# At The Cinema, Do You ever Get the Feeling You're Watching The Same Movie Over and Over?



## BAYLOR (Oct 12, 2014)

You go into the movie theater, sit down and the movie starts and as the last of the opening credits rolls by the movie starts  and as your watching the film, you get a terrible sense of Deja vu, You've seen this all before. 

Why do you think there is such a lack of originality of most of the films coming out of Hollywood?


----------



## Boneman (Oct 12, 2014)

You go into the movie theater, sit down and the movie starts and as the last of the opening credits rolls by the movie starts and as your watching the film, you get a terrible sense of Deja vu, You've seen this all before. 

Why do you think there is such a lack of originality of most of the films coming out of Hollywood?


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 12, 2014)

Boneman said:


> You go into the movie theater, sit down and the movie starts and as the last of the opening credits rolls by the movie starts and as your watching the film, you get a terrible sense of Deja vu, You've seen this all before.
> 
> Why do you think there is such a lack of originality of most of the films coming out of Hollywood?



So  you think my topic lacking in the *originality department.    *Okay_ , _that's fair_ ._ 

Critique of topic aside what do you think ?


----------



## Droflet (Oct 13, 2014)

Originality, IMHO, involves taking a risk. Taking a risk requires backbone. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.


----------



## Vladd67 (Oct 13, 2014)

Given the amount of money involved in making films these days the  taking of risks probably falls way behind the need for a guaranteed return of investment. Remember film making is an industry as well as, if not before, being an art form. Too many people make films based on a proven formula, the focus group seems to trump the artist.


----------



## Vince W (Oct 13, 2014)

What Vlad said.

I really enjoy going to the cinema and see a lot of films. I try not to get too hung up on the fact that much of it is very samey, but every year we manage to get a few films, that while perhaps are not the most original, are still very entertaining and worth my time and money. Most recently The Boxtrolls.


----------



## Boneman (Oct 15, 2014)

Seriously, I find it happening too often. I'm assuming studios are looking for the 'safe bet' which they know they will make money from, rather than risk  original idea. Sort-of understand that in a small way, but the films are becoming so formulaic it must be turning audiences off. There was a Bruce Willis film once, which was a complete rip-off of 'Fistful of Dollars', and I told my son what would happen before it did. I was bored witless.


----------



## Vladd67 (Oct 15, 2014)

Boneman said:


> Seriously, I find it happening too often. I'm assuming studios are looking for the 'safe bet' which they know they will make money from, rather than risk  original idea. Sort-of understand that in a small way, but the films are becoming so formulaic it must be turning audiences off. There was a Bruce Willis film once, which was a complete rip-off of 'Fistful of Dollars', and I told my son what would happen before it did. I was bored witless.


As a Fistful of Dollars was a complete rip off of Yojimbo which was a reworking of the book Red Harvest


----------



## Rafellin (Oct 15, 2014)

Banality and plagiarisation are rife, on top of the accountants running the asylums - 'risk averse' is a polite definition for that element.

After you take that into account, it is simply _caveat emptor_. Pick the films you watch with care. Distrust trailers, even as they pique your interest. 

And never go to see a film in a cinema unless you _know_ it's going entertain you.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 16, 2014)

Vladd67 said:


> As a Fistful of Dollars was a complete rip off of Yojimbo which was a reworking of the book Red Harvest



Then there's the *Magnificent Seven* which owes a debt to Kurosawa's  *The Seven Samurais  * as does the 1980 science fiction film *Battle Beyond the Stars* .


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 26, 2014)

One thing that would help. Let the writers , producers and directors do their jobs . The movie studio executives need to stop meddling.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 23, 2014)

Anyone remember *Mac and Me*? 1988  . basically and ET Wanna be .


----------



## J Riff (Nov 23, 2014)

They insist on writing credits is why. Instead of, you know, paying someone, like a writer.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 23, 2014)

J Riff said:


> They insist on writing credits is why. Instead of, you know, paying someone, like a writer.




An actual writer with cart blanche could solve a few things.


----------



## jastius (Nov 23, 2014)

Part of the problem is that they have these scripts for years.. Make the writer rewrite a hundred pages and get it in in three hours, then want to shoehorn in the latest politically correct silogism.. Lesbian platonic love interest sidekick with adopted oriental baby martial artist bomb defuser... Or whatever is the flavor of the month.  In something like a C.S. Forester Brown on Resolution, adaptation...
So instead of the story you get your action hero of the moment playing with a fake nuke while his over bosumed female eye candy shrieks becomingly...

Did you know that Good Will Hunting was originally a time travel spy epic?
What was left after the rewrites was the story we know.
Admittedly better, but definitely an horse made by a committee..

What's on the screen should never be confused with being the product of a writer... They are all camels  mascarading as horses.

A point here for the writers.
The only way to retain full rights over a screenplay adaptation of your book is to write the screenplay firstly and then adapt the book from that.
It actually makes a nice little plotting exercise. Works a treat as a story backbone.
Goes off and inspects the latest camel herd on the TV.


----------



## andreasn (Nov 24, 2014)

Most movies require so much money to make that the movie makers usually go with the trends and avoid taking risks, so that they are sure they will not lose money on the project. the proven formula is usually the safest road to travel.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 24, 2014)

andreasn said:


> Most movies require so much money to make that the movie makers usually go with the trends and avoid taking risks, so that they are sure they will not lose money on the project. the proven formula is usually the safest road to travel.






Then what they should do is make films with smaller budgets and fewer high priced high maintenance actors and actors. Put in good actors and do a good story, market it properly and people will come to the theaters


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Nov 24, 2014)

I rarely go to an actual movie theater to watch a movie*, and if it is something I really, really like I may go back a second and maybe a third time.  So it's no wonder if I get that sense of deja vu!

Perhaps, for me, the question ought to be why I think there are so many movies I have absolutely no interest in seeing.  Going by the trailers, so much SFF seems to be frantic adventure based on video games or with a video game mentality.  That, and fantasy romance about vampires.  Could it be that studios, in looking for something that will be a "safe" investment, are looking for what is popular (and profitable!) in other media?

____

*Most of the movies I watch, I watch on TV or my Kindle.  That way, I'm not paying so much to be disappointed.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 24, 2014)

The big problem and this was on that stated back in the 1970's,  The beginning of the Blockbuster mentality.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 31, 2021)

They're still doing the sam movies over and over again . Reboots and remakes.


----------



## Rodders (Jun 2, 2021)

I'm just bored with movies in general, i think. 

It stands to reason that most stories have already been told, so to find something new and original is difficult. My personal issue with modern movies is the over reliance on action over story. Action gets boring after a while, but a good story...


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 2, 2021)

Rodders said:


> I'm just bored with movies in general, i think.
> 
> It stands to reason that most stories have already been told, so to find something new and original is difficult. My personal issue with modern movies is the over reliance on action over story. Action gets boring after a while, but a good story...



Horror movies all have that  same cookie cutter look. They have the ghost, hobgoblin or whatever jump out the shadows  the same way over and over again with the rutl that it has no more shock value .  And , how many more Annabel  the killer   Doll movies are they going to keep churning  out?


----------



## Vince W (Jun 2, 2021)

Rodders said:


> I'm just bored with movies in general, i think.
> 
> It stands to reason that most stories have already been told, so to find something new and original is difficult. My personal issue with modern movies is the over reliance on action over story. Action gets boring after a while, but a good story...


Absotividly agree. I've been watching some older films and they actually tell a story rather than 75 minutes of disjointed cgi buffoonery, a couple of pointless shots of near/actual nudity, some hollow reworking of an old idea, and no character development. And that's just the Hollywood offerings. The streaming services are substantially worse.


----------



## CupofJoe (Jun 2, 2021)

UK and US Cinema is all about the blockbuster. It has to be to make the economics work. That tends to lead to largest common denominator films.
If you get to countries that protect their film industries [France is a good example] then you can see some very interesting and challenging films getting a wide audience.
I should be lucky that I live in an area with a large Asian/Indian population so there are the cream of those film industries make it to the local big screen. Pre lockdown, I've had a few very interesting evenings trying to work out why the Spy is singing to a bride while they are both dancing in a fountain. Colourful musical lunacy to me but the rest of the audience seemed to make sense of it all.


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 2, 2021)

I haven’t been to the cinema in years and given the current output, I can’t see that changing. The last thing I saw was Pan’s Labyrinth. There’s been nothing since that has made me feel that I must go watch it in a cinema. 

It will be interesting to see if the transition to streaming post-pandemic is permanent or if audiences will return in large numbers to the cinema.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jun 2, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> Horror movies all have that  same cookie cutter look. They have the ghost, hobgoblin or whatever jump out the shadows  the same way over and over again with the rutl that it has no more shock value .  And , how many more Annabel  the killer   Doll movies are they going to keep churning  out?




I think horror movies have really gone down hill in the last 20-30 years. There just aren't movies of the calibre of Halloween, Jaws, Aliens Poltergeist, The Exorcist etc. Probably the best decent scary movie was Blair Witch 20 years ago.


----------



## Mon0Zer0 (Jun 2, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> Horror movies all have that  same cookie cutter look. They have the ghost, hobgoblin or whatever jump out the shadows  the same way over and over again with the rutl that it has no more shock value .  And , how many more Annabel  the killer   Doll movies are they going to keep churning  out?



I think there was something of a mini-renaissance of horror films a few years ago with It Follows, the VVitch, Hereditary, Babadook,  and Midsommar.  There are good ones out there, but they tend not to be the mindless LOUD quiet LOUD variety.  The Colour out of Space was pretty ok, and A Cure for Wellness was suitably lovecraftian.

