Am I just getting old?

[Daniel Smith]

Daniel,

 

Torrent is about 6 years old now? Are your buds downing indie product? DV origin product? Torrent released only product?

None of those. Only movies released first in the cinema and then onto DVD, all of which should be paid for, and television programmes like Life on Mars, House etc. which again should be bought on DVD.

Edited August 24, 2008 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

[Paul Bruening]

None of those. Only movies released first in the cinema and then onto DVD, all of which should be paid for, and television programmes like Life on Mars, House etc. which again should be bought on DVD.

 

Damn that irksome "market response" argument.

[monday sunnlinn]

i think the idea that a movie experience should be this or that is simply a matter of opinion.

 

to loosely quote hunter s. thompson-

"buy the ticket, take the ride"

 

when you go to a theatre and are not somehow involved in the actual art/science of making movies, you're probably going to be entertained. that could mean by the content of the movie or the subtle energy interaction with the rest of the people, or hopefully, both.

 

i was a big fan of transformers as a kid, and when the transformers movie finally hit the theatres, i went the first day with some of my friends. the overwhelming joy of getting something you had been waiting for, for over a year, simultaneously with 300 other people in the same room was worth the $10 bucks. in fact, i was sweating by the time the movie was over. ever hear a band that you though was so-so on the radio, but knocked your head off live? Same thing. hollywood isn't making money off the content, they're selling you an experience that is designed to be communal in nature. it's the same thing that religion, sports, news, fast food, nationalism, drugs, military service, concerts, funerals etc. provides- a chance to share a dynamic experience and possibly your emotions/mind with people.

 

am i tired of the same production styles being copied over and over again? only if i am still wearing my technical hat when i go into the theatre or pop the dvd in. if i see a movie that really get's me, then i'll watch it again with an eye towards seeing how it was put together to illicit the response that it did from me. the ability to turn off my analytical mind when i spend good money going to see a movie is one of my favorite mental discipline tricks.

 

as far as seeing a movie because of the content goes, given the relatively common home theatre set-up's quality is usually better than the out-of-focus projector and stained screens that i usually encounter at big chain theatres along with the blown speakers, cell phones, teenagers and the rumblings from the next theatre over ruining my suspension of disbelief. i think it's probably safe to say when i'm actually going to a theatre theses days, it's to have the crowd amplification effect or see how some technical aspect translates to projection on a big screen. (i.e. how does the red footage look on screen)...

 

as far as a new model of film-making finance. i'm actually smack-dab in the middle of starting a non-profit that is one part research and one part media production, so for one part of our media program we will have an indy studio that is grant funded that will be able to produce hollywood quality productions for release either for free or a relatively low donation/subscription type base on the web, and if it get's picked up, even in theatres(with profits funding more work along these lines). this is only recently been made possible with the advent of things like the red camera and cgi/post software that is reasonably affordable and yet produces high quality results. (let's not turn this into a red bashing forum please...it's a tool that does what we want and fits our budget...)

 

and believe me when i say we won't be making movies like(insert name of vapid formulaic schlock here). we're about content that is there to promote a healthier/holistic-ier way of living. be it by means of alternative energy or alternative thinking. the creative freedom that comes when you're making something for the sake of making it, without compromise or worry that you are making a suit smile, is inspiring and invigorating and so much more...

 

so i would encourage people who are yearning for rich content like they remember to all band together and make something, I'd go see it! Start up something! Get something going! This is your art and your passion, or used to be, so make it happen! whether it gets into a theatre to be projected badly and with pops and hiss, or it's downloaded by some teenager in montana who wants to go to film school, if it's inspiring, it'll just keep making other people want to see better stuff...and make better stuff, and maybe make a better world....

[Andy_Alderslade]

I'm going to go ahead and consider myself a young'n in this conversation.

 

This conversation sounds like the one my parents' parents had about "rock and roll" music and the one my parents (and now I) have had about "rap" music. The answer to your subject title "Am I just getting old?" is yes.

 

Ha! This reminds me of a conversation I was having with a mate last night complaining about how all London nightclubs were playing too much RnB and Hip-hop, that good old classic dance, trance, euphoric type music from the late 90's/early 00's had been pushed out.

