Coppola, "Cinema world falling apart"

I like Coppola. He does pontificate a bit at times, but his comments are usually pretty prescient in my view. Although there's nothing really new about what he is saying.

It's a bit strange to listen to a guy sort of bemoan changes he was a part of initiating (like blockbusters and the expectations that go with them). Every time the previous generation ages, they do exactly what their predecessors did. They resist or resent the changes that are all around them and long for the good old days. I know that's not what he is saying on the surface, but I definitely get that sense from him.
 
Times have changed and the big film companies are not making good films...or not many anyway. It is easier now to make films and get them out. Well at least he is rich and doesn't have to worry about making a living anymore.
 
i first realized the cinema world was falling apart after seeing sophia coppola in the godfather: part III.
 
He also predicts cinema will evolve into a more participatory experience for the audience. And i think that's a good thing.
 
Coppola has also predicted that the big studios were going to fail by the end of the 1970's, so he's not saying anything particularly new.

Francis Ford Coppola has always been passionate and insightful as a filmmaker. The big studios aren't going to disappear as much as the independent film studios (which mostly already have) and there will be less chance of the old business model working.
 
I'm not so sure that these "good ol' days" of quality filmmaking really ever . . . were. I also don't see how things now are any more commercial than they ever were. Studios have always been factories churning out product for sale.
 
The business model is about business and it is working. FIlms are not art or even entertainment to the studios. They are a product that they sell. That's it. Personally, I don't have a problem with that.

When Coppola was fist starting out he said that the movies being made at the time were crap.

We say the same thing today.

We also have to remember that there has never been a time in the history of cinema when the bulk of what was produced wasn't crap, or motivated by profit. I like movies from the 70's, especially crime films. Charley Varrick, Black Sunday, The French Connection, Bullit, The original Pelham 1-2-3, Dirty Harry...I LOVE them. But that was the era that Coppola was trying to change everything. Even the "Golden Age" of Hollywood that gave us seminal classics like Gone With The Wind, Citizen Kane, Casablanca and The Philadelphia Story produced more dreck than classics

This is a never-ending cycle. Everything looks different in hindsight, especially through chianti-colored glasses.

EDIT: I guess I stepped on your reply David.
 
I think he's become victim to the exact same thing he talks about...news as entertainment. I'd like to see the whole interview before I condemn him, the industry, news, film....
 
I don't blame him for making the comments. He's Francis Friggin Ford Coppola. People sit around waiting for him to talk. He has to say something.
 
I don't think there's anything particularly shocking about what he said, but I guess that's because a lot of it is what I've been thinking for years. We do live in a time where there's a glut of entertainment options. When that happens, things become devalued. Film is following the same curve as music. When was the last time you paid for an album?
 
I have a tough time listening to Old Coppola talk. On the DVD "Hearts of Darkness" the young Coppola is utterly fascinating and old one bores you to death with philosophical pontifications on I don't remember what...probably because I was too bored and depressed at seeing what the vibrant genius had turned into.

I care for what Old Coppola has to say about as much as I care what George Lucas has to say.
 
Cinema will evolve into virtual reality and then the machines will take over and we'll all be human batteries... oh wait, wrong reality, sorry.

Seriously though, I think that the gaming industry and cinema will eventually merge in some fashion. Sure it will be weird and very awkward for a while, then they'll figure out how to structure it all and present it to the public in a way that works for the masses. Not that this change will happen completely in my lifetime, but I would wager that near the end of the 21st century, we'll have some sort of hybrid or virtual reality entertainment that will have completely eclipsed cinema as we now know it.

Who knows which of the big studios will have successfully evolved and will still be around then, and what strange new ones will have cropped up?

One thing that I would find interesting is if, 30 to 50 years from now we could eventually have CGI software so powerful that some kid in high school who can't animate to save his life could just key in what objects, vehicles, buildings, creatures, etc. that he wants and make a movie that is the equivalent of a big budget movie like we see these days.

