Unoriginal Hollywood

[j. d. worthington]

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

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

[unclejack]

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

[clovis-man]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Jim

[GOLLUM]

Originally Posted by unclejack

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

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

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

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

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

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

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

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

[McMurphy]

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

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

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

[unclejack]

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

[iansales]

Originally Posted by McMurphy

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

I think that's what's known as a mixed metaphor :-)

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by iansales

I think that's what's known as a mixed metaphor :-)

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

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

[iansales]

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

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by unclejack

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

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

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by iansales

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

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

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

[unclejack]

Originally Posted by McMurphy

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

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

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by unclejack

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

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

[unclejack]

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