Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 3:40 pm
by Malcolm
As for the quality of movies... they just aren't very good any more. Perhaps this is a function of my age, but I don't think so.
1999 was the best year of movies, Ever. That wasn't that long ago. New talent and new ideas made it good. M. Night Shamalayan, the Wachowski brothers, ..., Blair Witch Project...
Bleh. I hate each & every one of those three.
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 6:04 pm
by TheCatt
As for the quality of movies... they just aren't very good any more. Perhaps this is a function of my age, but I don't think so.
1999 was the best year of movies, Ever. That wasn't that long ago. New talent and new ideas made it good. M. Night Shamalayan, the Wachowski brothers, ..., Blair Witch Project...
Bleh. I hate each & every one of those three.
You'll recall Blair Witch being on my top 10 worst blockbuster of all time. I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying that there were new ideas.
Maybe cuz everyone thought the world was ending in 2000, they didnt care.
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 11:56 am
by TheCatt
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 12:01 pm
by TheCatt
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:18 pm
by Leisher
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:23 pm
by TheCatt
Last year, Amy Pascal, the chairman of the Sony Motion Picture Group, complained about final-cut directors on AMC's weekly film industry show "Sunday Morning Shootout." "They have too much power," she said, adding that once a director makes a profitable movie, the studios tend to reward a director with final cut: "It is what happens. You make a movie with a major director, you have to give him final cut or you're not doing the movie. If the movie doesn't work, you're screwed. They bullshit you, you fall for it. They tell you how long it's going to be, tell you the stars you don't want, tell you the budget you don't want to hear. You start saying the things you want to hear. You paid for them and gave them the movie, and that's the movie you get."
To summarize, if I may...
Amy Pascal: "We're stupid"
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:01 pm
by Leisher
Lead Actor - $20 million
Lead Actress - $15 million
Supporting Cast - $10 million
Director - $10 million
Special Effects - $50 million
Script - $100,000
Biggest complaints about movies - Bad writing and the never ending wave of remakes.
Can anyone in Hollywood see what might be wrong?
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:24 pm
by TheCatt
My understanding is that screenplays are more expensive than what you've listed, although still under 5% of the film's budget.
But yeah, I hear you. Telling a story can be an artform, but if there's no story to tell....
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:27 pm
by Malcolm
Bah, Hollywood doesn't make much art anymore. They make a product.
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:38 pm
by GORDON
Then they screen it to make sure test audiences approve of it.
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:43 pm
by Malcolm
Then they screen it to make sure test audiences approve of it.
Who the fuck are those test audiences, btw? They gotta be fucking brain dead.
I've heard one only one occasion (the ending to "Suicide Kings") where a director relied on a test audience & produced something that didn't suck.
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:47 pm
by TPRJones
Who the fuck are those test audiences, btw?
Californians, mostly
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:57 pm
by GORDON
I heard Dodgeball was supposed to end with the good guys losing, but test audiences hated it... and Ben Stiller was pissed at the change. Which is why he does that condescending little rant during credits.
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:30 pm
by TPRJones
They put the original ending as a DVD extra. It was really great, IMO. They should have gone with it.