The Day The Movies Died

[Gamma Ray]

Interesting article:

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201102/the-day-the-movies-died-mark-harris

 

[Doctor Jones]

Pfft. I won't even read it. Let's face it, since the creation of film, there have been ****** films and great films all in the same decade. The statement of "They don't make them like they used to" is complete and utter ********.

As long as there are great ideas and great filmmakers and storytellers to tell them, then we're fine, originality or not, because again, let's face it, nothing's really original anymore.

 

[DocHoliday]

Pfft. I won't even read it. Let's face it, since the creation of film, there have been ****** films and great films all in the same decade. The statement of "They don't make them like they used to" is complete and utter ********.

As long as there are great ideas and great filmmakers and storytellers to tell them, then we're fine, originality or not, because again, let's face it, nothing's really original anymore.

what he said.

 

[:eek:]

I don't think there are fewer good movies coming out each year now then, say, in the 70's or something. But there are definitely more garbage coming out now then in the past thanks to the increased number of movies released every year. 2011 will set a somewhat depressing new record of sequels coming out in a year. Things are definitely getting worse, which is also shown in ticket sales. January 2011 for example was in America the weakest January in twenty years or something (which had a lot to do with weak December-releases that couldn't continue to do big business in the new year)

 

[Visceral]

good article. it makes me think of avatar.

 

[MadVillainy]

Pfft. I won't even read it. Let's face it, since the creation of film, there have been ****** films and great films all in the same decade. The statement of "They don't make them like they used to" is complete and utter ********.

As long as there are great ideas and great filmmakers and storytellers to tell them, then we're fine, originality or not, because again, let's face it, nothing's really original anymore.

This.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Pfft. I won't even read it. Let's face it, since the creation of film, there have been ****** films and great films all in the same decade. The statement of "They don't make them like they used to" is complete and utter ********.

As long as there are great ideas and great filmmakers and storytellers to tell them, then we're fine, originality or not, because again, let's face it, nothing's really original anymore.

You should because , while i do agree with what you said , the article actually isn't something written like "Oh they don't make like this anymore".
Instead it focuses on movies that don't have brand names like sequels to attract audiences.

Hell read below :

Consider: Years ago, an ace filmmaker, the man who happened to direct the third-highest-grossing movie in U.S. history, The Dark Knight, came up with an idea for a big summer movie. It's a story he loved—in fact, he wrote it himself—and it belonged to a genre, the sci-fi action thriller, that zipped right down the center lane of American popular taste. He cast as his leading man a handsome actor, Leonardo DiCaprio, who happened to star in the second-highest-grossing movie in history. Finally, to cover his bet even more, he hired half a dozen Oscar nominees and winners for supporting roles.

Sounds like a sure thing, right? Exactly the kind of movie that a studio would die to have and an audience would kill to see? Well, it was. That film, Christopher Nolan's Inception, received admiring reviews, became last summer's most discussed movie, and has grossed, as of this writing, more than three-quarters of a billion dollars worldwide.

And now the twist: The studios are trying very hard not to notice its success, or to care. Before anybody saw the movie, the buzz within the industry was: It's just a favor Warner Bros. is doing for Nolan because the studio needs him to make Batman 3. After it started to screen, the party line changed: It's too smart for the room, too smart for the summer, too smart for the audience. Just before it opened, it shifted again: Nolan is only a brand-name director to Web geeks, and his drawing power is being wildly overestimated. After it grossed $62 million on its first weekend, the word was: Yeah, that's pretty good, but it just means all the Nolan groupies came out early—now watch it drop like a stone.

And here was the buzz three months later, after Inception became the only release of 2010 to log eleven consecutive weeks in the top ten: Huh. Well, you never know.

"Huh. Well, you never know" is an admission that, put simply, things have never been worse.



Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/mov...day-the-movies-died-mark-harris#ixzz1EWgYQZLJ

 

[wiegeabo]

I don't think there are fewer good movies coming out each year now then, say, in the 70's or something. But there are definitely more garbage coming out now then in the past thanks to the increased number of movies released every year. 2011 will set a somewhat depressing new record of sequels coming out in a year. Things are definitely getting worse, which is also shown in ticket sales. January 2011 for example was in America the weakest January in twenty years or something (which had a lot to do with weak December-releases that couldn't continue to do big business in the new year)

You could also attribute that weakness to the recession. In fact, 20 years ago was during the last recession.

