I agree.
-
NEWS: Update on the catastrophic server crash: https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/587701/
Has Hollywood become too Dependent On Blockbuster films?
- Thread starter BAYLOR
- Start date
I agree.
More to the point, will anyone go to see the Matt Damon film The Great Wall?
The two reviews I've seen don't inspire much confidence.
bedlamite
Well-Known Member
I think that there are plenty of thought provoking and well crafted movies out there which aren't tentpole events - all we have to do is look out for them. Here's just a few from the last few years that I recently caught for a second time on TV after seeing them in the cinema: Birdman, The Babbadook, Whiplash, Rams, A Field in England, The Witch, Men and Chicken.
As an aside, I think that indie/small film makers are missing out on massive exposure. With the various platforms available to them, they could be offering a streamed film at £2, and they will probably triple their incomes, as their showings are so limited. Or, why not find out where their film is being shown - they certainly can do this, and if it's a local film club/small community theatre, offer a deal - if you liked the film, for example, a great deal on the DVD/BR. They would then be recouping production cost of DVD in advance. Plus it's another strand to get mentioned on social media - it all raises profile.
As an aside, I think that indie/small film makers are missing out on massive exposure. With the various platforms available to them, they could be offering a streamed film at £2, and they will probably triple their incomes, as their showings are so limited. Or, why not find out where their film is being shown - they certainly can do this, and if it's a local film club/small community theatre, offer a deal - if you liked the film, for example, a great deal on the DVD/BR. They would then be recouping production cost of DVD in advance. Plus it's another strand to get mentioned on social media - it all raises profile.
WaylanderToo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2015
- Messages
- 2,070
So has anyone Seen the Matt Damon Film The Great Wall?
to be fair it wasn't dreadful... the problem is that it wasn't actually very good either. In all honesty I did enjoy it so no issues there I guess it was just a little too generic
I think the problem with Hollywood is that good art has to be truthful and relevant to audiences and it no longer is.
Film started in Western Europe and the dramatic principles also originated between Greece and England.
But these days, you would be hard pressed to find people from that part of the world controlling the companies or making the films (the ones that do, for the big companies, are under very strict control in what they can show and do). The big media says it is all about money and profit but I don't believe it anymore. I think the companies (6 of them-based on Wall Street) want message control. And they have had that in mind for a few decades at least.
This is why, at least for me, movies have become increasingly unsatisfying.
Imagine being Japanese and living in Japan, and discovering your films were made by Norwegians and starring Mexicans. Or vice versa. We are not making our own film art in the West. Not the big stuff. And the nature of these monopolies has made it difficult for filmmakers (and writers) who are not in the club to be able to get a market and a living. I believe the culture is in a withered state, compared to the 1960s when you had lots of national cinema from various places--there was even Hammer in England which was as close to an Anglo-Saxon storytelling sense---they made film for their society, even though they got funding from distant Hollywood.
In the 1930s there was also variety, and the Hollywood film companies were spread out among Universal, Warner Bros. Fox, Paramount (started by people from outside Western Europe), RKO (started by Americans), Walt Disney Studios (ditto) and a few smaller ones (Columbia and MGM had some connection to Eastern Europe as well but were also fairly American in foundation so they didnt have quite the same "tastes" as the first four--this is one reason I suspect Ray Harryhausen found a home at Columbia, none of the other big studios were interested--and his producer partner Charles Schneer had family ties with Columbia).
Nowadays, all the companies, including Disney, are controlled by people with a multicultural and global ideology. They do not want to make films for the home audience.
It is an interesting and broad topic, one could explore for example how demoralizing messages crept into the big Hollywood film studios since the 60s, and characters--especially characters of a Western European background, became neurotic, or weak, often failing or dying, or became caricatures of alpha males.
There are many many examples.
I was never quite satisfied with big studio films of the 1960s, but there were so many mid budget and low budget films out there, so it didn't feel like one was missing entertainment.
But these says, the film business has totally squeezed out the small companies-so you are left with the big budget corporate, or low budget stuff done for youtube, or something from Asia where multicultural art is regarded as foolish.
I am hoping that the West can come to its senses and make films relevant to the home audiences--but it will require rebooting and allowing small, homegrown companies to exist. I fear the Wall Street club will resist such endeavors. They are kind of like an untalented singer standing on a street corner, who you are forced to listen to because he has the biggest megaphone, while there may be much more talented singers nearby who you would like, if only the other guy would turn down the sound levels.
Film started in Western Europe and the dramatic principles also originated between Greece and England.
But these days, you would be hard pressed to find people from that part of the world controlling the companies or making the films (the ones that do, for the big companies, are under very strict control in what they can show and do). The big media says it is all about money and profit but I don't believe it anymore. I think the companies (6 of them-based on Wall Street) want message control. And they have had that in mind for a few decades at least.
This is why, at least for me, movies have become increasingly unsatisfying.