One of the biggest challenges today is there is no journeyman stage where young professionals can learn all aspects of their craft. This applies to music, too. One of the reasons the Beatles were huge was they had a massive backlog of musical styles they could draw on, honed in their days in the Bierkeller. Compared to now, where musicians can learn production techniques rote from youtube videos, get catapulted in the mainstream and fizzle out after a year.

Same thing with directors now - they have a small window from doing their first tentative steps, a breakthrough movie, then a short period of being in demand before disappearing without trace.

And the algorithm means that producers are only looking for cookie cutter niche fillers with minimal budget for maximal return, or four-quadrant tentpole movies built on established franchises, or brands. If you liked that, you'll like this...

Going back and watching old Ealing comedies right now, and the wit and range on display far exceeds anything in production now in movies (maybe Armando Ianucci - very much enjoyed The Death of Stalin), for that you have to turn to prestigious HBO shows - Succession, Veep,  Better Call Saul, etc, etc.


----------



## Valtharius (Jun 2, 2021)

"You're now making movies for 16 year olds and China"

youtube.com/watch?v=oj8JK6c5x3M


----------



## AlexH (Jun 2, 2021)

Why bump this old thread when there's already an active cinema-bashing thread on the first page?

I think like every medium, there are great films out there if you look. These are the films that need more support. I mentioned in the other cinema thread that Wolfwalkers this week was best at the cinema - the animation at times is stunning. Yes, the crux of the story had been done before, but it's a great story and there were still unexpected twists for me.

I became a bit disillusioned with film over the past few weeks, and that watching included a fair few classics I hadn't seen before. Cinema visits (first Gladiator then Wolfwalkers) have got me invested again.

Some other recent films I think are best experienced at the cinema, and I'll try and stick to Hollywood (given it seems to get the brunt of the criticism, forgetting all the superb independent and non-English films out there):

Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Avengers Assemble (these two stand head and shoulders above other recent superhero films in my opinion)
Jurassic World (yes, it was a retread, but it looked and sounded great, and was FUN)
Rogue One
Whiplash
Gravity
Any 2010s M:I film
Guardians of the Galaxy 2 (stunning settings on the big screen)
Your Name.
Baby Driver
Mad Max: Fury Road (I'm not usually a fan of all-out action films, but this was superb)
Parasite was an absolute riot to see at the cinema

I've mentioned a couple of under the radar animations already, and someone else will hate these films of course - but One Cut of the Dead (watch without spoilers), Bait, Coherence, The Red Turtle and Leave No Trace are all great films I guess most people criticising modern film won't have seen. But even if you don't like any of them, there will be films out there you'll love. And sometimes I think people almost want to hate certain things, so these things don't really stand a chance in the first place.

I might even argue that the 2010s was the greatest overall decade for films. Here are my favourites (and there are will of course be loads of great 2010s films I haven't watched):


			https://www.imdb.com/list/ls049362246/


----------



## Dave (Jun 2, 2021)

If it was this one then I agree, but otherwise, you go to some different cinema to me.






How many of these cinema-bashing threads can you create?


----------



## JunkMonkey (Jun 3, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> They're still doing the sam movies over and over again . Reboots and remakes.



But they always have done.  To possibly misquote one of my favourite movies about Hollywood (The Independent)  "Milk the cow till it's dry: then make hamburgers and wallets."

I remember reading somewhere about one of the poverty row studios  (Republic, Mascot, one of them lot) That at one point the studio  had a pile of scripts in the office.  The day they finished a film they threw the script on the top of the stack, then pulled the one from the bottom out and went into production - rewriting _may _have been involved.


----------



## W Collier (Jun 3, 2021)

AlexH said:


> Why bump this old thread when there's already an active cinema-bashing thread on the first page?
> 
> ...


Or, to put it another way, Do You ever Get The Feeling That You're Seeing The Same Forum Thread Over and Over?

Perhaps the reason we don't see original movies is the same reason we don't see original forum threads: there are no new ideas.  Everything's been done.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 3, 2021)

W Collier said:


> Or, to put it another way, Do You ever Get The Feeling That You're Seeing The Same Forum Thread Over and Over?
> 
> Perhaps the reason we don't see original movies is the same reason we don't see original forum threads: there are no new ideas.  Everything's been done.



In terms of original  thread Ideas,  ive  ive long  since fallen into the  abyss of  creative bankruptcy and repetition.


But in seriousness, you're  absolute correct on both counts.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 7, 2021)

When I see sequels?


----------



## Guttersnipe (Jul 14, 2021)

When it comes to horror movies, yes. Jump scares are cheap, and I'm sick of ones involving Ouija boards, Satanism, and paganism. Too many possessions and haunting.


----------



## alexvss (Jul 15, 2021)

Blake Snyder, author of the Save the Cat! beathsheet, acknowledged that everything had been done, so he used to say :"Give me the same, but different."
Even movies like Parasite hide being the same ol' thing:


----------



## KGeo777 (Jul 19, 2021)

A movie's originality depends a lot on what the cast and filmmakers bring to it as individuals.
That's obvious.

They made a ton of westerns in Italy but each film had a different cast and score and there was some variety.

What I noticed recently with modern movies (I have a habit of considering movies made 20 years ago as new for some reason) is the dialogue tends to be more expository about the given moment than it used to be--characters are far more likely to state their feelings or inner thoughts or tell you what  another character is thinking or doing.  Nolan movies are terrible for that.
The complaint used to be that movies were more plot-driven than character-driven but it has moved in a direction where it's character-driven to the point of being a kind of group therapy session.

The creepiest thing though, is how movie posters have become very unemotive-no facial expressions--a blank staring face. I notice it with superhero movies or dramas--it doesn't matter what--but a lack of expression is on display. Is that how uninspired they are that they can't even come up with a poster that looks energetic?

It's so Borg-like.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 19, 2021)

KGeo777 said:


> What I noticed recently with modern movies (I have a habit of considering movies made 20 years ago as new for some reason) is the dialogue tends to be more expository about the given moment than it used to be--characters are far more likely to state their feelings or inner thoughts or tell you what  another character is thinking or doing.  Nolan movies are terrible for that.
> The complaint used to be that movies were more plot-driven than character-driven but it has moved in a direction where it's character-driven to the point of being a kind of group therapy session.
> 
> The creepiest thing though, is how movie posters have become very unemotive-no facial expressions--a blank staring face. I notice it with superhero movies or dramas--it doesn't matter what--but a lack of expression is on display. Is that how uninspired they are that they can't even come up with a poster that looks energetic?
> ...



Go see the movie, resistance is futile .


----------



## Fiberglass Cyborg (Jul 25, 2021)

I sometimes feel like I'm watching the same _endings_ over and over again. So often I'll get really into the first three quarters or so of a film: interesting characters, situation, ideas, dialogue, style. But it inevitably builds up to a ridiculously over-the-top climactic action sequence that drags on.... and on.... and on... and on.... and on, leaving me glancing at my watch as the starship crashes slooooooowly into the city, the characters survive the twenty-third fall that should have left them a greasy smear on the pavement, the blades of the duelists start to rust in the rain and the hero gets punched through a wall for the fifty-seventh time. 

"The Wolverine" is a good example of a film where the fight scene midway through was vastly more interesting than the final one. I love the quiet ending of "Solo", which literally just involves a standoff between handful of people in a room. Sadly, that risky strategy didn't pay off. But I also love "Thor: Ragnarok." Lengthy, deliberately overblown climax, but with suffient imagination, style and humor to make it actually interesting for once.


----------



## KGeo777 (Jul 26, 2021)

They are remaking THE EXORCIST as a trilogy, bringing back Ellen Burnstyn. Expect a lot of deja vu.

They say Linda Blair isn't in it but I will bet money she is being saved for the sequels.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jul 27, 2021)

KGeo777 said:


> They are remaking THE EXORCIST as a trilogy, bringing back Ellen Burnstyn. Expect a lot of deja vu.
> 
> They say Linda Blair isn't in it but I will bet money she is being saved for the sequels.



Unless they got an incredible  story idea, they should not revisit  this one.


----------



## Judderman (Sep 10, 2021)

I just rewatched the Exorcist recently. I had forgotten a large chunk of the film. It is over 2 hours long and the exorcism is not until at least two thirds of the way in. But that first two thirds is brilliantly done. Great story and acting. I vaguely remembered the early scenes in Iraq but not the parts about the victim's visits to doctors and hospitals to try and diagnose the issue. And about the priests struggles with belief and grief for his mum. Not all doom and gloom as there is a party in there too. The exorcism is the weaker part of the film, partly as it looks more dated. Also some of the blood is very brightly coloured which spoils the effect.
There is a somewhat unnecessary scene at the end, but it seems to be saying people are resilient and life goes on.

Much as I enjoy horror films you rarely see such a good story with fleshed out characters presented around the horror. I can't see it happening in a remake.
The one story cannot really be stretched out to a trilogy. So I imagine it will be someone exorcised and the demon surprisingly enters another person rather than being completely defeated. As has been seen in other series.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 10, 2021)

Judderman said:


> I just rewatched the Exorcist recently. I had forgotten a large chunk of the film. It is over 2 hours long and the exorcism is not until at least two thirds of the way in. But that first two thirds is brilliantly done. Great story and acting. I vaguely remembered the early scenes in Iraq but not the parts about the victim's visits to doctors and hospitals to try and diagnose the issue. And about the priests struggles with belief and grief for his mum. Not all doom and gloom as there is a party in there too. The exorcism is the weaker part of the film, partly as it looks more dated. Also some of the blood is very brightly coloured which spoils the effect.
> There is a somewhat unnecessary scene at the end, but it seems to be saying people are resilient and life goes on.
> 
> Much as I enjoy horror films you rarely see such a good story with fleshed out characters presented around the horror. I can't see it happening in a remake.
> The one story cannot really be stretched out to a trilogy. So I imagine it will be someone exorcised and the demon surprisingly enters another person rather than being completely defeated. As has been seen in other series.



