mixed metaphor


----------



## McMurphy (Nov 9, 2007)

*Re: Hollywood, a Simple Formula*



iansales said:


> I think that's what's known as a mixed metaphor




Only if you find implying that the personification of Apocalypse is beast-like too harsh.

But I am guessing it has more to do with not catching the reference.


----------



## iansales (Nov 9, 2007)

Er, it's a mix of "the nature of the beast" and "the four horsemen of the Apocalypse".


----------



## McMurphy (Nov 9, 2007)

unclejack said:


> I know Hollywood isn't the only culprit, but they are the most popular in my opinion which is the reason for the thread. That and the fact that Hollywood used to be alot more genuine than it is now.



Are you venturing that because, in your opinion, film is more popular of a venue for entertainment than books, television, and games, that it should be held to a higher level of creativity?


----------



## McMurphy (Nov 9, 2007)

iansales said:


> Er, it's a mix of "the nature of the beast" and "the four horsemen of the Apocalypse".




If the implication is that Apocalypse is the identity of the industrial beast--thus inferring that entertainment done on an industrial level is the death of successful creavity---rather than an additional metaphor, than, no, it does not constitute as a mixed one because Hollywood (the horseman) is being reworked as an agent of Apocalypse (the beast).  For example, if I had said "it is a _beast_, that _horseman_ of Apocalypse," then I would believe you would have a case.

Then again, I am sure users aren't here to watch us debate the finer points of  syntax, so, perhaps, we should keep comments towards other people's posts exclusively in regards to the subject matter at hand.


----------



## unclejack (Nov 9, 2007)

McMurphy said:


> Are you venturing that because, in your opinion, film is more popular of a venue for entertainment than books, television, and games, that it should be held to a higher level of creativity?


 
I never said that, I didn't even imply that. Quit tryin to draw things out of my comments which I never said.


----------



## McMurphy (Nov 9, 2007)

unclejack said:


> I never said that, I didn't even imply that. Quit tryin to draw things out of my comments which I never said.



I was merely asking a question.  Relax.  Let me put it in a more generic way, then.  When you say, "I know Hollywood isn't the only culprit, but they are the most popular in my opinion which is the reason for the thread," what do you mean?


----------



## unclejack (Nov 10, 2007)

I just mean that I started this thread because Hollywood used to be the main avenue for choosin quality movies but that is becoming a thing of the past in my opinion. That's not to say anything against books or foreign movies or Independent movies or anything else. I watch more of those now than I evern have because I'm so sick of Hollywood.


----------



## McMurphy (Nov 10, 2007)

unclejack said:


> I just mean that I started this thread because Hollywood used to be the main avenue for choosin quality movies but that is becoming a thing of the past in my opinion. That's not to say anything against books or foreign movies or Independent movies or anything else. I watch more of those now than I evern have because I'm so sick of Hollywood.



Yeah, I know what you mean.  It is hard to get excited for any film from Hollywood even if I am looking forward to it because of how often I am let down with the results or how utterly safe the script has become.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 10, 2007)

Well, to be honest, this is something Hollywood goes through periodically; they find something that is a successful formula and milk it to death, then bemoan the fact that they're making much less profit than before, while the foreign film market (which is often more innovative and less tied to franchises, etc.) seems to be garnering more attention and more money... and so Hollywood begins to loosen its stranglehold on innovative writers and directors, and we begin to get more creative, experimental, and challenging work... until the cycle once again reaches the point we're at now.

The thing is, I hear more and more people disgusted with Hollywood, and more and more younger people (especially) turning to alternatives for their film viewing, so it may not be too much longer before we begin to see the other part of the cycle, and a bit more creativity begins to filter through.... Maybe.


----------



## McMurphy (Nov 10, 2007)

*Beneath the Floor of Dust...*



j. d. worthington said:


> Well, to be honest, this is something Hollywood goes through periodically; they find something that is a successful formula and milk it to death, then bemoan the fact that they're making much less profit than before, while the foreign film market (which is often more innovative and less tied to franchises, etc.) seems to be garnering more attention and more money... and so Hollywood begins to loosen its stranglehold on innovative writers and directors, and we begin to get more creative, experimental, and challenging work... until the cycle once again reaches the point we're at now.
> 
> The thing is, I hear more and more people disgusted with Hollywood, and more and more younger people (especially) turning to alternatives for their film viewing, so it may not be too much longer before we begin to see the other part of the cycle, and a bit more creativity begins to filter through.... Maybe.



