Is Hollywood Dead?

[localoid]

Art is still too strenuous for the faint of heart...

Digital cinematography was suppose to revolutionize filmmaking, largely because the new technology would allow anyone with talent to produce a movie more quickly, easily and cheaply than ever before.

Some say talent is something you're born with, but I'm inclined to believe it's the result of developing one's raw skills. Unfortunately, doing so requires much work and dedication.

But regardless of how it's acquired, I don't believe talent alone is enough. Truly great art also requires genius.

Re: genius, Thomas Edison, the guy who basically "invented" the movies, once (supposedly) said:

"Genius is one per cent inspiration, ninety-nine per cent perspiration" [source].

Undoubtably, this age-old talent/genius problem will be solved in the near future, with the availability of an inexpensive app that will instantly turn each and every purchaser into a talented, creative genius.

 

[rhett7660]

I believe the Oscar caliber story was a woman beating out her ex-husband and his 500 million dollar piece of crap movie with her 15 million dollar piece of crap movie for Best Picture.

This, the look on his face when the announcement was made was priceless!

I don't think it is dead. I think the majority of the stuff coming out is crap. But then again when hasn't it been like this? There are always good years and bad years but there are a few gems hidden each year that are down right good! I couldn't agree more with the comments about some like movie "A" and some don't.

 

[CorvusCamenarum]

I believe the Oscar caliber story was a woman beating out her ex-husband and his 500 million dollar piece of crap movie with her 15 million dollar piece of crap movie for Best Picture.

Which is really interesting in that both films were basically retelling the same white messiah story (Lawrence of Arabia/Dances with Wolves/Ferngully), except Avatar was much prettier.

 

[MacNut]

Which is really interesting in that both films were basically retelling the same white messiah story (Lawrence of Arabia/Dances with Wolves/Ferngully), except Avatar was much prettier.

Avatar was more about the effects and the use of 3D more than it was about story or plot. It is a great movie to watch on a huge screen in 3D, the visuals were a distraction. I didn't have a problem, with the plot. The movie ran a little long but the visuals made up for it. The problem now is everyone is jumping on the 3D craze. Cameron is banking his empire on it and it is working for him. Cameron knows how to use 3D to tell a story, others are using it as a gimmick to make money even though the effects suck. If Hollywood goes down the 3D route and starts making everything that way they will destroy themselves. One or 2 great movies a year in 3D would be fine not everything.

 

[Abstract]

There's a quote within the article that makes a good point.

If you find a writer/director with an original story idea, true passion for the film he wants to make, and talent, it doesn't necessarily mean the film is a film worth risking $200m to make. For films that aren't established franchises, and those films with large budgets where a sequel can probably never be made, execution is everything.

Inception could have easily been a flop, but it wasn't. It doesn't mean that making movies with $200m dollar budgets should be made more often (from a studio's standpoint). Even if the story is amazing, it's still a risk to fund it, and make it. And if it's successful, it still may not be worth creating because there's no potential for sequels, or sequels of sequels. Sequels are kind of like a studio's reward for taking that initial risk on the 1st film.


I'd rather see original films, but that's how I interpreted parts of the article.

 

[Signal-11]

Glad I wasn't the only one, though I did think it was a stroke of genius to hire Guy Pearce for all of five minutes, then kill him off.

I gave The Hurt Locker a one word review here on MR - "Meh" - a year and a half ago. At the time, it seemed more disagreed with me than not.

Haha i actually thought it was quite good. Not as good as Black Hawk Down though

The Hurt Locker isn't even in the same sport, much less the same league, Black Hawk Down. BHD is about as realistic as a war movie can get. It's also about as accurate to the real story as a film can be. The Hurt Locker by comparison is cartoon fantasy lala land, which is fine, if that's what the movie is shooting for (I liked GI JOE) but when something aims for realistic and fails as hard as Hurt Locker does, I have no sympathy.

 

[chrmjenkins]

This is similar to what is going on in video games. Budgets are so big these days that studios take very few risks.

 

[Chloebothma]

lame stories

It's as if Hollywood now cater to glorifying each other at the Oscars. None of the watchable movies make it to the red carpet. The Hurt Locker had such a good subject to begin with but absolutely frazzled out... and ended. A waste of time and money at the box office. We feel cynical with every single new movie and just wait for it to get to TV and then we know we were right not to have gone to the cinema. Do they think people no longer like good endings and strong stories. The only 4 movies I remember from the nineties are My Cousin Vinny, Titanic, Shawshank Redemption and Pretty Woman. Oh yeah then of course we do watch the marshall arts stuff and the high action ones. But to sit down for a "good" movie is a total waste of time - why do I feel angry afterwards. The "stars" suck up to each other it seems at oscar, where they worship each other's "work". Well, acting schmacting, I don't care. Bring back the good stories with a beginning a middle and an ending where my tears flow or I feel good afterwards. I'm not paying for your movies again - and I don't know what it was with the Black Swan but I really wanted it to end, like the English patient, remember? Could no longer stand that excruciatingly anguished face of Natalie Portman... and then it ended.

 

[Ugg]

I read somewhere recently that it's been all downhill since "Star Wars". Directors are more obsessed with special effects than they are with dialogue and story. American films are also horribly predictable. If they don't have a happy ending, they simply don't get funding.

It does seem easier and cheaper to make a decent film, the problem is finding a distributor and unfortunately, film makers fear the internet too much and have failed to use it to its fullest potential. Sundance is making a small difference but...

Hollywood is also too expensive. Too many people want a cut, even when their contribution has been insignificant. The European style of government financing for films can be stodgy, but generally you get more creative movies. True creativity is something that few American films have anymore.