When hollywood made good films.
- Thread starter Wes R
- Start date
nickytea
Master Member
They produced, wrote, and directed. They also had final cut ... which is why it's probably the only family film with a two and a half hour runtime. :lol
I understand the vitriol that's thrown at it, as it is visually saturated with a pretty complex narrative language that never really stops to explain itself. (No "ten years later" subs popping up anywhere, and the story will shift timelines, literally within a shot.)
These are the things, however, that make me love it and consider it ahead of its time. Less in the visual sense -- which is derived mostly from animation -- and more so in the narrative innovations. Beyond the bright colors, I think there's a solid structure at its core.
That being said, I can completely understand those that don't like how aesthetically "dense" it is. It can certainly be overwhelming.
themanwoaname
Sr Member
please explain this book. i may want to get one of my own.
Its the TCM movie guide that they put together with an online movie store called Movies Unlimited. ITs the most complete guide to old movies that are available on dvd organized by catagory and there are little items in the books about the big stars and the movies.
Turner Classic Movies & Warner Home Video Present: THE TCM GREATEST CLASSIC FILM COLLECTION
Turner Classic Movies & Warner Home Video Present: THE TCM GREATEST CLASSIC FILM COLLECTION
Ya, remember all the fart jokes in Shindler's List?
This thread makes me laugh. The fact of the matter is that what everyone considers "great" generally is stuff they saw as a child. It's not that the newer stuff sucks, it's that it doesn't make you nostalgic for a time when life was probably nicer. EVERY decade has scores of crap movies with a few gems mixed in. You only really begin to appreciate the gems as time passes and they rise to the surface.
I agree, I don't recall the last time I went to the theatre and was thrilled with my purchase. That doesn't mean there aren't future classics out there though. Personally I think the 80's & 90's were filled with fantastic films. Not only were these films great they were the ones that made me want to make movies which is what I do now.
Anyone here remember when you first saw Jurassic Park? I don't think my jaw came off the floor for a second. Shindler's List was master story telling, vivid, edgy. Shawshank Redemption was a tight and compelling story that was brilliantly cast. Wook's list is only a starting point.
The 80's were just as iconic. Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Empire Strikes Back, Back to the Future, Das Boot, Raging Bull...
The 70's were great, the 60's were great, the 50's were great... All the way back to Wizard of Oz, King Kong, Metropolis, the Great Dictator, Nosferatu. I could go on and on. The films that survive are the iconic ones, people seem to forget all the crap from those decades.
As for the 00's. I'll admit, I'm getting up there but even I can see there are some classics waiting to stand the test of time. A short list:
- Lord of the Rings Trilogy (not my cup of tea personally but if I were 10 it would be iconic to me)
- Memento
- Dark Knight
- The Wrestler
- Casino Royale
- Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
- Downfall
- Gladiator (not a 90's movie)
And another thing I'll say (with fear of being beaten within an inch of my life on this place) I find television is, in general, much better now than it has been for a very long time. Nostalgia aside it really is...
wannab
Sr Member
I'm a big TCM guy myself. I have lots of old movies on dvd too. However, I can't really agree that Hollywood only (or mostly) put out the gems in the past. They cranked out a butt-load of turkeys back then too, probably more so than today. We just get, for the most part, the cream of the crop shown on TCM or released on dvd. I do think they relied more on good writing and storytelling for more films back then. The studio system "factory" atmosphere (while not perfect) seemed to help to produce better product as well. They could try out and hone new talent with the turkeys they cranked out without too much risk money-wise. They would the reap the benefit of the talent "schooling" later as they were polished. When everything went "freelance" it became harder to put the best pieces of the movie puzzle together at a reasonable cost which made it more critical to have a successful movie. End result, proven formula cookie cutter movies we get now-a-days. It was a business then as it is now, only now you have more financial risk per film. We still get a gems that pop out every once in a while but we sure seem to get let down more often than not.
I think the crux of what you are saying can be said about a lot of industries -- music, auto styling, furniture making, as just a few examples. Creating based on safe formula, bottom line or by committee makes for a lot of bland product. The great shame is there is a lot of wasted talent in these industries.
Thank goodness there are still a few places that allow for talent to shine every now and then.
Doug
TCM tends to hit us with the turkeys too at times and they even warn you lol. Yeah everyone these days has a formulat so they don't take risks. The movie industry was blaming internet piracy for a while and the guy they interviewed said you may never see a studio take a risk like the matrix movies again. The game industry is that way too, you used to have a ton of types of games but now they're only making what works and not always what people want.
Do any of you TCM fans get a TCM HD channel where you live?
I don't, but I wish I did.
There are quite a few old pictures I'd like to watch on TCM, but I pass because the films are cropped down to a 4:3 aspect ratio. Of course I realize that even my 16:9 set won't capture the whole frame of a lot of films that were shot in wider formats (e.g. 2.35:1), but in the cases of those pictures it's all the more reason to not watch them in 4:3.
Does TCM even have an HD channel?
The Wook
I don't, but I wish I did.
There are quite a few old pictures I'd like to watch on TCM, but I pass because the films are cropped down to a 4:3 aspect ratio. Of course I realize that even my 16:9 set won't capture the whole frame of a lot of films that were shot in wider formats (e.g. 2.35:1), but in the cases of those pictures it's all the more reason to not watch them in 4:3.
Does TCM even have an HD channel?
The Wook
Rotwang
Sr Member
The problem with video games is that until a few years ago anybody could just sit behind a computer and produce a game. The industry has evolved in such a way that the big E3 demo is now the only thing that counts. It has to be graphically superior to anything previously seen. But this means you need a small army of artists who have to create all these flashy graphics and they don't come cheap. Current game budgets are in the tens of millions of dollars.