I agree.  There is certainly a creative cycle that goes through Hollywood and other entertainment publishing, so I suppose there is a bright side to look forward to.  Unfortunately, I have this terrible habit of being a bit on the negative side (yes, I know this comes to a shock to all of you  ), and I remember that we have a filter on our historical pop culture.  Hollywood has always been geared to be largely watered down, but we are lucky enough to not be reminded of all those bits of pulp entertainment because the films have been left to rot, never be copied onto VHS, or transferred to DVD.  God, there are so many _decent_ films from the "golden age" of Hollywood that are no longer in existence.


----------



## unclejack (Nov 10, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Well, to be honest, this is something Hollywood goes through periodically; they find something that is a successful formula and milk it to death, then bemoan the fact that they're making much less profit than before, while the foreign film market (which is often more innovative and less tied to franchises, etc.) seems to be garnering more attention and more money... and so Hollywood begins to loosen its stranglehold on innovative writers and directors, and we begin to get more creative, experimental, and challenging work... until the cycle once again reaches the point we're at now.
> 
> The thing is, I hear more and more people disgusted with Hollywood, and more and more younger people (especially) turning to alternatives for their film viewing, so it may not be too much longer before we begin to see the other part of the cycle, and a bit more creativity begins to filter through.... Maybe.


 
lol, I just hope that as the foreign movie market and independent movie market gains more attentiont hey don't follow Hollywood's mistakes of unoriginality. I don't know what there would be left to turn to at that point. I guess I'll have to find some other form of entertainment at that point. lol.


----------



## McMurphy (Nov 10, 2007)

*"Oh, look.  Yet another film about the twenty-somethings exploring their sexuality."*



unclejack said:


> lol, I just hope that as the foreign movie market and independent movie market gains more attentiont hey don't follow Hollywood's mistakes of unoriginality. I don't know what there would be left to turn to at that point. I guess I'll have to find some other form of entertainment at that point. lol.




Let me apologize in advance for being the eternal nay-sayer in this thread, since I see my pattern in it, but there is something to add to the independent circuit of film making.  While I strongly support it, I have seen _a lot_ of independent films in my time, and a good chunk of it is fairly ignorable.  Often, the independent sect of film making upholds a respectable reputation because only the good stuff is given any sort of distribution attention.  Many of the films presented on local or regional (heck, even international) film festivals never get picked up for even minor distribution rights.  It stands to reason that if someone from, say, New Jersey has seen a well put together movie from an independent director from, (again) say, Montana, a certain level of distribution has taken place; thus, it has already passed a certain amount of audience approval.  

So, while I am not going to say that independent films are inherently better than Hollywood productions, I find that independent films prior to any distribution venues have a refreshing amount of freedom in ideas and direction regardless of the end product, er, art.


----------



## unclejack (Nov 10, 2007)

I agree mcmurphy, a film being independent doesn't always make it good. As I recently stated in another thread, one flaw that I see with many independent films is that although they do spend more time on character development, plot and storyline, sometimes they forget to create an interesting story worth watching. There seem to be two extremes...Hollywood too often relies on visually exciting cgis and blown up stunts that could never happen in real life and independent films sometimes are so slow that they are boring. Plus, because indepenent films have a reputation for being higher in quality, they tend to use their reputation to appropriate the views of the director/producer/writer in question. Simply stated, sometimes independent movies are nothing more than message movies with an agenda. I think independent film makers know they can get away with alot that would never fly in mainstream Hollywood and they use that to their advantage. I'll be turned off as a movie if I read into it as liberal propaganda and I also consider it to be a very unoriginal move to try to present something in independent film that wouldn't work in mainstream Hollywood and consider it genius just because it is unusual. Maybe that all sounds pretty random but I think you get the point.


