Hollywood Needs To Fail Again

[DA_Champion]

They had less flexibility, and yet they made one of the most beautiful movies ever.

 

[jmc]

The thing about having fewer options is that it forces you to think creatively. CGI is too much of a crutch for some directors. If a directors is given a limit on the number of revisions he can do for a scene it means he has to plan it out properly before handing to the CG team. Why is it ok for directors to plan one-take shots but not plan for CGI?

 

[Warhammer]

The thing about having fewer options is that it forces you to think creatively. CGI is too much of a crutch for some directors. If a directors is given a limit on the number of revisions he can do for a scene it means he has to plan it out properly before handing to the CG team. Why is it ok for directors to plan one-take shots but not plan for CGI?

This is why we have run of the mill directors (who have no recognition and/or won't be remembered 20 years from now) versus directors who will be etched in history for their intelligence and talent.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Hollywood is a corporate entity and they have big dumb movies, small smart movies and everything in-between.

Every market is served based on demand so I don't see a problem.

 

[terry78]

Film is like food, you got the fancy dishes, the junk food, the fast food, the healthy stuff that tastes bland, the healthy stuff that tastes great, etc.

 

[eddy]

I did get to see Lego Movie, Noah, and Divergent this year, all of which is original, and typically better than Amazing Spider Man 2 / Captain America 2.

However, the latter will make more money.

Huh?

 

[DA_Champion]

Huh?

I consider Noah, Divergent, and Lego Movie to be original, though I can understand how some people might disagree, and that's fair enough. Noah and Divergent are adaptations, and Lego Movie is a satire. However, speaking personally, they were different from what I'm used to.

 

[Hammer!]

Huh?

I'm guessing he was being sarcastic? Divergent was numbingly pedestrian and sloppily made. It mad Jumper and I am Number Seven look like The Hunger games II. Noah was a good movie, but Cap II is far superior movie to both.

 

[samsnee]

I recently read an interview with Jon Favreau where he basically said the mid-budget movie is dead. And he's right. It's either a huge franchise movie or super small movie made for change.

I think part of the issue is ticket price. If it's going to cost $12 to see a movie, any movie, I think people will always go for the biggest FX or experience that they can't see at home. I think they should go with a tiered pricing strategy, but then people will just buy a ticket for a cheaper movie and sneak into the bigger one.

 

[DA_Champion]

I'm guessing he was being sarcastic? Divergent was numbingly pedestrian and sloppily made. It mad Jumper and I am Number Seven look like The Hunger games II. Noah was a good movie, but Cap II is far superior movie to both.

I found Noah and Lego to be better than CA:TWS, Divergent was a step down from Noah and Lego due to script problems.

Didn't watch Jumper or I am Number Four. I have not liked Hayden Christensen in anything since Higher Ground.

The Winter Soldier was a very good action movie for me, it was fun like a good roller coaster ride with some good jokes thrown in. It was well-executed for what it it ended to be, but the absence of themes, depth, or character arcs, the shallowness of Alexander Pierce, and the politicaly offensive exoneration of our collective guilt means it is nothing more than... a well-executed action movie. This article really nails it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-america-the-winter-soldier-gets-very-wrong/
CA:TWS is fun, but it's dumb. In contrast, Lego and Noah left me thinking for days. I prefer the latter.

 

[titansupes]

I still have to see Oblivion. My jaw dropped when I saw the behind the scenes video showing all that 'modern rear projection' or what have you.

 

[terry78]

Yeah, I did pay 13 bones to see Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing, mostly because I knew a lot of fellow Whedonites were going opening night.

 

[Hammer!]

I found Noah and Lego to be better than CA:TWS, Divergent was a step down from Noah and Lego due to script problems.

Didn't watch Jumper or I am Number Four. I have not liked Hayden Christensen in anything since Higher Ground.

The Winter Soldier was a very good action movie for me, it was fun like a good roller coaster ride with some good jokes thrown in. It was well-executed for what it it ended to be, but the absence of themes, depth, or character arcs, the shallowness of Alexander Pierce, and the politicaly offensive exoneration of our collective guilt means it is nothing more than... a well-executed action movie. This article really nails it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-america-the-winter-soldier-gets-very-wrong/
CA:TWS is fun, but it's dumb. In contrast, Lego and Noah left me thinking for days. I prefer the latter.

Meh, I thought Cap was a far more intellectual CBM than your typical Man of Steel, Thor 2, and Amazing Spider-man affair. Perhaps you not being from America made you not as keen on the post 9/11 shift, wiki leaks, and the damnation this country has with pre-60s American sensibilities? Just a thought. I have a foreigner friend that had those fly right over his head.

Still think IM3 is the most politically smart CBM I've ever seen. Despite being a "political thriller" I found the most resounding aspect of a Cap 2 was the film's social commentary.

 

[DA_Champion]

Meh, I thought Cap was a far more intellectual CBM than your typical Man of Steel, Thor 2, and Amazing Spider-man affair. Perhaps you not being from America made you not as keen on the post 9/11 shift, wiki leaks, and the damnation this country has with pre-60s American sensibilities? Just a thought. I have a foreigner friend that had those fly right over his head.