 

Complaints like "You can't dance to Hip-hop" or "its shallow and not as emotional as dance" were plentiful - then I realized how old I was sounding!

 

I suppose the moral is: Evolution isn't for people who liked how it was before....

[Jay Taylor]

Hey guys,

 

To solve a lot of the problems I think the torrent networks need bringing down and more control over the internet needs implementing.

 

As soon as anyone starts regulating the internet, it will die.

 

In any case, if you take down the torrent networks something else will come around to take it's place.

 

Honestly, why can't cable/satelite/internet providers offer some sort of on demand service that gives you everything you could want for a flat rate?

 

Just imagine never having to buy a dvd, or album, or whatever. You just pull it up on your screen and watch/listen to it? What if you had the same access wirelessly? There'd be no point in downloading this stuff illegally.

 

If something came along that gave you access to every movie, tv show, album, etc, ever made, instantly, for the same as what you pay for cable, wouldn't you sign up?

 

 

Jay

[giap vu]

I would have to say that appreciating something of quality is to the degree of almost innate - be it light beer, fruit, or boyz n the hood. when you know its good, you just know it. Anything of quality transcends time, culture, and sex. For instance, my wife who hardly speaks English being that she's only been in the United States for about 2 1/2 years - who's only experience for the first 30 years of her life were water buffalo, bicycles, and sowing machines - can sit in a movie theater with me and only understand 25% of the dialogue but know amazingly by the first act if she's in for a wonderful ride or horrible mistake. Then again she can watch a Vietnamese or Chinese movie on the internet and not notice the bad directing, bad cinematography, and possibly bad acting that makes me go down stairs and turn on the TV. It is my argument that the consumer wants quality, but will settle for mediocrity because they are not fully aware of their choices. Mediocrity is not necessarily bad, but the choice of only good or ok isn't enough for some of us - like myself. With the advent of the internet, corporate America has learned smartly, to the detriment of us, what the consumer wants or what they can get away with giving the majority of us who will settle for less, because less is what's to be expected. From dreams not fully fulfilled, we as a society are victims of the so called American dream not coming true. Read The Working Poor by David Shipler and you may learn that what we're experiencing is not exactly evolution but frighteningly the opposite.

Edited August 24, 2008 by giap vu

[Daniel Smith]

Damn that irksome "market response" argument.

Well we're discussing the problem, and considering the evidence I'd say illegal downloading is possibly the biggest drain of profits. It may be old news, but the problem still remains and it's just growing as more and more people are doing it.

 

As soon as anyone starts regulating the internet, it will die.

 

In any case, if you take down the torrent networks something else will come around to take it's place.

I don't think it would. Regulating something doesn't mean dictating. It might be mean the shutting down of several huge torrent web sites. Of course, new ones will appear, but when jail sentences or huge fines start to occur the rotation will slow, and remember it?s regulating not curing. Laws need to be flexible when it comes to crime that can change so easily.

 

Go onto these torrent web sites and within a few films worth of downloads, millions upon millions have been lost. I don't think the people who don't download via these torrents quite realise how big these networks really are.

[Phil Rhodes]

Regulating something doesn't mean dictating

 

You trust governments? Ours?

 

America's?

 

The Chinese?

 

No. It doesn't necessarily mean dictating, although in practice it would - although it won't, because, and thank crap for this, the only reason it hasn't been done is because it can't be done.

 

Now as to online delivery: hell yes. There are very big technical issues here of which few outside the telecomms industry are aware; mass downloading of high bandwidth content like feature films (especially HD), at anything like the level of people buying DVDs, would bring the internet terminally to its knees. But solve those, which you can given a double armload of optical fibre, and I am ready to spend money right now.

 

The issue is that my terms for this are that it be on the same basis as CDs or DVDs - no encryption (or at least no encryption worthy of the name) and freedom to play the content on any hardware I like. At the moment content producers exist in a rather convenient best-of-both-worlds place where they're not selling you the movie, they're selling you the license to watch it - but it's not like they'll replace a damaged disc in order that you can exercise the licensed rights you still theoretically own, nor will they theoretically let you back it up, so they're also selling you the media. Those guys really do have it all ways.

