Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
Hollywood didn't understand Chaplin?
Hollywood didn't understand Chaplin?
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
[quote author=travis link=board=movies;num=1081972841;start=45#58 date=07/02/04 at 12:20:37]I have never care about hollywood films.
[/quote]
Everytime I hear this from someone I want to just puke. What does this mean? What is a Hollywood film? What is not? Enlighten us.
[quote author=travis link=board=movies;num=1081972841;start=45#58 date=07/02/04 at 12:20:37]I have never care about hollywood films.
[/quote]
Everytime I hear this from someone I want to just puke. What does this mean? What is a Hollywood film? What is not? Enlighten us.
ChuckS
Veteran
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
Anartiste probably said it best – “So let's all practice our art, folks, and argue on the results rather than on the definition of the word. It's going to be more interesting.”
What is a Hollywood film? Simply stated, it’s a film produced by a Hollywood studio. Hollywood has the ability, experience, technology, creativity, money, people and equipment needed to produce the best movie ever produced anywhere, but they choose not too. Hollywood studios are risk averse, so they will not underwrite a new director or great story unless it meets the formula for box office receipts. If you are Steven Spielberg, George Lucas or Jerry Bruckheimer you can produce anything you want – of course, the world needs another CSI.
Many people are critical of the Hollywood system, me being one of them, but this system did not happen overnight. Over the past three or four decades, the studios have become a monopoly that openly conspires against the deployment of any new distribution infrastructure. When the adult film industry embraced the VCR, prompting Sony and Panasonic to launch the VCR into the mainstream, the studio system, led by Jack Valenti and the MPAA tried to litigate magnetic recording into extinction. Mr. Valenti testified to congress that “the introduction of magnetic tape to the home is to Hollywood what Jack the Ripper is to a woman home alone,” I don’t even know what that means – but he could not have been more wrong.
Eventually Sony and Panasonic capitulated, Sony purchased Tri Star, Panasonic purchased Universal and both started selling and renting movies from their own libraries, forcing the other major studios to quickly join the club. This was the beginning of explosive growth in the independent film market. It took the studio system more than 15 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to buy up the independents, along with Blockbuster and all of the major broadcast studios.
Today, history is repeating itself. DVD (funny shaped VCR) growth is projected to continue at a rate exceeding that of the entire TV and motion picture production industries combined. The U.S. market for TV and film production grew at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.6% from 1998 to 2002 to a value of $8.9 billion; it is forecast to grow at a CAGR of 5.9% between 2003 and 2007. In the DVD market, total spending reached $11.3 billion in 2002, up 67% from 2001, and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 40.6% through 2006. Interestingly enough, the same idiot is making the same ignorant cry to congress. For the past several years a coalition of major studios, led by Disney and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have lobbied congress for copyright protections to be built into any new media technology. There is an unmistakable irony of major studios' protracted public efforts to protect their content from pirates, while doing little to distinguish potential customers from potential offenders. They spend billions promoting a desire for their products, and now are spending millions more to discourage access to them. Hello!!!
What does this mean for our DVX’s? It means that there is an insatiable appetite for content and with the explosive growth of DVD, which like VCR’s in the early days is largely outside the control of the major studios, it will be possible to produce independent projects for sale direct to the consumer thereby once again creating an “INDEPENDENT FILM MARKET.” Imagine that…
Of coarse we’d better hurray before the studio system does everything it can to rain on our parade. Fortunately Jack Valenti just retired – please somebody throw him a party. ;D
Anartiste probably said it best – “So let's all practice our art, folks, and argue on the results rather than on the definition of the word. It's going to be more interesting.”
What is a Hollywood film? Simply stated, it’s a film produced by a Hollywood studio. Hollywood has the ability, experience, technology, creativity, money, people and equipment needed to produce the best movie ever produced anywhere, but they choose not too. Hollywood studios are risk averse, so they will not underwrite a new director or great story unless it meets the formula for box office receipts. If you are Steven Spielberg, George Lucas or Jerry Bruckheimer you can produce anything you want – of course, the world needs another CSI.