Still think IM3 is the most politically smart CBM I've ever seen. Despite being a "political thriller" I found the most resounding aspect of a Cap 2 was the film's social commentary.

I grew up in Canada (which is nearly indistinguishable from the USA though most Canadians deny that), and I lived in the United States for five years, from 2007-2012. I'm vastly more aware of the post-9/11 shift, wiki leaks, etc than the average American, and it's precisely because of that awareness that I see Cap 2 as a shallow movie. Which is sad because it's not far removed from being brilliant. It could have done better by either developing Hydra or removing Hydra.

I'm too biased by my love for Superman to make comparisons with MoS, but yes Cap 2 was certainly smarter than Thor 2 and Amazing Spider Man, but honestly so is nearly everything else, so I'm not sure what your point is.

I hated Iron Man 3, but I thought what they did with the Mandarin switch was very clever, probably the best part of the movie.

 

[Heretic]

But the inclusion of Hydra makes total sense, as in the real world we welcomed the worst of Nazi scientists into America to work within our government. CA:TWS was asking whether or not the advancements were really worth selling our souls. SHIELD aren't good guys in the movie, because good guys wouldn't work with Nazis.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Meh, I thought Cap was a far more intellectual CBM than your typical Man of Steel, Thor 2, and Amazing Spider-man affair. Perhaps you not being from America made you not as keen on the post 9/11 shift, wiki leaks, and the damnation this country has with pre-60s American sensibilities? Just a thought. I have a foreigner friend that had those fly right over his head.

Still think IM3 is the most politically smart CBM I've ever seen. Despite being a "political thriller" I found the most resounding aspect of a Cap 2 was the film's social commentary.

I agree.

When people complain how repetitive and corporate MCU films are they forget how subversive Cap 2 and IM3 can be.

 

[Hammer!]

I grew up in Canada (which is nearly indistinguishable from the USA though most Canadians deny that), and I lived in the United States for five years, from 2007-2012. I'm vastly more aware of the post-9/11 shift, wiki leaks, etc than the average American, and it's precisely because of that awareness that I see Cap 2 as a shallow movie. Which is sad because it's not far removed from being brilliant. It could have done better by either developing Hydra or removing Hydra.

I'm too biased by my love for Superman to make comparisons with MoS, but yes Cap 2 was certainly smarter than Thor 2 and Amazing Spider Man, but honestly so is nearly everything else, so I'm not sure what your point is.

I hated Iron Man 3, but I thought what they did with the Mandarin switch was very clever, probably the best part of the movie.

Gotcha. I do hope they explore more of Hydra internally in Avengers 2 and Cap 3 now that the "surprise" factor is gone.

Only point with MOS, TASM, and Thor 2 was that they were completely cookie cutter stories from the Raimi's Spider-man mold. Which is alright, I gave them all a 6 in my reviews of the film, but they never really attempted to explore relevant social or political issues beyond their surfaces.

 

[DA_Champion]

I agree.

When people complain how repetitive and corporate MCU films are they forget how subversive Cap 2 and IM3 can be.

IM3 was somewhat subversive, Cap 2 was not, it fails because it assigns the blame to Hydra. The real US government, which is committing many of the same crimes as Hydra in Cap 2, has not been taken over by rogue Nazis. It is committing all of these acts of its own nature and volition, not because its taken over by a foreign parasite.

Thus, the allegory fails.

Gotcha. I do hope they explore more of Hydra internally in Avengers 2 and Cap 3 now that the "surprise" factor is gone.

Only point with MOS, TASM, and Thor 2 was that they were completely cookie cutter stories from the Raimi's Spider-man mold. Which is alright, I gave them all a 6 in my reviews of the film, but they never really attempted to explore relevant social or political issues beyond their surfaces.

I think that Thor 2 was trying to be a romantic comedy, that was the experimentation, so in fairness to it I don't think it's fair to critique its lack of political content as that was not the aim.

However, given that nobody buys the Jane-Thor romance, it fails as a romantic comedy.

 

[Hammer!]

IM3 was somewhat subversive, Cap 2 was not, it fails because it assigns the blame to Hydra. The real US government, which is committing many of the same crimes as Hydra in Cap 2, has not been taken over by rogue Nazis. It is committing all of these acts of its own nature and volition, not because its taken over by a foreign parasite.

Thus, the allegory fails.


I think that Thor 2 was trying to be a romantic comedy, that was the experimentation, so in fairness to it I don't think it's fair to critique its lack of political content as that was not the aim.

However, given that nobody buys the Jane-Thor romance, it fails as a romantic comedy.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion about Thor 2. It's no more of a "romantic comedy" than Superman II, Superman Returns, The Amazing Spider-man, Spider-man II etc.