It sounds like they're taking s cue from *The Hobbit*.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 16, 2021)

They've rebooted Resident Evil.


----------



## Judderman (Oct 18, 2021)

It is so soon after the Residential film series finished. But it does seem like that franchise can pump out a film every few years and keep getting viewers. Not like it is one of those classics that people don't want messing with either.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 18, 2021)

Judderman said:


> It is so soon after the Residential film series finished. But it does seem like that franchise can pump out a film every few years and keep getting viewers. Not like it is one of those classics that people don't want messing with either.



 I think this one would have worked far better as tv series than a movie series.


----------



## Judderman (Oct 26, 2021)

Resident Evil movies are action packed. Does that work as well for TV series? Maybe it should.

Resident evil in the style of a season of 24 could be fun. With the star going from one madpack zombie scene to another with no chance to sleep.


----------



## Vince W (Oct 26, 2021)

Judderman said:


> Resident Evil movies are action packed. Does that work as well for TV series? Maybe it should.
> 
> Resident evil in the style of a season of 24 could be fun. With the star going from one madpack zombie scene to another with no chance to sleep.


Great. Zombies in a bear trap. No thanks.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 18, 2021)

Judderman said:


> Resident Evil movies are action packed. Does that work as well for TV series? Maybe it should.
> 
> Resident evil in the style of a season of 24 could be fun. With the star going from one madpack zombie scene to another with no chance to sleep.



How about Jason Voorhees  meets Resident Evil ?


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 18, 2021)

I think the movies that give me the greatest feeling of deja vu are: 

Teacher takes over a class in run down city area and gives his/her cynical pupils hope through teaching them a sport soccer/basketball/baseball/ ….delete as required or add in your sports choice. Or sometimes it’s an academic pursuit (often up against a more priviliged school).  

Of course, it all looks like it’s going to fall at the last hurdle but teacher gives a stirring speech Henry V would be proud of and somehow it all works out with victory achieved. Teacher is lifted on to shoulders of pupils. Cue freeze frame and end credits.

Or…
Institution (often an orphanage) is threatened by closure and money needs to be raised very quickly. Inspiration strikes and our gang of plucky protagonists decide to put on a musical show. They spend much of the movie rounding up talented individuals, who often burst into song and dance routines along the way.  Again, it looks like failure is on the cards but somehow it all works out with a rousing selection of musical numbers at the show (often accompanied by audience dancing in the aisles) and prize money is used just in time to save orphanage/school/animal shelter.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 4, 2022)

Foxbat said:


> I think the movies that give me the greatest feeling of deja vu are:
> 
> Teacher takes over a class in run down city area and gives his/her cynical pupils hope through teaching them a sport soccer/basketball/baseball/ ….delete as required or add in your sports choice. Or sometimes it’s an academic pursuit (often up against a more priviliged school).
> 
> ...



Same old same old.


----------



## asp3 (Jan 4, 2022)

I rarely go to the movie theater (and didn't much before Covid as well) and this might be one of the reasons why.  I also don't watch that many films at home on TV.  However I think this doesn't have to do so much with them being the same movie as it does my not being interested in the subject matter.  So even though the genre might be unoriginal I do think each movie is somewhat original.

I'm not a fan of action films, superhero films and the like.  I prefer either sophisticated comedies (which have been too few and far between for me),  animated movies (not anime) and documentaries.  There are very few dramas that I'm interested in.

I also lost interest in the Star Wars universe after the third chronological film.  The Bond films lost me after Tomorrow Never Dies.  I'm afraid the ambiguity of Woody Allen's alleged behavior has put me off his films as well.  There aren't really any non animated movies that I follow for universe or director these days.


----------



## KGeo777 (Jan 4, 2022)

Franchises and brands don't work well for art. You can do it for a spell, but eventually it becomes devoid of passion. Especially since they do not have to worry about the future--the money is guaranteed. It becomes like  a Walmart job. Frank Oz made a critique of the current Muppets--and he was very candid in saying that they sucked.

 But the big problem remains the incredible restriction on character that has creeped in year after year, decade after decade.
To the point where, I am not even sure a character can shout in anger anymore--is that considered violence now?

You have to show reality for art to resonate. And be honest about it.  And they aren't doing that.
 The Mandalorian is a nice fable about child trafficking but most people aren't into child trafficking.


I thought at first they had the baby alien character so they could diffuse the masculine aggression element which you would expect in a story about bounty hunters. Having him look after a baby turns it into something else.

I do fear for Baby Yoda's well-being.


----------



## JunkMonkey (Jan 4, 2022)

What I don't understand is the business model behind so many bad films. 

I can understand why sequels to successful films get made - especially if the above the line costs are low, with sets, costumes, rights etc all secured from the first film. (The Harry Potter series springs to mind.)  And why people would, following Feinman's principle - "Milk the cow till it's dry, then make hamburgers and wallets", churn out sequel after sequel of things like _Resident Evil_  till they make a loss - then stop; then somehow contrive to set that loss against residual sales of the previous films so you don't have to pay cast and crew who worked on them their points.... Movie accounting is such that many World-wide box office smash hits have, if you juggle the numbers (and they do), never made a profit when it comes to paying the actors' residuals.  But how does something like _Bram Stoker's Legend Of The Mummy 2_ which I attempted to watch last night* get made?  How?

By the by, the only connection I can see that this film has with Bram Stoker is that it has his name in the title. (It is not, for instance, included in his list of writer credits on IMDb when obscure sh*te-like things such as Filipino comedy _Batman Fights Dracula _(1967) does. _Bram Stoker's Legend Of The Mummy 2_  was originally called _Ancient Evil: Scream of the Mummy_. 

I can see why the actors would take any part they can get; especially not very good actors at the start of their careers (for seven out of the nine credited players this was their first or second screen credit - for a couple it was also their last).  Everyone has to start somewhere.  Even well-connected from the start, and extremely good George Clooney has _Return of the Killer Tomatoes!_ and an episode of _Murder She Wrote_ on his CV. 

The director (David DeCoteau, a Corman alumni) currently has 176 directorial notches on his bedpost including such classics as _Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama (1988), Beach Babes 2: Cave Girl Island _(1995), _My Stepbrother Is a Vampire!?!_ and _A Talking Pony!?!_ (both 2013.  In one year he directed two movies with '!?!' in the title; I bet Steven Spielberg can't say that.)  So he's obviously doing it for the money.  And doing it well enough to keep getting work. No one directs five or six feature films in a year as a hobby.

But where does the money come from?   Who bought this Piece of sh*t? [  (That's a genuine technical Hollywood term by the way: 'Piece of sh*t'). For that matter who bought  _A Talking Pony!?!_?  Where does the money ultimately come from?  Us the punters.  We buy tickets, we buy DVDs, we buy subscription packages but I cannot see how enough people could have been conned into buying hard copies of this (it never got a cinema release) to make anyone a profit.  And I can't really believe that there's an endless stream of people wanting to throw their money away making crud like this.  Somewhere along the line things like _Bram Stoker's Legend Of The Mummy 2_ must *make money* for.... someone.  Somehow.  I wish I knew who they were because I've got some brilliant crap film ideas I'd like to pitch them.







(*I was tired, all right?!)


----------



## KGeo777 (Jan 4, 2022)

I feel there's  money laundering involved in it. People with money to waste.
 Because it does not operate like a normal business at all now. 

They don't seem to care about generating enthusiasm for a product. That is irrelevant.
 30-40-50 years ago it was nothing like that. Whether it was tv or film--you had to generate some excitement.
The people making the decisions on money and funding--they do not care at all about the product.
It comes and goes--and I wonder how dispassionate the people making the films must be.

How do you get excited as an actor or director for My Stepbrother is a Vampire?

My Teacher is a Vampire, My Dentist is a Vampire....at least they generate an idea in your head--but your Stepbrother?
It is so bland.

Same with the Talking Pony.

At least if it was* The Foul-Mouthed Pony *that would give you some idea of the content.


----------



## Judderman (Jan 6, 2022)

There is a huge amount of advertising, trailers, articles, interviews and other media for many movies these days. I think they still generate the enthusiasm. At least to get people to watch the stuff. Still some good dramas around too.

As for b-movies streaming services , tv channels and adverts must bring in some money. And the odd one does much better than expected. Obviously salaries should be low..


----------



## BAYLOR (May 9, 2022)

Anyone seen the *Avatar 2 *trailer ?


----------



## Judderman (May 9, 2022)

Beautiful looking film. The story will probably as forgettable as in Avatar, but it will certainly be a spectacle.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 9, 2022)

Judderman said:


> Beautiful looking film. The story will probably as forgettable as in Avatar, but it will certainly be a spectacle.



If feels empty.


----------



## CupofJoe (May 9, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> Anyone seen the *Avatar 2 *trailer ?


Just did. It looks amazing. But there again so did Avatar.


----------



## Judderman (May 9, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> If feels empty.


Empty of emotion and feeling? I think that is a fair comment.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 9, 2022)

Judderman said:


> Empty of emotion and feeling? I think that is a fair comment.



When I look at that clip, I see a computer game scene and not a film . I can't feel anything for the characters on screen  no matter vivid and lifelike they might make them .  They just empty CGI which the voice acting does nothing to uplift.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 9, 2022)

I saw the original on a tv and I was impressed by the environment-creating using CGI. But the story did little for me.
I heard that people were heckling the trailer for this.
The original had no fandom really--just the novelty of the 3d.
Isn't this one supposed to have a new 3d that doesn't require glasses?


----------



## BAYLOR (May 9, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> I saw the original on a tv and I was impressed by the environment-creating using CGI. But the story did little for me.
> I heard that people were heckling the trailer for this.
> The original had no fandom really--just the novelty of the 3d.
> Isn't this one supposed to have a new 3d that doesn't require glasses?