----------



## Steve Jordan (Dec 5, 2007)

Two things going on in this thread are noteworthy: 

One, many of the posters suggest that Hollywood has somehow increased the number of non-quality movies as opposed to high-quality movies over the years.  Examine Hollywood's production years closely, and you'll find that it has _always_ produced many more non-quality movies than high-quality movies in proportion.  It's not really a "cycle"... it's always been that way.  We've just (thankfully) lost and/or forgotten most of the bad ones over the years.

And two, many put Hollywood in the position of being solely at fault.  Remember, if it wasn't for so many people going to those bad movies, Hollywood wouldn't be making them.

That said, it can be even more difficult when the group here doesn't agree with what constitutes a "good" movie.  I know I, for example, wouldn't include "The Simpsons Movie" as one.  I would include Steven Soderberg's _Solaris:_  Even though _Solaris_ has been done, the new film was well-done, intelligent, and seen by me and only about 39 others, apparently.

So, maybe Hollywood is unoriginal.  So what?  Think about this: If it weren't for the revenue raked in by those "Rocky IX" and "Saw XXVI" remakes, no one in Hollywood would be making loss-leaders like _Solaris_ at all.  

That's the business they're in, and we've all bought into it, hook, line and buttered popcorn.  So cut 'em a little slack... or go read a book.


----------



## The Ace (Dec 5, 2007)

Alternatively, read the book, rather than watch Hollywood trash it.  "The Dark is Rising," anyone ?


----------



## unclejack (Dec 5, 2007)

Steve Jordan said:


> Two things going on in this thread are noteworthy:
> 
> One, many of the posters suggest that Hollywood has somehow increased the number of non-quality movies as opposed to high-quality movies over the years. Examine Hollywood's production years closely, and you'll find that it has _always_ produced many more non-quality movies than high-quality movies in proportion. It's not really a "cycle"... it's always been that way. We've just (thankfully) lost and/or forgotten most of the bad ones over the years.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with you when it comes to saw but I have to say that I was very impressed with the last Rocky movie, I thought it was a satisfying conclusion to the Rocky saga. And I also disagree on it always bein like this, I cant remember ever havin to hunto so hard for good movies to rent in the video store, I used to look forward to Tuesday's at Blockbuster, but not anymore. A good movie comes out about once every two to three months if that. I will say that I'm lookin forward to seeing Awake and Southland tales and I am very pleased to know that they are makin another Narnia movie. I will also be at the front of the line for the next Batman movie and Spiderman movie and potential Superman movie so don't think I've totally given up on Hollywood. The comic book scene is one thing they actually do quite well.


----------



## McMurphy (Dec 6, 2007)

Steve Jordan said:


> Two things going on in this thread are noteworthy:
> 
> One, many of the posters suggest that Hollywood has somehow increased the number of non-quality movies as opposed to high-quality movies over the years.  Examine Hollywood's production years closely, and you'll find that it has _always_ produced many more non-quality movies than high-quality movies in proportion.  It's not really a "cycle"... it's always been that way.  We've just (thankfully) lost and/or forgotten most of the bad ones over the years.
> 
> ...



Amen!

I have nothing else to say, though, so this is a little awkward....


----------



## Connavar (Dec 6, 2007)

Steve Jordan said:


> Two things going on in this thread are noteworthy:
> 
> One, many of the posters suggest that Hollywood has somehow increased the number of non-quality movies as opposed to high-quality movies over the years.  Examine Hollywood's production years closely, and you'll find that it has _always_ produced many more non-quality movies than high-quality movies in proportion.  It's not really a "cycle"... it's always been that way.  We've just (thankfully) lost and/or forgotten most of the bad ones over the years.
> 
> ...



You must have short memory or havent seen many older movies.

What people are saying are the big movies was of better quality in 60's-80's.



Nowadays movies that make money are more about the computer effects than actors skill.

Compare Oscar winning Godfather to Gladatior winning oscar......


Of course there has always been many crappy movies but they didnt use to be the biggest movies.

You diss Simpson. I thought it was one of few decent movies i have seen this year.


One thing i agree with you though, the people that watch every Saw,Jason X ruins for others.  The people that want quality movies must be careful what to spend money on.  Which is why everytime i see a good qaulity movies that isnt mass produced,cashing in crap i go see it.  Just to show i dont want Saw 10. 

