Why aren't new movies better?

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

I'd say we have less variety than the 1980s and 1990s where more small studios existed than today like Calco, Cannon Films, and Action Pack. Big studios will always be around. It's the small guys with the more creative works that are questionable.

The Matrix, Titanic, and Avatar are recent block blusters that are epic.

Every 20 years, public opinion changes on what is entertaining to watch in movies or television. Back in the days ONE SPY TOO MANY featuring THE MAN FROM UNCLE was great entertainment. Look at it now and it will look corny with badly shot action sccenes and a hoaky story line.

I grew up with THE MAN FROM UNCLE, DARK SHADOWS, LOST IN SPACE, STAR TREK, THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN, and Japanese monster movies.

Today's generation is growing up with TWILIGHT, TRANSFORMERS, and HARRY POTTER.

We have to adopt to the trends.

 

[Alcove Audio]

Everybody always asks, why don't they make Casablanca or The Godfather anymore? They forget that those movies were made amidst a huge output of mediocre product that everyone has forgotten about. The best pictures stand the test of time, but only time will tell which ones those are.

Movies in the 30's and 40's was the equivalent of television of later decades; the studio cranked them out, and audiences went almost every week to see a new film. In 1942 Michael Curtiz directed "Casablanca" (which was nominated for eight Oscars and won three) "Yankee Doodle Dandy" (eight Oscar nominations, three wins) and "Captains of the Clouds" (two Oscar nominations). In '38 he directed five films, six in '39, three in '40 and two in '41. In those five years, in addition to the three listed above, he directed such classics as Angels with Dirty Faces, The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Sea Wolf, Santa Fe Trail, The Sea Hawk, Virginia City, Essex and Elizabeth and Dodge City. He had four Best Director nominations and won for "Casablanca". Curtiz directed about 170 films. Directors these days do perhaps one film every year or so - and sometimes a lot less (Coppola has directed about 33 films).

 

[Dreadylocks]

1a: Jaws and Star Wars did two things - they were the first modern "blockbusters" that attracted audiences for multiple viewings of a movie, especially by young people. With a couple of notable exceptions (Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz) this was not typical. Hollywood took notice. Those two movies also legitimized the horror and sci-fi fantasy genres as huge moneymakers for the general public. With few exceptions, prior examples of those genres were either cheezy as hell (insert Roger Corman movie title here) or aimed at older audiences (The Exorcist, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Planet of the Apes).

Great post, 2001.

But don't forget Blazing Saddles, which could be argued as the first 'blockbuster' with folks going to multiple viewings.

 

[spinner]

Spinner: That's when I was a youngin'.

Gotcha.


-- spinner

 

[Nate North]

Great post, 2001.

But don't forget Blazing Saddles, which could be argued as the first 'blockbuster' with folks going to multiple viewings.

I had no idea it was so huge in the theaters. When I was a kid, Blazing Saddles seemed to come on tv every week. I must have watched it 50 times.

 

[2001 Productions]

Curtiz directed about 170 films.

Can you imagine?!! I saw an interview with the screenwriter of Casablanca and he said its success was basically a fluke, within the context of the assembly-line motion picture manufacturing system in place at the time. It had no more pedigree, per se, than anything else that was being done. Harkening back to an earlier thread about underrated directors, though, I think Michael Curtiz definitely qualifies.

Good point about Blazing Saddles, Dready. Kinda changed everything for the comedy genre. Prior to that, comedies were a little more substantial (The Graduate, M*A*S*H). While B.S. was theoretically "adult-oriented" (and wonderful -- I own the special edition), it really was not particularly deep, and therefore appealed to a broad demographic. It definitely paved the way for Animal House, et al.

 

[ussinners]

Generally, lack of good story-telling nowadays.

As rough as everyone had it (if you wanna say they had it rough) way back when, was because scripts and stories all had to be green-lighted by a few brilliant men. You can hate them, but they knew how to get a great picture made.

That's gone in this day and age. Movies are just like music nowadays, technology has taken over. A geek might be able to run facebook, but chances are, he wouldn't know a good story if it bit him in the ass.

 

[Robcbh]

Simply because storytelling has taken a back seat to effects and CGI. And seeing that demographic for most films are the 'tweens, visuals will continue to be more important than story telling. That is until movies stop being profitable garbage.

