The end is nigh

[Phil Rhodes]

In a world where home-grown product can be outdone by this, you can understand how nobody in the UK wants to make films anymore.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12093855

[Guest]

Come on Phil, Little Fockers has swept the Oscar nominations and is destined to be a classic. It is well deserving of its box office success.

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

Come on Phil, Little Fockers has swept the Oscar nominations and is destined to be a classic. It is well deserving of its box office success.

 

R,

 

But Richard, I thought "Little Fockers" was specifically mentioned in the Book of Revelations as one of the signs of the Apocalypse. Just you wait, it will earn 666 million at the box office...

[Ravi Kiran]

I thought that was spelled with a "U" in England...

[Guest]

But Richard, I thought "Little Fockers" was specifically mentioned in the Book of Revelations as one of the signs of the Apocalypse. Just you wait, it will earn 666 million at the box office...

 

Oh my gosh I know something David Mullen doesn't know, it's the Book Of Revelation. There is no "s" on the end. :D

 

R,

[John Sprung]

I thought that was spelled with a "U" in England...

 

As a family name, the correct spelling is Fokker:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fokker

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Adam Ouellette]

That is very depressing news. Who goes to see these movies anyway?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Meh, sometimes there's nothing wrong with simple laughter/joy.

I forget what movie it was--- Finding Forrester perhaps?--- where Sean Connery describes the comic strips as his "dessert," and it's much the same with films like this.

[Freya Black]

Meh, sometimes there's nothing wrong with simple laughter/joy.

I forget what movie it was--- Finding Forrester perhaps?--- where Sean Connery describes the comic strips as his "dessert," and it's much the same with films like this.

 

Yeah but too much dessert can be bad for you!

 

Hey it's not just imported films tho. The remakes of St Trinnians have been massive smash hits, making $12 million at the UK box Office. Duncan Jones moon OTOH, took $10 million worldwide and is now unlikely to break even. So you might be thinking, perhaps we have to make serious sci-fi films cheaper, that $5 million was too much for moon, how about a sci-fi movie made for $0.5 million! Tough to achieve maybe but Gareth managed to pull it off with "Monsters", however so far this too is doing really badly getting close to its box office run and only making 0.25 million. Bit of a disaster really.

 

The truth is that people like dessert a bit too much and can end up making it their entire diet, especially when times are bad. I should know I went through my own bad times on a severe chocolate diet. My teeth are not well from the experience tho making a slow recovery.

What can you do?

 

love

 

Freya

[Brian Dzyak]

In a world where home-grown product can be outdone by this, you can understand how nobody in the UK wants to make films anymore.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12093855

 

 

I don't know the answer to this question so it's not meant to be fascetious, but what was the last Made-in-the-UK movie to have A-list talent like DeNiro in them?

 

"Popular" movies aren't always about QUALITY movies. Hell, people buy McDonald's food like it's going out of style, but that's not good for anyone either. It isn't top quality, doesn't really taste THAT good and is ultimately bad for you too. But it's like candy. It's cheap and LOTS of people love that more often than splurging on a seven course steak dinner at a five star restaurant.

 

The term "European film" has that connotation of being "meaningful" and "artsy." Yeah, maybe the stories ARE better in the end, but humanity as a whole isn't the brightest mammal group in the universe when it comes to choosing what's best for it. (look at how people vote, for christ's sake! American's in particular generally vote against their own best interests)

 

So yeah, ideally, we'd have MORE "meaningful" "artsy" movies that also had that superficial/candy appeal that so many Joe-Six-Packs out there flock to, but big-money financiers gravitate toward the safe bet, the sequel or remake that has proven talent involved.

 

The methodology makes sense on one level, but when any reasonable person steps back to look at the reality, it's all so utterly stupid. What's the answer? Perhaps if we force-fed 'society" thousands of "meaningful" "artsy" movies instead of "popcorn flicks" for a generation or two, then society could be retrained to appreciate quality. But with the all-powerful "Free Market" ideology running (and/or ruining) our lives and civilization, that isn't likely to happen anytime soon and we'll all have to endure the days when dumb comedies rule the box-office.

 

 

http://www.dzyak.com/titanic.gif

[Mark Williams]

In a world where home-grown product can be outdone by this, you can understand how nobody in the UK wants to make films anymore.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12093855

 

Maybe it's to do with Promotion? A bad film can promise a lot with a good trailer. I saw Clash of the Titans trailer and unfortunatly watched it... Problem is you can't tell if a film is good unless you go see it and critics often get it wrong.

