Rich Evans said Hollywood is creatively bankrupt.

[Muse]

Cuppla pointz .....


It's been said that there are only a dozen or so truly different story lines and that virtually every book, song, movie and TV show ever made, filmed, written or sung is some variation or combination of those.

For me, what broke action movies is CGI. I don't care how well it's done, it just looks fake. Once the real life stunts stopped (probably due to lawyers and insurance companies) it was over.

Even the camera moving around a miniature model (50s and 60s SciFi) looks better.

And to me, video doesn't have the same flavor as film. Sort of the streaming digital vs vinyl LP thing.

I'm fine with a movie without CGI, guns or violence. Don't need 'em.

 

[nakedfrog]

Cuppla pointz .....


It's been said that there are only a dozen or so truly different story lines and that virtually every book, song, movie and TV show ever made, filmed, written or sung is some variation or combination of those.

For me, what broke action movies is CGI. I don't care how well it's done, it just looks fake. Once the real life stunts stopped (probably due to lawyers and insurance companies) it was over.

Even the camera moving around a miniature model (50s and 60s SciFi) looks better.

And to me, video doesn't have the same flavor as film. Sort of the streaming digital vs vinyl LP thing.

Well, they are literally different, as video is 30 frames per second versus 24 frames per second for film. You're basically "trained" to consider 24 FPS to be "cinematic" or whatever.

 

[Aikouka]

When Matt Damon was on the YouTube series Hot Ones, he touched on this topic a bit. One reason that he gave is that the more niche movies often had the back-end sales (e.g. home video release) to help recoup money for lackluster box office take. However, the prevalence of streaming has heavily eaten into the back-end sales, and it really isn't an option anymore. Along those lines, out of my circle of friends, I'm the only person that I know that still buys movies. I know some people that literally won't watch a movie unless it's on streaming... even if the disc is quite literally in the same room as them on a shelf.

 

[Muse]

When Matt Damon was on the YouTube series Hot Ones, he touched on this topic a bit. One reason that he gave is that the more niche movies often had the back-end sales (e.g. home video release) to help recoup money for lackluster box office take. However, the prevalence of streaming has heavily eaten into the back-end sales, and it really isn't an option anymore. Along those lines, out of my circle of friends, I'm the only person that I know that still buys movies. I know some people that literally won't watch a movie unless it's on streaming... even if the disc is quite literally in the same room as them on a shelf.

I don't stream except on rare occasions. I check out DVDs and BRs from the library, buy some too. With a disk you get the extras. AFAIK, you don't get those streaming, which is a drawback, a shame, really. If a movie is really good, I'm usually into the extras. They can really open up to you what the movie's really about, besides being just plain fascinating/interesting.

 

[Aikouka]

I don't stream except on rare occasions. I check out DVDs and BRs from the library, buy some too. With a disk you get the extras. AFAIK, you don't get those streaming, which is a drawback, a shame, really. If a movie is really good, I'm usually into the extras. They can really open up to you what the movie's really about, besides being just plain fascinating/interesting.

I know I've seen some services include those extras; I believe Disney is usually pretty good about doing that.

I tend to shift to new media types. For example, I pretty much only buy UHDs right now, and I'll also replace existing Blu-rays as long as the upgrade is considered worth it. (I usually check Hi-Def Digest.) Over the Black Friday sales, I think I bought around 20-25 movies from Best Buy! The one bummer about UHD is that the extras are often just kept on the Blu-ray disc, and the digital code is usually just a 1080p copy instead of 4K.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

When Matt Damon was on the YouTube series Hot Ones, he touched on this topic a bit. One reason that he gave is that the more niche movies often had the back-end sales ....

Money ruins everything. The good films we all remember were back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s before any of the home video stuff really took hold. Yeah, there were some video rentals, but it wasn't the major business then. People still wanted to go to theaters. It would typically be a few years before a feature film hit TV screens and that was after a few rounds of big screens and maybe drive-ins. Generally they were more concerned with making movies than quick money like they are today.

Sure they wanted money, but they knew it might take a few years for a film to pay off. Now, they want a full return plus some in months, if not weeks.

 

[nakedfrog]

I know I've seen some services include those extras; I believe Disney is usually pretty good about doing that.

I tend to shift to new media types. For example, I pretty much only buy UHDs right now, and I'll also replace existing Blu-rays as long as the upgrade is considered worth it. (I usually check Hi-Def Digest.) Over the Black Friday sales, I think I bought around 20-25 movies from Best Buy! The one bummer about UHD is that the extras are often just kept on the Blu-ray disc, and the digital code is usually just a 1080p copy instead of 4K.