 

[Josiah]

I think new movies are better technology wise but lack in concern with script.

I agree the movies are usually just for the effects nowadays, but there are some rare gems every year that stick out of the crowd.

 

[polfilmblog]

There's a lot that can be said, and too many generalizations that have been said.

What pisses me off about most Hollywood "product" is the assumption that the audience is an infantilzed slobbering collection of imbeciles, and they wouldn't understand anything above a fourth grade level. And if things don't explode every six minutes, they'll tweet "sux" as soon as they leave the theater, or still inside the theater.

But -- are they right with that assessment?

Who are these people in the audience?

And why has education failed them so?

I suppose it's complicated.

 

[Tinalera]

Something a friend of mine said the other day, and it made me pause.

It was his view that people don't want to "think" when they go to movies anymore(generally speaking). The "real world" requires enough thinking. They want to, for the most part, go and watch a film and the check their brain at the door. Sure there some pictures which capture the attention right off from a "thinking" standpoint, but it's meant to be a diversion now, nothing more. That was one theory. He had a second one, which he admitted seemed weird, but it was food for thought.

The "American Idol"-ization of culture. He says people don't want American Idol to see who wins, they want to watch the losers (schedenfreude-sp). How does that apply? He's convinced there's a small segment of the population that WANTS to go into films just to find something wrong with them-that way they're cool with their buddies about how they can trash movies. He admitted that it's a small segment he thought, but it's there.

While I am tempted to run with the second idea, I think the first one does apply. To use an example-Tron Legacy(I admit I have not seen it) but the general "layperson" reaction was they were blown away by the effects, ect-and didn't talk much about the story itself. A number of critics comparing it to the original Tron, which they described as "Fluff" and eye candy as well-which goes to the thinking. Watching the original Tron there's a REALLY (IMO) cool analogy to spirituality, a somewhat deep one, but it seems that goes over most people's heads-it does make you think. From what I've heard about the Legacy(without spoiling) I think there is a deeper layer that, again goes over most people's heads, and it's just the 3D effects that wow them.

There's a real reason IMO why "Thinking" films aren't box office gold-because people don't want to think.

 

[mad_hatter]

...people don't want to "think" when they go to movies anymore...

Slightly off topic, sorry, but this quote just reminded me…

When a friend and I went to watch “Inglorious Basterds” it was a preview showing and we were the only two in there. Then another pair of guys, probably in their thirties, came in and decided to sit in the seats directly in front of us, right there, the very seat in front of me. Why? I don’t know. Anyway…

They then spent the entire movie talking, complaining about the movie being subtitled. I overheard one of them actually say “Why they don’t they just speak in English and put on German accents?”! I wanted to say to him that just because he’s too dumb to be able to watch the movie and read the subtitles at the same time, that doesn’t mean we all are. Unfortunately, I didn’t say anything.

Back on track, a lot of the films that I consider to be some of the greatest ever made (Pulp Fiction, Gladiator, Pan’s Labrynth) were made more recently than those that other people have quoted as being the greatest. This is all very subjective.

 

[2001 Productions]

a lot of the films that I consider to be some of the greatest ever made (Pulp Fiction, Gladiator, Pan’s Labrynth) were made more recently than those that other people have quoted as being the greatest.

Those are great ones, and I can think of many more. Just in case you think I was bashing modern movies in favor of my examples, quite the contrary. There is great stuff being made right now by some great directors. But if you haven't got the clout of Ridley Scott, Quentin Tarantino or Guillermo del Toro, you're going to have a very difficult time getting anything made through the studios unless it's a remake, sequel or adaptation, with explosions and/or fart jokes aplently.

 

[Josiah]

There's a lot that can be said, and too many generalizations that have been said.

What pisses me off about most Hollywood "product" is the assumption that the audience is an infantilzed slobbering collection of imbeciles, and they wouldn't understand anything above a fourth grade level. And if things don't explode every six minutes, they'll tweet "sux" as soon as they leave the theater, or still inside the theater.

But -- are they right with that assessment?

Who are these people in the audience?

And why has education failed them so?

I suppose it's complicated.

