"I paid for this?": The decline in movie making

[Kuchinawa212]

Now what of something like this?
Now it's based on Richard III which of course was written by the Bard, but it takes a skilled director to put it in that setting and direct a WS play.

Do reimaginings count? I will agree a lot of movies as of late just come and go. Does hollywood actually pump out good movies? or are they just stealing from books and other movies and TV shows. Like Transformers or GI Joe. Hell, harry Potter and Twilight. Those are books first then movies. As we are today will never experience a block buster. EVER. I mean think of a movie that will literally have the crowd line up for tickets that will circle the whole block. Is it because everything has been done? Noooooo. District 9 showed me that. But do the producers pour the same heart and soul as they once did in the classics, I don't think so. Just out to make a quick buck. And so people get a cheesy quick laugh. I remembered when I died a little inside when a good friend of mine found the wrecking-Ball thing in transformers to be funny, and I had to explain why stuff like that detracts from a movie rather then strengthens it.

Granted they had Chester Novell Turner ( of 'Black devil doll from hell' fame)in old time movies so I call it a wash

Also, in the OP. Star Wars's use of Models and technical achievements made it look amazing at the time.I mean just think of that opening. Wow. You never forget an opening like that.

 

[Timotei]

You can go on and on saying that the industry is getting ruined by the Twitards of today, but does that mean the cinema from 40-50 years ago was a "holy grail" that only created timeless classics?

Heck, it might not even mean that anyone on this thread has said any such thing.

I personally would actually put the golden age of North American cinema, in terms of average overall quality (remember conversations like this can only ever be about average quality, not whether every single movie in such-and-such period was this or that), in the Seventies. It was one of those rare eras where the aspirations of auteurs and the profit motive of the industry overlapped most heavily. Be nice to see something like that happen in gaming.

The seventies was quite the age of film making.

In one decade we saw the rise of now timeless classics like Star Wars, The Godfather (and Part II), Alien, Young Frankenstein, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Apocalypse Now, Chinatown, Grease, Halloween, Dawn of the Dead, The Exorcist, Jaws, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Manhattan, Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Movies such as that are still considered some of the best in their genres even 30< years after being released.

 

[Mr.logic]

I with no jokes loved avatar and think it deserved the billions it made.

Now as for movies in general I say keep making the terrible pieces of crap(dbz evolution, revenge of the fallen, ninja assassin, 2012, alice in wonderland live action,). I mean they were just so damn funny =D

 

[Timotei]

I with no jokes loved avatar and think it deserved the billions it made.

Now as for movies in general I say keep making the terrible pieces of crap(dbz evolution, revenge of the fallen, ninja assassin, 2012, alice in wonderland live action,). I mean they were just so damn funny =D

It actually isn't when you think about it.

Sure the sheer amount of poor quality is surely funny, but the fact that flicks one would classify as "Summer Blockbusters" happen to be ever other movie, is a bit saddening.

 

[Mr.logic]

I with no jokes loved avatar and think it deserved the billions it made.

Now as for movies in general I say keep making the terrible pieces of crap(dbz evolution, revenge of the fallen, ninja assassin, 2012, alice in wonderland live action,). I mean they were just so damn funny =D

It actually isn't when you think about it.

Sure the sheer amount of poor quality is surely funny, but the fact that flicks one would classify as "Summer Blockbusters" happen to be ever other movie, is a bit saddening.

Thats true I was actually half joking, If you watch TV every movie is the number one movie in america. And the amount of quality control is terrible when every 70.9 of movies is terrible 19.1 is good 07.7 is great 02.3 is fantastic.

 

[Timotei]

I with no jokes loved avatar and think it deserved the billions it made.

Now as for movies in general I say keep making the terrible pieces of crap(dbz evolution, revenge of the fallen, ninja assassin, 2012, alice in wonderland live action,). I mean they were just so damn funny =D

It actually isn't when you think about it.

Sure the sheer amount of poor quality is surely funny, but the fact that flicks one would classify as "Summer Blockbusters" happen to be ever other movie, is a bit saddening.

Thats true I was actually half joking, If you watch TV every movie is the number one movie in america. And the amount of quality control is terrible when every 70.9 of movies is terrible 19.1 is good 07.7 is great 02.3 is fantastic.

For the first ten minutes it showed your post as blank, even though I got a quote message.

