Elitist Hollywood

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



relentless1
reading an article on how Hollywood blames Comic Book Movies for the downfall of Hollywood, Alejandro Inarrtu saying that superhero films are "cultural genocide" these elitist make me sick, as if "independent cinema" is so much better in terms of quality; what an arrogant and close minded viewpoint, if it wasn't for CBMs cinema would be at an all time low as far as box office is concerned, I think these old ****s need to thank disney, WB and fox for keeping this medium alive.

Robtard
Tell us how you really feel

Am looking forward to Alejandro Inarrtu's "The Revenant".

jaden101
They're a means to an end for some directors. Nolan knew doing the Batman movies would rake in a ton of cash and give him leeway to make big budget yet experimental movies like Inception and Interstellar.

As for his criticism it's kind of irrelevant. Movies are like food. Sometimes you want to consume fancy food at an independent restaurant and sometimes you want some mass produced junk food. So long as people enjoy both there's a market for both.

Q99
Originally posted by relentless1
reading an article on how Hollywood blames Comic Book Movies for the downfall of Hollywood, Alejandro Inarrtu saying that superhero films are "cultural genocide" these elitist make me sick, as if "independent cinema" is so much better in terms of quality; what an arrogant and close minded viewpoint, if it wasn't for CBMs cinema would be at an all time low as far as box office is concerned, I think these old ****s need to thank disney, WB and fox for keeping this medium alive.

Ugh, cultural genocide, really?

There's nothing wrong with independent cinema, however there's *also* nothing wrong with wanting a well-crafted high budget movie where heroes save the day.




Well-said.

Inhuman
Originally posted by jaden101
As for his criticism it's kind of irrelevant. Movies are like food. Sometimes you want to consume fancy food at an independent restaurant and sometimes you want some mass produced junk food. So long as people enjoy both there's a market for both.


I was about to post something about hipsters expecting everything to be some artsy low budget indie sundance film for it to even be considered "Fine Cinema" etc, etc but this sums it up quite nice.

BruceSkywalker
dude is prolly jealous since marvel hasn;t asked him to direct a film

relentless1
Originally posted by jaden101
As for his criticism it's kind of irrelevant. Movies are like food. Sometimes you want to consume fancy food at an independent restaurant and sometimes you want some mass produced junk food. So long as people enjoy both there's a market for both.

honestly, i don't feel that independent films are "fancy food" at all, why? because its deep and difficult to keep up with at first glance? the acting is so superb or the cinematography is so sublime?? I don't buy that at all I think all movies are judged by the same merits and either they are good or they aren't.

Patient_Leech
Like any artform there are going to be some who look down on the seemingly more lowbrow genres. BUT just because something is entertaining with a large budget doesn't mean it isn't necessarily artful and the opposite is true, too: just because something is Independently made doesn't automatically mean it IS artful.

Shey Tapani
If the superhero plans were to succeed it would mean that mid budget movies would be almost completely gone and all the money would be thrown into these giant movies.

]I like my action movies, giant historical dramas/adventures, sci fi epics, war movies and so on. Also i am sure smaller movies will get less and less money if these giants succeed.

Inhuman
Originally posted by Shey Tapani
If the superhero plans were to succeed it would mean that mid budget movies would be almost completely gone and all the money would be thrown into these giant movies.

]I like my action movies, giant historical dramas/adventures, sci fi epics, war movies and so on. Also i am sure smaller movies will get less and less money if these giants succeed.

They are succeeding though. And what plans are you talking about?
I think there is room for all types of genes. Just cause you have one doesn't mean you cant have the others.
The biggest problem I see is too many studios jump on the band wagon of whats popular or any surprise hit that so happened to make alot of money.
Then they over-saturate the market with the same type of movies, trying to cash in.
If a movie came out next year about robot dolphins and it turned out to be a massive box office success you can sure as hell bet other studios would come out with similar type movies in the coming months/years. Over-saturating the market.
You'll have robot whales, robot walruses, etc.
An asteroid movie comes out and makes money, 3 more asteroid/comet type movies come out.
A Zombie movie is successful, then 5 more zombie type movies comes out in no time.
Now they are doing this with super hero movies. Everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon. Speeding up the process of people eventually getting sick of them.
That is what fuqs everything up imo.

