Seriously, what is wrong with Hollywood? (1 Viewer)

What you have to understand about Hollywood is that it isn't run by artists, it's run by money men. Money men don't understand art or storytelling or creativity, they only understand returns on investment. That's why we get so much nonsense like this. Financially, a historical epic set entirely in Japan wouldn't appeal to the mass American market that much. It may make for a fantastic movie, but bad product. All they care about is product. So they add supernatural elements, dumb it down for the least-common denominator and hope they can get the audiences to come out.

For much of Hollywood's existence, the balance between commerce and art has been at an acceptable level. And when it got out of whack (the ridiculously bloated epics of the 1960's that killed the studio system, for example) the pendulum would swing the other way to compensate (the 1970's being an unparalleled time of artistic freedom in movies).

But now the balance is completely shattered. I remember reading an article a long time ago that detailed the rise of money men as studio heads in the 1980's. That's when things begin to change. They weren't coming from film production backgrounds but financial institution backgrounds, and they really skewed the balance between money and art that had once existed.

And to see how bad it is, just look at what's going on in Hollywood with creatives. Writers are treated like second class citizens (there's a pretty good documentary on Netflix called Tales from the Script that really illustrates how much being a screenwriter sucks), special effects guys, especially digital effects, have become grossly overworked, underpaid, and treated like robots. It isn't getting much play in the regular media, but there's real concern among those in the effects industry about how they're being treated by the studios. They're being given unacceptably short turnaround times, then getting raked over the coals and belittled by executives when goals aren't met. There's a lot of discontent in that field right now. Directors themselves, unless you're a a top-tier guy like Spielberg, have to play the game and jump through crazy hoops to get things done. Even Christopher Nolan, a guy with a very successful financial track record, has to play the "one for them (Batman), one for me (Inception)" game to get his passion projects developed.

So yeah, it's more business than art now. And it's noticeable.

While my original question was largely rhetorical, this is a great answer.
 
Why do people get so angry about what movies are made?

There is already a bunch of other stuff to get angry about. Choose one of those instead.

No one is going to pry your eyeballs open and strap you down in front of a screen.
 
Why do people get so angry about what movies are made?

There is already a bunch of other stuff to get angry about. Choose one of those instead.

No one is going to pry your eyeballs open and strap you down in front of a screen.

I often choose what to watch based on my familiarity to the story, or my interest in how a unique story is to be presented. I saw that a movie of a story I enjoy is being made into a movie. I subsequently found out that they are making it a fantasy style movie, and this caused me some consternation as to why they would do so. I accept plot and casting differences when they aid in transition from printed page to screen image. I understand the dumbing down of some great source material to appeal to a wider audience. But in this instance, to me anyway, it seemed an unnecessary element to a successful adaptation. It is my opinion. I am probably wrong, but it is what I felt after my discovery, and how I still feel.
 
Here's a pretty interesting article from the New York Times about how Hollywood is now trying to break everything down to measurable success/failure elements. In other words, trying to quantify what makes a successful movie:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/b...-hit-film-script-with-data.html?smid=tw-share

Cinema as an artform dies a bit more.

Apparently the masses don't want "art" then. What do you think they're paying for? Movie studios aim to please audiences, since that's how they make money.

Two points:

1. Who knows what the masses truly want? Hollywood is so afraid to deviate from their pattern of sequels, remakes, reboots, and rehashes that at this point it's almost impossible to figure out what the movie going public wants versus what the movie going public has to choose from. Hollywood is setting the pace here, not audiences.

2. Movie studios do not aim to please audiences. At all. They care about money. Sometimes those two things dovetail, sometimes they don't. But if you think that their top concern is quality, you're wrong. Their top concern is return on investment, and they will absolutely release a piece of work movie if they think they can profit off of it.
 
<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/47_-pqoPDVQ?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/47_-pqoPDVQ?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

So....Yeah....
 
according to this article, the fail is epic?

Even Reeves, the film&#8217;s supposed star, was busy during part of its production with his own directorial debut, &#8220;Man of Tai Chi.&#8221; He eventually was brought back for reshoots to, I kid you not, add him back in to the film&#8217;s final action sequence. Apparently he wasn&#8217;t a part of it previously? Does that seem concerning?

To say these issues pushed back the movie&#8217;s eventual release is an understatement, as it was initially scheduled for December of 2012. In late 2012, Universal clearly voiced its concern when it pulled Rinsch from further work on the film&#8217;s editing, putting studio executives in charge who were almost a full hemisphere away from the London shoot. Go ahead and read the article in that link, and consider that it was posted in September of 2012. You know it&#8217;s a bad sign when you can go back 15 months to find an article about all the production problems a movie has been having, and the film still isn&#8217;t out.

The beautiful disaster of


Unsurprisingly, the critical reviews have been scathing as well. My favorite is this 0.5 review from Film.com, which calls the movie &#8220;possibly the second-worst thing to happen to Japan so far this century.&#8221;

ouch, too far.
 
So frustrating. At least "Walter Mitty" looks promising. At least one of my childhood faves may make it through unscathed.
 