Yeah, there are more movies coming out each year. But it's easy to forget that there have always been bad movies. Why? Because they're ignored. Hardly anyone remembers the bad movies from the 60's, 70's, 80's because they made no money, and they're so bad they never got any future play time (except during late, late shows on tv). Sine no one watched them, and no one (tv stations) can make money playing them, they're forgotten.

It's the same with all the bad music coming out now. In 20 years, you won't hear about these songs or artists anymore, and all that will be left in our memories will be the good stuff. There's a reason you only hear good songs on oldies stations. Because they only play the good songs, not everything that came out back then.

For all the complaining that's done, except for the occasional flick, I have a hard time remembering the bad movies that came out in the 90's. Hell, even the bad movies that came out a few years ago. Why? Because as soon as they're out of the theaters (and DVD release), they're out of my mind.

 

[wiegeabo]

You should because , while i do agree with what you said , the article actually isn't something written like "Oh they don't make like this anymore".
Instead it focuses on movies that don't have brand names like sequels to attract audiences.

Hell read below :

That just sounds like the studios were trying to convince people to not see the movie, not because it's good and they want to put out crap, but because it's good and they don't want their competitor making a ton of cash. So they're engaging in a bit of negative promotion.

 

[antsman41]

I liked it in the sheer notion on how he wrote about the studios disregard of Inception doing amazing...

 

[Aesop Rocks]

Movies will never die, IMO. Mostly because Hollywood is actually starting to rely on originality again. Look at Inception.

 

[Dark Victory]

Hell read below

^And this guy backs up those claims with what? Insider knowledge? The whole thing reads like a rant going off impulses.


That whole article is redundant. Hollywood tries to appeal to the lowest common denominator of audiences? This is news? And the writer acts as if movies of the past were made with different mindsets. If anything, it comes off as a trite nostalgic piece. He doesn't provide any proof to any of his points other than a few rounded figures. So, according to him Hollywood only likes mainstream brands, but he ironically argues this with an implication that brands are bad? If this isn't his point, then why is he complaining about the lack of variety?

Is cinema different? Sure, definitely in some ways. Dead?

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

This freakout over adaptations vs original material is so ridiculous, and also entirely disingenuous.

Let's list some adaptations:

Gone With the Wind
The Wizard of Oz
The Godfather
Psycho
A Clockwork Orange

Now let's list some original material:

Manos: The Hands of Fate
Baby Geniuses
Waterworld
Kazaam
The Bounty Hunter

Now, of course these are just some extreme examples, but the point is that adaptation vs original is a purely nonsense argument. They've about an even track record when it comes to quality films.

 

[Doctor Jones]

You should because , while i do agree with what you said , the article actually isn't something written like "Oh they don't make like this anymore".
Instead it focuses on movies that don't have brand names like sequels to attract audiences.

Hell read below :

I read it.... yet it doesn't make much sense. Dark Victory put it well. This person just seemed to be writing whatever came to his head. There's not alot of coherence to me.

 

[wiegeabo]

^And this guy backs up those claims with what? Insider knowledge? The whole thing reads like a rant going off impulses.


That whole article is redundant. Hollywood tries to appeal to the lowest common denominator of audiences? This is news? And the writer acts as if movies of the past were made with different mindsets. If anything, it comes off as a trite nostalgic piece. He doesn't provide any proof to any of his points other than a few rounded figures. So, according to him Hollywood only likes mainstream brands, but he ironically argues this with an implication that brands are bad? If this isn't his point, then why is he complaining about the lack of variety?

Is cinema different? Sure, definitely in some ways. Dead?

It's easy to do when all you look at is the good movies of the past, which are the only movies that get talked about and watched. The guy needs to watch all the crap that came out back in the day. If he did, he'd probably see that the percentage of good to mediocre to bad is roughly the same. It's just that more movies as a whole get put out now, so there are more examples of bad to point at.

 

[Dark Victory]

It's easy to do when all you look at is the good movies of the past, which are the only movies that get talked about and watched. The guy needs to watch all the crap that came out back in the day. If he did, he'd probably see that the percentage of good to mediocre to bad is roughly the same. It's just that more movies as a whole get put out now, so there are more examples of bad to point at.

Exactly. The guy would be able to build some credible ethos if he didn't write with a rose-tinted style.

