Current State of Hollywood Movies

Damian · 12-15-2005, 01:03 PM

For years now we've been complaining about how bad Hollywood movies have gotten and how mediocrity appears to be the norm. I've been thinking about this for awhile now and have come to realize we're actually at a point where movies are actually getting better.
Sure every year we're bombarded with duds that are globally panned but we also get amazing movies like King Kong and Harry Potter just to name a couple. The biggest directors making movies right now are close to my age which means they have grown up watching the exact same things I did and were influenced by the same movie makers I idolized as a kid (Speilberg, Lucas, Coppala..etc) These directors are better because they hold the source material so dear in influences the way they film their movies (Sam Raimi with Spider-Man, Jackson with The Rings..etc)
I can easily put up with the dud movies that are shoved down our throats every year so long as we continue to get at least one or two of those amazing movies I refered to. I tend to enjoy the big budget CGi filled movies more then the smaller independent films but that's not saying I absolutly DON'T enjoy the smaller movies. Cold Mountain and The Aviator were probably two of the best movies made in the past couple of years and thankfully got the recognition they deserved. I've heard nothing but good things about Cinderella Man but unfortunatly haven't had the chance to give it a rental because our local DVD stores only got a few copies in and they've all been rented out since the day they came in.
I think if we stopped bitching about another seventies TV show to big budget movie project and started focusing more on the movies that deserve to be focused on we'll all realize the quality of movies are pretty damn good these days.
Just my opinion anyway.

Enron · 12-15-2005, 06:27 PM

I think Hollywood should make a new year's resolution to NOT make the following:

1. A sequel of any kind
2. A prequel of any kind
3. A spin-off of any kind
4. A remake of any kind

Just one year with all original films. No franchises. No microwave-ready blockbusters. It would be interesting to see what comes out.

Damian · 12-15-2005, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enron

I think Hollywood should make a new year's resolution to NOT make the following:

1. A sequel of any kind
2. A prequel of any kind
3. A spin-off of any kind
4. A remake of any kind

Just one year with all original films. No franchises. No microwave-ready blockbusters. It would be interesting to see what comes out.

I would agree with this but with this exception.
Anything Harry Potter. These movies have only gotten BETTER with each sequel.

tomdkat · 12-15-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enron

It would be interesting to see what comes out.

I agree.

Peace...

limacharliewhiskey · 12-15-2005, 06:59 PM

In general, I think Hollywood movies have gotten better overall, especially when I look at the movies in the previous decades. If anything, though, we may be bombarded with so many different movies now, that it's sometimes hard to find time to watch all of the good and critically acclaimed movies.

I wonder if there is any type of compilation of the number of movies released each year. I've never paid attention to weekly releases of movies and videos/DVDs until I started collecting DVDs, but it just seems to be my impression that there are many more movies released in the theater nowadays in comparison to before.

It could also be that when I was a kid, I didn't have access to anything like the Internet to find information about theatrical releases, but it seemed like there would be one big movie release every few months. Now, it seems like there's a big movie release every 2 weeks.

Possibly because of the competition between movie studios, and audiences getting smarter about selectively choosing what movies to see, movie studios have attempted to give us better storylines and higher quality production in movies. It is easy to see when you compare today's movies to those in the 1970s and 1980s. Even if you didn't compare CGI special effects or fancy stunts, movie storylines in general seem to be better written and not dumbed down for audiences.

tomdkat · 12-15-2005, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by limacharliewhis

It could also be that when I was a kid, I didn't have access to anything like the Internet to find information about theatrical releases,

Yep, the Internet has definitely had an impact since it's much easier to share and find info on movies and film making which make the viewing audience more savvy about the whole experience.

Peace...

Lex M · 12-15-2005, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by limacharliewhis

It could also be that when I was a kid, I didn't have access to anything like the Internet to find information about theatrical releases, but it seemed like there would be one big movie release every few months. Now, it seems like there's a big movie release every 2 weeks.

I kind of had this memory, too, but it's amazing if you use IMDB and look up a certain year -- say, 1982 -- and study it on a week-by-week basis. You'll find that release patterns were actually very similar to today -- On a given weekend, POLTERGEIST, E.T., THE THING, BLADE RUNNER, ROAD WARRIOR, what have you, would all be in wide release and often opened on top of each other. The big releases came as fast and furious back then as today. I think the only difference is the marketing push where they HAVE to get you into the theater those FIRST THREE DAYS, or they've lost you. Something like RAIDERS might have still been playing 8 or 12 months after its release, where now WAR OF THE WORLDS opens in mid-June and is in discount houses by late July, and on DVD by November.