I think for any movie to claim it's "the #1 movie in America" it just has to be the best in the box office for even a nanosecond for it to not be considered "false advertising". It's one of the reasons I let a series of professional reviews recommend what I watch instead of commercials.

 

[Enigma6667]

Oh boy I'm about to beat the dead horse here:

I'm sorry, but I can't help but cringe when someone says that Avatar was good. I'll admit, it's just meh and not horrible, but all of the hype just ruined it for me. Great music, visuals, action sequences and all that technical stuff, but the important stuff (Characters and plot) were either heavily borrowed or just plain old boring. I mean, I know that EVERYTHING is gonna be derived of something else and it's damn near impossible to come up with a TRULY original idea, but the likeness between Avatar and Dances With Wolves & Pochahontas was just too much to the point I felt like I was watching the same movies with a blue tint.

That, and I have to say, Sigourney Weaver and Michelle Rodriguez were sooo miscast in that movie. I felt like they were only there because they were both in Aliens which, by the way, is a superior film.

 

[Timotei]

This scene, while lasting for nearly a full half hour, never ceases to be boring. Why? Because we see characters which we have grown to known and care about fight for their survival in a brutal, high-speed, close quarters battle.

Sorry to be a dick, but are you sure that's what you meant to say?

Other than that one typo, you have some pretty solid stuff and I agree with the majority (if not all) of what you had to say.

You are quite right. Corrected.

 

[Do4600]

Timotei... have you even SEEN Citizen Kane? Do you know just how mind-numbingly boring it is? It doesn't even stand up by modern standards.

Most modern film critics say that Citizen Kane far surpasses every movie that has come after it. So I'd say by modern standards it's standing up quite well.

I think the reason you say it's boring is because you've been spoiled by gunfights and cars exploding every six seconds in movies and television today. Your facilities for understanding and appreciating nuance and symbolism are impaired. This film will remain boring to you until you are able to recognize the subtle elements that are being used and appreciate there interaction.

Well, thanks for not being judgemental I guess. Tell me, have you seen Citizen Kane? Your reliance on the opinions of "most modern film critics" seems to suggest that you haven't. Let me tell you, I have and it simply does not stand up by today's standards, no matter what your nameless "modern film critics" say. Put Citizen Kane next to something like The Shawshank Redemption and you'll get my point.

The reason I say "most modern film critics" is because it's both true and lends more strength to my argument than saying; "I think it's the best film ever made." I am unsure if Citizen Kane is the best movie ever made but I am absolutely positive it stands up to modern standards and my proof is that the couple thousand jurors (critics, film scholars and people who work in film) chosen by the American Film Institute have twice decided that it was the greatest American movie ever made, for comparison on their most recent list The Shawshank Redemption was numbered 72 out of 100.

There are at least 1400 influential American critics, film scholars, directors, cinematographers and screenwriters who would indeed say that Citizen Kane stands up to modern films including The Shawshank Redemption. I would consider that to be "most film critics" or in any event the ones whom AFI considered relevant in their opinion.

I own Citizen Kane and I've watched it at least ten times, I also own The Shawshank Redemption and I've watched that movie at least ten times but probably more. I'm telling you, if you thought Citizen Kane was boring, you lack the visual knowledge that makes that movie so interesting. Every single scene in that movie is filled with subtle visual motifs that make up an overarching, symbolic narrative that is just as important as any piece of dialogue. Without the visual knowledge to understand the meaning of those motifs you're only seeing half the movie. It would be like removing all of Morgan Freeman's narrative from The Shawshank Redemption

Well I disagree and I'd suggest you stop trying to question my knowledge or appreciation of visual media... great, now I'm sounding like a tosser.

Without meaning any insult and to be perfectly frank with you, I think you're full of shit. I mean it's great you've seen the film and it's great that you appreciate it, it gives you several points over any other person I've had this debate with. But really you're missing my point. I admit that Citizen Kane made several innovations in cinema, I know it was well made, I know it shows impressive understandings of new and sophisticated visual motifs, I notice that kind of shit - trust me. That doesn't stop this underlining fact that the film is boring. It's dull as ditchwater, it's two hours that feels like six, (and I've watched six hour films that WERE actually captivating and interesting.) It's a film about the rise and fall of a self-absorbed boring man. That's it. Face it, it's style over substance, and while that doesn't neccesarily make it bad it certainly makes it overrated with, like you say, film critics, film makers, actors, producers and forum-goers running around saying it's the best film ever made by constantly putting it on the top of lists of "best movies" almost to give the list credibility than the film.

