# Movie movies and more movies



## terryl965 (Jul 17, 2008)

Has anybody ever wonder why Hollywood can not make something new and wonderful for the Box Office. Why do we as civilized people get driven into remakes and re-rens of everything that is old. It seem movie are remakes or spiffs off of little substance for the viewer. If it is not stupid or sex or remakes of years gone by, it will not do good. To bad Hollywood land and do not even got me started with T.V.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 17, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Has anybody ever wonder why Hollywood can not make something new and wonderful for the Box Office. Why do we as civilized people get driven into remakes and re-rens of everything that is old. It seem movie are remakes or spiffs off of little substance for the viewer. If it is not stupid or sex or remakes of years gone by, it will not do good. To bad Hollywood land and do not even got me started with T.V.


They do it because 1. It's easier all around. Oh they say that "hey _you_ try to re-imagine a modern day Space 1999 or update "My Three Sons" and see how hard that is..." taking an established script all written out and changing this and that adding an explosion, a gay character, use of computers, updating dialog and so on. Please not too hard if it's already done.  At least for those with talent. 
2. Public keeps paying cash in droves for such drivel. How many movies in the past 18 months have topped "box office records" ?? How many sequels did better than their original? 
3. Writers probably aren't satisfied even though the strike is over. They still gotta eat and finding out that going on strike isn't a bright idea after all ... especially when the money they earned from their last movie runs out. So they keep working but not writing as brilliant as they could. 
At least it seems that way. 

I'd have to blame really #2... us. The people we just keep paying for what we're offered and not holding back for what we want. Just like gas prices. We keep paying the extortion money to the oil companies and government and they keep raising the prices while spouting rhetoric about how they'll work to reverse the process. 
Public opinion does really make a difference... but it's got to be strong enough to really make an effective change. 
With so many minds and so many opinions these days it's hard to get everyone together to solidly agree on changes that need to be make. They get nit-picky, persnippy and whiny. 
Meanwhile the Hollymill keeps grinding it out and raking the cash in. 
SIGH.


----------



## rmclain (Jul 17, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Has anybody ever wonder why Hollywood can not make something new and wonderful for the Box Office. Why do we as civilized people get driven into remakes and re-rens of everything that is old. It seem movie are remakes or spiffs off of little substance for the viewer. If it is not stupid or sex or remakes of years gone by, it will not do good. To bad Hollywood land and do not even got me started with T.V.


 
Boils down to money...will the film executive producers make money from people wanting to see the film?  This is what they go by.

You want something unique or wonderful, go to an indie film festival.  http://www.usafilmfestival.com/

R. McLain


----------



## Phadrus00 (Jul 17, 2008)

I agree with the previous posters in that Money is the real reason.  Studious look at Movies as investments and they tend towards investments of a certain character that they feel they can predict the sucess of.  that is why movie Franchises like Batman, Superman, Aliens, etc. are so common.  They establish an audience and a premise and the studio can reasonaby predict how much money thay can make and then calculate how much to spend.

It's also a matter of creativity.  It is hard to come up with something TRULY unique.  There are certain Literary Archetypes that are almost universal and represent the basic pieces of almost any story so after some time films get somewhat repetitive.  Frankly though it seems that audiences love this at some level because they keep buying the books and watching the films.

Truly different works are rarely well accepted.  Movies and books that break the molds are very risky as there is no inherent audience for them.  A movie like Memento or Primer is highly speculative and as a result are usually shunned by the magor studios.  But there are studios that do try this risky endeavors.  Movies like Pi do get made and as a result we do get some interesting films.  I would suggest checking out your local Art house theater that runs limited release films.  If you don't have one near you sign up for netflix and start checking out the "Arthouse"  and "International" categories.  I would recommend as a start for you to watch:

Nightwatch
Memento
Primer <--  this one will mess with your head!
Revolver
Snatch
Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
Seven
The Usual Suspects

That should get you going!  *grin*

Rob


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 17, 2008)

Phadrus00 said:


> I agree with the previous posters in that Money is the real reason.  Studious look at Movies as investments and they tend towards investments of a certain character that they feel they can predict the sucess of.  that is why movie Franchises like Batman, Superman, Aliens, etc. are so common.  They establish an audience and a premise and the studio can reasonaby predict how much money thay can make and then calculate how much to spend.
> 
> It's also a matter of creativity.  It is hard to come up with something TRULY unique.  There are certain Literary Archetypes that are almost universal and represent the basic pieces of almost any story so after some time films get somewhat repetitive.  Frankly though it seems that audiences love this at some level because they keep buying the books and watching the films.
> 
> ...