I don't think this one has 3D.  I could be wrong but , this time around ,  I  doubt  there is going to be an audiences for this sequel.


----------



## CupofJoe (May 10, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> I don't think this one has 3D.  I could be wrong but , this time around ,  I  doubt  there is going to be an audiences for this sequel.


And the other three they are filming?


----------



## BAYLOR (May 10, 2022)

CupofJoe said:


> And the other three they are filming?


If this film  is not a success the box office , they're  going to lose alot of money.


----------



## CupofJoe (May 10, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> If this film  is not a success the box office , they're  going to lose alot of money.


What's a $1Bn between friends...


----------



## BAYLOR (May 10, 2022)

CupofJoe said:


> What's a $1Bn between friends...



Hm, good point.


----------



## Ian Fortytwo (May 10, 2022)

Remakes always lack something of the original film. The Italian Job, being one example. The Day the Earth Stood Still, being another.


----------



## Astro Pen (May 10, 2022)

I always think they should do a movie where an ordinary guy witnesses something go down to a long violin note and a staccato stabs, then he gets involved and has to go on the run with the romantic interest.
Then they track him down and there is a gunfight where he kills 17 experienced crooks from behind a corner in a corridor and another one in a stockroom where, from under a shelf, he can only see the baddy's feet walking slowly.
Followed by a car chase leading to car crashes where cop cars roll over then the bad guys crash in a ball of flame ( because the gas tank is inexplicably in the passenger compartment) then the ordinary guy kisses the romantic interest.
Credits roll to a banal 80's soft rock song that you don't like

( I'll write this for $500K and a rolling credit. )

What? Already done?


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 10, 2022)

Ian Fortytwo said:


> Remakes always lack something of the original film. The Italian Job, being one example. The Day the Earth Stood Still, being another.



Time to point out (as I always do at this point)  that John Houston's 1941 _Maltese Falcon _with Humphrey Bogart was a remake,  as was Stephen Soderberg's _Ocean's Eleven_, Cronenberg's _The Fly_,  John Carpenter's _The Thing_. The list of remakes that are better than the original isn't long - but it does exist.


----------



## CupofJoe (May 10, 2022)

@JunkMonkey  You are right there are a few. Jest like sequels are rarely as good as the first film, there are a few exceptions...
A good remake will have something new to add to the story [even if that means following the original source more closely] and not just be an excuse to update the CGI. I think *The Thing* is a good example of this. Take a [for me] great film like *The Thing From Another World* with all its in jokes, witty dialogue and comic touches, strip it back and make it more brutal and visceral. a simpler and tighter film. Carpenter's revisioning worked! The 2011 prequal [also called The Thing - just to confuse the issue] was just more of Carpenter's film and didn't. I had seen it all before and done better.


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 10, 2022)

CupofJoe said:


> @JunkMonkey  You are right there are a few. Jest like sequels are rarely as good as the first film, there are a few exceptions...
> A good remake will have something new to add to the story [even if that means following the original source more closely] and not just be an excuse to update the CGI. I think *The Thing* is a good example of this. Take a [for me] great film like *The Thing From Another World* with all its in jokes, witty dialogue and comic touches, strip it back and make it more brutal and visceral. a simpler and tighter film. Carpenter's revisioning worked! The 2011 prequal [also called The Thing - just to confuse the issue] was just more of Carpenter's film and didn't. I had seen it all before and done better.



Loads of classic (out of copyright!) books and stories have been filmed, made and remade with varying degrees of success.  How many versions of Wuthering Heights, or adaptations of Austen does the world need?  But they keep coming.  Looking back at them they tell us more about the times they were made than anything.  My touchstone from the SF genre in this respect is  _The Invasion of the Body Snatchers_ which has had four screen adaptations.  All different.  All of their time.  I heard there was another remake in the pipeline - and I hope they _don't  _follow the original source more closely because the ending of the book is crap.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 10, 2022)

If you are going to do a new version of a story, have a good reason to do it. Make it in color, have new special effects, star casting....

The 2011 Thing failed because there was no good reason to do it. They had nothing to say or contribute. And the lack of creative passion was obvious in the final product.

I feel the same of the 2005 King Kong. The only thing they had going for it was a CGI Kong on the Empire State Building. Otherwise, nothing else was so interesting to justify making it. Was the casting special? No. Why bother?
A paint by numbers attitude is more common now. The sense of just going through the motions.

I can't blame them. How can anyone be excited to make another Batman movie?


----------



## BAYLOR (May 11, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> If you are going to do a new version of a story, have a good reason to do it. Make it in color, have new special effects, star casting....
> 
> The 2011 Thing failed because there was no good reason to do it. They had nothing to say or contribute. And the lack of creative passion was obvious in the final product.
> 
> ...



Hollywood plays it safe.


----------



## Ian Fortytwo (May 11, 2022)

How many remakes of King Kong have there been and only the Faye Wray version is worth watching.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 11, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> Hollywood plays it safe.


From their perspective maybe but it isn't really the case because they are using worn out brands and then inject so much non-traditional elements like a weak protagonist. I was reading about the new Dr Strange movie and as I KNEW they would, they have sidelined the male characters to ridiculous extremes. They can't help themselves because they have an agenda that goes against traditional story concepts.
And they don't care about losing audiences which is peculiar--that suggests they have unlimited money and no competition is possible.
How do you run a business where you want to alienate your consumer?


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 11, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> From their perspective maybe but it isn't really the case because they are using worn out brands and then inject so much non-traditional elements like a weak protagonist. I was reading about the new Dr Strange movie and as I KNEW they would, they have sidelined the male characters to ridiculous extremes. They can't help themselves because they have an agenda that goes against traditional story concepts.
> And they don't care about losing audiences which is peculiar--that suggests they have unlimited money and no competition is possible.
> How do you run a business where you want to alienate your consumer?



I would guess that they have the hope of finding another, larger audience.


----------



## Rodders (May 11, 2022)

I think the cycle of "bigger" and "more" means that there is too much emphasis placed on action and not enough emphasis on set up or story.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 11, 2022)

JunkMonkey said:


> I would guess that they have the hope of finding another, larger audience.



It's like putting a man on the cover of a women's swimsuit magazine which was done recently.
The audience for that is tiny. They lose more people than they can gain. And they don't care--which is the most intriguing part.
Disney didn't seem to care what families think about its political agenda coming into the open.
I don't feel making money is the motivation behind any of this.
It's control and suppression of variety.
It's like the Borg Collective except they also want to make you watch their Broadway musical "Resistance is Futile."
It's bad enough to be a drone, but their dancing and singing is just so awful and it is the only show in town.


----------



## soulsinging (May 11, 2022)

I know it's a little unusual but stick with it because Groundhog Day really comes together at the end.


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 11, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> It's like putting a man on the cover of a women's swimsuit magazine which was done recently.
> The audience for that is tiny. They lose more people than they can gain. And they don't care--which is the most intriguing part.
> Disney didn't seem to care what families think about its political agenda coming into the open.
> I don't feel making money is the motivation behind any of this.
> ...



How can it be the suppression of variety when your main complaint seems to be that 'they' are changing the formula and introducing new and varied elements?  

The (American) entertainment industry seems finally to have noticed the world's buying power isn't _entirely_ in the hands of White heterosexual men and is scrabbling for a slice of the pie whilst not being quite sure what flavour the pie, is who has the pie, how big it is and how many slices they can get out of it.  All power to them.  Not sure what you mean about Disney not caring about what families think.  I'm a dad.  I have kids.  I love the fact that Disney is finally opening up to having gay characters.  Not that this is anything new.  Go watch _Ice Princess_ from 2005,  probably the best lesbian teen movie ever made (apart from Lukas Moodysson's _F**king Åmål_). Of course they are doing it to make money.  There's no way the Disney Corporation is introducing LGBTQ characters at the behest of some sinister cabal out to sap the vital bodily fluids of right-thinking Americans.  They're doing it because there's gold in them thar hills.  Lots of it.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 12, 2022)

JunkMonkey said:


> How can it be the suppression of variety when your main complaint seems to be that 'they' are changing the formula and introducing new and varied elements?


We have discussed this a few times before--I don't have a problem with them making films that are a multicultural circus with some message which may not be widely popular.
That is not the problem. If I was a big Dr Strange fan I might complain that they are altering the source material and ask why are they using this for their message when they could make something else. Just do a film about a woman wizard...they have the money and promotion power to do that if they wanted.
They would rather change the perception of the character --I think to them, it is like tearing down a statue they don't like. They are striking a blow against the Man. That's part of their desire--and I don't think most audiences anywhere support that at all. Doubtful that anyone cares that there is a soldier statue in a West Virginia  park for 100 years or that Dr Strange was kickass dude. Only a minority with a lot of spare time cares about that.
If they wanted to make their little social statement--fine-who cares--that is not the trouble.

The problem is they seek total domination of media and prevent alternative traditional voices-they want to suppress it-and this has killed western film art culture. It has turned it into a ghetto and destroyed professionalism in film. It feels increasingly amateur. I can't stand listening to modern actors in a scene-they sound like high school students in a group therapy session.

And it is bad for everyone. Disney, in the 1990s, said they wanted to be "entertainer for the globe."
So that means they want to go into Korea and China and Angola etc and dominate their culture too.
I don't see how anyone who appreciates art could support that.
It is a culture killer.
I am not excited that the guy who made the Witch is doing a story about Vikings. The Northman or whatever it is. I would be more excited if ten other people were, at the same time, also doing stories about Vikings. Because then you may find a Viking  story that appeals to you. Different voices, different approaches.

As a Pixar executive explained-the Hollywood goal is to make a film version of a cookie that has a little bit of ingredient to appeal to all people but not satisfy anyone in particular. And that's it. The only cookie you can get.
So you end up stuck with something bland when, if the cookie makers were making them for target customers, you would be satisfying all tastes.
Different strokes for different folks.