Lex M · 12-15-2005, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enron

I think Hollywood should make a new year's resolution to NOT make the following:

1. A sequel of any kind
2. A prequel of any kind
3. A spin-off of any kind
4. A remake of any kind

Just one year with all original films. No franchises. No microwave-ready blockbusters. It would be interesting to see what comes out.

But they DO make original films now amidst the sequels and remakes. Just 9 times out 10, people don't go to see them, or don't like them. Or they don't play in most people's cities.

Damian · 12-15-2005, 07:42 PM

The never ending sequel is not new to this decade. The 80's is the decade that gave us not one, not two, not three but SIX Police Academy movies. Six sequels in the span of five years.

Studios do feel it when they rush a sequel out these days for a movie that was already "questionable" at best.
I give you xXx-State of the Union. The original was a piece of shit but it was a piece of shit that made money. So they rushed out a sequel that totally ate up the profits from the first one when it tanked. (haha!) (I have no doubts there's some idiot in Hollywood trying to think of a way to do another xXx movie)

This year we watched Cinderella Man totally sink at the box office yet it was a critically praised movie? Why did it bomb? Was it because Russel Crowe was getting some bad publicity at the same time with the phone throwing incident? Maybe.
I might take some heat for this but War of the Worlds wasn't the gigantic hit that in my opinion it should have been. It was an incredible movie and did 234 million during it's run which is a nice hundred million profit but it should have done more but because it's main star found it more important to push Scientoligy and jump on couches during his War of the Worlds promotional tour then actually talk about the movie, people were turned off by him. (This is my opinion I have no data to back this up).

tomdkat · 12-15-2005, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian

The never ending sequel is not new to this decade. The 80's is the decade that gave us not one, not two, not three but SIX Police Academy movies. Six sequels in the span of five years.

True, but were the Police Academy sequels intended to be "good" sequels or did they just have fun with the concept for as long as they could?

Look at the sequels to Wild Things. Why did Wild Things "need" a sequel at all?

What I don't get are the movies based on video games. Resident Evil and the like....

Peace...

Enron · 12-15-2005, 08:45 PM

There's a great movie called "The Player" with Tim Robbins that is a fantastic satire on how the studios think and movies get made.

Damian · 12-15-2005, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomdkat

True, but were the Police Academy sequels intended to be "good" sequels or did they just have fun with the concept for as long as they could?

Look at the sequels to Wild Things. Why did Wild Things "need" a sequel at all?

What I don't get are the movies based on video games. Resident Evil and the like....

Peace...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say is there ever really a NEED for ANY sequels? Yes we enjoy seeing some beloved charactors come back for more adventures, (Indiana, Luke, Darth..etc) but most movies we really don't give a shit.
You mentioned Wild Things I'll add Cruel Intentions. The original was crap (less the lovely Selma Blair/Sara Michelle kiss) yet it yielded two sequels.
Why the need for two more of these movies? Why are there fifty five Air-Bud movies?

tomdkat · 12-15-2005, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian

I'm going to go out on a limb and say is there ever really a NEED for ANY sequels? Yes we enjoy seeing some beloved charactors come back for more adventures, (Indiana, Luke, Darth..etc) but most movies we really don't give a shit.

I classify Indiana Jones and Star Wars as trilogies (at least initially, in the case of Star Wars) and not necessarily as sequels. Lord of the Rings fits in here as well.

As for a 'need' for a sequel, I'm guessing that would depend on how the original story ended in the first telling of it. Wild Things didn't end in a way that lended itself to a sequel but 3 were made anyway.

X-Men II I think is a good sequel to X-Men since it doesn't try to "pick up" where X-men left off as much as update us on what's going on in the X-Men world.

As for the "need" question, I think it really depends on the story being told in any given movie (non sequel).

Peace...

limacharliewhiskey · 12-15-2005, 11:16 PM

One reason why these cheesy sequels get made is because the studio doesn't want to pay the main actors a higher salary (which they would usually deserve if the first film is a hit) for the sequels. Lots of these low budget movies that become modest or big hits (like Cruel Intentions or Wild Things) also boost the salaries of the formerly unknown, but now well known, actors. Studios want to pay the same price for the sequel that they did for the first film, so other unknown actors hoping for their big break are eager to star in the sequels.

