Jump to content

What happened to look of movies


fatih yıkar
 Share

Recommended Posts

I still find stop motion (or animatronics, or masks for that matter) more scairy than CG. The reason for that is because my brain registers it as a real object. Sure there is something "wrong" with it; either it's jerky or not quite organic enough etc. but it's a physical object. With most of the CG, my brain is fighting to decide whether it's a physical object or not. There are exceptions of course.

That´s a good explanation, thank you :)

 

There are other examples, like both Ghostbusters-movies from the 80s. They ghosts look good even today, because they were "real", real puppets, or peolple who played them. That´s why they look organic. Like the library ghost from Ghostbusters (1984):

 

Ghostbusters-library-ghost.jpg

 

Doesn´t that look great even today? When the light hits the creature it looks real, because it´s REAL light hitting a REAL puppet! There were people who build that thing and tried to create the best effect. They used light, wind etc. to make that.

 

And today you´ve got this:

 

newghostbusters.jpg

 

Looks like a video game to me. I can clearly see that this thing is not "real",

For me, "Film" means that you film something that is in front of the camera, not filming a greet wall and put in everything later digitally. That´s what Coppola did with "Dracula": he used only(!) practical effects. Everything you see is actually there. If you see green smoke wandering around in the room, it´s real smoke, green light and some people with fans "directing" the smoke. It´s much more effort, you have to try and practise a lot of things, but the result looks better. I like it when filmmakers are creative to achieve a certain effect.

 

 

Yes Sandra, I also think matte paintings are or rather were great. And foreground miniatures too. I'm interested in this picture you posted earlier. I've often wondered how much of that set was real and what proportion was matte painting/miniature crowd. I remember seeing the 70mm Cinerama release yet couldn't locate the matte lines on that vast screen, though maybe the fast cutting helped. It's amazing I think that the film-makers in those days put such confidence in the skills of the artist who painted the glass panel in front of the camera, knowing that if the result didn't work the cost of a retake would be enormous.

They also did this for the 1925 Ben Hur. In the wide shots most of the arena was fake, with miniature audience moving up and down. It´s a simple trick, but in the final movie you think "Wow, they shot this in a real arena!". Not like those digital arenas like in Ridley Scotts "Gladiator" etc.

 

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one:

 

Beauty and the Beast in 1946:

 

Beauty-and-the-Beast.jpg

 

And 2016:

 

post-72805-0-90713700-1497408698_thumb.jpg

 

The actress in 1946 had something to interact with, and this is the actor of the beast in full costume. Emma Watson had this guy in this ridiculous costume to interact with.

 

The Beast in 1946:

 

beautyandthebeast-criterion-10.jpg

 

5923783300_a83e2a935e_o.png

 

And in 2016:

 

1479153349183.jpg

 

 

And then people seriously wonder why so many people don´t like CGI and prefer the old movies? I mean, it´s not only the CGI, also the style, the look of everything, for example the lighting. In the old movie you had more artificial lighting, but the light in the new one just looks like every other movie nowadays, actionmovie, horrormovie, whatever.

 

It´s kinda sad :(

 

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

Edited by Sandra Merkatz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Sandra, I also think matte paintings are or rather were? great. And foreground miniatures too. I'm interested in this picture you posted earlier. I've often wondered how much of that set was real and what proportion was matte painting/miniature crowd. I remember seeing the 70mm Cinerama release yet couldn't locate the matte lines on that vast screen, though maybe the fast cutting helped. It's amazing I think that the film-makers in those days put such confidence in the skills of the artist who painted the glass panel in front of the camera, knowing that if the result didn't work the cost of a retake would be enormous.

 

 

Isnt there famously, a guy wearing a watch in that Ben Hur scene . :) or was that Cleopatra ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The watch was supposed to be in the chariot race from "Ben Hur", but I never saw one ... I didn´t search for it though. There is also a mistake with the number of chariots crashing and arriving in the finish, but I also never counted that, because it would kinda ruin the fun.

 

What I really notice are continuity errors between shots! That happens a lot of times in TV series, but when that happens in movies, it´s horrible. My impression is, that today you cut more often then 60 years ago. If two people are talking, they always cut from one close up to another, and you see the continuity errors, when the head suddenly is in another position.

 

There is one continuity error that really ruins a scene for me: when Lila finds "mother" in the basement of Hitchcocks "Psycho". When you see mother from behind in the distance, her head is bend over to the right side. But when Lila touches her, mothers head suddenly is straight up.