Shey Tapani
Originally posted by Inhuman
They are succeeding though. And what plans are you talking about?
I think there is room for all types of genes. Just cause you have one doesn't mean you cant have the others.


Less people trying x type of movies means less great movies in other genres.

I am talking the future plans that would make every blockbuster into a superhero movie. Based on the plans they think they can own all blockbusters.

Inhuman
Originally posted by Shey Tapani
I am talking the future plans that would make every blockbuster into a superhero movie. Based on the plans they think they can own all blockbusters.

I haven't heard of such plans. Who's "they"?
Post your sources, or take off your tin foil hat.

Shey Tapani
http://geekologie.com/2014/10/20/superhero-movie-timeline.jpg

They are all the major studios that have superhero properties.

Inhuman
Originally posted by Shey Tapani
http://geekologie.com/2014/10/20/superhero-movie-timeline.jpg

They are all the major studios that have superhero properties.

You said "every" blockbuster. Just cause they are releasing those movies doesn't mean their wont be any other type of blockbusters.
Right now everyone wants to jump on the super hero bandwagon. This has been going on for a few years now.
We still have other blockbusters like, Jurassic world, mad max, tomorrowland, star wars, etc.
You can still go see some small indie flick if you must. They are not going extinct anytime soon.

Shey Tapani
Originally posted by Inhuman
You said "every" blockbuster. Just cause they are releasing those movies doesn't mean their wont be any other type of blockbusters.
Right now everyone wants to jump on the super hero bandwagon. This has been going on for a few years now.
We still have other blockbusters like, Jurassic world, mad max, tomorrowland, star wars, etc.
You can still go see some small indie flick if you must. They are not going extinct anytime soon.

Mid budget movies becoming extinct is a big deal for me. I don't just want to watch very cheaply made movies about people in existential crisis. Also almost ever blockbuster being a superhero movie would be pretty bad and boring.

Tzeentch
What is a "mid budget movie"? In what world are superhero movies owning the monopoly on blockbuster films? In the past two years only a handful of comic book movies have been released among the dozens to hundreds of films that are put out annually.

What are you talking about?

Henry_Pym
Indie filmmakers are crying because their go-pro filmed movie that's just a C- student film isn't making a billion dollars.

I support Indie films (Wes Anderson is my favorite director)
///
I do agree though that a lot of people never see good films, and that is a shame.

Surtur
I hate when people assume that "indie films" are somehow better or automatically "more artful". There is also no genocide being caused. The super hero movies being incredibly popular seems like logical progression. A lot of people at one point or another in their life want to be super heroes, even if it is just as kids.

Technology has now made super hero movies able to be made. True, we had them before, but now they can truly be the big spectacles they deserve to be. I view it like video games. As the technology for games became better and better..it became more and more main stream.

People also make the mistake of thinking of a super hero movie is just going to be mindless action. Yet a movie like "The Dark Knight" has all that, but it also makes you think. It makes you think about the nature of people, and of good and evil.

If anything will spell the downfall of Hollywood it will be the constant remakes of movies that didn't really need to be remade in the first place. Actually, the downfall of Hollywood won't come because of any specific genre of movie. It will come because of the way people in charge run it.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
I do agree though that a lot of people never see good films, and that is a shame.

But what makes a movie good is subjective.

Shey Tapani
Originally posted by Tzeentch
What is a "mid budget movie"? In what world are superhero movies owning the monopoly on blockbuster films? In the past two years only a handful of comic book movies have been released among the dozens to hundreds of films that are put out annually.

What are you talking about?

They plan to own all blockbusters. Mid budget, 40, 60, 70 million movies. You talking about the past i am looking at the future.

Shey Tapani
Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Indie filmmakers are crying because their go-pro filmed movie that's just a C- student film isn't making a billion dollars.

I support Indie films (Wes Anderson is my favorite director)
///
I do agree though that a lot of people never see good films, and that is a shame.

They are crying because they cannot make bigger movies despite their track record. In a world where Lincoln by Spielberg almost debuted on HBO, it's understandable that they are somewhat frustrated.

Shey Tapani
Surtur:
"But what makes a movie good is subjective."

Editing, camerawork, lighting, music, is the main actor charismatic enough to carry the role? Points of agreement can be found.

"I hate when people assume that "indie films" are somehow better or automatically "more artful". There is also no genocide being caused. The super hero movies being incredibly popular seems like logical progression. A lot of people at one point or another in their life want to be super heroes, even if it is just as kids."

They also want to be action heroes, soldiers, secret agents, womanizers, beauty queens...so on.

"
Technology has now made super hero movies able to be made. True, we had them before, but now they can truly be the big spectacles they deserve to be. I view it like video games. As the technology for games became better and better..it became more and more main stream.
"

Video games play in a much bigger sandbox.

"
People also make the mistake of thinking of a super hero movie is just going to be mindless action. Yet a movie like "The Dark Knight" has all that, but it also makes you think. It makes you think about the nature of people, and of good and evil.

If anything will spell the downfall of Hollywood it will be the constant remakes of movies that didn't really need to be remade in the first place. Actually, the downfall of Hollywood won't come because of any specific genre of movie. It will come because of the way people in charge run it."

Batman was always more like a Zorro type. The only difference between him and a vigilante in an action movie is the clothes and the gadgets.
You don't think movies based on board games, toy line and well known comic book characters follow the same logic as remakes?

Surtur
But what makes a movie good is still subjective. What you consider charismatic or not is still subjective. What you might find to be a good editing technique another person might not, and so on. There is also a major major difference between being technically good and actually good. A movie can be beautifully shot, but still suck. I also do not understand how you can claim music in movies is not subjective. How could that even be possible when music itself is subjective?

I also don't get the point in saying people also want to be action heroes and stuff. I never said the only thing people ever want to be is super heroes. People do want to be those other things, which is why I don't think movies about those subjects are going anywhere anytime soon, and why I likewise do not find they will be the downfall of Hollywood.

Batman was a super hero movie. The whole "gadgets" thing is a huge part of the Batman character, and yet you act like it is such a small thing. You can make certain comparisons between him and Zorro, but that wouldn't change that Batman is a super hero movie.

I'm also trying to understand your overall intention. Is it that the article isn't nonsense?

AuraAngel
All art is subjective at the core but most every art form has specific competitions for rewards. Cadlecott, Oscars, Grammys, etc. In order for a film, artist, or whatever to get rewarded for talent they must enter competitions. Competitions by their very existence must have standards and categories. Yes at the core it comes down to the subjective opinions of the critics selected to do the judging but that is part of the deal. And these guys(or gals) are usually chosen because of expertise. If someone was gonna judge your film for cinematography it would probably be most fair for, say, a Roger Ebert to do it rather than some random dude. There are problems with this system of course but overall it is the best ya got.

In short in order for a film to be recognized as important(like Citizen Kane) we must apply objective standards and narrow our focus to subjective opinions of "professionals". Likewise it helps people paid to review art to inform the common man whether a thing is worth seeing/hearing/reading/watching/whatever. We only have so much money so best be told a head of time whether the art in question is worth the investment.

Mind you in terms of cultural importance this is not an infallible system. Citizen Kane, widely considered the greatest film of all time, did not win Best Picture. There is a sweet spot where a film that is neither a critical darling or a hit at the box office can still rise to become a landmark. But that is tough and only feasible in hindsight(when film makers of the next generation can be influenced). Some films can be all those things, like the Star Wars.

But none of this makes comic book movies "cultural genocide" really. They are interesting in that they are the first film genre to really blow up in the age of the internet and thus it is chugging along with all the benefits that entails. This will probably last longer than the disaster movie craze for instance. But it will die and be replaced by something else once everyone realizes that they've seen enough super hero movies. Our culture will live just fine and actually has a lot to thank the super hero genre for, specifically the shared continuity aspects that Marvel brought us. It does open up a new-ish world for big blockbusters and puts films in a new light(for instance, how does Joss Whedon's use of Captain America differ from the Russo's? Is Evans giving the same kind of performance or can you notice minor differences based on the writing and directing?)