 

But the bigger issue is not one of handwringing over the issue of playback rights; it's just that I want to be able to use my rather nice 24" 1080p LCD to watch HD movies, which, at the moment, is against the rules because it doesn't implement HDCP encryption over its DVI inputs. Let's overlook the fact that DVD piracy has never relied upon recording DVI streams. Let's overlook the fact that it will always be easier to circumvent the intrinsically flawed concept of copy prevention anyway. Let's overlook the fact that these content protection measures are becoming more and more visibly aligned with the commercial goals of the extremely commercial organisations which administer them. Let's ignore all that. I don't want to be a pirate, I just want to watch HD movies on my HD display.

 

I own equipment perfectly capable of decompressing and displaying HD movies to the highest standards that are currently commercially available. The only place I can get media for it is bittorrent, and bittorrent is a pain - slow, unreliable downloads, patchy availability, variable quality.

 

Offer me the legal service and I will use it but I am not going to buy movies I can't play nor am I going to replace my perfectly good equipment because Sony happens to find it convenient. This is a monopolistic and anticompetitive business practice which should be illegal.

 

P

[Daniel Smith]

You trust governments? Ours?

 

America's?

 

The Chinese?

 

No. It doesn't necessarily mean dictating, although in practice it would - although it won't, because, and thank crap for this, the only reason it hasn't been done is because it can't be done.

 

Now as to online delivery: hell yes. There are very big technical issues here of which few outside the telecomms industry are aware; mass downloading of high bandwidth content like feature films (especially HD), at anything like the level of people buying DVDs, would bring the internet terminally to its knees. But solve those, which you can given a double armload of optical fibre, and I am ready to spend money right now.

 

The issue is that my terms for this are that it be on the same basis as CDs or DVDs - no encryption (or at least no encryption worthy of the name) and freedom to play the content on any hardware I like. At the moment content producers exist in a rather convenient best-of-both-worlds place where they're not selling you the movie, they're selling you the license to watch it - but it's not like they'll replace a damaged disc in order that you can exercise the licensed rights you still theoretically own, nor will they theoretically let you back it up, so they're also selling you the media. Those guys really do have it all ways.

 

But the bigger issue is not one of handwringing over the issue of playback rights; it's just that I want to be able to use my rather nice 24" 1080p LCD to watch HD movies, which, at the moment, is against the rules because it doesn't implement HDCP encryption over its DVI inputs. Let's overlook the fact that DVD piracy has never relied upon recording DVI streams. Let's overlook the fact that it will always be easier to circumvent the intrinsically flawed concept of copy prevention anyway. Let's overlook the fact that these content protection measures are becoming more and more visibly aligned with the commercial goals of the extremely commercial organisations which administer them. Let's ignore all that. I don't want to be a pirate, I just want to watch HD movies on my HD display.

 

I own equipment perfectly capable of decompressing and displaying HD movies to the highest standards that are currently commercially available. The only place I can get media for it is bittorrent, and bittorrent is a pain - slow, unreliable downloads, patchy availability, variable quality.

 

Offer me the legal service and I will use it but I am not going to buy movies I can't play nor am I going to replace my perfectly good equipment because Sony happens to find it convenient. This is a monopolistic and anticompetitive business practice which should be illegal.

 

P

I don't understand why it can't be done though, even if it's not bringing down the server the site is being hosted on, all countries get their internet via the huge network bays, if these network bays connecting countries together filtered certain IP's, that would cut down on the problem massively. I'm sure there are ways around it, but it would be very difficult and very few people would be able to do it.

 

I know there is a huge amount of information going in and out and physically handling that is a problem, but everything at some point meets a router. Even if it's not filtered at the main bay, it could be a rule ISP's need to implement.

 

As for legalities, the problem is torrents are a great technology for sharing files on as mass basis, but when the torrents being hosted link users to copyright material, there should be a way of making the web site responsible. I mean they shut down suprnova, why not the rest?

 

I'm sure they've thought of the things I'm saying so, why is it they can't filter things?