That's pretty much where I am, I only buy UHDs, and occasionally upgrade a Blu-Ray. I do sometimes pay for a digital copy of a movie if it's 4K and five bucks or less, but my preference is by far to get a disc and rip it myself.

 

[Aikouka]

Money ruins everything. The good films we all remember were back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s before any of the home video stuff really took hold. Yeah, there were some video rentals, but it wasn't the major business then. People still wanted to go to theaters. It would typically be a few years before a feature film hit TV screens and that was after a few rounds of big screens and maybe drive-ins. Generally they were more concerned with making movies than quick money like they are today.

Sure they wanted money, but they knew it might take a few years for a film to pay off. Now, they want a full return plus some in months, if not weeks.

I haven't delved into any numbers yet, but I was wondering if part of this could be related to a rise in marketing costs? I remember seeing advertising for Spider-Man: Far From Home on USPS boxes of all things. Along those lines, are we seeing movies fail because they just don't know how to advertise anymore? Ridley Scott's The Last Duel did not do very well, and when I heard about all the hubbub around his comments on Millennials, my first response was, "I haven't even heard of this movie...."

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

^^ Back then advertising was previews and trailers in theaters, print ads in newspapers and on billboards and marquees, later on TV. 'Marketing' wasn't necessary. I forget who really started all the toys and action figures and whatnots.

 

[nakedfrog]

^^ Back then advertising was previews and trailers in theaters, print ads in newspapers and on billboards and marquees, later on TV. 'Marketing' wasn't necessary. I forget who really started all the toys and action figures and whatnots.

Star Wars is when action figures took off in a big way.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

This is sort of a weird thread. Movies have been creatively bankrupt for a long time. Streaming is also completely changing people's expectations from their entertainment.

With creators able to get their stuff straight into people's homes without the overhead of a movie theater and calculus about run times and how many screenings etc, no wonder there has been a HUGE shift from film to TV. Actors you would have never associated with TV are almost exclusively on TV now. The best stories are on TV thanks to all that extra runtime, audiences can get invested more than ever before. There is a huge amount of variety on TV from pure drama to sci-fi to fantasy to everything in between. We are getting incredible (and not so incredible) adaptations of books, original material, etc. etc etc.

I see a movie nowadays and I think to myself "how the hell are they going to satisfyingly wrap this up in 1hr 30m or 2hrs, that's basically 2 episodes of any decent HBO show?"

Its no wonder big budget movies are getting crammed into a "safe bet" corner, because they're far from the only big budget entertainment game in town nowadays. Even videogames are getting in on the "interactive movie" experience. Its evolution, baby!

 

[K1052]

With creators able to get their stuff straight into people's homes without the overhead of a movie theater and calculus about run times and how many screenings etc, no wonder there has been a HUGE shift from film to TV. Actors you would have never associated with TV are almost exclusively on TV now. The best stories are on TV thanks to all that extra runtime, audiences can get invested more than ever before. There is a huge amount of variety on TV from pure drama to sci-fi to fantasy to everything in between. We are getting incredible (and not so incredible) adaptations of books, original material, etc. etc etc.

You're just describing the massive application of cash that most streamers have unleashed on anybody with a script and actors/directors who enjoy cashing checks (this is the overwhelming majority of them and that's not a criticism). A LOT of the content this generates isn't very good and a small percentage of it is.

I see a movie nowadays and I think to myself "how the hell are they going to satisfyingly wrap this up in 1hr 30m or 2hrs, that's basically 2 episodes of any decent HBO show?"

Truly depends on the film. More running time isn't always better. Not every narrative benefits from more time and can be made substantially worse by over indulging. Personally, the worst thing you can do in a theater is make me bored. Most other cinema sins are forgivable if I'm still entertained/interested.

Its no wonder big budget movies are getting crammed into a "safe bet" corner, because they're far from the only big budget entertainment game in town nowadays. Even videogames are getting in on the "interactive movie" experience. Its evolution, baby!

Studios don't like financial risk even through it is an unavoidable part of the business. People are always like "the studios don't wanna spend on creativity". I don't really agree with that premise because they in fact spend on it do of course as a business need to be rewarded for it or at least mitigate the risk. So they're going to make a lot of safer bets to cover the riskier ones that may or may not pay off that people complain about but go to see in hordes.