The indie scene is certainly important though. A lot of risks that big budget Hollywood wouldn't normally take can be taken here and turning a profit is not as big a deal as creating something worth while. As such yeah one can see an indie film maker considering big budget flicks to be garbage since one way or another it is geared towards making a splash at the box office but Shakespeare proved that profit and good art are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Shey Tapani
Originally posted by Surtur
But what makes a movie good is still subjective. What you consider charismatic or not is still subjective. What you might find to be a good editing technique another person might not, and so on. There is also a major major difference between being technically good and actually good. A movie can be beautifully shot, but still suck. I also do not understand how you can claim music in movies is not subjective. How could that even be possible when music itself is subjective?

I also don't get the point in saying people also want to be action heroes and stuff. I never said the only thing people ever want to be is super heroes. People do want to be those other things, which is why I don't think movies about those subjects are going anywhere anytime soon, and why I likewise do not find they will be the downfall of Hollywood.

Batman was a super hero movie. The whole "gadgets" thing is a huge part of the Batman character, and yet you act like it is such a small thing. You can make certain comparisons between him and Zorro, but that wouldn't change that Batman is a super hero movie.

I'm also trying to understand your overall intention. Is it that the article isn't nonsense?

Steve Buscemi wil never be cast as atraditioally macho action hero. It won't happen, people agree that is not his charisma. Besides theaction shaky cam debate what big editing debates are raging nowadays? There is a lot of subjectivity, but there are common points of agreement. Also people who watched a ton of diverse movies and seek them ut are better at judging quality.

Movies about people who are not superheroes won't dissapear but they are moving into a ghetto as far as Hollywood is concerned.

The whole gadgets thing was big in spy movies for a while. Batman is so grounded he is barely a superhero just like Arrow who can probably trace back his roots to Robin Hood.

Surtur
There might be common points of agreement, but we are still left at the end of the day with it being subjective. Especially since..who decides which opinions are valid? Who gets to decide which elements are less subjective and the standards to which we hold them? For example, who gets to decide which editing techniques are good and which are not? Furthermore, whoever does get to decide that, what are their qualifications for it? Why them?

Also, Batman might have stuff in common with other types of movies, but it was still a super hero movie. Just like Arrow, who yeah has things in common with Robin Hood, but it doesn't make him any less of a super hero. You can even take the least grounded super heroes like Superman or Thor and still find they have stuff in common with other non-super hero stories.

As for non super hero movies going into ghettos, I don't see it. It's not like every other movie you see an ad for on tv is a super hero movie.

jinXed by JaNx
cant blame hollywood. Its supply and demand.

Surtur
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
cant blame hollywood. Its supply and demand.

Exactly, if a lot of people want to see super hero movies then that is that. It is neither good nor bad, it just is.

It's not going to ruin Hollywood. Frankly, the only true thing that will ruin it is saying silly things like a certain genre of movie will RUIN Hollywood. Movies adapt to the times. We have a lot of super hero movies, yes. Go back in history, look at movies during WW2. It seems like every other movie was a crappy war movie. Why? Mofo's had war on the brain. Same thing here.

This is the same crap people were spouting about reality tv shows years and years ago. Yet...tv is still here, with plenty of great tv shows out there.

AuraAngel
Well there is a difference but in the grand scheme of things it probably won't be that big a deal.

Shey Tapani
Originally posted by Surtur
There might be common points of agreement, but we are still left at the end of the day with it being subjective. Especially since..who decides which opinions are valid? Who gets to decide which elements are less subjective and the standards to which we hold them? For example, who gets to decide which editing techniques are good and which are not? Furthermore, whoever does get to decide that, what are their qualifications for it? Why them?

Also, Batman might have stuff in common with other types of movies, but it was still a super hero movie. Just like Arrow, who yeah has things in common with Robin Hood, but it doesn't make him any less of a super hero. You can even take the least grounded super heroes like Superman or Thor and still find they have stuff in common with other non-super hero stories.