Hollywood cranks out a plethora of superhero flicks, along with teen (gettin my first piece) comedies, because they earn profit. Paul Walker. Nuff said. I, as a young studio buck would dig up and propose Ant Man or Wonder Woman. Why not? Every other superhero movie bangs at the box office. The US public doesn't expect more? Aren't we supposed to be smarter?

Why is that that every flick such as Precious among others have to struggle to see light of day? Oh, once the revenue flows in, then Hollywood wants to offer some award. Those directors and actors now have the green light, after years of obscure toil. They shouldve just cranked out a superhero flick to make their mark in the first place.

BTW: I loved 300. I was just thinking that we could have a Netflix thread, in order to suggest movies. I've probably averaged viewing a movie daily over the last 15 years. I enjoy dumb movies, just as well as thought-provoking.
 
Hollywood is relying so much on special effects they lost my interest on many movies. Actors for the most part simply are not as talented as they were say 50-60 years ago. In those days movies told a story, and special effects were not nearly as prevalent as they are today. The performers were able to hone their skills unlike actors today.

Even the story lines are nothing more than repeats of prior movies, with some special effects, monsters and diasters thrown in for added measure. On top of that the cost of movies and snacks dissuade more people from going for just an afternoon diversion.
 
Hollywood cranks out a plethora of superhero flicks, along with teen (gettin my first piece) comedies, because they earn profit. Paul Walker. Nuff said. I, as a young studio buck would dig up and propose Ant Man or Wonder Woman. Why not? Every other superhero movie bangs at the box office. The US public doesn't expect more? Aren't we supposed to be smarter?

Why is that that every flick such as Precious among others have to struggle to see light of day? Oh, once the revenue flows in, then Hollywood wants to offer some award. Those directors and actors now have the green light, after years of obscure toil. They shouldve just cranked out a superhero flick to make their mark in the first place.

this is why I watch Indy Films damn near exclusively. So much more likely to find creativity there.

BTW: I loved 300. I was just thinking that we could have a Netflix thread, in order to suggest movies. I've probably averaged viewing a movie daily over the last 15 years. I enjoy dumb movies, just as well as thought-provoking.
http://saintsreport.com/forums/f3/suggest-me-netflix-movie-225698/#.UrrbfPRDuSo

and more recently

http://saintsreport.com/forums/f3/suggest-good-movie-thread-312806/#.UrrbyPRDuSo
 
This thread is why I watch mostly foreign films. **** Hollywood. So sick of flashy special effects, the "one man" saving his family hero theme, the US-centered narratives (why do the aliens/plagues/natural disasters always ignore the rest of the world?), and, above all, the trite, vapid, shallow, sappy moralistic messages.
 
according to this article, the fail is epic?



The beautiful disaster of




ouch, too far.


So, first this thread is started complaining that an American is going to be the star of 47 Ronin. But then an article is written that says: "He eventually was brought back for reshoots to, I kid you not, add him back in to the film’s final action sequence. Apparently he wasn’t a part of it previously? Does that seem concerning?"

So now youre complaining he wasnt the star enough???

From what I heard, Keanu wasnt *supposed* to be the star of the film and wasnt even supposed to be in it all that much, but the studio had no clue how to market it if Keanu wasnt the main character so they heavily edited it, and re-shot some scenes.
 
So, first this thread is started complaining that an American is going to be the star of 47 Ronin. But then an article is written that says: "He eventually was brought back for reshoots to, I kid you not, add him back in to the film’s final action sequence. Apparently he wasn’t a part of it previously? Does that seem concerning?"

So now youre complaining he wasnt the star enough???

From what I heard, Keanu wasnt *supposed* to be the star of the film and wasnt even supposed to be in it all that much, but the studio had no clue how to market it if Keanu wasnt the main character so they heavily edited it, and re-shot some scenes.

:the food here is terrible
:yes, and in such small protions
 
Whilst on a Wikipedia walkabout of sorts, I stumbled upon the entry for a new film based on the story of the 47 Ronin. This new adaptation will be staring Keanu Reeves, but that isn't the real clincher. He will play Kai, a part English part Japanese outcast who joins the group of samurai as they seek revenge. A bit of a head scratcher, but I'm still on board. It is a super cool story, and I can tolerate some literary liberties when telling a story. But this is the part that just sunk me.







Seriously, why? WHY? I mean what in the world is wrong with these people? The story is an incredibly awesome tale. It doesn't need anything added to make it compelling. Do the people who produce films these days really think that a freakin' samurai film, one of the absolute most enduring and popular genres in film making history needs added geek appeal? Are they that out of touch, or stupid, or do they just think that we are? I'm seriously downtrodden over this discovery today. Crap. If I were Japanese, I'd be even more ticked. This is one of their national legands, and a huge part of their national identity. And this movie is just taking a huge Chipotle fuled style dump right on it's chest.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/47_Ronin_(2013_film)


Spoiler Alert!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey, at least they all kill themselves in the end. Hopefully Keanu is in that number. :mwink:
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom