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

[KGeo777]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[KGeo777]

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.

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]

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]

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]

"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]

.........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]

"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.

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]

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]

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]

sod this

 

[magpie Asylum]

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]

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.

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]

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.