 

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just googled it.. yes its Ben Hur during the race.. its quite plain to see.. there are huge continuity mistakes in big budget films..way more than what side a head is leaning.. all the time.. but people don't notice .. even different clothes.. cars etc.. which is sort of a sign that the film is good.. and that the audience are caught up in the story and not noticing these "mistakes " ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just googled it.. yes its Ben Hur during the race.. its quite plain to see.. there are huge continuity mistakes in big budget films..way more than what side a head is leaning.. all the time..

 

I think that´s also a proof how movies are done: they just shoot isolated moments, sometimes not even in the right chronology, it´s all business and hastiness. Sometimes it´s quite relaxing watching an extremely old movie from the 1900s (for example "Le Voyage dans la Lune" by Georges Méliès from 1902, where you have just one camera angle without cuts, just a fixedly shot of the scene.

When I watch movies like that I really feel that the director was saying "I want to make this piece of art, I want to tell a story and create those effects to baffle the audience, and make a good film", and not "Ok, let´s do our business here". I feel that back then there were creative minds who had some kind of exploratory urge with this new medium film and it´s possibilities, and they didn´t say "Ok, today we´re gonna make the close up shots for this scene, hurry up, we don´t have much time, time is money!".

 

In fact, I don´t feel or see any exploratory urge in any movie nowadays, just business. Movie companies make movies to earn money. They analyze what the audience wants, they calculate and the give it to them.

 

I never saw actors or directors from 1900-1910 making promotion tours with interviews, appearing on red carpets or the Oscar. Or a company saying "That movie was a success, let´s make 2 sequels and 3 prequels".

 

No, I think in those early days of cinema it was more about making movies, making art, experimenting with the camera, exploring the possibilities, inventing new methods of shooting a film.

 

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you really should get onto a film set .. you will see that academic theorizing and actual making of films is very different .. very few films are shot in chronological order.. for efficiency rather than as a lazy un artistic option..

 

Films have also been a business .. the early film makers were also business men.. Chaplin and Keating made alot of money from films.. BTW Oscars didnt start till 1927.. 25 years after A trip to the Moon.. .. there were no red carpets and daytime TV shows or Im sure they would have been on them..

 

Not sure that a film shot one angle wide shot is actually adding to the art or story telling personally.. Im glad things have moved on from the "film a play" perspective ..

 

Have you been on a film set..? honestly I think you should if your interested in how films are made..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you really should get onto a film set .. you will see that academic theorizing and actual making of films is very different .. very few films are shot in chronological order.. for efficiency rather than as a lazy un artistic option.

That´s what I meant: it´s about efficiency, about money, about business, not mainly about art.

 

If you see other art forms like classical music or paintings, you don´t have that. When a composer had an idea, he composed and composed, was playing around on the piano to find new melodies etc. He doesn´t say "OMG, today I haven´t composed a thing, what a waste of time and money!".

 

Or paintings. A painter paints what he likes, the way he likes it. If he doesn´t want to continue his work, he left it alone (like Leonardo da Vinci often does, there are a lot of unfinished works). The art itself is the central point, the creative process, not a schedule. (Of course there are ordered compositions and paintings, but that´s not really "free art", I don´t mean them).

 

 

Films have also been a business .. the early film makers were also business men.. Chaplin and Keating made alot of money from films..

Of course they also wanted to make money, they had to eat and live too, but I still get the feeling that back then the movie was the main thing, creativity was the main thing, to show the audience something new.

 

 

 

BTW Oscars didnt start till 1927.. 25 years after A trip to the Moon.. .. there were no red carpets and daytime TV shows or Im sure they would have been on them..

That´s the point! Back then it was only a movie in a cinema. People went there to see those movies and were amazed or disappointed, and that´s it.

 

 

Not sure that a film shot one angle wide shot is actually adding to the art or story telling personally.. Im glad things have moved on from the "film a play" perspective ..

Me too, but that shows that creativity back then was much more appreciated than today. Filmmakers discovered new ways of storytelling, and were creative.

But today you can´t be creative: they don´t want creative minds, because creativity means risk, and risk means possible loss of money for the company.

John Cleese said, that they had luck to do Monty Python, because the group was asking the manager of BBC (manager or something like that, I think) if they can make a show. The manager asked the group different things like "Will you have music, will you have sketches, will you have films" etc., and the Pythons were so unorganized, they couldn´t really answer those questions.

And then that guy said "Go on and make 13 shows"!

There was a group who didn´t know what they were doing, they had no concept, but that guy gave them a chance. Not "Do one show, let´s see if it is a success", but 13 shows!

 

That wouldn´t work nowadays. You are creative, you have new ideas, you do unusual stuff? Not interested, too much risk. Let´s do another remake, that works better.

 

 

Have you been on a film set..? honestly I think you should if your interested in how films are made..