Horror Express had a Spanish director, the writers are from all over the place as was the cast--and yet it works (for those who like that kind of film). But that is because they were doing something that had a travelogue story to it--you expect it to have a lot of variety given that it is set on a train.

That film was made for horror aficionados--it was a target audience.

You don't get variety by shutting out voices.
And this is what is going on. Cancel culture basically.

I don't think you can make a good movie if you are seeking to make a cancel culture message.


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 12, 2022)

None of this is new.  Disney's been stomping all over world culture and appropriating it and repackaging it back in a bland pap form for years.  Hollywood has been killing world culture for decades.  Why all the umbrage and 'cancel culture' labelling when suddenly it's white culture that's getting eaten?  Marvel own Dr Strange.  (Or whoever owns Marvel these days owns Dr Strange).  He's a fictional character.  He's not a historical monument. He's made up.  A plaything. A toy. They can do what they like with him.  Just as Hollywood has been playing with characters like Sherlock Holmes for decades.  But it doesn't matter at all what they do to the character (I caught something recently that had Johnny Lee Miller as Holmes in modern day America with Lucy Liu as a female Watson.  I thought it was _dreadful_.  Not because they had made Watson an Asian woman and transplanted Holmes to America I just thought it was unadventurous plodding TV fodder (though it was not as bad as a 'truer to the original'  BBC adaptation starring Rupert Everett I saw recently  - that really DID stink) and it doesn't matter how naff the plots -  the fact is that the originals are still there.  The makers of _Elementary_  haven't "altered the source material".  No one has torn down Holmes.  The Conan Doyle stories are still there to be discovered and enjoyed.   If you don't like what they do with a character, don't buy it. Simples. No one is _making_ anyone else buy it either.  If it sells it's because the people who buy it want it, not because they are being forced-marched at gunpoint to the cinema (if this wasn't true and Hollywood could sell _anything_ then no one would ever make a film that didn't make shedloads of money.  _John Carter_ would have been a hit.  _The Last Action Hero_ would have been a hit.  _Ishtar_ and _Theodore Rex_ and _Pluto Nash_ and gods know how many million other stupendously loss making films would have been raking in the shekels).  

William Goldman said  "the single most important fact, perhaps, of the entire movie industry" is that 'nobody knows anything'.

Western film art culture is alive and well. (Or as well as it has ever been.) You just don't like what they make these days.   I like comics.  Mainstream American comic-book culture is alive and well.  I just don't like much of what what they make these days; so I don't read them.   I read French comics instead. It's a big world.  There's a lot of very creative people, making lots and lots of interesting stuff out there.  There are also a lot of MacDonald's operations churning out corporate junk.  Shop around.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 12, 2022)

JunkMonkey said:


> None of this is new.


It is new in the West. It was not the case in 1980 or 1960 or even 1920 that (hetero) Europeans were shut out of western film (they invented it).
 Now they are shut out. And people are noticing.

Hollywood in the silent era did seek to dominate western film but they were still using Europeans much of the time. They had to. Not by choice maybe.
I don't need to watch the new stuff--I don't care, but it still means a generations of artists are not able to get access to audiences and all because of corporations that despise the public. 
How can you make culture when you despise your audience?
Is there any example in history--did Shakespeare hate his audiences?
Did Homer?
This is new territory.
Maybe the USSR would come close to this anti-social focus. I suspect that is the best example.

Let's put it another way--if  Conan Doyle came along today--he would not get published by any mainstream publisher.
He would be canceled.
Which makes NO SENSE since people still read the original stories without falling on the ground in a fetal position from offense!
Nobody goes "Omigod! That white man is using his mind and leading the story! How can this be????"
The one place where you might find people who would react like that--work high up in publishing or film offices.


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 12, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> It is new in the West. It was not the case in 1980 or 1960 or even 1920 that (hetero) Europeans were shut out of western film (they invented it).
> Now they are shut out. And people are noticing.



Welcome to the club.   Black people, gays, lesbians and disabled people have been noting they've been shut out for decades.  (How many black faces did the average Hollywood western have in them until recently? - nothing like the 25% or so real black cowboys that rode the range after the Civil War.) 

Hollywood isn't about 'culture'.  It's about money.  Always has been. And TV is even worse.   Any 'art' that comes out of it is down to individuals working within the system and blindsiding the corporate bean counters.   Corporations have always despised people.  They're an awkward necessity in the the pursuit of profit.    If Corporations loved people they wouldn't cut corners.  Every car would be a Rolls Royce.  Every fast food meal would be five star Michelin. 

You're right though. If Conan Doyle came along now he probably wouldn't be published. His books are very archaic, old fashioned and his stories, to modern eyes, hackneyed and reliant on knowledge and mores the average modern reader doesn't identify with or understand.  As a stone cold start new author his books wouldn't sell in sufficient quantities for them to be worth a mainstream house's effort.

But back when he was first writing there were almost certainly plenty of other authors who were "cancelled", as you put it, because their works didn't fit societal norms of the time.  For instance from Shakespear's day until the 1960s (? from memory) any plays put on on any British stage had to be approved by the Lord Chamberlain’s Office.  Performances had to be licenced by the state.  If they (the state) didn't like the play or if it broke any of a huge set of rules, it didn't go on.   Shakespeare was a state-approved author.  Oscar Wilde's _Salome_ for instance was refused permission (cancelled) because it depicted 'biblical characters'.  That's pretty cancelling. 

We don't know how many other stories by black, gay, female, transgressive writers got 'cancelled' because they _were_ cancelled.  They didn't get to see the light of day.  Don't exist any more. 

Here's a thought.  I'm on a pretty limited budget so when I go shopping for the necessities of life (and the minor luxuries) I tend to shop in places like Lidl, and Aldi, Poundstretchers and Home Bargains - all low price discount stores.  One of them, Poundstretchers, has, I suspect, a policy of buying up cheaply ranges from well-known manufacturers that didn't sell well.  Their shelves always seem to be full of odd flavours of biscuits and tins of fusion branding that didn't hit the marketing jackpot and were quickly discontinued.  It's the way business works.  Marmite flavoured Jammy Dodgers?  Give it a go. Nope, that didn't sell. How about Peanut and Wasabi flavoured toothpaste?  Nope.  And on it goes.  The entertainment industry is exactly the same.  Stuff gets cancelled all the time because it doesn't sell or people get bored with it.  Always has done.

I'm a white male.  I'm bored stupid with white male protagonists resolving everything.  Especially resolving everything with a fistfight in the final reel.

Time for something new. 

Wasabi-flavoured lesbian detectives?  I'll give it a go.


----------



## paeng (May 12, 2022)

It's caused by incredible levels of money involved. Here's how it works:

Investors have lots of money available, and studios have spent large amounts of acquiring franchises. They want to milk the latter for all they're worth, and investors want the largest returns. That means very expensive movies shown around the world, and with the largest returns. How to do that?

Use the characters, plots, etc., from the same franchises, and release movies as fast as possible, or else competitors might take over. That means sequels, prequels, reboots, re-imaginations, spinoffs, and more, and generally rehash. Remember, unlike in the past when any sequels would come out years later, you now have to do it every year. In some cases, you can even make sequels right after making the first movie to save on setup costs.

Put in lots of special effects and make the movie as long as possible (up to three hours long) so that it will look expensive and worth viewing on the big screen. Otherwise, viewers will complain given high ticket prices.

Minimize complexity with characterization or events involving dialogue in order to cut across audiences from different cultures and who speak different languages. That means an emphasis on plot and action. The special effects also work with those.

Target PG ratings because that maximizes viewership, although there might be some exceptions.


----------



## Toby Frost (May 12, 2022)

There's no big conspiracy to destroy white culture or whatever else the con-men on the internet are pedalling to their followers these days (which is itself a nice money-spinner if you solicit donations...). It's cash, pure and simple. That's why you can make a cheap, arty film with a lesbian heroine, release it locally, make your money back off the art-house and gay pounds and say you're progressive. Do it with a big-budget film and it won't be shown in the dictatorships because lesbians are ungoodthinkful, so you lose money. Cash.

Frankly I find a lot of recent films boring, usually because they're poor imitations or remakes of better old ones. I'd welcome some variety.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 12, 2022)

JunkMonkey said:


> Welcome to the club.   Black people, gays, lesbians and disabled people have been noting they've been shut out for decades.  (How many black faces did the average Hollywood western have in them until recently? - nothing like the 25% or so real black cowboys that rode the range after the Civil War.)


You are evading the main issue.

James Whale was homosexual but he was promoted to big film productions. He certainly was not sidelined.  

The important question is, should heterosexual artists have access to heterosexual audiences or should they be shut out from the cultural stream? And if so why?
And,  do you think, in retrospect, heterosexual artists should have been cancelled 10-20-100 years ago if "society knew better?"
The few companies that are around discriminate against heterosexuals. Disney admitted it--they have non-heterosexual people in charge of content--especially for children. The director of POWDER was a convicted sex offender.  I am just curious to know if you agree that it is time for heterosexual artists to be discriminated against.


----------



## soulsinging (May 12, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> You are evading the main issue.
> 
> James Whale was homosexual but he was promoted to big film productions. He certainly was not sidelined.
> 
> ...


Honestly, not sure I know what your main point is here. Nobody here has ever said anyone should be shut out of anything, many have acknowledged it happens often based mostly on corporate calculations of profitability.

And it's pretty ridiculous to claim anyone anywhere is discriminating against heterosexuals (and hugely offensive to name 2 random gay men and attempt to link them to a sex offender like that's the same thing). There were many gay people involved in film over the years but we only know that now because it was carefully hidden from the public for decades. And as a straight man, I see no shortage of films by, starring and for straight men like me.