I think Inception was one of the biggest "thinking movies" recently. Most of my co-workers saw it and said, "It was dumb." I asked why. "Well, uh, I couldn't just watch the movie. I just wanted to watch the action and effects, but I spent most of the time thinking."

Wow. Thinking during a movie. What a horrible thought. I'm being sarcastic. I agree, Polfilmblog, most people don't want to think. It was kind of refreshing FOR ME having something to actually contemplate afterwards.

 

[Tinalera]

Those are great ones, and I can think of many more. Just in case you think I was bashing modern movies in favor of my examples, quite the contrary. There is great stuff being made right now by some great directors. But if you haven't got the clout of Ridley Scott, Quentin Tarantino or Guillermo del Toro, you're going to have a very difficult time getting anything made through the studios unless it's a remake, sequel or adaptation, with explosions and/or fart jokes aplently.

I am very sad with how much I agree with this 2001.

Mad Hatter- that does a great job of illustrating my point That's just sad "Give em German Accents"-right....

I guess I'm used to Subs because I watch a lot of Japanese Anime, and the Sub titles are just par for the course-when they dub Anime, they often change the tone of the story, and often the voices don't match the characters on screen

 

[Alcove Audio]

You have to admire the Disney "translations" of Miyazaki's catalogue. They got the best translators and great voice talent - and nothing was released without Miyazaki's approval. A cousin of mine speaks fluent Japanese (she's married to a native Japanese speaker and lived there many years) and she says that nothing is lost in translation except for a small amount of the cultural context.

 

[2001 Productions]

You have to admire the Disney "translations" of Miyazaki's catalogue. They got the best translators and great voice talent - and nothing was released without Miyazaki's approval.

I've admired for some time Disney's animation division for signing up geniuses like Miyazaki and John Lasseter and - this part is key - NOT SCREWING WITH THEIR WORK! Think maybe they learned their lesson from Katzenberg and Tim Burton?

 

[Tinalera]

You have to admire the Disney "translations" of Miyazaki's catalogue. They got the best translators and great voice talent - and nothing was released without Miyazaki's approval. A cousin of mine speaks fluent Japanese (she's married to a native Japanese speaker and lived there many years) and she says that nothing is lost in translation except for a small amount of the cultural context.

Oh I do admire that, probably the exceptions to my "rule" They seem to fit the voice artists up nicely with the characters, and nothing feels "amiss'

And I agree 2001-don't mess with the work! Just do the translation as is!


One of the worst examples I saw of the "dubbed/subbed" a Japanese Anime called Project A-ko (a fav). The subbing tells a story that pretty much implies some love on a Lesbian level (well more to do with one character "in love" and desiring another female character borderline obsession). It's interesting because it's teen age, so some find might find that crossing a line. Anyway, when they did the dubbed version with American voices, the "Lesbian Love" was turned into "I want to be "special" friends-totally blowing the subtext of the story IMO)

 

[Alcove Audio]

A fascinating exercise in dubbing/ADR is "Hero".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299977/

They put a lot of time and effort into getting the English dub to match the mouth movements of the original Mandarin; it looks really good, barely noticeable in a lot of places. You can follow the basic plot quite well as much of the "Hero" is told visually, but the real depth and subtleties of the story are lost. I watch in Mandarin with subtitles and then the English dub.

Hmmmmmmmm.... I think I'll watch it again this weekend....

 

[Cracker Funk]

A fascinating exercise in dubbing/ADR is "Hero".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299977/

They put a lot of time and effort into getting the English dub to match the mouth movements of the original Mandarin; it looks really good, barely noticeable in a lot of places. You can follow the basic plot quite well as much of the "Hero" is told visually, but the real depth and subtleties of the story are lost. I watch in Mandarin with subtitles and then the English dub.

Hmmmmmmmm.... I think I'll watch it again this weekend....

Perhaps it's not fair for me to judge dubbing, based on only one experience, but I'm not too fond of dubs. The experience that soured me on it was Oldboy (a must-see movie, in my opinion).

In order to get the dialog to match mouth-movement, they really changed the verbiage and phrasing, drastically. That's gotta be really angering to a screenwriter and/or actor. In Oldboy, they took a movie that has really terrific dialog and completely nuetered it in the dub. After having seen that, I'll always take subtitles over a dub.