I actually was, two times as an extra. Some years ago there was a casting for an Austrian movie, and they choose me and about 20-25 other people for a few scenes. One time we had to walk around a cemetary and sitting in a restaurant, in the other movie I was one of the passengers in the background of a train.

 

And there I saw how boring it was. A lot of talking and discussing about who is sitting who, where the lights should be, where the camera should be, preparing everything (some guys covered logos from companies with duct tape in the train station). At the end of the shooting everyone of the extras got some money.

 

Michael Caines book in which he tells about filmmaking and gives young actors advises also confirmed, how boring and stressful moviemaking is. Wake up early, drive to the set, Waiting, waiting, waiting for hours, shot a short scene, waiting, waiting, drive home, etc.

Since I read his book I see movies from another perspective.

He says when he was shooting "Hannah and her Sisters", he went on the set about 8:30 AM, and they started shooting 8:00 PM, because Woody Allen needs long time to set up the lighting and everything. When I see that (and other) movie(s) now, I always have in mind those actors were sitting there for hours with nothing to do.

 

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That´s what I meant: it´s about efficiency, about money, about business, not mainly about art.

 

If you see other art forms like classical music or paintings, you don´t have that. When a composer had an idea, he composed and composed, was playing around on the piano to find new melodies etc. He doesn´t say "OMG, today I haven´t composed a thing, what a waste of time and money!".

 

Or paintings. A painter paints what he likes, the way he likes it. If he doesn´t want to continue his work, he left it alone (like Leonardo da Vinci often does, there are a lot of unfinished works). The art itself is the central point, the creative process, not a schedule. (Of course there are ordered compositions and paintings, but that´s not really "free art", I don´t mean them).

 

Of course they also wanted to make money, they had to eat and live too, but I still get the feeling that back then the movie was the main thing, creativity was the main thing, to show the audience something new.

 

 

That´s the point! Back then it was only a movie in a cinema. People went there to see those movies and were amazed or disappointed, and that´s it.

 

Me too, but that shows that creativity back then was much more appreciated than today. Filmmakers discovered new ways of storytelling, and were creative.

But today you can´t be creative: they don´t want creative minds, because creativity means risk, and risk means possible loss of money for the company.

John Cleese said, that they had luck to do Monty Python, because the group was asking the manager of BBC (manager or something like that, I think) if they can make a show. The manager asked the group different things like "Will you have music, will you have sketches, will you have films" etc., and the Pythons were so unorganized, they couldn´t really answer those questions.

And then that guy said "Go on and make 13 shows"!

There was a group who didn´t know what they were doing, they had no concept, but that guy gave them a chance. Not "Do one show, let´s see if it is a success", but 13 shows!

 

That wouldn´t work nowadays. You are creative, you have new ideas, you do unusual stuff? Not interested, too much risk. Let´s do another remake, that works better.

 

I actually was, two times as an extra. Some years ago there was a casting for an Austrian movie, and they choose me and about 20-25 other people for a few scenes. One time we had to walk around a cemetary and sitting in a restaurant, in the other movie I was one of the passengers in the background of a train.

 

And there I saw how boring it was. A lot of talking and discussing about who is sitting who, where the lights should be, where the camera should be, preparing everything (some guys covered logos from companies with duct tape in the train station). At the end of the shooting everyone of the extras got some money.

 

Michael Caines book in which he tells about filmmaking and gives young actors advises also confirmed, how boring and stressful moviemaking is. Wake up early, drive to the set, Waiting, waiting, waiting for hours, shot a short scene, waiting, waiting, drive home, etc.

Since I read his book I see movies from another perspective.

He says when he was shooting "Hannah and her Sisters", he went on the set about 8:30 AM, and they started shooting 8:00 PM, because Woody Allen needs long time to set up the lighting and everything. When I see that (and other) movie(s) now, I always have in mind those actors were sitting there for hours with nothing to do.

 

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

 

 

But a composer and a painter is one person in a room.. often under no or very little time constraint .. very different to making a large motion picture.. not really a good comparison I think... is it not a bit of a stretch to expect the film industry to be primarily about art.. the music industry is all about money.. I filmed the 3 tenors concert tour and I can assure you its more about money that art .. look at Damien Hirst ..I think you'll find alot of artists in any field are about money.. John Cleese is a very astute business man .. who had his own prod co making corp videos in the UK in the 80,s.. and why not.. its their job..

 

I wouldn't shed too many tears for film stars having to wait around on set .. they are in an air con/heated trailer with a nice cup of tea.. the crew is out there working from 8am till 8pm.. :)

Edited by Robin R Probyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That´s what I meant: it´s about efficiency, about money, about business, not mainly about art.

