Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Blockbuster!

 In a world where movies all seem the same, one director is willing to speak the truth, the movie industry is near the end, a meltdown is upon us.

That's what Steven Spielberg says is in store for Hollywood.

Really?   I've seen a fair amount of movies over my lifetime and there's always movies that bomb, and there are movies that reach for the lowest common denominator, and then the occasional movie bursts out and everyone tries to milk its apparent recipe dry (often by mixing metaphors so poorly they don't make any sense).

Studios crash and burn, bankrupt and get bought out.  Orion, Republic, Harpo, TriStar, MGM, Pan Am.  It's a crazy business, this show business.  And there have always been bad movies, and the industry is always dying, but never quite dies out.

Now that's not to say we're in some golden age of movie-making.  We're not.  But the fact is that Golden Ages only become so when the dross of any given era is forgotten. That's why people think hymns are so much better too, after enough years the ones that last are the good ones, with the rest being ignored and forgotten.

So, we're not at the lowest point (which many historians agree happened when Shia Leboef was cast in an Indiana Jones movie, noting that the plot itself thought it such a terrible idea that it committed suicide before filming started).

But we're not at a good point.  There's a particular badness about our era of movies.  What is it?  That special effects gets in the way of a good plot?  Well, the 80s were filled with movies with bad plots and bad special effects. So, at least the special effects are good. But they're not enough.

We are in the era of really high expectations, probably higher than any other point in history.  Watching old classics makes it clear that the standards were just not all that rigorous, and people put up with a lot more and were thrilled with a lot less

We're also living in a time where the average American living room has better audio and video than ever before. Why go pay a lot of money, paying more money if you want a drink or, heaven forbid, a bucket of popcorn, when the experience is good enough at home.

Why sit around a bunch of slobs, who talk a lot, can't stay off their smartphone for even a few minutes, and who invade your space when there's all manner of other seats available. The seats aren't comfortable enough, the sound isn't good enough, the screen isn't big enough to want to put up with that unless there's some major spectacle going on.  So, smaller budget movies lose out to bigger cinema extravaganzas.

Only I think that's an excuse.  Gatekeepers aren't always the creative types, they are better at currying favor with their superiors than identifying genius. How else to explain someone like Jeff Zucker's career, who kept getting promoted higher and higher at NBC until it went from the number 1 network to losing to networks that weren't even created yet, transcending time and space in the process.  Gatekeeper keep their jobs by blaming others: directors, actors, writers, "the Industry", commenters, genres, producers, the audience and their philistine ways.

Those who get paid to write about the bad showings blame old characters like Lone Ranger, or genres like Westerns, even when Clint Eastwood could make a $10 million  Western tomorrow and it'd be the #1 movie for a couple of weeks.  Maybe there's another difference between movies like Lone Ranger or Wild, Wild West and movies like Silverado or Unforgiven.  Sheesh, a western  was even popular and nominated for a lot of awards just a couple of years ago.

 Good writing is good writing.  But good writers don't always make good salesman and so a lot of dreck gets made while quality is ignored.  Every once in a while, someone makes a mistake and hires a good writer and a good director with good actors who fit their parts, and even though there's a lot of special effects it ends up being a good movie that makes a lot, and I mean a lot, of money.

And even more rarely, a movie without special effects is good and popular. Happens once a generation, but it does happen.

57 comments:

deborah said...

I dislike CGI.

Titus said...

I am not a big movie goer but I only see Indy, Foreign Art House and Woody's pics, natch.

I did love Life of Pi though....but that was because of the Hindi in me.

tits

Sydney said...

Movies today stink because they are all about special effects. It is one action scene after another with no attention to plot or character development. The British still make good movies, though. And they have better actors, too.

virgil xenophon said...

Streaming video and home surround-sound is killing the studios--that and the fact that young males, reacting to the fact that the studio production system is dominated by women and gays, have fled to home gaming in droves. Add to all this the fact that overseas sales are now the major money-maker which causes many movies to be made with multi-culti PC in mind (either that or mindless action movies aimed at teens) for foreign audiences which often diminishes domestic appeal and you have the perfect storm--especially as foreign mkts upon which the current business model depends are also currently in recession. "Whiskey" @Whiskey's Place blog has explored the cultural and economic inns& outs and the current ills and negative financial long-term trends of the industry extensively. People should hike over there and read his archives on the subject..

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

The last movie I went out to see at a theater was The King's Speech.

I did hear that 42 was good. But it's gone so I'll wait to stream or whatever.