Your anger here seems a little misplaced. I'm a 90s kid and all about "corporations are ruining art" arguments, but you have taken it in a very specific and questionable direction.


----------



## Christine Wheelwright (May 12, 2022)

paeng said:


> It's caused by incredible levels of money involved. Here's how it works:
> 
> Investors have lots of money available, and studios have spent large amounts of acquiring franchises. They want to milk the latter for all they're worth, and investors want the largest returns. That means very expensive movies shown around the world, and with the largest returns. How to do that?
> 
> ...


Yes, exactly.  And the phrase that springs to mind - although you don't quite use it - is 'risk aversion'.  A studio can take risks and get a huge hit along with a few failures.  Really, I think that is exactly how they used to approach things.  Now, there is a tendency to go with the predictable safe bet.  Make a movie that is just like the last movie and you know how much profit you will make (ie about the same as last time).  Hence every new movie seems to remind us of the last one.

Someone above (JunkMonkey?) reminded us that there are still original and exciting movies being made.  Smaller movies not blockbusters.  But getting to see these is actually easier said than done.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 12, 2022)

soulsinging said:


> Your anger here seems a little misplaced. I'm a 90s kid and all about "corporations are ruining art" arguments, but you have taken it in a very specific and questionable direction.


Because you grew up in the age of centralized corporate control so you aren't going to notice the difference as much unless you watch older things frequently so you can see the differences. Frog in boiling water.
I myself did not notice it until I stopped watching newer things as much and watched older stuff more--and then I perceived the differences.  It became impossible to miss.

They aren't hiding the fact that they want to dismantle traditional cultural depictions. They brag about it. The sexual orientation of the artist has become more important than the content made.
Didn't the Oscars beautifully demonstrate this? A slap was the entire focus of the show and the only movie that was talked about after the event was Gi Jane.  This is the corporate money core of the industry. Was it good for business that Gi Jane was the talk of the town?
I don't see how.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 12, 2022)

paeng said:


> It's caused by incredible levels of money involved. Here's how it works:


*Hollywood accounting* (also known as Hollywood bookkeeping) is the term used for the opaque or creative accounting methods used by the film, video, and television industry to budget and record profits for film projects. Expenditures can be inflated to reduce or eliminate the reported profit of the project, thereby reducing the amount which the corporation must pay in taxes and royalties or other profit-sharing agreements, as these are based on the net profit.

In other words, they lie.

Why do they get tax subsidies? Because they take  money from taxpayers to fund their films.
No other business operates like this so openly.
The spiraling costs of films are entirely due to the corrupt management practices. When Star Wars came out, Roger Corman said it was a scandalous amount of money spent that could have been used to revitalize an urban neighborhood.
Between 1960 and 1975, film production costs were pretty stable.

And the contradictions are impossible to ignore.
How can you be populist--which Hollywood sometimes claims to be, and yet marginalize artists from a specific audience that you used to focus on? How does that work?
How can you make films that allegedly cater to China and the world at the same time?
It's looney. They keep changing their claims--Hollywood Accounting.


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 12, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> You are evading the main issue.
> 
> James Whale was homosexual but he was promoted to big film productions. He certainly was not sidelined.
> 
> ...



Oh gods Hollywood was full of gays that weren't sidelined as long as they didn't 'flaunt it' - * behind the camera!*   When they were in front of the camera gay and bi actors (like Colin Clive, Hattie McDaniel, Rock Hudson, Cary Grant, Greta Garbo and all the rest) they were definitely playing very very straight.

I refuse to get further into any conversation that equates/conflates being gay with paedophilia - as you get perilously close to doing with "Disney admitted it--they have non-heterosexual people in charge of content--especially for children."    Generations of kids have grown up exposed to hetero-normative role models and still grown up knowing they were gay.  What's wrong with giving gay kids some role models too?

I'm against discrimination of any kind.   It's the work that counts.  Hitchcock may have been an abusive heterosexual sh*t - but he made great films.  I don't care who the Wachowski siblings sleep with;  I think their films are overrated bollocks - apart from _Bound.  Bound _was good.


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 12, 2022)

> How can you be populist--which Hollywood sometimes claims to be, and yet marginalize artists from a specific audience that you used to focus on? How does that work?



Because, presumably, they've done the maths and worked out that that that 'specific audience' is shrinking or buying something else.  Because there's more money to be made elsewhere.  It's ALL about money.  That's why there isn't a large hat manufacturing industry in the west any more.  100 years ago there was. People still have heads.  It still rains.  People just don't wear as many hats as they used to.  Fashion and money.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 12, 2022)

JunkMonkey said:


> Because, presumably, they've done the maths


You mean Hollywood Accounting maths?
 You cannot take anything they say on financial matters as honest. They lie.

You say it is about calculating popularity but are you serious that when they put a biological male on the cover of a women's swimsuit magazine--that that is all about making money and popularity and not dictated by  politics?

Money talks right? Most of the readers are presumably male heterosexuals. So if they do that, they are risking less sales that month.
Unless you have a convincing argument on how that will guarantee a big boost in sales. Maybe they want to replace their readership with women but I am not sure that makes any sense.

I said it before--the way Hollywood works is if it was an Italian restaurant that for decades catered to fanciers of Italian cuisine-and then gradually decided to change their recipes to include Taiwanese versions and Austrian seasonings and eventually it is no longer Italian at all. But it isn't authentically Taiwanese or Austrian either--it is more like a hodge-podge menu.
And there are no other Italian restaurants in town because buy outs and mergers and financial interests decreed authentic Italian cuisine discriminates against marginalized culinary communities so you end up with no Italian cuisine being served and chefs who specialize in it are out of luck.
 And this has nothing to do with popularity or merit.
Is this a winning situation?
This is what western film culture is now.
And further proof is how many times someone says, "oh that isn't true about film--I saw a wonderful film from Korea the other day."

That reinforces my point.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 12, 2022)

JunkMonkey said:


> I refuse to get further into any conversation that equates/conflates being gay with paedophilia -


Yeah but you did that automatically. 
I said Victor Salva was a *convicted sex offender*. 
But the fact remains that Disney knew that when they hired him and yet were not worried about risk or image or box office consequences. Likewise with James Gunn's social media posts.
So the argument that this is all about popularity and money is ludicrous unless most parents are in fact not so sensitive about this anymore. I think that is very dubious position to take. I wouldn't try bringing it up in a room full of parents.
And the Disney executive in charge of children's programming said she wanted to promote LGBT etc in the content she produces. She said it so, again, if we are talking about marginalized groups and popularity, is this really being fueled by audience reception? Or is it mostly political agenda from the top? And if it is not fueled by audience reception, do those at the top care?
I don't think so.


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 12, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> You mean Hollywood Accounting maths?
> You cannot take anything they say on financial matters as honest. They lie.
> 
> You say it is about calculating popularity but are you serious that when they put a biological male on the cover of a women's swimsuit magazine--that that is all about making money and popularity and not dictated by  politics?
> ...



Okay.  Taking up your Italian restaurant analogy which you have used before and is a really rubbish one. First up there is no such thing as an authentic Italian Pizza just as there was no such thing as an authentic American movie.  Moving films were invented by a Frenchman living in Leeds in England and most of the technicians, directors, actors, producers and studio bosses of the early Hollywood days were Europeans.  Europeans who were making brilliant films while Edison was still trying to work out how to take the lenscap off his stolen camera* but legged it to the safety of California when the situation in Europe got dangerous for left-wingers, intellectuals, Jews, and artists  - in any combination.

They, both Pizzas and movies, have evolved away from their origins into what has become accepted to be an American norm.  I notice by the way that you seem to regard American films as the sole representatives of Western film culture.  (I wouldn't like to try saying that to an audience at a film festival in Cannes, or Venice, or Berlin, or London.) They're not.

For another thing you have it wrong.  Hollywood is not a single Italian restaurant.  Never has been.  To follow your analogy  Hollywood is really a global pizza manufacturing company.  With a worldwide distribution network and thousands of employees and collateral deals with other worldwide pizza manufacturers.  It has noticed recently that Margherita pizzas aren't selling as well as they used to.  So they tried making them bigger.  But they don't sell any better.  So they started making different kinds of pizzas AS WELL! .  They're still churning out Margheritas but making other new flavour stuff too.  They try new recipes, add pineapple (for which they shall go to hell) and find that pizzas with pineapple sell and then they add ham but find they can't sell the pineapple and ham based pizzas in Muslim countries but realise could sell them if they added a different ham-like but not pork-based ingredient instead... and they can now sell the same pizzas all across the world.  AND MAKE sh*tloads OF MONEY.  Meanwhile Francis Ford Coppola is still making his pizzas in San Francisco they way he has always done. What IS the problem with that?  I really don't see what you are getting upset about other than things change and everything isn't EXACTLY they way they have always been.

In this analogy 





> I myself did not notice it until I stopped watching newer things


 is the same as saying, "I stopped buying Margheritas".  If you're not going to buy pizzas just leave the restaurant and let us who enjoy new and interesting food combos enjoy the feast. Stop moaning.



*slight exaggeration but for the first decades of the history of film, European film making was far ahead of American.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 12, 2022)

JunkMonkey said:


> Okay.  Taking up your Italian restaurant analogy which you have used before and is a really rubbish one. First up there is no such thing as an authentic Italian Pizza just as there was no such thing as an authentic American movie.


I knew you are going to say that--I was going to add a qualification that "authentic Italian pizza" is what they were peddling-someone from Italy may challenge that--the point remains--they had an original consumer who went to that restaurant--and over time they stopped catering to them--worse--they removed all alternative restaurants so there were no other ones serving that  "Italian" cuisine.
That is what the Majors did.
They worked together--Disney was not considered one of them because he was actually from America. He just happened to become the most famous filmmaker out of Hollywood (why? probably because he found his audience and they liked what he did).
The closest name might be Hitchcock but he was imported. He wasn't making films for England anymore--he was working for Hollywood to make a global product (although aimed at the West).