This is true and thankfully more independent film makers are making the scene because of technology that is less expensive (overall) and easier to work with. Digital cameras don't require miles of film and expensive processing and re-takes aren't costly and a person with a good quality digital camera can make his own movie right there at home with a good program on their computer. So those who have a couple of hundred thousand or even 1 or 2 million can crank out a very nicely written film that the other bigger studios wouldn't touch because of the aforementioned "risk" ... The Cohen Brothers are a supreme example of this as their films take you on a trip that is realistic but absurdly so far out there that your mind is in a twist for days after seeing the film. Fargo, The Man Who Wasn't There, Raising Arizona and a number of notable others. Now their newest work: "Burn This After Reading" seems will be raising the bar yet again. M. Night Shayalaman was another newcomer that blew audiences away with his 6th Sense (pardon the pun). But unfortunately he fell victim it seems to trying to outdo himself or putting his ideas all in one basket. 

Other indi film-makers are also beginning to be acceptable risks to producers and those with the money. So I may have sounded awfully cynical in previous post, I do hold out hope for these fellas in that they won't get caught up in the traditional.


----------



## Phadrus00 (Jul 17, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> This is true and thankfully more independent film makers are making the scene because of technology that is less expensive (overall) and easier to work with. Digital cameras don't require miles of film and expensive processing and re-takes aren't costly and a person with a good quality digital camera can make his own movie right there at home with a good program on their computer. So those who have a couple of hundred thousand or even 1 or 2 million can crank out a very nicely written film that the other bigger studios wouldn't touch because of the aforementioned "risk" ... The Cohen Brothers are a supreme example of this as their films take you on a trip that is realistic but absurdly so far out there that your mind is in a twist for days after seeing the film. Fargo, The Man Who Wasn't There, Raising Arizona and a number of notable others. Now their newest work: "Burn This After Reading" seems will be raising the bar yet again. M. Night Shayalaman was another newcomer that blew audiences away with his 6th Sense (pardon the pun). But unfortunately he fell victim it seems to trying to outdo himself or putting his ideas all in one basket.
> 
> Other indi film-makers are also beginning to be acceptable risks to producers and those with the money. So I may have sounded awfully cynical in previous post, I do hold out hope for these fellas in that they won't get caught up in the traditional.


 
Caver,

Great catch on the Coen Brothers!  they truly do break molds and should be added to one's viewing list.  O Brother Where Art Thou and No Country for Old men are a couple more from them that make great watching.

Also to your point about technology becoing the great equalizer, the movie Cloverfield has spawned a whole new generation of low budget movies that use a digital handy cam only and then have some cost effectice post-production work to insert the FX but can all be done on tiny budgets (by comparison) because there is no film to deal with.    The Blair Witch Project pioneered this approach and Cloverfield really has upped the bar in what can be realized.

With you Tube and the Internet and IPTV coming of age it is possible that we will all be watching a lot more smaller budget, non-studio produced content which will let a lot more writes and directors give audience to their non-orthodox visions!


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 17, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Has anybody ever wonder why Hollywood can not make something new and wonderful for the Box Office. Why do we as civilized people get driven into remakes and re-rens of everything that is old. It seem movie are remakes or spiffs off of little substance for the viewer. If it is not stupid or sex or remakes of years gone by, it will not do good. To bad Hollywood land and do not even got me started with T.V.




Money.

If they are going to put several hundred million dollars into making a movie, they are going to go with a established formula that has a good chance of making them lots.

I think we might start seeing more indie films that get attention, it doesn't take $300,000,000 to make a good movie, and indie films are a little more open to doing new things.

Hollywood can continue making big budget special effects features that are good mindless entertainment with little substance.

But I agree, I'm getting a little tired of nothing but sequels and remakes being in theatres.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 17, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> But I agree, I'm getting a little tired of nothing but sequels and remakes being in theatres.


Whell, this won't make you happy. Summer 2009... Terminator 4 with Gotham's own Christian Bale playing the role of the more mature John Conner. Highly doubtful that Ahnold will assume the role of the Cyborg who'll be back. http://movies.yahoo.com/premieres/8841507/standardformat/
I expect it to be a FX extravaganza like the third film with little substance... however! It would be hoped that Bale, a very fine actor in his own right will insist on a script worthy of his caliber and the post apocalyptic future offers us a bit more cerebral lettuce to chew on.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 17, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Whell, this won't make you happy. Summer 2009... Terminator 4 with Gotham's own Christian Bale playing the role of the more mature John Conner. Highly doubtful that Ahnold will assume the role of the Cyborg who'll be back. http://movies.yahoo.com/premieres/8841507/standardformat/
> I expect it to be a FX extravaganza like the third film with little substance... however! It would be hoped that Bale, a very fine actor in his own right will insist on a script worthy of his caliber and the post apocalyptic future offers us a bit more cerebral lettuce to chew on.