Many people are critical of the Hollywood system, me being one of them, but this system did not happen overnight. Over the past three or four decades, the studios have become a monopoly that openly conspires against the deployment of any new distribution infrastructure. When the adult film industry embraced the VCR, prompting Sony and Panasonic to launch the VCR into the mainstream, the studio system, led by Jack Valenti and the MPAA tried to litigate magnetic recording into extinction. Mr. Valenti testified to congress that “the introduction of magnetic tape to the home is to Hollywood what Jack the Ripper is to a woman home alone,” I don’t even know what that means – but he could not have been more wrong.
Eventually Sony and Panasonic capitulated, Sony purchased Tri Star, Panasonic purchased Universal and both started selling and renting movies from their own libraries, forcing the other major studios to quickly join the club. This was the beginning of explosive growth in the independent film market. It took the studio system more than 15 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to buy up the independents, along with Blockbuster and all of the major broadcast studios.
Today, history is repeating itself. DVD (funny shaped VCR) growth is projected to continue at a rate exceeding that of the entire TV and motion picture production industries combined. The U.S. market for TV and film production grew at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.6% from 1998 to 2002 to a value of $8.9 billion; it is forecast to grow at a CAGR of 5.9% between 2003 and 2007. In the DVD market, total spending reached $11.3 billion in 2002, up 67% from 2001, and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 40.6% through 2006. Interestingly enough, the same idiot is making the same ignorant cry to congress. For the past several years a coalition of major studios, led by Disney and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have lobbied congress for copyright protections to be built into any new media technology. There is an unmistakable irony of major studios' protracted public efforts to protect their content from pirates, while doing little to distinguish potential customers from potential offenders. They spend billions promoting a desire for their products, and now are spending millions more to discourage access to them. Hello!!!
What does this mean for our DVX’s? It means that there is an insatiable appetite for content and with the explosive growth of DVD, which like VCR’s in the early days is largely outside the control of the major studios, it will be possible to produce independent projects for sale direct to the consumer thereby once again creating an “INDEPENDENT FILM MARKET.” Imagine that…
Of coarse we’d better hurray before the studio system does everything it can to rain on our parade. Fortunately Jack Valenti just retired – please somebody throw him a party. ;D
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
I personally hate most art house movies. They bore me and I find myself laughing at them most of the time. What is wrong with just trying to make an entertaining film? Oh yeah and for the guy talking **** about Scott. I dare you to try and make a horror movie half as good as Alien...
I personally hate most art house movies. They bore me and I find myself laughing at them most of the time. What is wrong with just trying to make an entertaining film? Oh yeah and for the guy talking **** about Scott. I dare you to try and make a horror movie half as good as Alien...
Josh_Boelter
Well-known member
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
Personally, I dig diversity in film. One of my favorite movies of all time is There's Something About Mary. Love that flick. One of my other favorites is Krzysztof Kieslowski's Three Colors trilogy. I really liked The Station Agent, Spellbound, and yes, Spider-Man. Why do we either have to be art house snobs or Hollywood sheep? Can't we enjoy diversity in film?
For me, it's the same with any art form. I love the Beastie Boys, Chick Corea, and Igor Stravinsky. I love Marc Chagall and Bill Waterson's Calvin and Hobbes. I say celebrate it all. Sometimes I just want to be entertained, sometimes I want something deeper. It's all good.
Personally, I dig diversity in film. One of my favorite movies of all time is There's Something About Mary. Love that flick. One of my other favorites is Krzysztof Kieslowski's Three Colors trilogy. I really liked The Station Agent, Spellbound, and yes, Spider-Man. Why do we either have to be art house snobs or Hollywood sheep? Can't we enjoy diversity in film?
For me, it's the same with any art form. I love the Beastie Boys, Chick Corea, and Igor Stravinsky. I love Marc Chagall and Bill Waterson's Calvin and Hobbes. I say celebrate it all. Sometimes I just want to be entertained, sometimes I want something deeper. It's all good.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
Make a good movie.