I don't pay to see the crap Hollywood makes. Why anyone would, is beyond me.

deborah said...

The re-imagined Star Trek was superb.

Sydney said...

The re-imagined Star Trek was superb

The first one was. The second was a disappointment.

test said...

sydney said...
Movies today stink because they are all about special effects. It is one action scene after another with no attention to plot or character development.


You're describing the difference between written and produced scripts. Some are so bad you visualize the producers saying they need three more big explosions so cut out the backstory while you're still watching the movie.

Bender said...

You had me until Silverado. Then I got thrown out of the saddle.

In any event, the real culprit for bad movies is TV.

Bender said...

The reason we have bad movies now is because of TV.

If there had been better TV series, then all of the movies ripping off TV series (90 percent of all films made today) would have been a lot better.

rhhardin said...

M, 007 Bond's boss, in late movies is always reprimanding Bond for getting personally involved in stuff. Usually this is the babe killed off in the previous movie and her still at large killer.

M may have been more clever that I give her credit for, with me thinking it's just more agonizing where there could be action or quips.

Maybe M is actually a movie critic, and with me noticing that the scripts are going downhill fast.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rhhardin said...

I recommend Anne Hathaway's Get Smart, only $4.99 on DVD.

I love some of the scenes.

The dance with the Russian babe is probably the best.

Some great dialogue.

I say Anne Hathaway because I don't know off hand the male lead's name.

Hathaway is definitely not playing Barbara Feldon's 99. Just the opposite. She has to be converted.

edutcher said...

The issue is the people running the studios have no idea what movies are about.

They want to make baskets of money the quickest way possible and use some of that to promote Lefty politics.

In the old days, the audience was educated (think about how many classic novels became movies) and they had the respect of the studio heads. Does anybody really think a psychotic like Tarantino would be allowed anywhere near a soundstage by somebody like Jack Warner or Louis B Mayer?

Paddy makes a point about Westerns and he mentions the remake of "True Grit", but he forgets about 10 years ago somebody remade "3:10 To Yuma" and that did well, also.

Most of the genres that were staples of the biz when we were kids are only used a vehicles for lectures on Lefty politics. and Paddy's point "the fact is that Golden Ages only become so when the dross of any given era is forgotten" misses the issue that, even taking the clunkers into consideration, the Golden Age and the Silver Age of Movies were what they were because of the proportion of good movies made, not that everything was a winner.

One other point - the purpose of going out to the movies is to get out of the house. Yeah, the big screen TV makes things look good, but it's not the same. If the audience is a bunch of bums, that's the slob culture the Lefties have given us. A reason why the social issues can't be conceded to them.

PS Orion, Harpo, and TriStar were production companies, not studios.

PPS Tighten up a little. what I said to Pasta getting like TOP applies.

You made your point in the first 5 paras.

No offense.

Freeman Hunt said...

The problem with the writing now is that they often don't use a writer. On some big movies they're using teams of writers and writing as they go! That's insane. You're obviously not going to end up with good movies that way.

edutcher said...

Freeman, the problem is the writers aren't literate anymore.

Most of these guys stuff a script with 4 letter words and think it's "edgy".

Bender said...

What is needed to revitalize the movie industry -- and it is certain to work -- is a reboot of the reboot of the reboot of Batman, and then a reboot of the reboot of Spiderman, not to mention a reimagining of the reboot of the reboot of the reboot of the Superman.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Like edutcher said-sometimes you just want to get out of the house and eat a giant bucket of greasy popcorn and be part of the night-out vibe and not have to pause the movie six times because your first grader keeps coming downstairs.

But either the movies, with rare exceptions, are getting stupider and coarser and assplosiony-er, or I'm getting older and more sophisticated. Yeah yeah, Paddy protests that it ever was thus--but I dunno. I'm pretty sure that one of these days I'm gonna truly see a trailer for Ow My Balls at my local multiplex.

I keep meaning to work my way through some list of excellent movies from years past, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Also, what Bender said.

Paddy O said...

edutcher, none taken and indeed I appreciate it. I want to post and make comments all in one which doesn't work. I am very interested in getting better.

rhhardin said...

Althouse is running Meade lawn boy pictures.

The trouble with modern push mowers is that they're built to rise up over too-hard-to-cut grass. This leaves the grass uncut but makes it easy to push.

Old designs would just stall out, and the wheels would slip rather than turn. A kid had to fight with it.

Anyway if it rises up over hard-to-cut grass, in a few years you have only hard-to-cut grass species in the yard, and the push mower no longer works.