 

Harry Brown was to my mind a fantastic film and the director only made one short film previously.

[Freya Black]

I don't know the answer to this question so it's not meant to be fascetious, but what was the last Made-in-the-UK movie to have A-list talent like DeNiro in them?

 

I guess depends what you call A list talent? Kevin Spacey and Sam Rockwell were in moon but I'm not sure they count as A or not?

 

I suspect we can't afford A list here, esp as it would prob mean importing them.

 

It will be intresting to see how source code does. It stars Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga. They are famous ppl right? Unfortunately it is a US production. The female lead is very preety and conventional looking and not at all what I imagined from the script, that will probably be great for the box office tho. I mean moon features a very scruffy looking boy with a messy beard schluming around in his overalls and basically on his last legs, oh yeah and a robot.

 

love

 

Freya

[Brian Dzyak]

I guess depends what you call A list talent?

 

 

 

A-list Talent = Actors who will attract Joe-Six-Pack his trashy wife and their brood to buy tickets, eat too much popcorn and drink a gallon of over-priced Coca Cola whilst talking through the entire movie as if the theater was their own living room.

 

 

"Award winning" does not necessarily equate with "A-List." To my knowledge, Pauly Shore never won any awards, but damn, that guy was popular for awhile. Same with Steven Seagal, Arnold (doesn't need a last name), Sly (again, no last name required, Angelina (again, no last name required).... (see a trend?)

 

 

Is this inherently "bad"? Not necessarily. Movies ARE, after all, just products to make and sell, like anything else on store shelves. Do people NEED toilet paper? No, but it makes their lives that much easier and pleasant. Do people NEED to see Little Fockers? Same answer. But by the same token, they don't NEED to see Citizen Kane either. Seeing a movie is just something else to do for most people when they want to get out of the house and the bowling alley is all booked up. Most people don't spend $10 bucks a ticket to learn or be preached to. They just want a couple hours of mindless entertainment that makes them laugh because their own family isn't really that entertaining at home.

[Guest]

Also Phil, don't forget that there will be lot's of hand wringing on this side of the Atlantic if The King's Speech sweeps the Oscars. Everyone in Hollywood gets nervous whenever the British come up with a period piece movie, filled with extravagant sets and costumes. The Academy just LOVES those films. :)

 

R,

[Freya Black]

A-list Talent = Actors who will attract Joe-Six-Pack his trashy wife and their brood to buy tickets, eat too much popcorn and drink a gallon of over-priced Coca Cola whilst talking through the entire movie as if the theater was their own living room.

 

"Award winning" does not necessarily equate with "A-List." To my knowledge, Pauly Shore never won any awards, but damn, that guy was popular for awhile. Same with Steven Seagal, Arnold (doesn't need a last name), Sly (again, no last name required, Angelina (again, no last name required).... (see a trend?)

 

So I guess Jake Gyllenhaal doesn't really count then, although Johnny Depp doesn't work without the last name either tho, I mean if you said "Herrrrrees Johnny!", you wouldn't neccesarily think of Johnny Depp but he must be A list right?

 

Also The tourist (Johnny Depp, Angelina Jolie, Paul Bettany, Timothy Dalton) is not doing very well at the box office as we speak.

 

Finally the St Trinnians remake that did so well, genrally featured a bunch of acting professionals you had never heard of ever!

 

So I'm not sure it's just the acting talent but I think that helps.

 

love

 

Freya

Edited December 31, 2010 by Freya Black

[David Mullen ASC]

Oh my gosh I know something David Mullen doesn't know, it's the Book Of Revelation. There is no "s" on the end. :D

 

R,

 

I was referring to the sequel, also known as "Revelation 2: Electric Boogaloo".

[Freya Black]

Is this inherently "bad"? Not necessarily. Movies ARE, after all, just products to make and sell, like anything else on store shelves. Do people NEED toilet paper? No, but it makes their lives that much easier

 

Sorry Brian, gotta disagree with you, I definitely NEED toilet paper. For me thats up there with paying the rent and I get nervous if theres a bunch of bank holidays and I'm getting close to my last roll. Thats really high on my list of needs. Seriously, it just never occured to Maslow because it was just such a base totally important thing.

 

and pleasant. Do people NEED to see Little Fockers? Same answer. But by the same token, they don't NEED to see Citizen Kane either. Seeing a movie is just something else to do for most people when they want to get out of the house and the bowling alley is all booked up. Most people don't spend $10 bucks a ticket to learn or be preached to. They just want a couple hours of mindless entertainment that makes them laugh because their own family isn't really that entertaining at home.