Sequels are always desired by the studios, because it gives them a franchise idea that is recognized by movie fans, and, if done correctly, can be a recurring idea that can be sold over and over again. Really, it all comes back to the James Bond franchise, which every studio wishes it could duplicate.

Actors like it because it usually guarantees them a big payday if the original cast returns, and for producers and directors, they are often given bigger budgets to try to improve the story and visual quality in the sequels.

I'm a fan of sequels, and every so often, I like to see familiar characters on the screen again, especially for my favorite movies.

cherno · 12-16-2005, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomdkat

X-Men II I think is a good sequel to X-Men since it doesn't try to "pick up" where X-men left off as much as update us on what's going on in the X-Men world.

Most of the time these movies truly aren't sequels, they are franchise. It is another movie showing the adventures of these characters in their universe. True sequels (in my defination) are ones that pick up where the last story left off... Halloween 2 for example. But the problem is titling and finding a catchy word to replace sequel to make the distinction. It is easier to just put a 2 behind a name, call it a sequel and move on.

While there was some obvious continuity between X1 and X2, I wouldn't truly call X2 a sequel, whereas X3 is very much looking to be a sequel. X2 had some commonality and linear progression, but not a true "When we last left our heros" feel.

Matrix movies are sequels. Lotr is not since t is really one long book split into 3 sections.

Damian · 12-16-2005, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherno

Most of the time these movies truly aren't sequels, they are franchise. It is another movie showing the adventures of these characters in their universe. True sequels (in my defination) are ones that pick up where the last story left off... Halloween 2 for example. But the problem is titling and finding a catchy word to replace sequel to make the distinction. It is easier to just put a 2 behind a name, call it a sequel and move on.

While there was some obvious continuity between X1 and X2, I wouldn't truly call X2 a sequel, whereas X3 is very much looking to be a sequel. X2 had some commonality and linear progression, but not a true "When we last left our heros" feel.

Matrix movies are sequels. Lotr is not since t is really one long book split into 3 sections.

No matter what the books are, the movies are absolutly sequels because they progress then story from the previous movie(s). I agree that to be called a sequel there needs to some commanality between the stories themselves. The Indiana Jones movies really aren't sequels. Hell if you look at the timeline the movies supposably take place in, The Temple of Doom takes place BEFORE Raider of the Lost Ark did so it's absolutly NOT a continuation of the previous story.

cherno · 12-16-2005, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian

The Temple of Doom takes place BEFORE Raider of the Lost Ark did so it's absolutly NOT a continuation of the previous story.

Really? I never knew that. I guess I never picked up on anything in the movie to have me make the connection. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention to the obvious. Can you tell me how we know that?

Damian · 12-16-2005, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherno

Really? I never knew that. I guess I never picked up on anything in the movie to have me make the connection. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention to the obvious. Can you tell me how we know that?

There are various fan sites on the web that map out the timelines from the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles and the movies. I'm not sure if there is anything obvious in the movies but there might be some things that show what the years are which means you'd have to know what year each movie supposably takes place in.
The timeline I'm looking at here has the Temple of Doom happening in 1935, and the Lost Ark happening in 1936.

Morticia · 12-16-2005, 04:31 PM

Within all the talk of 'sequels' and 'trilogies' -- how would everyone treat the Bond films?

To me, they're a 'serial' -- but does that mean they are devoid of originality, because they use the same core 3 or 4 characters and basic plot?

Damian · 12-16-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morticia

Within all the talk of 'sequels' and 'trilogies' -- how would everyone treat the Bond films?

To me, they're a 'serial' -- but does that mean they are devoid of originality, because they use the same core 3 or 4 characters and basic plot?

Indeed I would consider them serials (like the Indiana Jones movies)
There really is no continuity within any of the movies other then some of the charactor names. Bond never refers directly to any of his past adventures or enemies and the stories are never continuations of any previous stories.

Morticia · 12-16-2005, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damian

Indeed I would consider them serials (like the Indiana Jones movies)
There really is no continuity within any of the movies other then some of the charactor names. Bond never refers directly to any of his past adventures or enemies and the stories are never continuations of any previous stories.

With the exception of OHMM/"You Only Live Twice" --

Spoiler (Highlight or Triple Click to Read):
Not sure on the chronology and too lazy to look it up -- one ends with his marriage/death of his wife, the other begins with him at her graveside.

