"New Movies Rules"?

D

Dimp Paddy

i was just browsing around the msn page and I came across this article about some so called "new movie rules" and how this writer believe cinema can be changed for the better...

i don't agree with it but I thought i'd post it so everyone here can check it out and give their opinion on it.

http://entertainment.msn.com/movies/newmovierules

I find it funny because it says all new movies are boring so therefore every new filmmaker should make films according to these rules, but what they don't point out is this will eventually reach a point where all films are following these rules and are thusly the same again.
 
Generalization is the tool of the weak minded. This writer generalizes most (not all) movies as bad - he generalizes that all movies have bad sex/nude scenes, violence, dialogue, drug usage, job reality, death usage, sports and special effects.

What if I said this - I think people who have never made a movie shouldn't be allowed to speak about movies. That's a generalization that would take from us so many good critics and cinema theorists.

Poke
 
Most people don't think that far ahead ;)

Interesting to be sure!

While I do not agree that all movies contain all these elements I agree with what the author has to say about the listed topics. We have all seen many movies which contain the elements the author describes. Now I'm not sure I would classify all American cinema as bad etc. but I can see where the author is coming from.
 
Just to play devils advocate :D

Some would say the problems are not minor. I sure wouldn't miss any of the things the author described at least. Also, I'm not sure this correlates well with suspending driving. One is eleminating the entire body all together the other is cleaning up the process.
 
How about this then, rather than suspending all driving, just making everyone take the bus.. that work? hehe

Interesting article Dimp.. thanks for sharing.
 
Shaw said:
Some would say the problems are not minor.
Click to expand...

"Minor" was a poor word choice on my part. A lot of people would say that speeding is a major problem (especially if you've ever had a loved one die because of it). But my point was that you don't solve any problem (minor or major) by abolishing the tool of the problem. You don't solve drug use by making drugs illegal (see U.S. War on Drugs). You don't solve alcoholism by prohibiting the sale of alcohol (ask your great grandparents how that worked). You don't solve murder by abolishing social interaction. You don't solve communicable diseases by making everyone wear air filters and sterile suits at all times. You just can't solve any problem by making unnecessary, radical rules like these.

Another thing: Who determines these "problems" are problems? My dad would tell you that big explosions and fancy CGI car chases are not problems, but dialogue driven character studies are. And let's face it, the general movie going public is more like my dad than us cineastes. John Q. Moviegoer loves Sports flicks, topless women, needless action, corny dialogue, etc.

That brings up the school of thought that if we change the movies, the moviegoer's tastes will change. I disagree. If that were so we'd see a trend towards it. John Q. has unprecedented access to art house cinema and indie films at their local video store, but go to any Blockbuster and see which film has more copies available to rent - I, Robot or About Adam? Then ask the clerk what the week's top renter is. I doubt he'll say Mean Creek.

Now, you might say that the amount of copies or the rental numbers don't matter because the bigger films have bigger DVD releases, thus John Q. is basically forced to watch the big budget stuff. You may say that if we were to roll out a big national DVD release of a smaller film it would do better. Let's say we go to Blockbuster in April and there is an entire wall devoted to Primer. Now, it's almost certain that rentals would be high, but would the people who rented it enjoy it? My guess - most would say, "I turned it off after ten minutes of that boring ass bull shit!"

Despite the access to smaller, more artistic films, the general public still goes for the ones with the "stock characters spooned into syrupy generic formulas, like globs of expired canned fruit plopped into tarnished copper Jell-O molds, and garnished with the blandest and most tasteless clichés (which would be the iceberg lettuce of this particular metaphorical dish)." Why?

Anyway, it's an interesting subject methinks.

Will Vincent said:
How about this then, rather than suspending all driving, just making everyone take the bus.. that work? hehe
Click to expand...

If no one could drive, who'd drive the buses?

"And don't you dare say 'robots'. I swear to god, I'll kick you in the teeth if you say 'robots'!"

Poke
 
Last edited:
If no one could drive, who'd drive the buses?
Click to expand...

Unemployed musicians or cinematographers :D

You have some great points poke and I think we mostly agree. More comments in a little bit (when I have the spare time to address it properly!)
 
This guy has the right idea to have contempt for terrible movies that are coming out (seemingly more and more) but his reasoning is way off base. I don't want to pick apart this article because I could be here for days.

