Unoriginal Hollywood

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[j. d. worthington]

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

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

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

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

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

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

[unclejack]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

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

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

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

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by unclejack

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

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

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

[unclejack]

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

[Steve Jordan]

Two things going on in this thread are noteworthy:

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

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

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

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

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

[The Ace]

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

[unclejack]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Two things going on in this thread are noteworthy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Two things going on in this thread are noteworthy:

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

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

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

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

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

Amen!

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

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Two things going on in this thread are noteworthy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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


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

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

[HardScienceFan]

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

CGI or not doesn't matter.

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

Blechhh

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

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

CGI or not doesn't matter.

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

Blechhh

Yep im starting to get sick of sequals too.

I liked Pirate 1 but 2,3 disgusted me.

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


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

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

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

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

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

[HardScienceFan]

want some recommendations?

[Connavar]

Couldnt hurt.