Before i was like the masses seeing every crappy movie just cause you were bored but not anymore.


----------



## HardScienceFan (Dec 6, 2007)

a good movie is a movie that credits the audience with some intelligence and knowledge of the world around him.

CGI or not doesn't matter.

the current*well,since 1981* spate of prequels and sequels:

Blechhh


----------



## Connavar (Dec 6, 2007)

HardScienceFan said:


> a good movie is a movie that credits the audience with some intelligence and knowledge of the world around him.
> 
> CGI or not doesn't matter.
> 
> ...



Yep im starting to get sick of sequals too.

I liked Pirate 1 but 2,3 disgusted me.  

I was watching a hollywood reporter program in the summer.  I couldnt see a movie that wasnt sequal coming out then......


Its a shame you have to search hard for qaulity movies. Wait to rent them and not all good movies come out to your vidoestore so you cant rent them.  You have to become a pirate to see the movies you want....

Atleast people in big countries like US have many choices, they have many theaters and not all only about the most expensive hollywood movie.

Over here the only movies that come out are the likes Fantastic Four,Die Hierd 4.....

I hope Euro cinema and Asian cinema dont let me down. They keep doing their different movies.  Hollywood i give up on atleast the big movies.

Movies like History of Violence,Eastern Promises i have to find more of.


----------



## HardScienceFan (Dec 6, 2007)

want some recommendations?


----------



## Connavar (Dec 6, 2007)

Couldnt hurt.


----------



## HardScienceFan (Dec 6, 2007)

*Bertrand Tavernier*: _Ca Commence Aujourd'hui_
that's about as far away from Hollywood as you can get
about a kindergarten teacher and the things he encounters in his work

this one 'll make you laugh at what the Americans call "acting" and direction
the French are ahead of the Americans by about  6.783.967.308.296.467.423.735  
kilometers
want more?


----------



## iansales (Dec 6, 2007)

How about some Arabic/African films?

Abouna
Bint Keltoum
Atash
Divine Intervention


----------



## Connavar (Dec 6, 2007)

Thanks guys.


HardSFF:  Pm more if you want, i dont wanna hijack the thread.

What i should do is watch more French movies.  I have seen there is french movie versions of both PKD stories and Stark stories.  I would like to see those movies.


----------



## unclejack (Dec 6, 2007)

I have to say also that I think it's a weak argument saying that the people who go to those big blown out movies that have no real quality ruin it for everyone else. Hollywood is huge and I seriously doubt that my decision to not go see Transformers, which I refuse to watch, is gonna make any real difference at all. But then again, on the other side of the coin, Hollywood hasn't taken in this little amount of money in a really long time. It really is in a slump and the box office doesn't rake in as much money as it used to and i think it is because of the low quality moviies that are bein put out ther. (Sorry but I dont have any statistics for you but that has been on the news for ever now....there are very few huge movies that rake in big doe anymore. )


----------



## Steve Jordan (Dec 11, 2007)

Connavar of Rigante said:


> You must have short memory or havent seen many older movies.
> 
> What people are saying are the big movies was of better quality in 60's-80's.
> 
> ...



60's?  _80's_?!?  _I_ have a short memory?

How 'bout the fifties?  The forties?  _The thirties?_  The oldest movie you mentioned was _The Godfather_.  Seen anything in black and white?  

How many movies came out in the same year as _Citizen Kane_?  _Lawrence of Arabia_?  _On The Waterfront_?  _Gone With The Wind_?  _Casablanca_?  _The Caine Mutiny_?  _Midway_?  Lots.  How many of them do we remember?  Not many.  Why?  Most of them were dogs.

I'm talking Hollywood's _entire_ history... not just the last few decades.  You go all the way back to the silent era, and you'll find more dogs than good flicks!  Hollywood has always used the revenue from popular movies to finance lesser movies, which they promoted as much as possible to get as many people in to see them (and make more money).  And plenty of those other movies sucked eggs... that's why we evolved a critics system, to give the public fair warning when Hollywood wouldn't!