 

Torrents will nearly always be available, they can't block the ports the programmes are using and torrents will always float around forums etc. and not every server can be blocked, but the huge web sites can be (mininova, torrentz etc.)

Edited August 25, 2008 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

[Dave Green]

Just look at the choices playing in London today, just naming a few

 

In Kilburn the Trycicle cinema is playing Somers Town

In Hammersmith the Riverside Studios is playing a David Lean double, Doctor Zhivago/The Passionate Friends

In the Prince Charles in Liecester Square you have Happy Go Lucky and In Search of a Midnight Kiss

The Curzon's are playing Man on Wire

The NFT is playing The Ghost of St Michael's with Will Hays

The Rio of East London is playing Jules et Jim

 

Okay, I live just outside the M25 (for those of you not in the UK, that's just outside the boundry of Greater London), so let's see how many non-mainstream/Hollywood films there are within a 20 mile radius of me:

Number of cinemas - 15

Number of screens - over 100

Number if small indie/foreign films - 5

 

Of those 5 films (Singh Is Kinng, Bachna Ae Haseeno, God Tussi Great Ho, Maan Gaye Mughal-E-Azam - all Bollywood films - and Shoot on Sight, a UK film), they're only showing at two cinemas, both of which are right on the edge of the 20 mile limit.

 

Birmingham:

Number of cinemas - 15

Number of screens - over 100

Number if small indie/foreign films - 5

 

Bachna Ae Haseeno, Singh Is Kinng, Lakh Pardesi Hoiye, Maan Gaye Mughall-E-Azam, Shoot on Sight, being shown at just three cinemas.

 

Manchester:

Number of cinemas - 15

Number of screens - over 100

Number if small indie/foreign films - 5

 

Bachna Ae Haseeno, Singh Is Kinng, God Tussi Great Ho, The Banishment (Izgnanie) & Mad Detective courtesy of Manchester's one and only arthouse cinema.

 

So, we have a couple of Bollywood films, showing at a total of 8 cinemas, one British film film showing at 11 cinemas and two European films showing at 1 cinema.

 

No, I can't think why the cinema going public don't know about films that come from anywhere other than Hollywood...

 

And if people complaining about the quality of many films today do it because they're simply getting old and remembering the good ol' days, why is it so many of them say they now enjoy world cinema films instead? Is it because these films lack imagination and simply copy 'the good ol' days' or is it because they're actually superior films?

[Paul Bruening]

I have posted on this topic more than a few times over the years. I have done so on this thread as well. Over the last day or so, I've been troubled about my reactions. I think that they are valid. But I wasn't so sure they were the genuine, root reactions. I agree in principle with David Mullen's risk avoidance argument. I agree with the crap factory argument. I agree with the nostalgia argument. I even agree with the gumpy-old-fart argument.

 

With all this, the feeling that runs deepest in me is jaded boredom. That's it. It ain't glamorous. It ain't profound. I see the now-showing list and I sigh. I know it's the same stuff. I know I'll get that feeling that I get with 90% of the movies I've seen over the last few years. "Well, this is... well. Okay, then. I'd rather be somewhere else."

 

I recently reported in a thread that I like so many movies that I couldn't put any favorites in a list. So, this is starting to bug me. If I'm recently getting tired of what's coming out, how can I claim that I like movies so much? Maybe that's kind of the problem. What's happening recently to me is jabbing me in the eye. These recent feelings of boredom aren't like me at all. So, I'm going to approach movies and watch them with this factor in mind- Have the movies changed or have I?

[John Sprung]

... but seriously Wall-e? It's not only very entertaining throughout and absolutely adorable without ever being annoyingly cutesy, ....

If you can find it somehow, check out the 1985 TriStar picture "Short Circuit".

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Bill DiPietra]

Maybe that's kind of the problem. What's happening recently to me is jabbing me in the eye. These recent feelings of boredom aren't like me at all. So, I'm going to approach movies and watch them with this factor in mind- Have the movies changed or have I?

 

A little bit of both, I'd say...because it's the same with me. I'm 33 but I remember even the stupidest movies that were released and that my dad would keep me away from (LOL) still had SOME kind of story that could at least hold your attention. Once I ventured into film, my father recommended many of the films that we call classics in this forum. I was off and running and I never looked back.