Make a good movie.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
That's all you need to do, in my books!
(I figured it needed it's own post to emphasize it more)
Let's stop judging movies by their TYPE or CONTENT...let's judge them by how we LIKE them, in a gutteral instinct...Why must there be this segregation between "hollywood" movies and "non-hollywood" movies? Nobody would dare say ALL "Hollywood" movies suck, and nobody would dare say ALL "artsy" films suck. ACCEPT EACH MOVIE FOR WHAT IT IS!
Just make a good one!
That's all you need to do, in my books!
(I figured it needed it's own post to emphasize it more)
Let's stop judging movies by their TYPE or CONTENT...let's judge them by how we LIKE them, in a gutteral instinct...Why must there be this segregation between "hollywood" movies and "non-hollywood" movies? Nobody would dare say ALL "Hollywood" movies suck, and nobody would dare say ALL "artsy" films suck. ACCEPT EACH MOVIE FOR WHAT IT IS!
Just make a good one!
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
ChuckS is my new best friend.
ChuckS is my new best friend.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
For the articulate well thought out take.
For the articulate well thought out take.
Stanrick_Kubley
Active member
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
Yeah, it's like acting. Is naturalism best? Is stagish performance best? Both work. Good acting is good acting. And a good movie is a good movie.
Plus, it's important to keep in mind that Hollywood is the mainstream. Indie films (and foreign films to a degree) are alternatives...to Hollywood. They all influence each other. Plus, Hollywood produces enough good movies each year to justify its existence, so why knock it?
Yeah, it's like acting. Is naturalism best? Is stagish performance best? Both work. Good acting is good acting. And a good movie is a good movie.
Plus, it's important to keep in mind that Hollywood is the mainstream. Indie films (and foreign films to a degree) are alternatives...to Hollywood. They all influence each other. Plus, Hollywood produces enough good movies each year to justify its existence, so why knock it?
Woodson
Well-known member
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
All I can say in my opinion...
There are great and bad films from all kinds of categories, if it's from Hollywood, Indie, Guerrilla, Foreign, Art House etc.
I can say my fave films are from all those different categories.
There are films that influence me one way or another from those categories.
In films, things have been pretty much done over and over again. It is really hard to try to create something that hasn't been done, and I know alot of people including me sometimes get frustrated to do something that hasn't been done. I don't think that should be the important thing. The important thing is to create something with passion. Something that is deep to yourself and not what people will say about it. Do the film because of what you would like to see, not what the audience will care about. Alot of us have been watching films all our life, watching different styles, having our fave. filmmakers, all these things somehow enter our brains, and we create art from what we feel. Things like that influence us, and I think it's great. I think it makes us positive, and makes us want to get out there and start shooting.
Lately I've been in to Asian Films, they have been aspiring me alot.
For those who think David Lynch is original(I'm not pointing fingers here, but from other boards alot ppl say he is) well I don't think he is. There were alot of filmmakers that did what Lynch does these days. Example Luis Buñuel, Roman Polanski;Watch the movie The Tenant directed by and starring Polanski and you will see a Lynchian movie directed a decade before Lynch was even on the scene.
All I can say in my opinion...
There are great and bad films from all kinds of categories, if it's from Hollywood, Indie, Guerrilla, Foreign, Art House etc.
I can say my fave films are from all those different categories.
There are films that influence me one way or another from those categories.
In films, things have been pretty much done over and over again. It is really hard to try to create something that hasn't been done, and I know alot of people including me sometimes get frustrated to do something that hasn't been done. I don't think that should be the important thing. The important thing is to create something with passion. Something that is deep to yourself and not what people will say about it. Do the film because of what you would like to see, not what the audience will care about. Alot of us have been watching films all our life, watching different styles, having our fave. filmmakers, all these things somehow enter our brains, and we create art from what we feel. Things like that influence us, and I think it's great. I think it makes us positive, and makes us want to get out there and start shooting.