I have a hard time finding movies at the video store too... mostly, that's because, as they've dumped their VHS collections for DVDs, they stock fewer and fewer of the old movies, the classics, the oscar winners, and more _Final Destination 6-7/8_ and _Little Nicky_.  I rarely even go to the video store anymore, I just buy the movies I really want, mostly from online sources.


----------



## Steve Jordan (Dec 11, 2007)

unclejack said:


> But then again, on the other side of the coin, Hollywood hasn't taken in this little amount of money in a really long time. It really is in a slump and the box office doesn't rake in as much money as it used to and i think it is because of the low quality moviies that are bein put out ther.



They are in a slump... no new material.  There are more remakes now than ever, and that's what's hurting them more than anything else.  They need new blood, new ideas, new concepts, all of it.  (No wonder they're trying to bring 3-D back...)


----------



## clovis-man (Dec 11, 2007)

Steve Jordan said:


> How many movies came out in the same year as _Citizen Kane_? _Lawrence of Arabia_? _On The Waterfront_? _Gone With The Wind_? _Casablanca_? _The Caine Mutiny_? _Midway_? Lots. How many of them do we remember? Not many. Why? Most of them were dogs.


 
I'm not taking sides here, but wanted to point out that there were a couple of good films in the same years as the cited movies. Starting with 1939:

1939:Gone With The Wind, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Of Mice and Men, Stagecoach (What do you think Firefly is based on), The Wizard of Oz.

1941: Citizen Kane, How Green Was My Valley, The Maltese Falcon, Sergeant York.

1943: Casablanca, For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Ox-Bow Incident, Watch on the Rhine.

I'll stop here, but there were lots of good films during the period in question.

Jim


----------



## Steve Jordan (Dec 11, 2007)

Yes... I wasn't suggesting that my list were the only good movies to come out in those years.  My point was, Hollywood made a lot more movies than that in those years... the combined studios usually turn out multiple dozens of movies in a single year... most of which have (thankfully) faded into obscurity, because they were no good.


----------



## Dave (Dec 11, 2007)

Steve Jordan said:


> ...as they've dumped their VHS collections for DVDs, they stock fewer and fewer of the old movies... I rarely even go to the video store anymore, I just buy the movies I really want, mostly from online sources.


I've been disappointed to find that with the Video Rental stores too, but on the other hand the price of older DVDs has come right down so that you can find some for £3 or £5. At that price it isn't worth renting it.


----------



## unclejack (Dec 11, 2007)

I'd like to say also that I acknowledge that this isn't the first time that Hollywood has been in a slump. But I can't remember a time when we've had so many recycled stories, remakes, and neverending sagas in Hollywood history. I am by no means an expert on Hollywood and everything that has come out in it's history. But my main point is this..while there are good movies that come out, it seems like the kind of movies that are truly stellar like Dances with Wolves, Silence of the Lambs, Saving Private Ryan, A Beautiful Mind, are very hard to find. And that is a fairly recent list, (completely subject to my opinion and my taste in movies so don't freak out if you don't like one or more of those movies cuz I'm just tryin to make a point) A beautiful mind came out in 2001, so I'm really just talkin about the last few years even though i think this slump has been goin on for a long time. There are good movie avaialable in Hollywood, but I think they aren't as good as they used to be.


----------



## Connavar (Dec 11, 2007)

Steve Jordan said:


> Yes... I wasn't suggesting that my list were the only good movies to come out in those years.  My point was, Hollywood made a lot more movies than that in those years... the combined studios usually turn out multiple dozens of movies in a single year... most of which have (thankfully) faded into obscurity, because they were no good.



It looks like we are talking about totaly different things.


You are saying Hollywood has always done alot of movies per year and the bad ones are always more than good ones.  I agree with that you, its almost universal rule on anything, there is always more crap than good in anything....


What im saying is the biggest movies in hollywood the ones people talk most and like most was better before. 