 

Even during the 90s, I'd see a HUGE difference in quality between the old films I was watching at home and the ones I was seeing in the theaters. Now it's at the point where I simply order quality films from Netflix. It's sad, because I used to LOVE going to the movies. It's the experience that I miss, too. Now we have commercials for Cadillac before ANYTHING begins even at the Tribeca Film Festival.

 

I still remember watching "Braveheart" in the theater with my dad on a HUGE screen. We were blown away by the film and that was an awesome theater to have seen it in but soon after, it closed down. Now everything is a multi-plex with miniscule screens that a 4:3 frame would look better on. Yes, there are some local indie theaters around...I go to the Film Forum and the Angelika...but what happened, man?!

 

If Hollywopod can make money on an overall reduction in quality of the entire movie-going experience, it's obvious they will do it.

[Marcel Zyskind]

Hi Adam

 

Just watch French Connection again.

 

It will make you feel better.

 

Best

Marcel

[Michael Waite]

If you can't stand Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler, then that means your pretty much poop out of luck with comedies for the next 3 years until some new star or writer captures the fancy.

You pretty much described my dilemma with that sentence.

I would love to go to the movies & be entertained by comedies, blockbusters - whatever, as long as the films have some amount of quality & respect for the audience. But with most modern films I just sit there feeling bored & insulted. I hardly go to the cinema anymore. I was in Bangkok recently & was tempted to see Dark Knight at the IMAX cinema, seemed like it could be a real blast, but the trailers put me off completely. Same old formula. And I hate the shoddy CGI in contemporary films. I saw 'I Am Legend' when I was in Mexico City & the poor quality CGI kept me right out of the story.

I've spent a lot of time staying in hotels over the past year & watching their movie channels have had the opportunity to sample most of the films I've been avoiding over the past 10 years & most of them were even worse than I had imagined.

Hasta La Vista, Baby.

[Phil Rhodes]

Something that occurred to me the other day while perusing my DVD shelves.

 

I really liked The Interpreter as a movie. But it has Nicole Kidman in it. I have no intrinsic problem with Nicole Kidman, with the possible exception of her tupperware looks, and I think she's fine in the movie, other than at the time it came out she was at the very height of her overexposure - it's not specifically mentioned, but in the DVD interviews she's very clearly in costume for The Stepford Wives.

 

Repetitiveness can wreck otherwise good things.

 

P

[Chad Stockfleth]

Do you think it's possible that as you get older and (especially working in the industry) your taste become more refined and sophisticated that you just become numb to movies? Especially mediocre ones.

 

As a kid, I could be entertained by almost anything. Have you seen Total Recall lately? It's downright terrible, but as a kid I thought it was the most awesome thing I'd ever seen.

 

I find this in music also. After hearing so much over the years, it takes something ESPECIALLY unique or passionate to catch my fancy.

 

I sometimes wish I could regress back to my childhood ways.

[Jim Carlile]

This might not be fair, but after seeing I Vitelloni last night on TCM, how can anyone watch anything these days that's new?

 

Offhand, here's what wrong with movies, IMO:

 

-- Actors cast with no sense of gravitas; too-young looking 30 year-olds masquerading as adult authority figures; ham acting; precious, overly meaningful soap opera dialog where the characters spend most of their time constantly explaining their feelings, when they're not striking each other.

 

-- Wide angle lenses creating no depth of field in a shot; lazy setups that usually involve a hose-piping Steadicam that makes every scene look exactly the same, in every movie, with the sole purpose of following around dumb-looking actors emoting at each other.

 

-- Character-based plots (highlighting the stars,) usually with them screaming at each other as a story substitute.

 

-- multi-track soundtracks that distract from the visuals, overlayered into oblivion

 

-- incredibly mawkish, dumb sentimentality everywhere, wierdly alternating with fu**-you hostility and violence, all to create phony conflict

 

-- Don't even get me started on special effects....

[Ira Ratner]

What ever happened to musicals? Once in a while one comes out and I love it, but then I slap myself until the feeing passes.