 

If you see other art forms like classical music or paintings, you don´t have that. When a composer had an idea, he composed and composed, was playing around on the piano to find new melodies etc. He doesn´t say "OMG, today I haven´t composed a thing, what a waste of time and money!".

 

Or paintings. A painter paints what he likes, the way he likes it. If he doesn´t want to continue his work, he left it alone (like Leonardo da Vinci often does, there are a lot of unfinished works). The art itself is the central point, the creative process, not a schedule. (Of course there are ordered compositions and paintings, but that´s not really "free art", I don´t mean them).

 

Of course they also wanted to make money, they had to eat and live too, but I still get the feeling that back then the movie was the main thing, creativity was the main thing, to show the audience something new.

....

Greetings,

Sandra

 

I beg to differ. While Mozart was one of the first musical artists to 'go without patronage', at least to some extent, he did not have the luxury to put off composing, as his pay check was dependent on getting work out.

 

Prior to that artists were usually patronized, and required to put out music for any occasion the patron wanted... regardless of the inclinations of the artist... of course if someone was 'brilliant' perhaps the patron would give some slack but not much.

 

The demise of the patronage system, led to individuals competing with others for clients, and unless one was wealthy by other means, that meant composing, painting, sculpting, despite any disinclination.

 

Some composers were notorious for reusing their previous works, perhaps altered in key, perhaps tone, etc. but done to get work out, without reinventing the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

That´s a good explanation, thank you :)

 

There are other examples, like both Ghostbusters-movies from the 80s. They ghosts look good even today, because they were "real", real puppets, or peolple who played them. That´s why they look organic. Like the library ghost from Ghostbusters (1984):

 

Ghostbusters-library-ghost.jpg

 

Doesn´t that look great even today? When the light hits the creature it looks real, because it´s REAL light hitting a REAL puppet! There were people who build that thing and tried to create the best effect. They used light, wind etc. to make that.

 

And today you´ve got this:

 

newghostbusters.jpg

 

Looks like a video game to me. I can clearly see that this thing is not "real",

 

 

I don't think this is necessarily a good/bad example -- if the script says that the ghost is made up of "energy" of some sort, then the CGI version is truer to feeling that the ghost is ethereal and made up of energy than the one using a puppet. However, it's hard to be scared of photons... so the physical puppet does create more of a threat. The one thing CGI animation is really good for is creating abstract light pattern effects that move with some sort of purpose or design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But a composer and a painter is one person in a room.. often under no or very little time constraint .. very different to making a large motion picture..

Not only that, they can also draw or compose what they want. Think about surrealism, that´s quite unusual paintings, not the "regular", beautiful painting of landscapes.

Or composers like Wagner. Before him, operas had recitatives (accompanied usually by a harpsichord) and arias. Aria Nr. 1 -> Recitative -> Aria Nr. 2 -> Recitative -> Romance and Aria -> Recitative -> Duet -> Recitative etc. etc.

That was the usual form of the opera.

And then Wagner came and made everything different: he made through-composed operas, no arias anymore, and a music that was VERY different than that of Mozart etc. Dissonances, a giant orchestra with many different instruments. Of course many people liked his work, but there were many people who hated his music too.

 

Wagner didn´t went to a company and said "Please, I have groundbreaking new ideas, I will made everything different then what the audience is used too, many people will not like it, can I make this opera?". He just wrote it.

 

 

is it not a bit of a stretch to expect the film industry to be primarily about art..

 

Why should I watch movies then when I know that it´s more about a company making money?

A few years ago I asked myself seriously "Do we need more movies? Isn´t every story told yet in every different way?". But then I thought about it, and came to the conclusion, that there ARE people with new ideas, but the problem is the industry, that takes no risk and gives the audience always the same. Creative people with new stories don´t get a chance.

 

 

the music industry is all about money.. I filmed the 3 tenors concert tour and I can assure you its more about money that art .. look at Damien Hirst ..

 

Unfortunately it´s also usual to sell "superstars" in classical music today. You´ve got photoshop-covers, or "erotic" covers with a female cello player spreading her legs and stuff like that. I hate it. And I don´t buy those records.

 

But there are good HIP-ensembles who give great concerts, of course not in the big arenas, but in a chamber or in an old opera house. Those orchestras don´t get money like the Vienna Philharmonic orchestra, they don´t make New Years Concerts with a billion people watch it. Of course they have their own website and have to earn money, but they care more about the art, about studying sources to play the music right, to know the intentions of the composer more.

 

John Cleese is a very astute business man .. who had his own prod co making corp videos in the UK in the 80,s.. and why not.. its their job..