I also wish the superhero trend could die  if they are as bad as Spidey 3,X-men II,III ,FF,Ghost Rider,DD etc


----------



## unclejack (Dec 11, 2007)

Connavar of Rigante said:


> I also wish the superhero trend could die if they are as bad as Spidey 3,X-men II,III ,FF,Ghost Rider,DD etc


 
I think we're gonna have to agree to dissagree on that one. As a comic book fan I have to say that I love the translation from comics to movies, it's the one thing that keeps me goin back to the movies. I loved the spiderman trilogy, the x-men trilogy, the new Batman movie, and the new superman film. I respect the fact that you didn't like those movies and it isn't your thing but I think that has more to do with personal taste than it does with Hollywood makin bad movies. Not everyone is gonna go for the same kind of movie.


----------



## Connavar (Dec 12, 2007)

Im not saying all of Spiderman trilogy is bad but the trend has gone too far.

Creating way too many bad movies after the big ones.

You cant say you enjoyed Daredevil for example.....


Batman was one of the better ones.

Superman was ruined for me with the bad choice of the actor.  Decent Clark,horrible Superman.


----------



## unclejack (Dec 12, 2007)

lol, actually I did like Daredevil, and Elektra. But hey, that's my personal taste for what it's worth. I will say that Hulk was pure crap though, I hated that movie. 
 As far as Superman Returns goes, I think it's kinda a mute point when you talk about Brandon Routh as Superman, assuming that's what you mean when by a bad choice for the actor. I mean, personally I think Routh was a great choice for the role of Superman but that's just me. But the main point I'm makin is that the whole movie is really carried by the role of Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. All the emotions and reactions of the audience are experience through her and she does a stellar job of bringing the changes that Lois goes through to the screen. 
   The main criticism that I've heard about Superman Returns is that it was too much of a love story and that it was lacking in action. I guess that's a valid point but there are two things I would say to that...First of all if you think back to the original Superman movies with Christopher Reeves and Margot Kidder you have to know that much of those movies, especially the first one was a love story. Alot of that movie was Superman and Lois Lane flyin around with her fallin in love with him, and then there was the story of Clark and how he came to leave smallville and become Superman complete with the death of his father so although there may have been more action in those movies than in Superman Returns there was also alot of drama too which made up the bulk of the movies. 
  Anyway, maybe it's just my own personal taste because I'm just not much for big blown out stunts and action. That alone can't really sell me on liking a movie, there has to be some degree of emotional content and drama in order for me to like it which is why I loved Superman Returns so much because it was full of that. 
  Another point regarding Superman Returns is the fact that it is the re-starting of the Superman saga which in my opinion should start out with some background info on where he's been and should deal with the emotions of the people involved in the story of superman in readjusting themselves to his return. I think Brian Singer did an excellent job and really laid the foundation for future Superman movies which yes, should be a step up above Superman returns in regards to action and fight scenes but should still contain and emulate the drama of the first one. 
   I guess you can see I'm a pretty passionate comic fan but like I said, if you don't agree then that's cool. I've actually heard the same critisicm about Spiderman 2 and 3...they were too much of a love story. I think those people think on a different frequency from me because from my perspective, what is a good action movie without strong drama and a good love story?


----------



## Connavar (Dec 18, 2007)

Heh my problem is with comics movies is that i am *a comics fan* too!  Even the better ones might have a thing that ruins a movie for me.

It gets to me that Ra's Al Ghul the only arabic villain DCU must be played by a an irish guy.  Its annoys me they ruined the greatest villain Spiderman histroy , Venom. The Symboit was made into some disco parody instead the dark and amazing storyline it was in the comic.


Mainstream comics movies fan are lucky, they dont know what stories the movies are ruining by making it too much hollywood.....