It clearly sacrifices plot for characterization and world building. It was successful with Thor's relationship with Loki, Odin, Heimdall and Loki's relationship with Frigga. It did fail with Thor's relationship with Jane though, which is weird because it worked in the first Thor. 2 should have focused on Jane's reactions of Asgard more. There was limited awe in an astrophysicists' reactions to an inhabited super alien culture. They needed to keep the Jane relationship going though, since Thor would otherwise have no desire in sacrificing god hood for humanity without her.

 

[DA_Champion]

I don't see how you came to that conclusion about Thor 2. It's no more of a "romantic comedy" than Superman II, Superman Returns, The Amazing Spider-man, etc.

It clears sacrifices plot for characterization and world building. It was successful with Thor's relationship with Loki, Odin, Heimdall and Loki's relationship with Frigga. It did fail with Thor's relationship with Jane though, which is weird because it worked in the first Thor. 2 should have focused on Jane's reactions of Asgard more. There was limited awe in an astrophysicists' reactions to an inhabited super alien culture. They needed to keep the Jane relationship going though, since Thor would otherwise have no desire in sacrificing god hood for humanity without her.

They went to an unprecedented effort to build "Jane's world", she has a sidekick, her sidekick has a sidekick, she has a mentor, each of the three has their own moments and loosely contributes to the plot and gets significant screen time. She also has a failed boyfriend, she interacts with those kids at the start, she interacts with Thor's mother, we see her reactions to Asgard, et cetera. The second after-the-credits scene is all about how Thor goes back to Jane and makes her happy.

The end result of the film is that Jane is shoehorned onto the plot and nobody buys her romance, however, there was clearly an attempt (a failed one) to make her very important and to build a little world around her. I think Marvel attempted to make this a rom-com. They're experimenting a little bit. This experiment failed, but failure happens sometimes, it's ok.

Other movies did it better, sure. I'd say Amazing Spider Man 2 has the best romance plot I've seen recently.

 

[Hammer!]

They went to an unprecedented effort to build "Jane's world", she has a sidekick, her sidekick has a sidekick, she has a mentor, each of the three has their own moments and loosely contributes to the plot and gets significant screen time. She also has a failed boyfriend, she interacts with those kids at the start, she interacts with Thor's mother, we see her reactions to Asgard, et cetera. The second after-the-credits scene is all about how Thor goes back to Jane and makes her happy.

The end result of the film is that Jane is shoehorned onto the plot and nobody buys her romance, however, there was clearly an attempt (a failed one) to make her very important and to build a little world around her. I think Marvel attempted to make this a rom-com. They're experimenting a little bit. This experiment failed, but failure happens sometimes, it's ok.

Other movies did it better, sure. I'd say Amazing Spider Man 2 has the best romance plot I've seen recently.

You certainly make a good case.Agree with everything except Jane being shoehorned in. Her role is completely necessary for Thor's character development and his struggle between his love for Earth and Asgard.

If you mean shoehorned as in, she possessed the Aether to give her an excuse to be around Thor at all times even battles and such, then I agree. This is a tiring feature in a lot of recent superhero films. It was one of the big problems I had with Man of Steel, and although it wasn't quite as guilty as Thor 2 and MOS, it's also prevalent in the endings of IM3 and TASM.

 

[chamber-music]

Alan Horn Chairman of the Walt Disney Studios summed up the blockbuster model on one of those Hollywood report studio exec round tables which you can watch on youtube.

Hollywood Blockbusters offer the large spectacle that foreign domestic film industries can't which is Hollywood makes them.

Funny enough people bring up China a lot with its large population but Horn mentioned there isn't nearly as many movie theatres in China as most people think. Hollywood want China to build more theatres.

 

[samsnee]

Hey look, it turned into another MCU bashing thread!

 

[DACrowe]

Hollywood is a corporate entity and they have big dumb movies, small smart movies and everything in-between.

Every market is served based on demand so I don't see a problem.

There is obviously a push more and more to corporate blockbusters. The independent market of the 1990s and early 2000s is all but dead, and so too are $30 million dramas and even $30 million rom-coms for that matter.

There is a fear of creativity. That is why studios make only insanely expensive summer and winter tentpoles, as well as a few schlocky "micro-budget" genre movies and then primarily buy distribution rights to their Oscar prestige pictures based on film festival circuits for very inexpensive dramas (when compared to just 15 years ago).

The result is a lack of creativity, and not-so-concidentally an explosion of great talent on cable television, as more and more writers and actors (not so much directors) flock to the small screen for creative freedom.

The system as it is is not sustainable. But I don't think it is changing anytime soon. It will probably be another decade. But just as the "golden age" Hollywood studio system crashed by the end of the 1960s, leading to a rebirth of talent and vision in the '70s, so too will this eventually end.

Though this article is overly optimistic that it is coming. And I do not think circumstances have changed from 2014 anymore than they were in 2011. Just a hunch.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Going to China and appealing to them is exaggerated. Sure it's necessary for blockbusters, but it does not apply to every genre. Comedies and films geared towards Blacks and Latinos does not apply to China. I doubt the Chinese care about Seth Rogen and his band of friends getting into a shouting match about the End of the World (This is the End), Solomon Northup or Cesar Chavez.

The whole "Hollywood needs China" is overblown.