Technology similar to that posited in the film S1M0NE, starring Al Pacino. So basically, instead of writing a script in Celtx or Final Draft, you would be able to write and arrange a whole FX sequence on your PC/Mac and then integrate it with live action footage. Basically, this is the last major frontier for no budget indie filmmakers, visual FX. We have 24p, digital non-linear editing, HD, soon 2K and 4K, video DSLR's, etc... now all we need is a way to do high end Hollywood quality FX for cheap. Granted this still doesn't exclude the need for good acting and a great story, but think of what the talented and dedicated micro budget filmmakers who have a vision could do with tech like that?

District 9 made for 900 bucks.

I'll buy that for a dollar.

Also, what about dream or mind tapping? Basically, if a technology that allowed us to record our dreams or imagine a scene in our heads, and then translate that cerebral data into video, think of the possibilities. A film like Avatar could be made for next to nothing by one dude imagining it all. I could make all my crazy epic space opera ideas for peanuts.

Okay, I got a bit carried away, but I think these are incredibly cool concepts that, who knows, could one day be reality.
 
Last edited:
Jim Brennan said:
The business model is about business and it is working. FIlms are not art or even entertainment to the studios. They are a product that they sell. That's it. Personally, I don't have a problem with that.
Click to expand...
When it comes right down to it, Jim is absolutely right. This art/industry basically boils down, IMO, to three groups of serious filmakers (I am not counting those that just play around, or it's just a hobby to them).

1. Doing film as a business. (Your focus is on making money)
2. Doing film as an art (Your focus is on the art)
3. Doing film as a transitional medium between 1 and 2 (doing one to make the other happen)

Each one of us fall into one or evolve from one to another. The big studios, they look at demographics, profit and loss statements, and what everyone will pay to see. The artistic is usually the first to be sacrificed.

But even with the downturn of the economy, I still see a bright future for Indie productions. Even more so. The big studios will still put out what they do (just a bit less of it), but I think a few of them are looking at the small Indie companies and taking notes.

Here is a bit of info to consider:
Blair Witch Project final budget cost=500 to 750K compared to International BO sales=estimates of 1.6 billion (yes, with a B) Independent
Night of the Living Dead Independent
Texas Chainsaw Massacre Independent
Easy Rider Independent
Apocalypse Now Self Funded, basically an Indie
 
Last edited:
Nektonic said:
One thing that I would find interesting is if, 30 to 50 years from now we could eventually have CGI software so powerful that some kid in high school who can't animate to save his life could just key in what objects, vehicles, buildings, creatures, etc. that he wants and make a movie that is the equivalent of a big budget movie like we see these days.
Click to expand...

Ironic that you say that. I saw an interview with none other than Coppola years ago. He said the same thing about video. Some fat kid with pimples in Ohio somewhere that nobody has ever heard of is going to be the next big thing because of how technology democratizes the process.
 
Well, you could go back to the moneymen that backed old hollywood like Nicholas Schenck and say the same thing. They were all about the bottom line as well. But then, as now, there are some people who go in there and pitch for something creative. There are people like the Weinsteins who (love 'em or hate 'em) will back something they believe in until the end of days.

If you think that it's any different now than it was at any other time since the birth of cinema, I dare you to watch every Esther Williams movie back-to back-to-back-to-back... How many excuses can you stick in to a plot for her to go swimming?

Cookie cutter formulas, and studios run by banker/insurance/finance types have been the norm in Hollywood since the days of Tom Mix. Why do you think Chaplin, DeMille, Fairbanks and Pickford founded UA? But then they realized that running a studio is a business that requires business minded people to succeed.

I see what you are saying about a Steve Jobs typs, but that's where people like the Weinsteins come in. Charismatic, mercurial, enigmatic and visionary people do work in Cinema. They always have.
 
The "business" is not working. Production is down, less money is available, revenue from DVD is down 25%, less stars are being cast. It's bad all over for the majors and the mini-majors. Projections are for another two to three years until money starts coming back into the business in a meaningful way.

And the Weinsteins are a bad, bad example right now. Even they are not immune to the downturn. The Weinstein company is cutting back their slate. Their former digs, Miramax, has just been gutted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top