 

That´s not problem for me, I know he had done a lot of things like that. But the point is that back in 1969 that BBC guy let this young group do 13 shows without even knowing what to expect. In the Monty Python autobiography, Cleese also complains about the industry today. They expect a comedy series to be very funny from the first episode on, they expect a new concept to work from the first second on, but that´s not how it works! He compares it to a double-tennis-team, that has to play many, many games till they are perfect together and know each other well. A comedy group has to have some time to expercience, to see what the audience is laughing at, to try new stuff, and of course to know each other better. They need time to improve their timing etc. But they can´t because the company says "You had 2 shows, you had your chance, nobody likes it, goodbye".

Monty Python had luck. The show wasn´t a success in the beginning. You don´t hear much laughter in the first episode, because they send busses of old people there who didn´t know what to expect. But after more episodes, there were fans who liked it and ordered tickets for the show, That wouldn´t have happened if BBC had canceled it after 1 or 2 episodes.

 

 

 

I beg to differ. While Mozart was one of the first musical artists to 'go without patronage', at least to some extent, he did not have the luxury to put off composing, as his pay check was dependent on getting work out.

 

Prior to that artists were usually patronized, and required to put out music for any occasion the patron wanted... regardless of the inclinations of the artist... of course if someone was 'brilliant' perhaps the patron would give some slack but not much.

 

Of course there were those composers, but MANY composers or painters didn´t have a patron, they were quite poor and had problems to sell their compositions to a publisher.

 

My problem is not that artists also need money, that´s natural. My problem is that especially nowadays it seems to be JUST about money.

 

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watch movies that are in any way creative, movies where I have the feeling that it was primarily made to tell a story, to be creative and maybe even innovative. When I look at my shelf I don´t see any picture from 2000 - 2017, most of them are (much) older.

 

As I mentioned I don´t have a problem that artists also want to earn money, that´s natural! But when the product, the movie, is good, when I see that there were creative minds behind it and not studio bosses with dollar signs in their eyes, then I have no problem with it.

 

I only have a few Blu-rays (mostly because the movies I´m interested in are either not available yet on BD or the quality is bad).

I have "Bram Stokers Dracula", which was very creative, done only with practical effects and techniques from the early days of filmmaking (shooting backwards, double exposure etc., no digital effects).

 

I have "From Dusk till Dawn", because I like the actors and the sudden chance from a road movie to a vampire-horror flick.

 

I´ve got "Young Frankenstein". I´m not a Mel Brooks fan, but I love the chemistry between the actors (accordings to Imbd after the last shot the actors didn´t want to finish shooting and Mel Brooks wrote more scenes in order to continue shooting), and how he recreates the look of the original Frankenstein, with a very grainy film stock and the original laboratory set by Kenneth Strickfaden.

 

I also have "Big" with Tom Hanks. it´s not a great movie, but a quite unusual modern fairy tale. Not much logic, even some plot holes, but I guess you couldn´t make that movie nowadays.

Also "Splash" and "The Money Pit" and "The ´Burbs"!

 

I also have "Back to the Future", because the story is great AND they really cared about little details and the logic of time traveling.

 

Or "Batman" and "Batman Returns" from Tim Burton, because I like the style of those movies. Gotham City really looks like a gothic city, with Film Noir-elements. Those movies took Batman more seriously then the old 60s series, but they are also more like a comic. I absolutely don´t like the modern Nolan movies, Gotham just looks like a normal modern city, and they take Batman way too seriously. The only thing I didn´t like in both Burton and Nolans movie is Catwoman. Julie Newmar will always be THE catwoman for me :)

 

And of course I have all Monty Python movies ("And now for ..", "Holy Grail", "Life of Brian" and "Meaning of Life"). Funny and creative movies in my opinion.

 

 

But what you´ve got today? Remake after remake after remake, action movies who look like every other, horror movies who look like every other. Even movie trailers and posters look the same nowadays!

 

James Rolfe, the "Angry Video Game Nerd", pointed out some things in trailers they do all the time.

For example those fade to blacks at the beginning of the trailer: they show you a short scene, then fade to black, then another scene, fade to black, etc.
I watched the trailer for both new Star Wars movies - same thing. I watched the trailer for the new "Stephen Kings It" - same thing. I watched the trailer for the "Blade Runner" sequel - same thing.

 

Or another typical thing, especially in trailers for comedy movies: they play music, and at the end of the trailer the music suddenly pauses (often with the typical needle-scratch noise), you hear a joke, then the music continues playing. You see that so often today!

 

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ah I see.. all of the classic films then.. :).. ok I get it this is a wind up.. you had me fooled.. nice one.. peace and love ..