Imagine being Japanese and living in Japan, and discovering your films were made by Norwegians and starring Mexicans. Or vice versa. We are not making our own film art in the West. Not the big stuff. And the nature of these monopolies has made it difficult for filmmakers (and writers) who are not in the club to be able to get a market and a living. I believe the culture is in a withered state, compared to the 1960s when you had lots of national cinema from various places--there was even Hammer in England which was as close to an Anglo-Saxon storytelling sense---they made film for their society, even though they got funding from distant Hollywood.
In the 1930s there was also variety, and the Hollywood film companies were spread out among Universal, Warner Bros. Fox, Paramount (started by people from outside Western Europe), RKO (started by Americans), Walt Disney Studios (ditto) and a few smaller ones (Columbia and MGM had some connection to Eastern Europe as well but were also fairly American in foundation so they didnt have quite the same "tastes" as the first four--this is one reason I suspect Ray Harryhausen found a home at Columbia, none of the other big studios were interested--and his producer partner Charles Schneer had family ties with Columbia).
Nowadays, all the companies, including Disney, are controlled by people with a multicultural and global ideology. They do not want to make films for the home audience.
It is an interesting and broad topic, one could explore for example how demoralizing messages crept into the big Hollywood film studios since the 60s, and characters--especially characters of a Western European background, became neurotic, or weak, often failing or dying, or became caricatures of alpha males.
There are many many examples.
I was never quite satisfied with big studio films of the 1960s, but there were so many mid budget and low budget films out there, so it didn't feel like one was missing entertainment.
But these says, the film business has totally squeezed out the small companies-so you are left with the big budget corporate, or low budget stuff done for youtube, or something from Asia where multicultural art is regarded as foolish.
I am hoping that the West can come to its senses and make films relevant to the home audiences--but it will require rebooting and allowing small, homegrown companies to exist. I fear the Wall Street club will resist such endeavors. They are kind of like an untalented singer standing on a street corner, who you are forced to listen to because he has the biggest megaphone, while there may be much more talented singers nearby who you would like, if only the other guy would turn down the sound levels.
Steve Harrison
Well-Known Member
Years ago, I used to go to the movies at least twice a week, but now I go to the cinema, at most, once a month.
There is far more quality on TV these days, IMO, so a movie has to be really compelling for me to go and see it. As for blockbuster movies, CGI has spoiled the spectacle for me and none of them can compete with films like WATERLOO and the old Hollywood epics which featured huge numbers of real people.
I'll now retire back to my porch rocking chair and grizzle at passing teenagers.
There is far more quality on TV these days, IMO, so a movie has to be really compelling for me to go and see it. As for blockbuster movies, CGI has spoiled the spectacle for me and none of them can compete with films like WATERLOO and the old Hollywood epics which featured huge numbers of real people.
I'll now retire back to my porch rocking chair and grizzle at passing teenagers.
I think that in the writing department , most of the films coming out are rather lacking. Right now the best story telling seems to be on television.
Was it ever adapted to either film or television?
Overread
Searching for a flower
I feel as if we've got a whole generation of film makers who can't really make films, or rather can't tell stories in films very well.
They can do action without any trouble, but they can't write films nor scripts nor pace things well. Even with all the fast paced action we get today they cover less story ground than many older films that had a far slower pace and yet were finished in as much or less time.
I think its a failing of the whole machine that builds films from the ground up and at some point its going to have to be fixed. Marvel/DC films are actually prolonging this because they can sort of get away with it. Heck you can even remake them a few times and fans are happy with that as comic books (least in the USA) have done this for so long that the fanbase expects it.
They can do action without any trouble, but they can't write films nor scripts nor pace things well. Even with all the fast paced action we get today they cover less story ground than many older films that had a far slower pace and yet were finished in as much or less time.
I think its a failing of the whole machine that builds films from the ground up and at some point its going to have to be fixed. Marvel/DC films are actually prolonging this because they can sort of get away with it. Heck you can even remake them a few times and fans are happy with that as comic books (least in the USA) have done this for so long that the fanbase expects it.
Eventually, the law diminishing returns and audiences will catch up to the movie industry and it will either have to drastically improve the quality of its films or go out of business. Unlike past eras, The movie industry now has more competition from television with its abundance of content ravenous channels and the internet. They really can't afford complacency and indifference to their audiences anymore and especially not at the prices they charge for their movies.
Sorry I took so long to respond!
I didnt see it until now.
No it wasn't adapted to film or tv.
It was a loophole in the Third Man film contract allowed others to do adapted works of Harry Lime, but maybe only for radio--funny thing about Harry Lime--he's a charming child murderer! in the radio plays they make him much less homicidal though.
On the subject of filmmakers lacking skills. Yes, I think this is what happens when merit is replaced by ideological loyalty.
Most filmmakers seem to get jobs now if they are obedient to the ideology of the owners--audience tastes are totally left out of consideration.
Case in point, Paul Verhoeven had an idea for a Robocop sequel where he is taken out of storage to deal with a crime wave.
Sounds like a good idea to me--much better than a remake, but no, studios aren't interested.
Hollywood itself desperately needs a reboot.
There are many people doing things on the internet, but how many make some kind of professional living and real artists need to earn some money and have access to audiences.
The internet at the moment is too much of a big wild world with only the corporations having their network space.