Then you go to a scythe.

It doesn't care how tall the grass is. It all comes down the same.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

The great movies of the seventies were mostly low budget. Most of them are flawed (seriously Mean Streets is flawed) but they worked. And they did not cost a lot. And they made money.

This goes in cycles. The major blockbusters are bombing because most of them are marginal at best and they are way over priced. You get a Marvel Avengers that does well and then a bunch of over priced star vehicles that lose millions.

If they managed to bring these b movies in at half the cost (and let's face it that is not that hard if you kick out the over priced talent) they would make money.

There are thousands of super qualified actors out there looking for work. But becuase studio execs are such pussies, they want a star as some sort of insurance. Sometimes it works (such as Robert Downey Jr. in the Avengers) and sometimes it doesn't (like Johnny Depp's and Brad Pitt's latest failures).

deborah said...

Has anyone noticed that books are now written with the idea in the back of the author's mind for the book to become a movie? I listened on tape to Silver Lining Playbook (extenuating circumstances; don't judge me). Cute. Cutesy.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

Those hand rotary mowers work good if you keep the grass cut short and do it regularly. Then again, I just eat it.

deborah said...

I'm sorry to hear that, Sydney. I'll give you my opinion after I see it.

deborah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
deborah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rabel said...

Excellent post, Paddy. Thanks.

I watched True Grit a few days ago. Excellent movie.

As far as that Silverado thing, me and Kevin Kline just don't mix. Don't know why.

deborah said...

Yeah, I'm not a Kline fan either. Nor is my mother.

Rabel said...

Fuddy-Duddyism can be overcome, people. You just have to put your expectations and recollections in the proper perspective.

edutcher said...

Paddy O said...

edutcher, none taken and indeed I appreciate it. I want to post and make comments all in one which doesn't work. I am very interested in getting better.

Just kidding, at TOP, the proprietress got mad if you didn't digest the whole thing and sometimes, you got her point early on, but I have the same trouble as you.

I can't remember how many times on a paper I got "Good, as far as you went", so I tend to over-compensate.

Rabel said...

As far as that Silverado thing, me and Kevin Kline just don't mix. Don't know why.

I have no problem with Kevin Kline, but Danny Glover always comes across as being there only because he's a token.

Paddy O said...

edutcher, I got the list (well some of it) from wikipedia's "Defunct American Film studios".

Tristar isn't technically defunct, I found, though I added it because it and Orion were the two companies that made an impact on me growing up and I hadn't seen their logos for a while.

Chip Ahoy said...

What is the difference between production company and studio? I did look and they seem similar except production company appears more democratic.

deborah said...

We all have our Glovers to bear :(

Paddy O said...

edutcher, I got an email from my most recent editor and one of his points was that I go over the same point repeatedly. So, your comment hit home.

Yes, my chin did quiver a little bit, but I don't think there were tears.

I also apparently use the passive voice a lot. It was a harsh email to get (because he had a lot more to say) but it was all true and helps me get sharper.

As far as Silverado, I was about 10 when it came out, so it had a pretty big impact on me as a Western. I think we can all admit it was Kevin Costner's best role.

edutcher said...

Paddy O said...

edutcher, I got the list (well some of it) from wikipedia's "Defunct American Film studios".

I always warn people about wiki.

Man, I'm surprised they didn't have Revue Studios and TCP on that list.

Bender said...

I'm pretty sure that one of these days I'm gonna truly see a trailer for Ow My Balls at my local multiplex

That's what I mean -- everything is a remake of something on TV (at least it would be a remake of something back when it was funny) or a remake of some prior movie.

Bender said...

Kevin Costner was actually good (and his best role by far) in Open Range.

Paddy O said...

I also liked him in Hatfields and McCoys.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

The "writers" changed a few the historical facts around in "Lincoln".
It's starting.

edutcher said...

Bender said...

I'm pretty sure that one of these days I'm gonna truly see a trailer for Ow My Balls at my local multiplex

That's what I mean -- everything is a remake of something on TV (at least it would be a remake of something back when it was funny) or a remake of some prior movie.


Would that they were working with such stellar material.

Nowadays, it's a comic book, cartoon, or computer game.

ndspinelli said...

Indy films are 80% of the movies I watch.

Methadras said...

A lot of people dislike movies today for primarily three reasons. They are expensive to go see, they are not made well, and the movie experience itself is tiresome.

deborah said...

I dislike CGI.


I don't and especially when it's done well. Go see Pan's labyrinth and come back and tell me that CGI in that movie is something you dislike or even the Lord of the Rings series.