 

Bowling alley=not big here.

 

Never thought of using the family as entertainment, thats an interesting and curious idea. I don't think we do that over here either tho.

 

To be fair to what you are basically saying tho, the chocolate did really help me. I didn't take any anti depressants or anything, so I think there is an argument for lots of dessert.

 

love

 

Freya

[Brian Dzyak]

Also Phil, don't forget that there will be lot's of hand wringing on this side of the Atlantic if The King's Speech sweeps the Oscars. Everyone in Hollywood gets nervous whenever the British come up with a period piece movie, filled with extravagant sets and costumes. The Academy just LOVES those films. :)

 

R,

 

 

See, what "the Academy" REALLY loves are "important" movies that "Hollywood" (studio execs) would NEVER agree to finance. As soon as the Academy hands out an award, that movie BECOMES a "Hollywood" movie no matter where it was made. So, "Hollywood" benefits from other people taking risks on "important" "art movies" and gets the credit. Perfect system, eh?

[Ravi Kiran]

Meh, sometimes there's nothing wrong with simple laughter/joy.

 

I agree, but even light, unchallenging movies don't have to be mediocre. Even if the audience is meant to turn their brains off while watching a film, filmmakers shouldn't turn their brains off while making it.

 

This is all cyclical. Some crap film will top the box office, and everyone will whine about how the audience's tastes are going down the toilet. Then a good film will make a ton of money and we'll get a deluge of articles about how the audience's tastes are becoming more high-brow.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Ravi Kiran

[Guest]

PT Barnum once famously said: "You'll never go broke underestimating the taste of the public"

 

This author seems to agree with Phil:

 

http://www.1115.org/2004/03/30/youll-never-go-broke-underestimating-the-taste-of-the-american-public/

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

PT Barnum once famously said: "You'll never go broke underestimating the taste of the public"

 

This author seems to agree with Phil:

 

http://www.1115.org/2004/03/30/youll-never-go-broke-underestimating-the-taste-of-the-american-public/

 

R,

 

If the British want to have their own sustainable film industry (hell, if ANYONE wants that), then they need to truly compete with "Hollywood" movies and put out their own "superficial" fare. As I said, the problem seems to be that ANY movie that wins an Academy Award is INSTANTLY adopted by "Hollywood" as it's own, implying that Los Angeles based studio Execs financed it from start to finish. The studios LOVE this situation in that they are free to produce inexpensive schlock (with the occasion HIGH budget tent-pole movie) but take credit for the "art" that Europeans and others sometimes turn out.

 

Perhaps if non-"Hollywood" movie Producers agreed to STOP accepting Academy Awards and other marketing tools of the Hollywood system, then they could reclaim ownership and credit and thus build their own industries so that they're local crews wouldn't have to poach work from overseas. :)

[Guest]

Perhaps if non-"Hollywood" movie Producers agreed to STOP accepting Academy Awards and other marketing tools of the Hollywood system,

 

Not bloody likely!! Some how the Oscars have become an international competition, when or how this occurred I have no idea?

 

then they could reclaim ownership and credit and thus build their own industries so that they're local crews wouldn't have to poach work from overseas. :)

 

Agreed. And in return American movie studios will stop marketing their movies in overseas territories and poaching money and screen from local film industries like they do now. So Brian that means American movies will need to recoup 100% of their budgets within the borders of the USA only.

 

This will mean less profits and less jobs for Americans, but I'm sure you're fine with that?

 

You can start with Canada Brian, right now the the US studios control 98% of the Canadian market. When we can we expect to get back that 98%?

 

If you disagree with my proposal Brian then you want the typical American trade deal that all of us outside of the USA have become very familiar with. The only beneficiary is.....the USA.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

 

If you disagree with my proposal Brian then you want the typical American trade deal that all of us outside of the USA have become very familiar with. The only beneficiary is.....the USA.

 

R,

 

Wow, what universe did that come from? The USA is the ONLY beneficiary of Republican trade policy?! Hardly. The USA is RAPIDLY becoming a Third World Nation because of Reaganomics and trade policies like NAFTA. We're losing jobs by the MILLIONS because CONservatives rigged the system to get cheap and slave labor anywhere else. Their strategy? Suppress wages for working class people while executives hoard wealth. We could rewrite your statement above to say "The only beneficiary is... the WEALTHIEST 2% in the USA" then it would be accurate.