The film needs to be stripped of it's sacred cow status, it's not all that good.

Sacred cow status? I really don't think your argument is with me. My only two contentions throughout this conversation have been that Citizen Kane is still relevant when judged next to modern films, if only for the way it seamlessly tells a story both through dialogue and in visual themes and that if you find that film boring you must not understand the visual language being used; because if you do truly notice "that kind of shit" I can't understand how you could not have been entertained by the painstaking effort made in that film to saturate each scene with complex visual motifs.

Citizen Kane is a film about the rise and fall of a self-absorbed boring man and Richard III is a play about the rise and fall of a deformed boring man, what's your point? I can call things boring up and down too if I want, the only thing it shows to me is that I didn't have the patience to form a coherent reason for disliking something, it's goes in the same category as saying, "The film lacked depth."

As I said, I'm unsure if it's the best film ever made, I can say I enjoyed The Third Man more than Citizen Kane, but as to what is the better movie, it's like trying to compare an apple's taste to a slightly greener apple's taste. I think it's rather foolish to judge an art-form with a list in ascending order. I think it's much like trying to decide what the best 100 paintings are of all time are, I think in that judgment the Mona Lisa would probably occupy much the same status that Citizen Kane enjoys right now in it's category. Do I think the Mona Lisa is overrated, in some ways yes in others no. I do think it causes some people to overlook pieces of art that are just as worthy because it is: "The painting to see". I am sick of people talking about it like Da Vinci painted it with a brush made from the asshairs of a unicorn and paints made of crushed rocks from the surface of the sun, but I don't dare base my opinion of the artwork and the artist on the opinion of unwashed masses that flock to see it instead of going to see portraits done by Maximilian Schiele a couple blocks away. I think you are more fixated on the fact that you think Citizen Kane is overrated than you are on actually critiquing it's worth.

 

[Lionsfan]

If you can't think of more than 5 (if any at all) I'll tell you why right now. Because they sucked and no one liked them enough to remember them.

I'll name 6 which are in my DVD collection
1). The Black Cat starring Basil Rathbone
2). Sergeant York starring Gary Cooper
3). Dumbo
4). The Maltese Falcon starring Humphrey Bogart
5). How Green Was My Valley starring Walter Pidgeon
6). Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde starring Spencer Tracy

Around the time of Saving Private Ryan:
1). The Truman Show starring Jim Carrey
2). A Bug's Life
3). Mulan
4). Enemy of the State starring Will Smith
5). American History X starring Edward Furlong
6). You've Got Mail starring Tom Hanks
7). Blade starring Wesley Snipes

These are all in my collection.

EDIT:

But wait! I just found A Yank In The RAF starring Tyrone Power

Your collection though, and you seem to be quite the older film buff. The average movie goer hasn't seen most of those. Because they're not spectacular enough, just the gray area between average and great movies (with the exception of Dumbo)

 

[archvile93]

[/quote]Unfortunately, careful production and memorable moments in movie making have been tossed to the side in favor of bigger budgets, bigger names, franchise adaptations, and remake, upon remake, upon remake, upon remakes of remakes. Movies have become less a "performer x audience" relationship and more of a "supplier x consumer" relationship. Turning a perfectly fine industry into a business rather than an outlet of entertainment.[/quote]

And do you know who I blame for this?

[HEADING=1]You.[/HEADING]

The Consumer.​

Don't blame me, I barely ever watch movies, or even buy the DVDs.

 

[teutonicman]

That twilight video scared the shit out of me, I tried watching the first one (online of course, I would never actually pay for it). I remember I made it to the part where she get some shitty old truck.

 

[Brandon237]

-classical brilliant snipping of large post-

You hit the nail on the head, ALTHOUGH you did hit it a bit hard for my liking.

There is a good reason that I have actually vowed to never watch or read twilight. I feel sorry for you having to endure that. And I feel like I have a massive conflict of interests now considering that I feel both blamed and in agreement at the same time.

And the previous era had more than its fill of crap movies, or as a great Roman once said: Sumus semper in excretum sed alta variant.

We (world movie culture) are always in the shit, only the depth varies.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Don't worry, when I see a stupid movie I smuggle popcorn and drinks in, just to fuck with the establishment.


Sticking it to the man!