Also, the rise of fairly inexpensive yet excellently made consumer level Audio/Video gear due to DSP technology has been fantastic. You can setup an entire 5.1 surround sound system for next to nothing and get excellent audio quality. Coupled with large format LED televisions and you have a theater in a box basically without the hassle, the shitty experience, and without paying all that money. Couple that with the ability to stream or download almost any movie ever made and it's an attractive combination to many. Studios are slow and monolithic. They will give a shitload of money to fund budgets for the shittiest movies you can think of. Why?

Because they think they know their target audience will give up the cash. Mostly that is the young since their disposable income isn't on the level of people who can afford what I just mentioned above with the appropriate gear. So the entertainment they get is really tied to their social circles and driven by peer pressures to go and hang out at the movies which drives concession and box office numbers.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

The original True Grit was filmed, in part, in Southwestern Colorado.
A place so amazingly beautiful, I'm planning a camping trip.

Bender said...

Any good film these days is likely to be an independent art-house film.

Bender said...

I had wanted to see "To the Wonder" because Terrence Malick always has superb cinematography, but I didn't find out about it until after it was here and gone, and besides, the Insurance Duck is in it.

William said...

During the Renaissance, oil paintings with that new fangled perspective technology were looked down upon. Paintings were ok to hang on the walls in church and thus impress the masses. But well bred people knew that real artists worked as sculptors, jewelers, and goldsmiths......I see a parallel with CGI. Sometimes the CGI is where the artistry is expressed. The plot and actors just interfere with it. Avatar and John Carter on Mars were mesmerizing, in spite of, not because of their plot lines and actors...The people who design CGI effects are far more inventive than the writers and far more persuasive than the actors.

William said...

I thought Cowboys and Aliens would be a sure winner what with Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford, but it wasn't so hot. Maybe special effects don't work in cowboy movies. I vaguely remember that Will Smith western movie with a huge, mechanical spider also sucked.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

William, I agree. CGI, if done right, is wonderful. But where Hollywood went off the rails is thinking actors need to be paid $20million plus for a few months work. It is nuts.

Star Wars had one famous actor and he was a bargain when they got him. Lucas had a limited budget and made do.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

William, special effects work just fine.

But you need a decent story to make a movie (or play or any performance). Cowboys and Aliens had a half assed one. Wild Wild West had no story at all.

Trooper York said...

What you are missing is the quality work being done on TV today. I can give you a bunch of series that far outstrip the dreck the movies provide.

Justified is as good a Western as you are gonna see even if it based in Kentucky. Based on the genius of Elmore Leonard.

The Bridge is a new show on FX that is very promising and a must see.

Game of Thrones is as good a fantasy
story as Star Wars or Star Trek or any other movie you might care to mention.

Person of Interest is a thriller that was prophetic and very engrossing with great violence every week.

Louie is a great comedy that reaches new heights every week and is much underrated.

There is a lot of great stuff on TV so you don't have to go to movie theater with screaming babies and idiots who talk back to the screen.

rcocean said...

I put together a list of 30 best movies per year from 1935-1970. After that I had to drop it down to the best 20, and for years Post-1980 I some couldn't come up with more than 15.

The top 100 movies CY 2002-2011 may be as good as the top 100 for CY 1949-1958, but top 101-200 aren't. And the Top 301-400 for CY 2002-2011 are almost unwatchable.

Trooper York said...

Plus you could rent "The Wire" the best show ever on TV.

Or Deadwood if you need a Western fix.

Homeland for a spy thriller second to none.

Copper on BBC is a wonderful look at America in the 1860's during the draft riots.

Lots of great stuff on Net Flix.

Patrick said...

I took my boys to The Lone Ranger. It was not a particularly good.movie, but it had its fun moments. (it tried to do too much in the story, but Johnny Depp was very good). But my boys loved it and watching the enjoy it was wonderful and something I will never forget.

ndspinelli said...

My bride and I are watching the wire on HBO Go. We watch ~4-5 episodes a night. What superb characters, although I could do w/ less McNulty and more Omar Bradley Little and Bubbles. We missed The wire when it was first out. Life was hectic back then.

deborah said...

I still, in general, dislike CGI. I've seen the beginning of Pan's Labyrinth, and can see how it can be tastefully done. But Smeagol, Jar Jar Binks, the army of soldiers in the clone wars(?), The Avatar stuff, nah.

deborah said...

Trooper's right. TV has become so superb that that's where the future may be heading.

And they play the sound too loudly in theaters.