 

[Doctor Jones]

That blurb on Inception, he doesn't seem to have a real opinion does he? I just see him presenting figures and contradictions.

 

[Watchman]

Did Wes Anderson, the Coen Brothers, Paul W. Anderson, and Spike Jonze die in an airplane crash?

 

[dark_b]

Movies will never die, IMO. Mostly because Hollywood is actually starting to rely on originality again. Look at Inception.

Inception happened because Nolan made WB a lot of money. if TDK wouldnt happen Inception on a big budget wouldnt be realesed.
so Hollywod didnt change.

 

[redhawk23]

One of my biggest problems with the article was his claim that the middle of the road films were better than current middle of the road films. Which is stupid, if a movie is crap, it isn't mediocre, its crap.

And also, movies have always often been based on something else, be it real events, books or plays. Just because they include more forms of source material isn't necessarily a bad thing, some things are better suited than others to make a film out of sure, but that doesn't mean that being based on something else should be an automatic strike against perceived quality of a film.

Also why were there less remakes in the past? well if you count films of plays there really werent, but also because there were less films to remake.

There are a number of video game properties that outright amazing films could be made off of, despite the execution of those already brought to the screen being so shoddy.

Should we just write off a large number of possible story routes and decent or possibly great films as being just kids stuff, or an "infantilization" of cinema as this writer puts it?


Now dont me wrong, I do get tire of remakes, and a lot of the time I tire of remakes, but this is mostly because there are many great stories that have not been attempted as films yet. To me it doesn't really matter where they come from.

 

[Justkidding]

Inception happened because Nolan made WB a lot of money. if TDK wouldnt happen Inception on a big budget wouldnt be realesed.
so Hollywod didnt change.

After Insominia did so well WB said they were game for Inception. So even without TDK numbers the movie was set up to be made.

 

[Max J Power]

Did Wes Anderson, the Coen Brothers, Paul W. Anderson, and Spike Jonze die in an airplane crash?

I read another article once about how great the last decade was for movies because of directors like these, plus the many directors who debuted in the 60s and 70s still going strong.

 

[wiegeabo]

One of my biggest problems with the article was his claim that the middle of the road films were better than current middle of the road films. Which is stupid, if a movie is crap, it isn't mediocre, its crap.

And also, movies have always often been based on something else, be it real events, books or plays. Just because they include more forms of source material isn't necessarily a bad thing, some things are better suited than others to make a film out of sure, but that doesn't mean that being based on something else should be an automatic strike against perceived quality of a film.

Also why were there less remakes in the past? well if you count films of plays there really werent, but also because there were less films to remake.

There are a number of video game properties that outright amazing films could be made off of, despite the execution of those already brought to the screen being so shoddy.

Should we just write off a large number of possible story routes and decent or possibly great films as being just kids stuff, or an "infantilization" of cinema as this writer puts it?


Now dont me wrong, I do get tire of remakes, and a lot of the time I tire of remakes, but this is mostly because there are many great stories that have not been attempted as films yet. To me it doesn't really matter where they come from.

What we need is a film to do for video games what X-Men did for comic movies.

Not necessarily the end all/be all of video game movies, but something that legitimizes the genre like X-Men did, and shows it can be a money maker when done well. Which paved the way for movies like X2, Iron Man, Begins, and TDK.

 

[redhawk23]

What we need is a film to do for video games what X-Men did for comic movies.

Not necessarily the end all/be all of video game movies, but something that legitimizes the genre like X-Men did, and shows it can be a money maker when done well. Which paved the way for movies like X2, Iron Man, Begins, and TDK.

exactly. to just scoff at them and decry the end of cinema is rediculous.


Another problem I had with the article is that guys evidence for the end of orignality in Hollywood was what was in the top 10. Just because films like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, or any other non franchise movie arent making Billions of dollars does not mean that they arent made and don't find an audience.

 

[Gamma Ray]

Pfft. I won't even read it. Let's face it, since the creation of film, there have been ****** films and great films all in the same decade. The statement of "They don't make them like they used to" is complete and utter ********.

As long as there are great ideas and great filmmakers and storytellers to tell them, then we're fine, originality or not, because again, let's face it, nothing's really original anymore.

Yet you'll contribute something that only touches what the article is about.

I see you read it later on, but just seeing that statement is pretty pathetic.