As for non super hero movies going into ghettos, I don't see it. It's not like every other movie you see an ad for on tv is a super hero movie.
Batman is a superhero because of the universe he is in, not because he would necessarily would have to be. If you cannot have blockbusters in other genres they are pretty much in the ghetto.


[

Shey Tapani
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
cant blame hollywood. Its supply and demand.

That might create a bubble that will hurt the industry.

Shey Tapani
Originally posted by Surtur
Exactly, if a lot of people want to see super hero movies then that is that. It is neither good nor bad, it just is.

It's not going to ruin Hollywood. Frankly, the only true thing that will ruin it is saying silly things like a certain genre of movie will RUIN Hollywood. Movies adapt to the times. We have a lot of super hero movies, yes. Go back in history, look at movies during WW2. It seems like every other movie was a crappy war movie. Why? Mofo's had war on the brain. Same thing here.

This is the same crap people were spouting about reality tv shows years and years ago. Yet...tv is still here, with plenty of great tv shows out there.



Mofo's don't think about Superheroes otherwise their comics would sell much better or there would be more animated series with them. Considering how expensive these movies are why is this good for film?



After the critics of that bs were proven right and the audience wanted something better.

Inhuman
This is like me wanting every fast food joint to close down because I enjoy eating at small mom and pop delis, and then wanting for those fast food joints to convert to the restaurants of my liking.
Very stupid and selfish way of thinking. Forcing and dictating what I think is good and what others should be enjoying based on my preferences.

Shey Tapani
Originally posted by Inhuman
This is like me wanting every fast food joint to close down because I enjoy eating at small mom and pop delis, and then wanting for those fast food joints to convert to the restaurants of my liking.
Very stupid and selfish way of thinking. Forcing and dictating what I think is good and what others should be enjoying based on my preferences.

What am i arguing for exactly? That superheroes should not dominate blockbusters as they are planning to. Why would that be bad? This is like me wanting competition for the 2-3 fast food franchises. I am not forcing you to think anything i am just questioning your ideas.

Inhuman
Originally posted by Shey Tapani
What am i arguing for exactly? That superheroes should not dominate blockbusters as they are planning to. Why would that be bad?

You think directors like Edgar Wright, Wes Anderson, or indie, small budget independent directors dont have plans on their upcoming movies they are going to work on?
Just because they dont announce their "to do" list to the public doesn't mean they dont have "plans" on what films they are going to make.

You cant be this dense. "OH NO, its the end of the world because they announced the comic book movie roadmap" The comic book movies that are coming up are a SMALL fraction all the blockbusters that will be released.
Anyhow this hollywood conspiracy is bullshit.

If blockbusters died down then why go to the movies? Im not going to waste money on some quirky drama that looks like it was filmed on an iphone.
Ill just watch those films on dvd or stream them online.

Shey Tapani
Originally posted by Inhuman
You think directors like Edgar Wright, Wes Anderson, or indie, small budget independent directors dont have plans on their upcoming movies they are going to work on?
Just because they dont announce their "to do" list to the public doesn't mean they dont have "plans" on what films they are going to make.

You cant be this dense. "OH NO, its the end of the world because they announced the comic book movie roadmap" The comic book movies that are coming up are a SMALL fraction all the blockbusters that will be released.
Anyhow this hollywood conspiracy is bullshit.

If blockbusters died down then why go to the movies? Im not going to waste money on some quirky drama that looks like it was filmed on an iphone.
Ill just watch those films on dvd or stream them online.

People with the above mentioned public brand will find a way for a while or rather go into tv like Sodebergh. You think it's an accident Sodebergh went into TV? You can find him complaining about studios wanting to sell theme arks instead of stories.It's an undeniable fact that studios drastically lowered their budgets for their sister companies who financed/produced/distributed smaller movies.

6-7 is not a lot for next year for these kind of movies?

I am arguing for more different blockbusters and more mid sized movies. Where did i say quircky dramas should own theaters? Plenty of mid sized movies are a treat in theater.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.