----------



## unclejack (Dec 18, 2007)

Actually Connaver, I have the exact opposite opinion. First of all, I got into reading comic books because I became such a fan of the comic book movies that were comin out like Spiderman one and two. My point being I've only read about the storylines in regards to venom and the symbiote in the marvel universe articles on the marvel website and haven't read the direct issues. I'm more familiar with what has happened in the last two years in the comic book world than anything else so for all I know you could have a valid point, not having read the issues myself I don't know how accurately or innacurately the movies portrayed those storylines and characters. But I say that my opinion is opposite because of this....you say mainstream comic fans are lucky because they don't know what is bein ruined but as a mainstream comc fan I have to say that right now I like the Spiderman movies more than I like the spiderman comic books. For anyone who keeps up with what is goin on in the marvel universe, you know that everything has gone to crap, especially when it comes to spiderman. Here's a brief recap...A school or somethin gets blown up and kills a bunch of kids and superheros are blamed for it so superhero registration laws are passed and all superheros must reveal their identities and superpowers to the governement and the world. Two different sides arise...registration superheros and anti registration superheros..the issues are named the civil war issues. You have Tony Stark/Iron Man heading up the registration side and Captain America (until he gets shot) being the main character in the anti-registration side. Peter parker sides with Tony Stark and reveals his identity to the world until Stark betrays his trust and he flees and becomes a fugitive hunted by stark and other superheros. Then, the kingpin hires a sniper to kill peter but the bullet misses and hits aunt may and she gets put in the hospital....okay so here's where I rant......For the past several issues we have been reading about Peter Parker whinin about how Aunt May doesn't deserve this and life is unfair and runnin around in the black suit takin his aggression out on criminals and to be honest it is really gettin old!! The basic gist is this, spiderman comics are on the verge of bein ruined as far as I'm concerned, maybe the movies will bring to life the old storylines that have some quality because what's goin on now is boring and depressing. 
   I think the whole civil war thing is really stupid anyway but I think spiderman comics have suffered from it more than any other comic book. Marvel comics are very different from Dc comics because marvel fluctuates and changes storrylines and characters very rapidly, I like Dc because the characters stay the same, they don't compromise the integrity of the characters that we all love.


----------



## Connavar (Dec 18, 2007)

I started reading comics for real in 2005 cause i liked Hellboy and Sin City movies . First it was only adult comics like Hellblazer,SC,100 Bullets then i read Batman The Dark Returns,Batman Year One,The Long Halloween ,The Dark Victory.  I have read almost every Batman comics since mid 80's now 

Not all comics movies i saw before i read the comic version.



I agree with you about Civil War, i havent read MU comics since then.  Spidey was my second fav superhero comic then CW ruined spidey and Peter....

Liking the spidey movies more i can agree with the first two.  They were pretty good. The thread is bad IMO too many stories at once.  Ruined Venom,Symbiot.


Most superhero movies i judge like i was someone that have never read the comics before.  Its either Spidey 1-2 good or horrible ala DD,Elektra,FF etc

Batman Begins it was a good movie if you judge as nun fan. As Batman fanboy i disliked many things.  The greatest martial arts superhero of them all and i couldnt see him in the action scenes in the movie cause of the horrible shaky camera..

Spidey 1-2 was good both in nun comic eyes and my spidey fan eyes.  Then Spidey 3, only good thing was really Sandman was done well.


----------



## Delvo (Dec 19, 2007)

I've found movies based on comic books to be better than the comic books. Comic book writers evidently don't know how to stick to a good premise and not go all bonko with it.

For example, after seeing the first movie, I thought the X-Men stories were about people with abnormal and sometimes scary traits, and a society still populated mostly by normals, and the struggle to figure out how (and if) they could fit together. This was compelling stuff, and a brilliant way to set up a familiar-but-fascinatingly-different universe that could produce story after story with just that one little deviation from reality. But then I started reading some character histories at Marvel's website, and they're all over the map and falling off the edge of the world with all sorts of wacky stuff... a nonsensical and contextless "Phoenix force" appearing for no reason at an outlandish time and place and making bargains that make no sense, suspended animation pods at the bottom of the sea, a secret space station and casual travel to and from it, somebody turning an adult into an infant and then back again (minus some years), mutants losing their powers or identities or other defining traits (like Wolverine's adamantium and "claws") and (sometimes) getting them back, superpowers from other sources having nothing to do with mutantism like ancient mystical crystals, people dying and turning out not dead or coming back to life, Magneto being shown using powers he's not supposed to have that make him a god and delete the whole concept of different mutants having different powers and limits, time travel, alternate reality incursions and casual travel between multiple "dimensions", evil twins/clones/copies/fakes, aliens, soap-opera surprise blood relations, pointless crossovers with unrelated non-X superheroes from different fictional worlds... such disjointed out-of-nowhere-and-over-the-top silliness happening all the time in comic books looks like a desperate attempt at quasi-sensationalism to substitute for real creative use of the rich potential that was already built into the basic X-Men universe as I described it in the first place (and as I'm still guessing it was originally conceived). And other comic books I've looked into since then have had comparable off-the-wall nuttiness hiding behind their basic premises too.