 

I don´t really care if a movie is a "classic" or how old it is, only if it´s good or not. There were many bad movies too back then, but I watch those only with the guys from "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" or "Rifftrax". ;)

 

Of course there were bad movies that played in the same time as Ben Hur, but Ben Hur was different, it was not as cheezy, it had good actors and everything.

 

Or take "Big" from the 80s. I never watched that movie because I thought "Oh no, another 80s coming-of-age-comedy, please not". But a friend convinced me to watch it a few years ago, and I was surprised, how different it was. I thought the ending is predictable, but no, the ending was very different and unusual, that´s why I like the movie.

 

And of course stuff like "American Pie" will never beat the humour of a Monty Python movie. I´d rather watch "Fawlty Towers" than "2 Broke Girls". Not because FT is older, but because I see that FT is more creative. Basil Fawlty running out of the picture, coming back with a branch and beating his car is just funny ^^

 

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

Edited by Sandra Merkatz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been following this conversation a bit. I wanted to say a few things.

 

Sandra, I believe all of the movies you mentioned involve a strong attachment to commerce - From Big to Monty Python to Ben Hur. The film industry has been a business since its beginning hence the film "industry". Any major motion picture of any time period involved large amounts of money and filmmakers always made sacrifice and compromise because of money - That compromise goes beyond simple production choices (we need to use this small set instead of this big expensive one) but also from its very core film has favored entertainment and ticket sales.

 

That said I would agree that things have changed. In the past the balance between commerce and art was maybe split evenly or sometimes even favored art. Now, major films certainly always favor commerce. In the 60's people like Bergman, Godard, Woody Allen could be artists and make commercially viable cinema (not without a fight, but they did). this is no longer the case.

 

Now this all said, there has ALWAYS, and will always continue to be a contingency of people interested in art first who make films, and I would certainty argue that the most important pieces of work are always battling the business interests of the film industry. Art and business don't actually have anything to do with each other - they just happen to be interwoven to a strong degree. Welcome to capitalism... it is called capitalism for a reason....people want to capitalize, make money! further to the point maybe that has changed a bit though where in the past business people capitalized on artistic talent and now they are just pushing the artists out of the way to go straight for the money

 

Many of my favorite contemporary films don't make money, it is a success when you do festivals and make there money back - but now with the way major festivals have gone (Sundance, Cannes, Toronto, etc) even that can be hard sometimes. Moonlight was not the only interesting powerful piece of indie cinema last year - there were many! Not to say I'm a fan or not of Moonlight, but the point stands - times have changed and much of the most interesting cinema goes well below the radar of the mainstream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been following this conversation a bit. I wanted to say a few things.

 

Sandra, I believe all of the movies you mentioned involve a strong attachment to commerce - From Big to Monty Python to Ben Hur. The film industry has been a business since its beginning hence the film "industry". Any major motion picture of any time period involved large amounts of money and filmmakers always made sacrifice and compromise because of money - That compromise goes beyond simple production choices (we need to use this small set instead of this big expensive one) but also from its very core film has favored entertainment and ticket sales.

 

Of course the movies I mentioned are not tiny independent movies. Altough, "Life of Brian" was only possible because George Harrison payed for it. No studio wanted that movie!

 

I also have nothing against mainstream, as long as I don´t feel like the filmmakers are thinking I´m an idiot.

 

For example, I love the first Indiana Jones movie, because it was an interesting story, and they put much effort in it, with all the practical effects, the matte paintings (the very last shot of Area 51 with all those boxes took 3 months to paint!), the real stunts and everything. The movie didn´t take itself too seriously, it wants to entertain the audience.

 

But when I see an action movie of today, I always see fast cuts, over the top-stunts, shaky cams and that stylized look, I don´t feel entertained, I get the feeling that I watch a product of a studio who thinks I like this and pay for this, a product only made for earning money. Not to entertain me. They made it because they analyzed what the big audience like, not because they had a good idea for a new story.

 

When "Gladiator" was out, I hoped for a good movie. The director was Ridley Scott, and after a long time it was one of those movies that is set in ancient times, like the classics (Spartacus, Ben Hur, Quo Vadis, etc.)

In "Ben Hur", the stunts in the chariot race, and the race itself, was filmed with a "normal" camera. Not a shaky cam that tries to fake excitement. The chariot race is exciting WITHOUT all those fast cuts!

 

But Scott did that in Gladiator, you can´t see anything in the action scenes. I get a headache when I watch this. (Same thing with concerts nowadays. When you watch a rock concert from the 1970s, you have long shots of the guitarists playing his solo etc. Today every 1 or 2 seconds a cut. Horrible!)