Damian · 12-16-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morticia

With the exception of OHMM/"You Only Live Twice" --

Spoiler (Highlight or Triple Click to Read):
Not sure on the chronology and too lazy to look it up -- one ends with his marriage/death of his wife, the other begins with him at her graveside.

Indeed that is the exception. I couldn't remember exactly what was continued and didn't feel like researching.

cherno · 12-16-2005, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morticia

Within all the talk of 'sequels' and 'trilogies' -- how would everyone treat the Bond films?

To me, they're a 'serial' -- but does that mean they are devoid of originality, because they use the same core 3 or 4 characters and basic plot?

Definately serials, but I make no assumptions or claims as to the quality or originality of the subsequent pieces based on their categorization. Those all have to be taken on a film by film basis. For the most part however, originality will be on par with the previous links in the series/franchise/whatever.

Once you have established the world in which the characters live, it is difficult to change that, that part of originality goes out the window in most cases, but their situation and circumstances add another dimension.

Damian · 12-16-2005, 04:53 PM

I've always sort of found it disturbing that Bond seems to live in a bizarro world where nobody ages and theres no reference to any past adventures. Sort of like how the charactors on The Simpsons haven't aged the entire run of the show. At least in Indiana Jones there was one brief reference to the Ark of the Covenent in the Last Crusade. Sure it was in there for a laugh but it was a great little moment.

tomdkat · 12-16-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morticia

Within all the talk of 'sequels' and 'trilogies' -- how would everyone treat the Bond films?

To me, they're a 'serial' -- but does that mean they are devoid of originality, because they use the same core 3 or 4 characters and basic plot?

I would consider them serials as well, but not like the Indiana Jones films since there were only three. Just like there were only three films in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

I would consider the Bond films to be serials but not soaps.

At least not until Stefano makes an appearance in a Bond film.

Peace...

Damian · 12-16-2005, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomdkat

I would consider them serials as well, but not like the Indiana Jones films since there were only three. Just like there were only three films in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

I would consider the Bond films to be serials but not soaps.

At least not until Stefano makes an appearance in a Bond film.

Peace...

Just curious, once Indiana Jones IV is made (if) will you then consider them a serial?

12-15-2005, 01:03 PM	#1 (permalink)
Damian My dad can beat up your dad. Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Mississippi	Current State of Hollywood Movies For years now we've been complaining about how bad Hollywood movies have gotten and how mediocrity appears to be the norm. I've been thinking about this for awhile now and have come to realize we're actually at a point where movies are actually getting better. Sure every year we're bombarded with duds that are globally panned but we also get amazing movies like King Kong and Harry Potter just to name a couple. The biggest directors making movies right now are close to my age which means they have grown up watching the exact same things I did and were influenced by the same movie makers I idolized as a kid (Speilberg, Lucas, Coppala..etc) These directors are better because they hold the source material so dear in influences the way they film their movies (Sam Raimi with Spider-Man, Jackson with The Rings..etc) I can easily put up with the dud movies that are shoved down our throats every year so long as we continue to get at least one or two of those amazing movies I refered to. I tend to enjoy the big budget CGi filled movies more then the smaller independent films but that's not saying I absolutly DON'T enjoy the smaller movies. Cold Mountain and The Aviator were probably two of the best movies made in the past couple of years and thankfully got the recognition they deserved. I've heard nothing but good things about Cinderella Man but unfortunatly haven't had the chance to give it a rental because our local DVD stores only got a few copies in and they've all been rented out since the day they came in. I think if we stopped bitching about another seventies TV show to big budget movie project and started focusing more on the movies that deserve to be focused on we'll all realize the quality of movies are pretty damn good these days. Just my opinion anyway.

12-15-2005, 06:27 PM	#2 (permalink)
Enron Actor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Washington, DC	I think Hollywood should make a new year's resolution to NOT make the following: 1. A sequel of any kind 2. A prequel of any kind 3. A spin-off of any kind 4. A remake of any kind Just one year with all original films. No franchises. No microwave-ready blockbusters. It would be interesting to see what comes out. __________________ You're gonna need a bigger boat.