That is what Big Hollywood did. It peddled its version of "American" film, and then over time removed all alternative companies.
So now the situation is that you have a few big companies and a few tiny ones that follow the same thematic template--and no one else can enter it.

The restaurant analogy still works--how can you run a business where you cater to a specific customer and then later on just stop serving them? Or adding bleach to the recipes?

Where's the capitalist free market filling in the gap?

We know why that didn't appear in Russia because the government and cultural business were one in the same.

 You are just evading the fact that European artists are sidelined now.
Is that something to celebrate?

When Brian Cox, Ian McKellan and others said that UK students from working class backgrounds were being sidelined for theater schooling is that good news? Is that healthy for the cultural stream?

It should be easy to answer.
It's either leaning good or it isn't.


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 13, 2022)

I give up. 

I really can't follow (or predict) your shifting goalposts and you don't seem to take onboard the very the very simple connection between you  stopping watching new things (because you don't like them) and lots of other people going to watch new things (because they do).  _They_ are all, obviously, mindless sheep with no critical faculties, whereas you have seen through the huge fraud being perpetrated on western civilisation by the lizard people.

Fine.  

I'm off to eat a guinea pig.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 13, 2022)

JunkMonkey said:


> I give up.


lol I was going to post I give up too!
Believe it or not, I do get tired of hearing myself talk/type.


----------



## Christine Wheelwright (May 13, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> lol I was going to post I give up too!



What? Just when I was starting to think you might be on to something.


----------



## soulsinging (May 13, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> Because you grew up in the age of centralized corporate control so you aren't going to notice the difference as much unless you watch older things frequently so you can see the differences. Frog in boiling water.
> I myself did not notice it until I stopped watching newer things as much and watched older stuff more--and then I perceived the differences.  It became impossible to miss.
> 
> They aren't hiding the fact that they want to dismantle traditional cultural depictions. They brag about it. The sexual orientation of the artist has become more important than the content made.
> ...


First of all, you have no idea what I have and have not watched or what I do and do not notice, and your condescending assumptions about it is not appreciated or based in any reality.

Secondly, you can't simultaneously complain that nothing new is done in movies while also insisting they must be made the way they used to be and reflect the same values you feel they used to espouse.

Third, I just fired up the Paramount app and know what the 3 "top" movies were? A hetero classic rom-com and 2 action movies starring famous hetero actors playing hetero men inflicting lots of violence on people. I don't know why this is such a concern for you, but it is very clear that there is not a glaring absence of straight people in film or some wide-ranging plot to dismantle "culture" and make everyone gay.

Fourth, people weren't talking about GI Jane they were talking about an uncomfortably public display of several crass behaviors. And they were taking about it because the Oscars suck and nobody cares about them and they otherwise wouldn't have talked about them at all.


----------



## soulsinging (May 13, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> Yeah but you did that automatically.
> I said Victor Salva was a *convicted sex offender*.
> But the fact remains that Disney knew that when they hired him and yet were not worried about risk or image or box office consequences. Likewise with James Gunn's social media posts.
> So the argument that this is all about popularity and money is ludicrous unless most parents are in fact not so sensitive about this anymore. I think that is very dubious position to take. I wouldn't try bringing it up in a room full of parents.
> ...


I don't think you're talking about film anymore and if anyone is making this topic political it is you. This does not appear to be a discussion about the film industry or art, but rather a Q-diatribe that fancy, pervy elites are secretly trying to groom kids. I'm here to talk about science fiction and fantasy, not go down a rabbit hole of conspiracies about baby-eating, child-molesting Hollywood liberals.


----------



## soulsinging (May 13, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> So now the situation is that you have a few big companies and a few tiny ones that follow the same thematic template--and no one else can enter it.


This is the case in every industry in America right now and has nothing to do with shadowy cabals trying to keep the straight man down. It's Monopoly 101. And it's not even that monolithic because there are seriously dozens and hundreds of films being made all over the world right now. The fact that Hollywood isn't promoting them doesn't mean they don't exist. And if you're unable to view them because of Hollywood, that sounds like your problem because there is no rule requiring you to watch only Hollywood productions.

If you have links to the comments by BC and Ian McKellen I'll read those because maybe they will make more sense. Also, Ian McKellen is gay. Isn't he part of the problem? Hollywood picking a gay man to be Gandalf and Magneto?


----------



## KGeo777 (May 13, 2022)

soulsinging said:


> This is the case in every industry in America right now and has nothing to do with shadowy cabals trying to keep the straight man down. It's Monopoly 101. And it's not even that monolithic because there are seriously dozens and hundreds of films being made all over the world right now. The fact that Hollywood isn't promoting them doesn't mean they don't exist. And if you're unable to view them because of Hollywood, that sounds like your problem because there is no rule requiring you to watch only Hollywood productions.
> 
> If you have links to the comments by BC and Ian McKellen I'll read those because maybe they will make more sense. Also, Ian McKellen is gay. Isn't he part of the problem? Hollywood picking a gay man to be Gandalf and Magneto?



I am specifically talking about western film although there have been filmmakers--a Japanese anime director said globalists were seeking to promote multiculturalism in Japan to the detriment of local film artists and creative diversity.
I never had an issue with McKellan in roles--there have always been gay actors --and in Shakespeare's time they used boys in women's parts they say. 
Now you could say that they aren't being honest if they hide their orientation but on the other hand, the point of acting is not being yourself right?
There's always a limit to something.
100 years ago, professional basketball in the US was 100% European players. It is now around 80% black players.
Is that equality?

Not unless you believe black players are superior to others which negates the equality dogma.
Those who are engineering the desire to suppress European cultural expression are not seeking equality. That's the not the goal, it is just surpressing European culture-and these articles are examples of that:


New study exposes ‘class ceiling’ that deters less privileged actors

Brian Cox: Acting is 'cutting itself off' from working class society


I was going to say this attack on European cultural freedom --you don't find it in all industries. Car mechanics don't have a problem with woke politics. On the other hand, there is pressure to transform these businesses too. Either eliminate them completely, or force them to have quotas for hiring.
Quotas have nothing to do with merit or skill. They are about taking away control of a company's operations and dictating to them.
It isn't good-intentions, it is malicious.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 13, 2022)

soulsinging said:


> I don't think you're talking about film anymore and if anyone is making this topic political it is you. This does not appear to be a discussion about the film industry or art, but rather a Q-diatribe that fancy, pervy elites are secretly trying to groom kids. I'm here to talk about science fiction and fantasy, not go down a rabbit hole of conspiracies about baby-eating, child-molesting Hollywood liberals.


You are fixating on a few comments. The issue remains--should artists be discriminated against if they check off populist credentials like heterosexuality?
I am trying to show absurd these restrictions are. We may reach a point where  sexual interest in children is a prerequisite for mass media attention and employment. Disney is getting pretty close to officially declaring that position after their reaction to the Florida law and one of their executives saying that she seeks to present sexual orientation details to children. They were mad that Florida wanted to restrict sexual education to children in the 3rd grade.

I think everyone here would agree that is not a populist position to take.  But that isn't even the big problem.
These companies have eaten up all the competition and put financial pressures to prevent new companies from forming.
It's not a monopoly based on merit or popularity.
They are simply preventing what they consider dissenting opinions. And that means things traditional and popular.
How can anyone who claims to be creative or support creativity, defend that state of affairs?


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 13, 2022)

Okay, KGeo777. Exactly  Who *is* "engineering the desire to suppress European cultural expression"?   Tell us.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 13, 2022)

soulsinging said:


> First of all, you have no idea what I have and have not watched or what I do and do not notice, and your condescending assumptions about it is not appreciated or based in any reality.
> 
> Secondly, you can't simultaneously complain that nothing new is done in movies while also insisting they must be made the way they used to be and reflect the same values you feel they used to espouse.
> 
> ...


First: You are the one who made an issue of your background. I am responding to what you said.
Second: I am pointing out that there is discrimination against groups of artists in the West. It is not hidden--they brag about it now.  Jordan Poole: "I am not going to hire white people." Whether they are going to follow some traditional kind of story or experiment with something new is hard to predict.  It's not about restricting the exotic--I don't think anyone can put a restriction on creative expression like that-but categorically preventing whole classes of people from opportunities in their society----something about that smacks of dictatorial and hypocritical. It's intolerance with capital I.

Third: I don't even need to look at the films you are mentioning-I am sure if they are not some tiny indie company from Wisconsin that they have all kinds of agit-prop in them. I glanced at something --The Essex Serpent I think it was called-and the plot is "a woman escaping an abusive marriage.."
There you go.
I can spend all day pointing out the little political messages they insist on inserting and all the kind of story scenarios they refuse to do-not because they aren't popular--they are--but because it doesn't fit the executives' narrow antagonistic tastes.

Fourth: The only movie that was talked about that night was Gi Jane--because of that incident. Nothing else mattered. That is a stellar failure for an arts show don;t you think? And they didn't even call it a failure! They gave the award to the guy involved in the situation and he got a standing ovation.
Imagine if it was an art gallery showing and as it starts, one of the artists pours paint over a guest and that becomes the topic of discussion and focus. The paintings on display--ehhh who cares?

This is insanity we are seeing now. A collapse of all standards.


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 13, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> I glanced at something --The Essex Serpent I think it was called-and the plot is "a woman escaping an abusive marriage.."
> There you go.



I hadn't heard of the Essex Serpent - so I looked it up. 
From the IMDb:



> The Essex Serpent follows newly widowed Cora, who, _having been released _from an abusive marriage, relocates from Victorian London to the small village of Aldwinter in Essex, intrigued by a local superstition that a mythical creature known as the Essex Serpent has returned to the area.