Lately I've been in to Asian Films, they have been aspiring me alot.
For those who think David Lynch is original(I'm not pointing fingers here, but from other boards alot ppl say he is) well I don't think he is. There were alot of filmmakers that did what Lynch does these days. Example Luis Buñuel, Roman Polanski;Watch the movie The Tenant directed by and starring Polanski and you will see a Lynchian movie directed a decade before Lynch was even on the scene.
Michael_Lieberman
Active member
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
I love Hollywood films, but not the Hollywood films of today. And the definition of Hollywood is fragmented into a thousand pieces, and really, what most people mean is "mainstream multiplex entertainment," given studios have financed such great works as "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Elephant" in the past year. There are no independent producers either, unless your work is shown in 5 screens nationwide (or if you're Mel Gibson or Michael Moore, where the distributors are not yet dependent).
My big hubbub with Hollywood is exactly what someone tapped earlier, which is that the money, equipment, writers, directors, and actors are all there for the next masterpiece, but the talents are not harvested completely. Many say that the movie industry should be based on "Give the people what they want": well, how the hell do "we" know what "they" want? It's an irrelevant question. Did most people really WANT "2001: A Space Odyssey" in 1969 or "Mulholland Drive" in 2001? Probably not, but the respected artists challenged film viewers, which is what most filmmakers ought to be doing, no? Giving instant gratification by the dumpster load to the American public keeps the public in the same place, or even a few steps back, no?
If film is an art form at all, which I believe it to be, one would think the main object of business would be to invest in potentially challenging works of art. There's nothing wrong with dumb entertainment, but when a multiplex is showing twelve films in a theater and all twelve are dumb entertainments (and to be fair, 2 might be worth seeing), one can imagine the frustration in wanting to see something remotely smart and challenging.
Multiplexes don't necessarily need to show Brakhage or reissues of JL Godard's many masterpieces, but if the mindset would change slightly to include, say, world cinemas and documentaries, as well as the occassional reissue of a Hitchcock or Welles film, we'd be acknowledging film as not an art in keeping the audience docile and dumb, but including works that at least attempt to be articulate and intellectual, as well as highly entertaining.
I love Hollywood films, but not the Hollywood films of today. And the definition of Hollywood is fragmented into a thousand pieces, and really, what most people mean is "mainstream multiplex entertainment," given studios have financed such great works as "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Elephant" in the past year. There are no independent producers either, unless your work is shown in 5 screens nationwide (or if you're Mel Gibson or Michael Moore, where the distributors are not yet dependent).
My big hubbub with Hollywood is exactly what someone tapped earlier, which is that the money, equipment, writers, directors, and actors are all there for the next masterpiece, but the talents are not harvested completely. Many say that the movie industry should be based on "Give the people what they want": well, how the hell do "we" know what "they" want? It's an irrelevant question. Did most people really WANT "2001: A Space Odyssey" in 1969 or "Mulholland Drive" in 2001? Probably not, but the respected artists challenged film viewers, which is what most filmmakers ought to be doing, no? Giving instant gratification by the dumpster load to the American public keeps the public in the same place, or even a few steps back, no?
If film is an art form at all, which I believe it to be, one would think the main object of business would be to invest in potentially challenging works of art. There's nothing wrong with dumb entertainment, but when a multiplex is showing twelve films in a theater and all twelve are dumb entertainments (and to be fair, 2 might be worth seeing), one can imagine the frustration in wanting to see something remotely smart and challenging.
Multiplexes don't necessarily need to show Brakhage or reissues of JL Godard's many masterpieces, but if the mindset would change slightly to include, say, world cinemas and documentaries, as well as the occassional reissue of a Hitchcock or Welles film, we'd be acknowledging film as not an art in keeping the audience docile and dumb, but including works that at least attempt to be articulate and intellectual, as well as highly entertaining.
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
Chaplin could not get any financial from his last movies. He was kicked out in the McCarthy times. And all the industry help McCarthy in his fight.