Just because the traditional films don't work for you doesn't mean films in traditional style don't work. I agree his generalizations show a total lack of understanding of reality and true cinema. We need more hand held cameras and full frontal nudity! yeah, thats the ticket. Lets just do our best to mandate an nc-17 rating.
 
So, directors, get real and remember: human genitalia are like nature's shiny bicycles.
Click to expand...

With bits of chrome "accesories" and given a weekly greasing?

P.S. and I don't have a bike.
smiley_pac.gif
 
i agree with what he said somewhat. people need to look back and relize that filmmaking is nothing more than storytelling except visually. espically with the chapter on CG I 100% agree that some movies the graphics take away from the story and it becomes more about showboating the technology
 
i agreed with what the writer said on CG.. well mostly. They say:

But don't use CGI effects just because you can -- like the camera-flying-through-the-coffee-pot-handle shot in Fincher's "Panic Room," which is there for no good reason at all. It's not even funny because it's too easy.
Click to expand...

but I disagree there, in my opinion every film needs some degree of self indulgence, and if a filmmaker wishes to, say, use computer graphics to move a camera through a kitchen via coffee pot handle, then hey, that's cool. And really, you can't say that shot wasn't a bit more interesting than just a simple track, zoom or pan. Just because a camera move, lighting setup or anything really in a film has no immeadiate purpose, doesn't mean it should be abolished. I know I'd lose a bit of love for the art if I was denied that freedom.
 
something to note is that the coffee pot isn't the only CG element of that scene.. as I recall the entire room was CG .. at least for that shot, which in my opinion isn't all that "easy"..
 
Interesting read, thanks Pimp Daddy.

For the most part it seems that the author wants movies to more reflect real life. Accurate dialogue, jobs, money, action, nudity..... how dull. I get all that stuff everyday all day long. (well ok I could use more nudity.... who couldn't.... except poke.... put on a damn shirt already....;))

I find it funny because it says all new movies are boring so therefore every new filmmaker should make films according to these rules, but what they don't point out is this will eventually reach a point where all films are following these rules and are thusly the same again.
Click to expand...

It's funny that the author should keep refering to dogma95 since they disbanded for the very reason that Pimp Daddy addresses. Lars von Trier and family recognized that Dogma95 was on the verge of becoming a genre of its own.


Finnally, as an aside and really not important but something that I have been needing to get off my chest. I recently watched the superman movies and I was not impressed. I found the flying effects to be distracting. Sure the effects may have been groundbreaking but they have not stood the test of time. IMHO.
 
hehe that's not really fair though, is it?

It's kind of like saying that Harryhausen did a bad job because the skeletons in Sinbad don't look "real" enough, since they're stop motion..
 
I thought it was an interesting article and I can see where Jim is coming from. A lot of the Hollywood output is pretty uninspiring story telling.

It would be good if there was more diversity of styles in mainstream film making. I thought the idea of updating the Dogme rules was a good hook for the article.

The truth is that Dogville by Las Von Trier is probably one of the most interesting pieces of film making to happen in the last ten years. That piece came out of a fierce anti-hollywood aesthetic. As indie film makers we are more likely to use and develop non-mainstream approaches to storytelling and production. A film like Pi is a good example of that.

I think however Jim is missing the point, the problem isn't nudity, drug deals, cgi or even unrealistic violence, the real problem is lazy, formula storytelling. At the core of his discussion is a gut level understanding that somehow these movies are like junk food, tasteless and essentially unsatisfying to eat. The reason for that is that they hold no truths about people, but are constructed from cliches.
 
Will Vincent said:
hehe that's not really fair though, is it?

It's kind of like saying that Harryhausen did a bad job because the skeletons in Sinbad don't look "real" enough, since they're stop motion..
Click to expand...

maybe your right, I think it will be very interesting in twenty years to take look at contemporary films and see which ones make us cringe. Some of them already do. The making of doc on superman though was very interesting.
 
clive said:
I think however Jim is missing the point, the problem isn't nudity, drug deals, cgi or even unrealistic violence, the real problem is lazy, formula storytelling. At the core of his discussion is a gut level understanding that somehow these movies are like junk food, tasteless and essentially unsatisfying to eat. The reason for that is that they hold no truths about people, but are constructed from cliches.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I wish I was as succinct as you clive.

Mikey D said:
I think it will be very interesting in twenty years to take look at contemporary films and see which ones make us cringe. Some of them already do.
Click to expand...

Remember how wild everyone was for the CGI in Starship Troopers? Try watching that one today without laughing.

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