Big Budget Hollywood: Making Cr@P for the audience?

[prosperegal]

Or are they merely laughing AT the general public? After all, films which are nominated for the top awards generally don't do that well at the box office!

Prospere Magazine's poll for the week of August 24

Alumnagirl's Rant about Media

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

The film studios are all about marketing and making buckets of money dishing out, in great part, mindless dumbed-down crap to attention deficit audiences. Thank goodness some good films do get made and respect to the the quasi-independent studios (and the "independent" distribution arms of the major studios) who produce, buy and distribute good or decent domestic and international films.
We need another renaissance in film, like that of the late 60's & 70's which brought us fresh, new daring film makers like Scorsese, Spielberg, DePalma, Coppola, Bogdanovich, Altman etc.

 

[prosperegal]

The film studios are all about marketing and making buckets of money dishing out, in great part, mindless dumbed-down crap to attention deficit audiences. Thank goodness some good films do get made and respect to the the quasi-independent studios (and the "independent" distribution arms of the major studios) who produce, buy and distribute good or decent domestic and international films.
We need another renaissance in film, like that of the late 60's & 70's which brought us fresh, new daring film makers like Scorsese, Spielberg, DePalma, Coppola, Bogdanovich, Altman etc.

But are they laughing AT the audience while they're making money? That's the question. I think they are! I mean, we all know Oscar and GG nominated films are usually mediocre, at best when it comes to box office success. How many crack the top 3?

 

[Therion]

They're just putting out a product. I don't think they're laughing at people, but they know exactly what people want (sex, violence, dirty jokes, slapstick, ethnic stereotypes etc.) and they do their best to provide it...

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

But are they laughing AT the audience while they're making money? That's the question. I think they are! I mean, we all know Oscar and GG nominated films are usually mediocre, at best when it comes to box office success. How many crack the top 3?

I don't think the film studios are any different from most any major corporations or conglomerate, they make or manufacture a product or service and sell it to make a profit and keep their shareholders happy when they have a good quarter. I don't think of corporations as having a soul as such, they just make "stuff" so I don't think of any of them are laughing at the consumer.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Anyone who takes the time to see low budget indie movies can tell you that a lot of them suck too. And often they suck in far less entertaining ways than a stupid, effects-laden summer blockbuster.

2009 has been a pretty bad year for Summer Blockbusters, but we still got Up and Star Trek. And though not 'big budget', The Hangover was a pretty good comedy that made a ton of money.

2008 had The Dark Knight, Wall-E and Iron Man as good summer movies, which isn't too bad.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Most non-Hollywood movies suck, whether independent or foreign or whatever, but we tend to see only those that have been filtered through the film festival circuit or those that have gained good reputations via word of mouth or the media.

Hollywood makes plenty of good movies if you're looking at the whole year's worth of releases and not just summer blockbusters. Many of these aren't "big budget" but only because they don't spend $100M on computer effects and underwater scenes and spaceship sets...they spend plenty on the actors and music and costumes and production team and so on.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Most non-Hollywood movies suck, whether independent or foreign or whatever, but we tend to see only those that have been filtered through the film festival circuit or those that have gained good reputations via word of mouth or the media.

Hollywood makes plenty of good movies if you're looking at the whole year's worth of releases and not just summer blockbusters. Many of these aren't "big budget" but only because they don't spend $100M on computer effects and underwater scenes and spaceship sets...they spend plenty on the actors and music and costumes and production team and so on.

Well that's a matter of opinion and I respect that, but I really have to disagree. I find so many Hollywood films (blockbuster or mid-budget pictures) to so often be "formula" films or films that have often been told before, and told better. Each year just look at how many remakes there are of films, rarely ever surpassing the original.

I agree some independent and foreign films aren't great but generally they get a distribution here because of critical acclaim, audience reaction at film festivals or because foreign films win awards in the country of origin so we generally (but not always) get "the best of the best" here.

Make no mistake, I don't dislike Hollywood films (though I don't like or see a whole lot of them anymore) but after seeing thousands of movies in my life being a film nut, I get really excited and stimulated when I see something fresh with a story I haven't seen before. There's some quality coming out of Hollywood, but those films I find are few and far between.

For the record, I loved Christopher Nolan's Batman & Dark Knight to death, I saw them both multiple times at the Scotiabank and bought them on Blu ray disc so there are two examples that come to mind to prove I do like and believe that there is some good stuff coming out of Hollywood. I liked Ironman too (in great part because of Robert D. Jr. who is such an underrated actor). Benjamin Button was a Hollywood film, loved it! There are other examples of course so it's not all bad.

