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

[gwballin]

300 didn't have giants or wizards or be compared to "Gladiator meets Lord of the Rings". I get what you are saying, but this seems to be outside of that type of graphitization.

I'm not trying to split hairs or anything, but Xerxes was like 10 feet tall in the movie. The oracle was depicted as having legit magical power and those elephants were like 50 feet tall. Not to mention the Immortals reminded me of the Orcs in Lord of the Rings.

We might still disagree, but I do think we can both say that 300 wasn't a documentary, lol.

 

[Paul]

Keanu Reeves

You really didn't have to go through all that for me to point and laugh. Next time, cut to the chase, geez.

 

[St. Widge]

I know. I just hoped that a big budget Hollywood attempt at this story would fall more along the epic saga rather than the modern fantasy. Japan has had this story for centuries; this to my knowledge is the first time many Americans not obsessed with Japanese culture will be exposed to it.

I hear you. It would be nice if they did it as an historical epic with all the backing of Hollywood money. But, I'm just saying that, despite Keanu, it could end up being a cool movie. I mean, look what Hollywood did with 7 Samurai. How many Americans realize that the classic Western, "The Magnificent Seven" is really just a retelling of the Eastern classic, "7 Samurai"? At least Americans will be exposed to a classic story, even if told in a modern way.

 

[Domefan504]

4 life!


<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/otWhY8KGwPQ?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/otWhY8KGwPQ?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

[amused]

Dude ! I'm a Samurai . Let's , like , get the evil dude and score righteous babes .
But Bill-san , we'll have to commit seppuku !
Ted-san , those number games are most heinous indeed .

 

[crosswatt]

I'm not trying to split hairs or anything, but Xerxes was like 10 feet tall in the movie. The oracle was depicted as having legit magical power and those elephants were like 50 feet tall. Not to mention the Immortals reminded me of the Orcs in Lord of the Rings.

We might still disagree, but I do think we can both say that 300 wasn't a documentary, lol.

I get what you're saying. I always took that to be intended as the storytelling style of Dilios though, rather than any embellishment on the movie producers part. But I do understand your point.

 

[Zack Lee]

sounds a bit like Mortal Kombat. I am not familiar with the story of the 47 Ronin but Reeves aside, I am at least curious now.

 

[Galbreath34]

You should watch the Mizoguchi version, the best film (well films, it's 2 parts) of it IMHO.

 

[Sun Wukong]

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)

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.

 

[RazorOye]

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.

What about that documentary on the Satsuma Rebellion...

 

[B-Train]

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.

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.

 

[THENZA]

First off, Keanu Reeves is awesome.

Anyone who says otherwise can suck it.

And B, if you were expecting a dramatic period piece from an American-made movie about samurai and ronin, you just have unrealistic expectations.

 

[Superfan]

300 was one of the worst movies I have ever seen and I have seen many films.

 

[cdogg]

At least it isn't Shia LeBeouf.

 

[antipop]

300 was one of the worst movies I have ever seen and I have seen many films.

if 300 is one of the worst movies you have ever seen then you haven't seen many movies