Yeah later on they gave him a honorif oscar for his career.
It is hard to define a hollywood movie. And my english is horrible but i will try to say what, in my opinion, is a hollywood film.
Those that think more about the profits than the artistic result.
Those who have a target (normally retard people)
Those who hide reality and try to sell a beutiful world full of starts. In others words they are more concern about the names that sign the product and not for the ideas.
Of course there´s some holywood movies that are great but normally they have a long way to get produced. They are the exception of the rule. An exist cause an artist sometimes can managed well into this codicius jungle. Copolla had made great films into the system but he had to fight hard in order to get what he want. No one in Hollywood wanted Marlon Brando in Godfather. It was a non comerrcial actor by these days. And the first screening of the movie all the executives got mad at Gordon Willis´s work.
Of course when the movie suceed all were happy and love Coppola.
Chaplin could not get any financial from his last movies. He was kicked out in the McCarthy times. And all the industry help McCarthy in his fight.
Yeah later on they gave him a honorif oscar for his career.
It is hard to define a hollywood movie. And my english is horrible but i will try to say what, in my opinion, is a hollywood film.
Those that think more about the profits than the artistic result.
Those who have a target (normally retard people)
Those who hide reality and try to sell a beutiful world full of starts. In others words they are more concern about the names that sign the product and not for the ideas.
Of course there´s some holywood movies that are great but normally they have a long way to get produced. They are the exception of the rule. An exist cause an artist sometimes can managed well into this codicius jungle. Copolla had made great films into the system but he had to fight hard in order to get what he want. No one in Hollywood wanted Marlon Brando in Godfather. It was a non comerrcial actor by these days. And the first screening of the movie all the executives got mad at Gordon Willis´s work.
Of course when the movie suceed all were happy and love Coppola.
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
If Chaplin was shabbily treated, that doesn't mean they didn't "understand" him. Chaplin WAS Hollywood for quite a while. The man was no outsider looking in.
Normally target "retard" people? That's pretty offensive, actually.
If Chaplin was shabbily treated, that doesn't mean they didn't "understand" him. Chaplin WAS Hollywood for quite a while. The man was no outsider looking in.
Normally target "retard" people? That's pretty offensive, actually.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
Hollywood puts out the best films on the planet. A majority of the films are simply 'entertainment' but each and every year some great work is produced. There is no match for what Hollywood puts out (Unless its a sub titled Indian film)
Hollywood puts out the best films on the planet. A majority of the films are simply 'entertainment' but each and every year some great work is produced. There is no match for what Hollywood puts out (Unless its a sub titled Indian film)
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
I was taking a stab at any film really; specifically I meant INDIA and just some weird film one might see with subtitles and singing. I could have referenced any non HOLLYWOOD film really.
I was taking a stab at any film really; specifically I meant INDIA and just some weird film one might see with subtitles and singing. I could have referenced any non HOLLYWOOD film really.
Michael_Lieberman
Active member
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
I'd argue that Iran's 3 or 4 films a year (at least, those released in the U.S.) are consistently better than all of the Hollywood pictures combined. Also, Hong Kong (Wong Kar-Wai, Stanley Kwan), China (Yang, Yimou, Jia), Japan (Oshima, Miyazaki, Hore-Eda) and France/Belgium (Dardenne Brothers, Assayas, Chabrol, Godard, etc).
I'd argue that Iran's 3 or 4 films a year (at least, those released in the U.S.) are consistently better than all of the Hollywood pictures combined. Also, Hong Kong (Wong Kar-Wai, Stanley Kwan), China (Yang, Yimou, Jia), Japan (Oshima, Miyazaki, Hore-Eda) and France/Belgium (Dardenne Brothers, Assayas, Chabrol, Godard, etc).
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: For those of us who hate Hollywood films...
I gotta love that we're all arguing about which is better, from PURELY subjective standpoints...Can't all us filmmakers just get along? :
I gotta love that we're all arguing about which is better, from PURELY subjective standpoints...Can't all us filmmakers just get along? :