> She forms a bond of science and skepticism with the pastor, but when tragedy strikes, locals accuse her of attracting the creature.


(My italics.)

She's a widow.   He died.  So the plot isn't 'a woman escaping an abusive marriage' at all is it?  

You could just as easily describe Jane Eyre as "Woman escapes her abusive childhood", or Hamlet as "a man has bereavement issues".  

You "don't even need to look" because you've already made your mind up what you'll see and don't want inconvenient things like facts getting in the way of your opinions.


BTW You do know the Monty Python's  Lumberjack Song was a joke don't you? Not a Mission Statement.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 13, 2022)

JunkMonkey said:


> Okay, KGeo777. Exactly  Who *is* "engineering the desire to suppress European cultural expression"?   Tell us.


I would never dream of taking focus of the important point. Consult Christopher Marlowe, Voltaire, Mark Twain, HG Wells, HP Lovecraft, George Orwell, Truman Capote, Roald Dahl, take your pick.
They all had their theories about the why and the who. I don;t agree with Wells' theory. I think this is a biological phenomenon.
But that deflects from the main question--should this suppression be happening? Do you agree with it and why do you agree with it?
That is what I have been asking from the start and people keep saying it doesn't exist or they focus on the non-populist criteria.
Is this a good situation for creative expression in the West?


----------



## KGeo777 (May 13, 2022)

"The Essex Serpent follows newly widowed Cora, who, _having been released _from an *abusive marriage*, relocates from Victorian London to the small village of Aldwinter in Essex, intrigued by a local superstition that a mythical creature known as the Essex Serpent has returned to the area. "


Does "abusive marriage" have a different meaning here?
She was married to an abusive woman?
Or a non-binary individual?
Am I missing something here?

Are we on the same page with what is implied by abusive marriage?
I don't want to spoon feed the obvious.
But there are a lot of films being made with this kind of trope.
So much so, that I think it is hard to find a scenario where a married couple make it through the end of the story intact unless they are non-binary or have a varied background.

This is so ridiculous.


----------



## Christine Wheelwright (May 13, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> .........They were mad that Florida wanted to restrict sexual education to children in the 3rd grade.
> 
> I think everyone here would agree that is not a populist position to take......



Not necessarily.  Introducing legislation to attack a problem that does not actually exist can easily be part of a populist agenda.  Legislating to make elections more secure when there is no evidence they are insecure in the first place, is simply a cheap insinuation rather than a serious attempt to improve the world.  Legislating to prevent a teacher talking about sexual orientation in the classroom, or to prevent them from teaching topics that they were never actually teaching in the first place, is simply another shot in the culture war.  It is populist.  It exists to deepen the paranoia of the populist base and enthuse them about their representatives who they wrongly believe have their best interests at heart.

As for your wider point - about movies I mean - I'm actually a little open to it.  We are here to discuss why modern movies (big ones anyway) have that samey, generic, seen-it-before feel to them.  I'm willing to at least consider the possibility that wokeness is being wedged in across the board and contributing to the issue somewhat.


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 13, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> "The Essex Serpent follows newly widowed Cora, who, _having been released _from an *abusive marriage*, relocates from Victorian London to the small village of Aldwinter in Essex, intrigued by a local superstition that a mythical creature known as the Essex Serpent has returned to the area. "
> 
> 
> Does "abusive marriage" have a different meaning here?
> ...


I'm banging my head on the desk here.  

How difficult is it to read what is incredibly plain English? 

Look at the tense.  PAST TENSE.  The unhappy marriage is part of the backstory.  It's NOT the plot!  

"Newly widowed". ie she was married to a man because of the period (Victorian) setting.  

The backstory of Jane Eyre was her unhappy childhood in the orphanage.  But that wasn't the plot - oh! now there's a real example of a happily married couple living through the end of the story. The first Mrs Rochester?  Locked away because she was declared 'mad' by her husband then burned to death?  Jane was only able to give her love to Rochester at the end when he was blinded (egad! a disabled person in a book!).  How woke is all that!  Was Charlotte Brontë part of this vast labyrinthine conspiracy too?  If so she was well ahead of the game and provided one of the basic templates from which 'Western Culture' has built many thousands of romantic fictions.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 13, 2022)

Christine Wheelwright said:


> Not necessarily.  Introducing legislation to attack a problem that does not actually exist can easily be part of a populist agenda.  Legislating to make elections more secure when there is no evidence they are insecure in the first place, is simply a cheap insinuation rather than a serious attempt to improve the world.  Legislating to prevent a teacher talking about sexual orientation in the classroom, or to prevent them from teaching topics that they were never actually teaching in the first place, is simply another shot in the culture war.  It is populist.  It exists to deepen the paranoia of the populist base and enthuse them about their representatives who they wrongly believe have their best interests at heart.



Well since you bring it up--there is an obvious close connection between Hollywood and politics. The hostility towards populism, the dependency on worn out name brands (Son of Bush/Trudeau.....or elderly politicians shaking hands with invisible constinuents--that reminds me of Indiana Jones 5 or Die Hard 6). The question is whether Disney cared that they were potentially alienating a lot of parents. They do not seem to care. So the argument that is sooo often made, that these companies are so worried about risk--goes right out the window. That was a big risk they took--taking the other side in that situation. They knew that was an unpopular position to take.
It is ridiculous the gymnastics and contradictory position on the issue of movie company creative policies.

I.e. saying they make films to appeal to China mainly-(this was made a few years ago)-which is not good business if you also want  to appeal to your traditional audience. Disney's traditional audience was North America (and western Europe--UK).
The dots don't connect in this argument.
Now they even say that China is being shut out of Hollywood films now--either from their side or from Hollywood's, So that excuse is also gone. It is chaotic.


----------



## KGeo777 (May 13, 2022)

JunkMonkey said:


> I'm banging my head on the desk here.
> 
> How difficult is it to read what is incredibly plain English?
> 
> Look at the tense.  PAST TENSE.  The unhappy marriage is part of the backstory.  It's NOT the plot!


Quit banging your head or at least place a pillow on the desk.
IF they mention an abusive marriage---in passing, in the story, that in itself is a political statement.

As Sydney Pollack said, every movie has a political point of view. Even if they claim not to, there's always some ideological elements.

I was watching..Virginia City--and the commentary track for it--and the historian commented "I don't know why Errol Flynn just said he was an Irish immigrant, it isn't relative to the story at all."

It was relevant to Jack Warner or someone else involved. Praise the new immigrant to America.
That's the reason.

Why did Bryan Singer prefer to show scantily clad male actors in loving closeup and put scales on Rebecca Romijn's face?
I think I know why he did.


----------



## JunkMonkey (May 13, 2022)

sod this


----------



## magpie Asylum (May 13, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> You go into the movie theater, sit down and the movie starts and as the last of the opening credits rolls by the movie starts  and as your watching the film, you get a terrible sense of Deja vu, You've seen this all before.
> 
> Why do you think there is such a lack of originality of most of the films coming out of Hollywood?


Two big factors play into this the first is MONEY. A lot of fracking money. studios dump 10s if not hundreds of millions into movies, hoping for hundreds of millions in returns. Studio executives want a sure thing when you are taking about that much money. There is no such thing as a sure thing. Producer shop properties that are often rehashes of previously successful projects and name recognition. 

The second problem comes down to the production process itself. Producers and the studio get way more involved now with production then they used to. movies are written and directed by comity now, not by writers and directors. 

People with no creative imagination are banking on the short term success of basically a click bait reboot of an old idea with nothing new being aloud because it might be too risky. 

Combine that with how industries try to equate retweets to actual monetary return which has repeatedly resulted in major flops you have a recipe for an entertainment industry taking a financial and creative nose dive into a toilet.


----------



## paeng (May 14, 2022)

KGeo777 said:


> *Hollywood accounting* (also known as Hollywood bookkeeping) is the term used for the opaque or creative accounting methods used by the film, video, and television industry to budget and record profits for film projects. Expenditures can be inflated to reduce or eliminate the reported profit of the project, thereby reducing the amount which the corporation must pay in taxes and royalties or other profit-sharing agreements, as these are based on the net profit.
> 
> In other words, they lie.
> 
> ...



Here are some more things I remember about that, following









						How movies make money: $100m+ Hollywood blockbusters
					

Using detailed financial data from 29 Hollywood blockbusters (budgeted over $100 million), let me take you on a journey to show how movies make money...



					stephenfollows.com
				












						Do Hollywood movies make a profit?
					

Using inside data, financial modelling and a dataset of every movie released since 1990, I took at look at how many Hollywood movies make a profit.



					stephenfollows.com
				




That is, up to half of revenues go to theater owners and others. Meanwhile, the total cost of the movie is production plus marketing, distribution, etc. That means earnings are cut by up to half and costs almost doubled, although there's an upper limit to marketing, etc.


----------



## Please Be Nice (May 14, 2022)

BAYLOR said:


> You go into the movie theater, sit down and the movie starts and as the last of the opening credits rolls by the movie starts  and as your watching the film, you get a terrible sense of Deja vu, You've seen this all before.
> 
> Why do you think there is such a lack of originality of most of the films coming out of Hollywood?



I will tell you it is intentional. Audiences were trained to literally expect speicifc emotions at specifc time in the runtime of a 7 minute tv segment for a drama serial or a 90 min movie or a 120 min movie. It is all planned out with sublime precision. 

So, if any visual ocntent isn't doing that the viewer will experience some discomfort or intrigue at the change.

Literally has nothing to do with being original or not. Hollywood is a supplier for certain kinds of ellings and they know how to deliver. You are supposed to be recognizing and picking up on patterns that is what visual media has trained billions of people to do. Also Hollywood is a euphemism as the industry is not at all run out of hollywood anymore lol.


----------