TV is similar. With a few exceptions most everything on the networks is pure crap. The really exciting stuff is (and has been for over a decade) coming out of the cable networks like HBO, AMC & Showtime and in the UK from Channel 4 and BBC.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Well that's a matter of opinion and I respect that, but I really have to disagree. I find so many Hollywood films (blockbuster or mid-budget pictures) to so often be "formula" films or films that have often been told before, and told better. Each year just look at how many remakes there are of films, rarely ever surpassing the original.

I agree some independent and foreign films aren't great but generally they get a distribution here because of critical acclaim, audience reaction at film festivals or because foreign films win awards in the country of origin so we generally (but not always) get "the best of the best" here.

Make no mistake, I don't dislike Hollywood films (though I don't like or see a whole lot of them anymore) but after seeing thousands of movies in my life being a film nut, I get really excited and stimulated when I see something fresh with a story I haven't seen before. There's some quality coming out of Hollywood, but those films I find are few and far between.

For the record, I loved Christopher Nolan's Batman & Dark Knight to death, I saw them both multiple times at the Scotiabank and bought them on Blu ray disc so there are two examples that come to mind to prove I do like and believe that there is some good stuff coming out of Hollywood. I liked Ironman too (in great part because of Robert D. Jr. who is such an underrated actor). Benjamin Button was a Hollywood film, loved it! There are other examples of course so it's not all bad.

TV is similar. With a few exceptions most everything on the networks is pure crap. The really exciting stuff is (and has been for over a decade) coming out of the cable networks like HBO, AMC & Showtime and in the UK from Channel 4 and BBC.

You aren't really disagreeing with me.

 

[afransen]

I was thinking that, too, reading his 'rebuttal'.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Disagreeing in the exact percentage of crap, maybe, but who would agree on exact percentages?

As for TV, many regular network shows would be better (or just seem better) if they didn't have to be spliced up into 7 minute segments because of commercial breaks, or if they could include as much swearing, sex, and violence as cable network shows often have.

 

[GenerationW]

The film studios are all about marketing and making buckets of money dishing out, in great part, mindless dumbed-down crap to attention deficit audiences. Thank goodness some good films do get made and respect to the the quasi-independent studios (and the "independent" distribution arms of the major studios) who produce, buy and distribute good or decent domestic and international films.
We need another renaissance in film, like that of the late 60's & 70's which brought us fresh, new daring film makers like Scorsese, Spielberg, DePalma, Coppola, Bogdanovich, Altman etc.

I'm not sure we'll ever see the type of risk-taking and innovation we had in the 1967-75 era. Back then the studios were not the corporate giants they are today, and now advertising and promotion can be as important as the film itself, or even more important. Some say this all started with Star Wars, which sold a boatload of toys, comics and other merchandise months before the movie opened.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

You aren't really disagreeing with me.

I offered a soft response because I don't want to get engaged into a heated discussion based on the types of films you or I may prefer. Where we disagree is with your statement "most non-Hollywood films suck" and "Hollywood makes plenty of good movies". A dozen or so good films come out of the studio system in a given year yet generally what we get here in terms of independent and foreign film are of much higher calibre.

Back to the title of the thread "big budget Hollywood: making crap for the audience", I would say that to true to a great degree - but there are exceptions.

On a sort of related note, I'm dying to see what James Cameron delivers with "Avatar", his first film since "Titanic" with a budget (estimated) at $190M. The trailer I saw last week sure didn't make me want to see it!

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I'm not sure we'll ever see the type of risk-taking and innovation we had in the 1967-75 era. Back then the studios were not the corporate giants they are today, and now advertising and promotion can be as important as the film itself, or even more important. Some say this all started with Star Wars, which sold a boatload of toys, comics and other merchandise months before the movie opened.

Your probably correct, we'll never see a renaissance in film like that again for the reasons you state and Internet access advancing as it is along with add-on devices that are rolling out where thousands of movies can be purchased for viewing at home.

Star Wars came out of nowhere, it was a surprise hit. One exhibitor here in Canada thought it was a piece of fluff and let it go to the opposition! Billions in merchandising followed as the fan base grew and subsequent films were released.

 

[lordmandeep]

Lol TV sucks worse then movies.

At least there a like 5-10 movies worth seeing a year.

This year the only TV show I have been following is Mad Men and the only reason that its so cool, because whats more relaxing on a Sunday night then seeing people enjoying themselves with alcohol, cigarettes and sex?.