One good thing about movies based on comic books is that they focus on the basics and cut out the fluff when comic book writers get carried away with themselves.


----------



## Connavar (Dec 19, 2007)

On the basics?  Fluff?  Character histories?  

You are dissing the comic books medium than the superhero comics that have become movies.

Atleast read the comics before judging the stories....


Also dont judge the medium by superhero comics.  Its like saying reading fiction books sucks cause Fantasy is lame with their evil wizard villain, the orphan that becomes the great hero etc....

X-men is like a soap, not all superhero fans like it.  Like me its too much soap for my taste.


----------



## unclejack (Dec 19, 2007)

I have to say again this time to Delvo, that's what you're gonna find in Marvel comics. It really agrivates me too, they really are all over the place and they don't ever stick to one thing. They don't seem to have a problem with changing characters or even changing the whole story itself. Take the fantastic four for example...I love the movies, especially the first one. And then I took an interest in readin the comic book until I found out that the fantastic four doesn't even have the same characters, I think it's johnny storm, storm, the silver surfer and mr fantastic. I don't know how accurate that is cuz im pullin it up from memory but basically 2 of the main characters in the fantastic four have been replaced with superhero's from other comic books. That's why i like dc better, I mainly read action comics (superman) and batman detective series in dc, they are both fantastic and never let me down.


----------



## Connavar (Dec 19, 2007)

unclejack said:


> I have to say again this time to Delvo, that's what you're gonna find in Marvel comics. It really agrivates me too, they really are all over the place and they don't ever stick to one thing. They don't seem to have a problem with changing characters or even changing the whole story itself. Take the fantastic four for example...I love the movies, especially the first one. And then I took an interest in readin the comic book until I found out that the fantastic four doesn't even have the same characters, I think it's johnny storm, storm, the silver surfer and mr fantastic. I don't know how accurate that is cuz im pullin it up from memory but basically 2 of the main characters in the fantastic four have been replaced with superhero's from other comic books. That's why i like dc better, I mainly read action comics (superman) and batman detective series in dc, they are both fantastic and never let me down.



Nah you get it wrong.

The FF are the same in the comics and in the movies.

They are one of this first famous series in Marvel.

Mr Fantastic,The Invisible Woman(Susan Storm),Human Torch(Johnny Storm) Thing.

Silver Surfer is a nemesis.  Sometimes villain in their stories.  Even though he has become semi good in the last decades.



Having said that i prefer DC comics too.  Batman anything else Batman like Nightwing,Robin,Green Arrow,Blue Beetle etc

In Marvel i like street level heroes.  Spidey,DD,Iron Fist etc


----------



## unclejack (Dec 19, 2007)

I know for sure the last time I picked up a fantastic four comic book it didn't have all four characters in the storyline, maybe it was that a couple of them stepped down temporarily or somethin but I know it wasn't the same as what's in the movies.


----------



## Connavar (Dec 19, 2007)

Haha you cant read a single issue of 40-50 years old comics and when you dont see the main characters think they are not in the comic at all 


Its very common in Superhero comics for the main characters to go away for a while.  Most of them have been dead for months 

Heh Jean Grey has been dead for several years now 

I have read hole 10 issues long archs without Bats in Batman comics for example.


That has happened in Spiderman,DD etc

Heck one very legendary DD issue was about Bulleye's point of view.


----------



## Ragnar (Dec 19, 2007)

Talking about awful remakes...

Apologies if this has already been mentioned (in this thread or elsewhere) but I just saw something that should make any SF fan's blood boil...

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

Yes, you read that right... a remake of _The Day the Earth Stood_ _Still_ starring Keanu 'so wooden he could be a coffee table' Reeves as Klaatu.


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2008)

Ragnar said:


> Talking about awful remakes...
> 
> ... a remake of _The Day the Earth Stood_ _Still_ starring Keanu 'so wooden he could be a coffee table' Reeves as Klaatu.



Klaatu barrada ripoff


----------