 

After Gladiator was successful, it was clear that there will be many other films like that, and there was. Troja, Kingdom of Heavens, etc.

"Oh look, that ancient movie was successful, let´s make such a movie too, the audience wants this right now"

"Oh look, American Pie was successful, let´s make another teenie movie with a lot of innuendos too"

"Oh look, people liked that comic-film, let´s make a movie of Hulk, Fantastic 4, Batman, Superman, Spiderman etc. too"

"Oh look, the audience loved that CGI movie for kids, let´s make a movie about talking cars, and call it "Cars", complete CGI"

"Oh look, people liked "Cinderella" let´s do remakes of Jungle Book, Pete´s dragon and Beauty and the Beast too"

"Oh look, Game of Thrones, that series with a lot of violence and porn-scenes is successful, let´s make that kind of series too, and call it Spartacus, Rome, Versailles, Borgia, Marco Polo, The Tudors, Odysseus, The White Queen, Camelot or Casanova"

 

When I see a movie today, I have the feeling I´m just watching the result of conferences of studio bosses who discuss what will bring the most money.

Even John Cleese says, movies and Tv-series today are not made by filmmakers but by studio bosses.

 

 

 

I just opened Imdb right now to see what´s Now Playing, with the Box Office.

 

Wonder Woman

Of course, another comic-movie. 58,5 Million Dollars. There will be Wonder Woman 2 soon.

 

The Mummy

A movie about a mummy. Because we don´t have much movies about mummies ... very creative. Of course with a superstar (Tom Cruise), that will bring even more money. What does that movie add to the Mummy franchise what we didn´t see yet? A female mummy? That´s not new. Better CGI effects then in the 1999 version?

 

Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie

 

I don´t know what that is. I don´t even want to know. But it makes 12,2 Million dollars. Captain Underpants. Welcome to 2017.

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

 

Another sequel. Pirates of the Carribean is a success, so let´s keep doing those movies till nobody wants to see it.

 

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

 

Vol. 2 of course, part 1 was successful, the audience will probably also watch part 2, and we get make money money money money money!

 

Oh, I just see, Cars 3 is coming! What a surprise! Another CGI movie about talking cars, can´t wait for part Cars 4 ... except when the movie isn´t a success anymore, then we probably get a CGI movie about talking robots or pets ... oh wait ...

 

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

Edited by Sandra Merkatz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Oh look, Game of Thrones, that series with a lot of violence and porn-scenes is successful, let´s make that kind of series too, and call it Spartacus, Rome, Versailles, Borgia, Marco Polo, The Tudors, Odysseus, The White Queen, Camelot or Casanova"

 

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

 

 

One of my favorite 'historical' films was "Caligula"(1979). Of course with all the 'porn' added in by Bob Guccioni, the received professionals all disowned the film, ranging from Gore Vidal who wrote the book and script, to major actors, etc.

 

But in a way, it stuck fairly closely to Seutonius' account of Caligula found in his "Twelve Caesars", written in 121 CE.

 

Vidal sort of expanded and modernized the story found in Seutonius... who expects any one to study Latin these days to read Seutonius directly.

Edited by John E Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha, the game of thrones point is pretty accurate! I think its very easy to be cynical about the state of things though - so I try not to do that too much and just ignore all the awful stuff. I haven't been to a major cinema in several years, they for the most part, don't play films with any real heart or soul - big or small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Of course the movies I mentioned are not tiny independent movies. Altough, "Life of Brian" was only possible because George Harrison payed for it. No studio wanted that movie!

 

I also have nothing against mainstream, as long as I don´t feel like the filmmakers are thinking I´m an idiot.

 

For example, I love the first Indiana Jones movie, because it was an interesting story, and they put much effort in it, with all the practical effects, the matte paintings (the very last shot of Area 51 with all those boxes took 3 months to paint!), the real stunts and everything. The movie didn´t take itself too seriously, it wants to entertain the audience.

 

But when I see an action movie of today, I always see fast cuts, over the top-stunts, shaky cams and that stylized look, I don´t feel entertained, I get the feeling that I watch a product of a studio who thinks I like this and pay for this, a product only made for earning money. Not to entertain me. They made it because they analyzed what the big audience like, not because they had a good idea for a new story.

 

When "Gladiator" was out, I hoped for a good movie. The director was Ridley Scott, and after a long time it was one of those movies that is set in ancient times, like the classics (Spartacus, Ben Hur, Quo Vadis, etc.)

In "Ben Hur", the stunts in the chariot race, and the race itself, was filmed with a "normal" camera. Not a shaky cam that tries to fake excitement. The chariot race is exciting WITHOUT all those fast cuts!