 

Meanwhile, the Chinese are RAISING their minimum wage to stimulate the economy http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/30f7f9e0-1277-11e0-b4c8-00144feabdc0.html (unlike the US which actively undermines the Middle Class and Poor) and are working to stimulate their own film industry http://realfilmcareer.com/?cat=26 .

 

Again, if we are to have an honest global economy, then that requires a one-world currency and absolutely NO restrictions on trade (no tariffs) or restrictions on workers moving across borders to work. But as it stands now, Corporations are free to use currency differences and wage differences against workers. Toss in a few tax bribes incentives and we do NOT have an honest "free market" economy that allows other industries to have a chance, like the UK film industry.

 

Want the UK Film Industry to compete equally? Or the Candadian or anyone else against "Hollywood"? Then fight against Globalization, fight against tax "incentives," fight against the so-called "free market." When US studios have to pay heavy tariffs for movies produced overseas, then they'll keep production in the US. And when the UK (and everyone else) has the same tariffs on imported "goods" (like US movies), then their own industries will be able to thrive.

 

Bur as it stands, the wealthiest people in the world are raking it in while the rest of us hard honest working people fight for the scraps of the economy left over. The fact is that only 2% if the planets "wins" under the current Milton Friedman "Free Market" system. Want it to change? Then change the ridiculous nonsense that CONservatives have been selling.

[Guest]

All I'm saying Brian is that the US film industry benefits enormously from the ability to sell its product overseas. So few if any of us outside of the USA really see a problem with US films being made in foreign territories and employing non US citizens.

 

Even if this where possible Brian, "When US studios have to pay heavy tariffs for movies produced overseas, then they'll keep production in the US". The US studios would still demand free access to all of the major non US markets like Canada and the UK to sell tickets in.

 

Canada tried to place a quota system on US films in the 1980s to try and give the Canadian industry a chance to breath. Jack Valenti the head of the MPAA quickly went screaming to Ronald Reagan who threatened Canada with trade tariffs on Canadian imports to the USA. And that was the end of the quota system.

 

My point is Brian that your country and gov't do not play fair. Even if all American movies where made in the USA it would not help us hold back the tide of American product coming into Canada.

 

I was not able to theatrically release The Dogfather in Canada because the US studios simply would not allow a Canadian film onto Canadian screens, it's that simple.

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

All I'm saying Brian is that the US film industry benefits enormously from the ability to sell its product overseas. So few if any of us outside of the USA really see a problem with US films being made in foreign territories and employing non US citizens.

 

Even if this where possible Brian, "When US studios have to pay heavy tariffs for movies produced overseas, then they'll keep production in the US". The US studios would still demand free access to all of the major non US markets like Canada and the UK to sell tickets in.

 

Canada tried to place a quota system on US films in the 1980s to try and give the Canadian industry a chance to breath. Jack Valenti the head of the MPAA quickly went screaming to Ronald Reagan who threatened Canada with trade tariffs on Canadian imports to the USA. And that was the end of the quota system.

 

My point is Brian that your country and gov't do not play fair. Even if all American movies where made in the USA it would not help us hold back the tide of American product coming into Canada.

 

I was not able to theatrically release The Dogfather in Canada because the US studios simply would not allow a Canadian film onto Canadian screens, it's that simple.

 

R,

 

The last time I checked, Reagan and Valenti are no longer in the picture. True, CONservatives in the USA have never played fair. All they want are profits for themselves, no matter who else it hurts.

 

So, try again. Try putting quotas on foreign products of ALL kinds in order to stimulate your own domestic industry. The USA USED TO have a policy like that under more reasonable leadership. But the CONservatives HATE that there is a Middle Class so they've worked hard to dismantle it since 1980, if not before.

 

Like I've said, the idea that there is a "free market" is a lie. It's just a giant scam perpetuated to enrich a few and leave the rest of us scrambling. Unless the world gets together to agree to a one-world currency and no trade or work restrictions, then every nation needs to return to a reasonable amount of economic isolationism so that citizens and economies aren't undermined by Corporations and their incessant greed.

 

So, don't like it? Then work to change it. There can and should be a market for movies that aren't from "Hollywood." But that can only happen if non-USA nations say "Fu** YOU!" to the US and find ways to circumvent the threats on trade, as you've described. The alternative is to keep the system in place which means that Corporations will continue to troll the planet for cheap labor and locations, which means that workers (like you and me) will have to endure the inevitable ebb and flow of employment as governments give and take tax bribes to Corporations who blackmail us for them.