Low budgets are blitzing tent poles.

A

Aspiring Mogul

From the LA Times:

"Summer moviegoing is usually about the stars, the spectacle and the sizzle. But in a trend that's mystifying Hollywood, this summer's box office is being driven by films with modest ambitions, including relatively inexpensive comedies, lower budget animation and horror pictures."

Goldman has been proven right time and time again - no one knows anything.
 
I'd hardly call Grown Ups 2, Despicable Me low budget movies, though their budgets are lower comparatively.

If anything, I think it shows that audiences are interested in good films with good stories and good filmmaking. I think people are over crap films that are just there as a spectacle a la Transformers et al.
The Lone Ranger was obviously an amalgamation of poor Producing, poor writing and perhaps poor casting. Pacific Rim is just a rehash of something we've seen before - as is White Gouse Down.

Summer tent poles are no longer necessarily good movies, they're just movies that cost a lot of money and have a lot of explosions.
And I think people are a bit over it - they want to see actual well-written stories
 
In my own personal experience, I'm experiencing "summer action film" fatigue. And I was always a big fan of them.

But they're starting to FEEL like you're watching a different version of the same movie: a bunch of set pieces strung together, with everything being loud, no breathing room, just in-your-face all the time, quick cut disorienting and LOUD. Did I mention LOUD?

And the experience starts to blend in over the last few summers. Avengers, Iron Man, Batman, FF5, FF6, Expendables 2, Star Trek Into Darkness, Superman, Pacific Rim, Transformers, Lone Ranger, John Carter, Battleship, White House Down, Olympus Has Fallen, and it goes on. Just a mish mash of rapid fire editing and LOUD. Taken as individual films, some are great, some are bad, some are so-so, but collectively they feel the same, they kind of blend in, and frankly there's just too much. Pacific Rim is a good example where on its own it's a great summer film but comes on the heels of this audience burnout.

Too much of one thing causes people to look elsewhere.
 
I don't think the author of this article knows what a B-movie is.

And why are we acting like this is the first time a big budget movie has flopped (it happens every year)? Lone Ranger and RIPD are doing poorly because audiences occasionally recognize a stinker when they see one. And I'd hardly say that Pacific Rim is flopping.

Which, by the way, Pacific Rim is fucking sweet!

My point? I don't agree with anything asserted in this article. Seems like a pretty normal summer to me, and I think the numbers make that clear -- http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013&p=.htm
 
uhaulforlovers said:
But they're starting to FEEL like you're watching a different version of the same movie: a bunch of set pieces strung together, with everything being loud, no breathing room, just in-your-face all the time, quick cut disorienting and LOUD. Did I mention LOUD?
Click to expand...

As it's a business, the film industry will continue to make these very similar products until enough people feel the way you do that it becomes too risky to invest huge amounts in these products. At that point they will either reduce the risk by making this type of product with much smaller budgets, modify the type of product itself or more likely both of these options. Until we reach that risk threshold though, the film industry will continue along the same path.

The LOUD thing is a problem with a number of undesirable knock-on effects, there is currently no solution but my guess is that the theatrical world will at some stage go down the TV broadcast road and strictly regulate loudness.

G
 
AudioPostExpert said:
The LOUD thing is a problem with a number of undesirable knock-on effects, there is currently no solution but my guess is that the theatrical world will at some stage go down the TV broadcast road and strictly regulate loudness.
Click to expand...

I hope not; putting restrictions on creativity goes against the grain.

What is really needed are directors who understand that making their film louder does not make it better. It's the job of people like you and me to educate the current crop of filmmakers that sound is an integral part of the filmmaking process beginning with preproduction, not an add-on when they get to post.


As to Summer Blockbuster discussion...

When the investment level rises, so does the impulse of the investors to want influence over the "manufacturing" process. Let's face it, no matter how much filmmakers consider themselves artists the investors still consider films a product to be marketed and sold. Most products adhere to rigid manufacturing standards/processes, and many investors think that filmmaking should adhere to those standards/processes. I would not be surprised that, say, "The Lone Ranger," went through many script and edit changes to make the investors happy as the investors went through their by-the-book manufacturing process. Investors are terrified of big risk propositions, yet want the enormous financial returns that some films can produce. The biggest problem is that the creative process cannot be quantified; investors don't share that type of vision. If "The Lone Ranger" had been directed by, oh, Steven Spielberg, they might have been willing to keep their fingers out of the creative pie, as his track record is akin to that of a fiscal powerhouse live Steve Jobs - the perception of risk factor is significantly reduced by the mega-name recognition, so being hands-off is not the tremendous financial risk that other investments appear to engender.
 
AudioPostExpert said:
The LOUD thing is a problem with a number of undesirable knock-on effects, there is currently no solution but my guess is that the theatrical world will at some stage go down the TV broadcast road and strictly regulate loudness.

G
Click to expand...

I hope so. It's exhausting when it's just 2 hours of BOOM BOOM CRASH BUZZZZZ BOOM and the dialogue is compressed so it doesn't get drowned out. To me it's not just brick wall limiting but a creative decision as well: less explosions and more nuance. I mean, if I wanted stories that kind of noise I'd just stay at home and bang on pots and pans in the kitchen for 2 hours.
 
uhaulforlovers said:
I hope so. It's exhausting when it's just 2 hours of BOOM BOOM CRASH BUZZZZZ BOOM and the dialogue is compressed so it doesn't get drowned out. To me it's not just brick wall limiting but a creative decision as well: less explosions and more nuance.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't hold your breath. I certainly can't see loudness regulations happening in theatrical sound for the foreseeable future, it's not even clear how any such regulations could be enforced.

As an aside, compression is rarely used on dialogue in theatrical sound and when it is, only extremely gentle compression is ever used. Because of the massive amount of power a modern theatrical sound system can output and therefore the huge amount of headroom, brickwall limiting is never necessary in theatrical sound and I know of no instances of it's use. Brickwall limiting is an essential tool in TV sound and DVD/BluRay releases though.

The problem is really caused by directors making products for teenagers and believing non-stop loud is the way to maintain excitement/interest. Unfortunately, there is a shred of truth in this belief which seems enough for them to justify continuing to do it but in my opinion, there are a few directors out there who could do with a good slap! :) Of course this approach is a sound design nightmare because contrast, one of the most powerful of sound design tools, is rendered almost useless.

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top