So... would that be a prequel or a sequel? :shrug:


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 17, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> So... would that be a prequel or a sequel? :shrug:


  I was about to answer sequel but then realized the time line of the story ... very good :asian:


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 17, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> So... would that be a prequel or a sequel? :shrug:



I get the impression there is no time line, or rather multiple ones as every movie changes the future.  Makes continuity easy I guess, any discrepancies took place in a different timeline...


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 17, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> I get the impression there is no time line, or rather multiple ones as every movie changes the future.  Makes continuity easy I guess, any discrepancies took place in a different timeline...


Perhaps this should be another thread... but I always wondered...

What if the first Terminator, the one set out to kill Sarah Conner had succeeded... what would that particular terminator do then? Did it have Secondary Objectives? Or would it just stand there and wait for a signal from Skynet? Go find Miles Dyson and help him out in speeding up the birth of Skynet? 
Makes you wonder ... that is ... in a geek sort of way.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 17, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Perhaps this should be another thread... but I always wondered...
> 
> What if the first Terminator, the one set out to kill Sarah Conner had succeeded... what would that particular terminator do then? Did it have Secondary Objectives? Or would it just stand there and wait for a signal from Skynet? Go find Miles Dyson and help him out in speeding up the birth of Skynet?
> Makes you wonder ... that is ... in a geek sort of way.



ok... geek hats on...

In the tv series the terminators all had secondary objectives as well, he likely would have had secondary targets that where key figures in the resistance and gone down a check list from most important to least, as the ones in the series where programmed to do


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 18, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> ok... geek hats on...
> 
> In the tv series the terminators all had secondary objectives as well, he likely would have had secondary targets that where key figures in the resistance and gone down a check list from most important to least, as the ones in the series where programmed to do


Hmm yeah T-3 had shown that... I never quite got in to the Sarah Conner Chronicles of the tv series... mainly because I don't watch commercialized television unless I'm outta my mind of boredom and all posted out here on MT... lol: ) ... but I never caught it...well maybe only one of the earlier episodes. 
But figure that you remove Sarah from the equation before John is born and there is no resistance. Kyle said that there was 1 man. Now granted in the whole of the U.S. there had to have been several resistance group survivors after the war and subsequent clean up by Skynet so it would stand to reason that Conner just happened to be the one doing the leading in the South-Western part of the U.S.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 18, 2008)

You know, I love movies but I think if I go to Japan ... I'll wait for the DVD. 


> *                                         Tokyo movie-goers get VIP experience at $300 a seat*
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080718/lf_nm_life/japan_cinema_dc;_ylt=AjZavtlekUUI_bZ5OcI18.1g.3QA
> 
> ...


----------



## Phadrus00 (Jul 18, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> You know, I love movies but I think if I go to Japan ... I'll wait for the DVD.


 
Hehehehehehe..  well I won't pay $300 for a seat at the movies I will pay $20!  The Showcase here in Randolph has Luxury Level Seating.  Basically they installed a Balcony in two of the larger theaters and made it premium seating with big comfy seats and a full menu and wait staff.  My wife and I love it!  

Rob


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 19, 2008)

Quick aside:  The Sarah Conner Chronicles was another great series killed by the Bean Counters, just like Firefly.  There were all kinds of questions left there to be filled in later as the series unfolded - now we'll never know.

Plus, it had Summer Glau in a motorcycle-cop uniform - what more do you need :lol:.


----------



## Phadrus00 (Jul 19, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Quick aside: The Sarah Conner Chronicles was another great series killed by the Bean Counters, just like Firefly. There were all kinds of questions left there to be filled in later as the series unfolded - now we'll never know.
> 
> Plus, it had Summer Glau in a motorcycle-cop uniform - what more do you need :lol:.


 

Whoa whoa whao whoa bigfella!  Let me brighten your day!  The Srah Connor Chronicles are NOT cancelled ad are coming back later this year!  YEAH!  Check out this site for regular updates:

www.io9.com

Rob


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 19, 2008)

Let there be a resounding "WhooHoo!!" throughout the land - never have I been so glad to have been mis-informed.  My hearty thanks for the correction, Rob :rei:.


----------



## Phadrus00 (Jul 19, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Let there be a resounding "WhooHoo!!" throughout the land - never have I been so glad to have been mis-informed. My hearty thanks for the correction, Rob :rei:.


 
You sir are MOST welcome!  If only we could say thst Firefly was returning.. *sigh*  Such a great show....


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 19, 2008)

Aye it was.  I hear rumours now and again that they'll bring it back but as time goes on and the cast disperses into other ventures it seems less likely .


----------