12-15-2005, 06:59 PM	#5 (permalink)
limacharliewhiskey FryMaster Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The O.C.	In general, I think Hollywood movies have gotten better overall, especially when I look at the movies in the previous decades. If anything, though, we may be bombarded with so many different movies now, that it's sometimes hard to find time to watch all of the good and critically acclaimed movies. I wonder if there is any type of compilation of the number of movies released each year. I've never paid attention to weekly releases of movies and videos/DVDs until I started collecting DVDs, but it just seems to be my impression that there are many more movies released in the theater nowadays in comparison to before. It could also be that when I was a kid, I didn't have access to anything like the Internet to find information about theatrical releases, but it seemed like there would be one big movie release every few months. Now, it seems like there's a big movie release every 2 weeks. Possibly because of the competition between movie studios, and audiences getting smarter about selectively choosing what movies to see, movie studios have attempted to give us better storylines and higher quality production in movies. It is easy to see when you compare today's movies to those in the 1970s and 1980s. Even if you didn't compare CGI special effects or fancy stunts, movie storylines in general seem to be better written and not dumbed down for audiences. __________________ "Believing oneself to be perfect is often a sign of a delusional mind." - Data in Star Trek: First Contact DVD Aficionado collection.

12-15-2005, 08:45 PM	#11 (permalink)
Enron Actor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Washington, DC	There's a great movie called "The Player" with Tim Robbins that is a fantastic satire on how the studios think and movies get made. __________________ You're gonna need a bigger boat.

12-15-2005, 11:16 PM	#14 (permalink)
limacharliewhiskey FryMaster Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The O.C.	One reason why these cheesy sequels get made is because the studio doesn't want to pay the main actors a higher salary (which they would usually deserve if the first film is a hit) for the sequels. Lots of these low budget movies that become modest or big hits (like Cruel Intentions or Wild Things) also boost the salaries of the formerly unknown, but now well known, actors. Studios want to pay the same price for the sequel that they did for the first film, so other unknown actors hoping for their big break are eager to star in the sequels. Sequels are always desired by the studios, because it gives them a franchise idea that is recognized by movie fans, and, if done correctly, can be a recurring idea that can be sold over and over again. Really, it all comes back to the James Bond franchise, which every studio wishes it could duplicate. Actors like it because it usually guarantees them a big payday if the original cast returns, and for producers and directors, they are often given bigger budgets to try to improve the story and visual quality in the sequels. I'm a fan of sequels, and every so often, I like to see familiar characters on the screen again, especially for my favorite movies. __________________ "Believing oneself to be perfect is often a sign of a delusional mind." - Data in Star Trek: First Contact DVD Aficionado collection.

12-15-2005, 07:42 PM	#9 (permalink)
Damian My dad can beat up your dad. Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Mississippi	The never ending sequel is not new to this decade. The 80's is the decade that gave us not one, not two, not three but SIX Police Academy movies. Six sequels in the span of five years. Studios do feel it when they rush a sequel out these days for a movie that was already "questionable" at best. I give you xXx-State of the Union. The original was a piece of shit but it was a piece of shit that made money. So they rushed out a sequel that totally ate up the profits from the first one when it tanked. (haha!) (I have no doubts there's some idiot in Hollywood trying to think of a way to do another xXx movie) This year we watched Cinderella Man totally sink at the box office yet it was a critically praised movie? Why did it bomb? Was it because Russel Crowe was getting some bad publicity at the same time with the phone throwing incident? Maybe. I might take some heat for this but War of the Worlds wasn't the gigantic hit that in my opinion it should have been. It was an incredible movie and did 234 million during it's run which is a nice hundred million profit but it should have done more but because it's main star found it more important to push Scientoligy and jump on couches during his War of the Worlds promotional tour then actually talk about the movie, people were turned off by him. (This is my opinion I have no data to back this up).

12-16-2005, 04:31 PM	#19 (permalink)
Morticia Administrator Emeritus Film Class Goddess Part-Time PRN Princess Panty Thief Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Devil's Point. Burn baby burn!	Within all the talk of 'sequels' and 'trilogies' -- how would everyone treat the Bond films? To me, they're a 'serial' -- but does that mean they are devoid of originality, because they use the same core 3 or 4 characters and basic plot? __________________ Nope, you really haven't lived until you've fed a naked Fire Dancer a S'more...cooked from her own flaming baton. I reject your reality and substitute my own! "Freeze dried moles. Price as marked." -- Nixon, Suicide Girl

12-16-2005, 04:53 PM	#24 (permalink)
Damian My dad can beat up your dad. Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Mississippi	I've always sort of found it disturbing that Bond seems to live in a bizarro world where nobody ages and theres no reference to any past adventures. Sort of like how the charactors on The Simpsons haven't aged the entire run of the show. At least in Indiana Jones there was one brief reference to the Ark of the Covenent in the Last Crusade. Sure it was in there for a laugh but it was a great little moment.