 

But Scott did that in Gladiator, you can´t see anything in the action scenes. I get a headache when I watch this. (Same thing with concerts nowadays. When you watch a rock concert from the 1970s, you have long shots of the guitarists playing his solo etc. Today every 1 or 2 seconds a cut. Horrible!)

 

After Gladiator was successful, it was clear that there will be many other films like that, and there was. Troja, Kingdom of Heavens, etc.

"Oh look, that ancient movie was successful, let´s make such a movie too, the audience wants this right now"

"Oh look, American Pie was successful, let´s make another teenie movie with a lot of innuendos too"

"Oh look, people liked that comic-film, let´s make a movie of Hulk, Fantastic 4, Batman, Superman, Spiderman etc. too"

"Oh look, the audience loved that CGI movie for kids, let´s make a movie about talking cars, and call it "Cars", complete CGI"

"Oh look, people liked "Cinderella" let´s do remakes of Jungle Book, Pete´s dragon and Beauty and the Beast too"

"Oh look, Game of Thrones, that series with a lot of violence and porn-scenes is successful, let´s make that kind of series too, and call it Spartacus, Rome, Versailles, Borgia, Marco Polo, The Tudors, Odysseus, The White Queen, Camelot or Casanova"

 

When I see a movie today, I have the feeling I´m just watching the result of conferences of studio bosses who discuss what will bring the most money.

Even John Cleese says, movies and Tv-series today are not made by filmmakers but by studio bosses.

 

 

 

I just opened Imdb right now to see what´s Now Playing, with the Box Office.

 

Wonder Woman

Of course, another comic-movie. 58,5 Million Dollars. There will be Wonder Woman 2 soon.

 

The Mummy

A movie about a mummy. Because we don´t have much movies about mummies ... very creative. Of course with a superstar (Tom Cruise), that will bring even more money. What does that movie add to the Mummy franchise what we didn´t see yet? A female mummy? That´s not new. Better CGI effects then in the 1999 version?

 

Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie

 

I don´t know what that is. I don´t even want to know. But it makes 12,2 Million dollars. Captain Underpants. Welcome to 2017.

 

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

 

Another sequel. Pirates of the Carribean is a success, so let´s keep doing those movies till nobody wants to see it.

 

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

 

Vol. 2 of course, part 1 was successful, the audience will probably also watch part 2, and we get make money money money money money!

 

Oh, I just see, Cars 3 is coming! What a surprise! Another CGI movie about talking cars, can´t wait for part Cars 4 ... except when the movie isn´t a success anymore, then we probably get a CGI movie about talking robots or pets ... oh wait ...

 

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

 

 

There are alot of crappy films out there.. and lack of new idea,s by big studios ..or not wanting to take risks.. a film makes money.. they just want to keep making the same film .. blood from a stone.. totally agree there..

 

Just don't go to see those films.. there are still alot of good ones being made too..Manchester,moonlight.. and others you have to dig down a bit more.. but they are also trying to make money so they can make another film ..pay their mortgage .. eat avocado ..

Edited by Robin R Probyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my favorite 'historical' films was "Caligula"(1979). Of course with all the 'porn' added in by Bob Guccioni, the received professionals all disowned the film, ranging from Gore Vidal who wrote the book and script, to major actors, etc.

 

But in a way, it stuck fairly closely to Seutonius' account of Caligula found in his "Twelve Caesars", written in 121 CE.

 

Vidal sort of expanded and modernized the story found in Seutonius... who expects any one to study Latin these days to read Seutonius directly.

 

I never got why they put in all those porn elements. I´m not prude at all (and I will never understand why on Imdb in the Parents Guide "Sex & Nudity" comes BEFORE "Violence & Gore" and "Drug or Alcohol", as if nudity is worse then violence in a movie), but I think that an erotic scene or a sex scene should make sense for the story, and not just being there to make the audience horny.

Just seeing some people having an orgy is boring for me, I want to see a story.

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really dont want this conversation turning to cgi problem topic, Of course everyone here and all audiences prefer practical effects but nowadays we got really good cgi,vfx or special effects...

This video honestly explain

 

 

So many people think cgi is bad but they dont know actually they didn't like movie look not just effects but just blaming cgi.

For example 90s early 00s movies has cgi but they don't look bad for me doesn't disturbing because movie itself looking good. At the same time we got teribble cgi as i remember (mummy returns) (die another day) but even bad cgi doesn't make movie bad.

For example this cgi effects are not good i dont know scooby,casper called cgi or cartoon but the movie itself looking good,cinematic, has real film look cgi not unpleasant beside movies looking digital nowadays.

post-69480-0-01890300-1497821130_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...