 

But seriously folks, I think we all love ALL of the genres. It's just that so many movies are half-ass attempts at them and the same old thing.

[Sam Wells]

-- Actors cast with no sense of gravitas; too-young looking 30 year-olds masquerading as adult authority figures;

 

This is the real killer / deal-breaker in "Indie" films especially. Overly cringe-inducing if they are playing cops, detectives etc.

 

-Sam

[Serge Teulon]

I remember when the best super hero film I had ever seen was Flash Gordon.....until I tried to watch it as an adult and nothing but disappointment fell upon me.

If the "Fifth Element" can be considered a super hero film then my vote goes on that as the best.

 

The current trend on super heroes is the same as on films about the royals in the Victorian and Georgian Britain.

I'm pretty sick and tired those films.......The BBC love throwing their carefully planned cash at these kind of dramas.

There are so many other really interesting factual and historical facts to cover but for some reason the industry believes that this cow still has more lactose to offer.

 

 

It would be great if the big distributors would push for films of the calibre of 2001 A Space Odyssey, Ghandi to be produced.....

 

 

P.S Adam - Although I enjoyed most of it, I must confess that I fell asleep halfway through Assasination.....there was a real dead 30mins in the middle.

[John Allen]

My opinion is that the film industry was really creative up until the late 70's on into the early 90's. I think there was a slump there. Because, even tho I admit there were some very good movies made, it was really getting into the sci-fi and all that. Which, I'm sorry if I affend ppl who like sci-fi's, but personally I think they take hardly any skill at all. See the reason why is because the main focus in a sci-fi usually is to have a lot of action and cgi, which I think takes away from the story

 

Anyway, to swerve back onto the subject, I think that we're starting to get back to creating really good creative films. I mean we've had some amazing films in the past 5 years. And here's just a little list of films that I think are really well made.

 

The Dark Knight (in my mind is the best superhero film ever made)

Pans Labyrinth

The Departed

No Country For Old Men

Capote

Finding Neverland

Letters From Iwo Jima

There Will Be Blood

The Assasination of Jesse James

Little Miss Sunshine

Juno

Children of Men

 

P.S. Serge (sorry if I sound like an echo with the p.s. bit) But I agree that there were parts in Jesse James that were slow, but Roger Deakins did such an amazing job that, being a DP myself, I couldn't keep my eyes off the tv screen. Also, I respect your opinion, but I can't see how you'd like "2001 a space odyssey" and find "Jesse James" partly boring, in my opinion all of "2001..." is a very boring film.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Hi Adam

 

Just watch French Connection again.

 

It will make you feel better.

 

Best

Marcel

 

It certainly will!

[Serge Teulon]

Hey John, I wonder how Richard Edlund would feel about your comment.

I'm not a big sci-fi guy but I do believe that alot of very skilled work goes into producing this type of film. You are right in the fact that it doesn't utilise the world as we know...sorry for the pun.....but it does delve into possibilities and imagination. To actually create something fully from the unknown and still sell it to ppl like us, then that alone has to be respected.

 

You liking one film and me not feeling the same about film, is, in my opinion, what makes art interesting. Wouldn't it be boring if we all concurred with each other...but to call 2001 a boring film is something that says that you just didn't get it. For me it's like listening to pink floyd's dark side of the moon album.....once in a blue moon but man, what a nice experience each time I listen to it! ;)

 

On the Assasination...I'm a big admirer of Deakins' work and my falling asleep was nothing to do with his work but simply to do with the pace, which for me slooooowed right down at one point. That did not happen in NCFOM nor when I went to see In the Valley.....which was brilliantly written and shot!!!

[John Allen]

I admire what you just said. Um, I do admit that some sci-fi's are very creative, but I guess what I meant was that it seemed that once they started with one big sci-fi film, it seemed that they all wanted to make one.

 

Also, I agree with what you said about 2001. Maybe I just, didn't get it. For the last time I saw it was when I was like 8, so I most likely didn't get it. Oh and I just want to add, pink floyd rocks.

 

I also wanted to let you know that, I don't disrespect your opinion on any point. I just wanted to understand you a little better. So I'm sorry if you thought I was putting your opinion down.