Same with movies. Costs are rising and the rate of investment vs returns is steadily eroding. The problem is that once in a while you get a golden nugget like Avatar that makes a few hundred million and keeps you floating until the next hit.
Studio execs are just plain execs with a funny badge. While some are movie fans, most of them don't care if they are making movies, cars or bagels. They have been trained to sell products and they work with formulas and quantified methods. So when stuff like creativity is involved they revert to type and try to label and dissect it and turn it into just another product. That's why we get all those crappy 3D movies, because there is no time to do it right and the execs are terrified of the idea of a potential goldmine going untapped.
And then there are the execs who do believe they are creative gods (the most dangerous kinds) they really believe the hype and bs and mess with perfectly good movies because they can betterify them.
Also the structure of the movie and videogame industry are eerily similar. Huge distributors who have cornered the market. Although the Internet has been a blessing for people who want to make films, at the end of the day they still need to go through the big studios to get their film on the screen rather than an internet host.
And I agree that Hollywood made a lot of crap before, but like popular music, we only remember the good songs, but we forget what most people were listening to or watching back in those days.
The 1970's are often called the golden era of filmmaking because of the freedom given to directors, but most of their own businesses and enterprises folded quite rapidly and flicks like Heaven's Gate nailed the coffin on that endeavour.
Same with movies. Costs are rising and the rate of investment vs returns is steadily eroding. The problem is that once in a while you get a golden nugget like Avatar that makes a few hundred million and keeps you floating until the next hit.
Studio execs are just plain execs with a funny badge. While some are movie fans, most of them don't care if they are making movies, cars or bagels. They have been trained to sell products and they work with formulas and quantified methods. So when stuff like creativity is involved they revert to type and try to label and dissect it and turn it into just another product. That's why we get all those crappy 3D movies, because there is no time to do it right and the execs are terrified of the idea of a potential goldmine going untapped.
And then there are the execs who do believe they are creative gods (the most dangerous kinds) they really believe the hype and bs and mess with perfectly good movies because they can betterify them.
Also the structure of the movie and videogame industry are eerily similar. Huge distributors who have cornered the market. Although the Internet has been a blessing for people who want to make films, at the end of the day they still need to go through the big studios to get their film on the screen rather than an internet host.
And I agree that Hollywood made a lot of crap before, but like popular music, we only remember the good songs, but we forget what most people were listening to or watching back in those days.
The 1970's are often called the golden era of filmmaking because of the freedom given to directors, but most of their own businesses and enterprises folded quite rapidly and flicks like Heaven's Gate nailed the coffin on that endeavour.
cayman shen
Master Member
If by "retire" you mean "eat Drano" then yes, I agree!
There are still a lot of good movies coming out, but sadly not from Hollywood. The American has to work pretty hard to dig up quality films because they're all coming from other countries or from independent film-makers. But some years are stronger than others. Hollywood still surprises me from time to time.
Mercury
Sr Member
Two movies that I only recently saw are "Secondhand Lions" and "No Country for Old Men". Not blockbusters but they are really good movies.:thumbsup
However, I do think Hollywood has lost their way somewhat.
Of course, now everything is in 3D, regardless of if it helps the story along. :thumbsdown
However, I do think Hollywood has lost their way somewhat.
Of course, now everything is in 3D, regardless of if it helps the story along. :thumbsdown
Bump. Anyone?
R
Rpffan
Guest
It lost its heart and has no more sole
Thankfully there are shoe repair people that can fix that...
And since we're in necro land I'll just add my 2 cents. :lol
The thought that Hollywood used to make good films and doesn't anymore is absurd. Today, as in any time in it's history, there are a few greats, some good, and a whole bunch of crap. It's ALWAYS been that way.
The thought that Hollywood used to make good films and doesn't anymore is absurd. Today, as in any time in it's history, there are a few greats, some good, and a whole bunch of crap. It's ALWAYS been that way.
I was discussing this with a the same group of writers I went to see Star Trek Into Darkness with and I have a theory - many of you will disagree with it and some may even take offense to what I'm about to write but the more I thought about it the more convinced I became.
Hollywood has two types of filmmakers - there are storytellers and there are businessmen - the Storytellers usually give you something that you love and the businessmen are good at tricking into something you think you will like. Storytellers usually have a hell of a time selling their visions to studios but when these stories take off the businessmen are the first to say "we need a sequel" -- again, that's just business and the reason most sequels are terrible. It's possible for a storyteller to become a businessman but impossible for the vice versa to happen. Now - IMO the decline of story actually falls back on one man - and he is a storyteller. His movies, some good, some horrible but all "visions" gave Hollywood permission to start doing remakes, reboots, rehash or just resell their non visionary films. He himself is a thief, stealing his first big movie from a chinese action flick - but to the unknowing public it was fresh and clever - and it was, but still stolen.
Quentin Tarantino.
His style seems simple enough and he didn't come from filmschools or the inbred society that is Hollywood, but he has talent. Nevertheless he opened the door to the independent movie where Hollywood loves to graze, picking up those they feel will be their version of his films - problem is they're not. What Quentin did was to take all of his favorite 70's films and twist them into a modern background. His films are full of hidden nods and references from the knowledge of working at a video store for years. Now, I like his movies - but I don't like what they did to Hollywood. Execs took his ability to recraft and turned it into something ugly. They took his off the cuff dialogue and unique scenes and believed it simple to duplicate.
Now combine this warped version of storytelling and apply a 200m dollar budget and give it to Jerry Bruckheimer and you have the modern movie.
it used to be the writers in this town came from novels now they come from other movies - Quentin is the best example of this - people like Kevin Smith (IMO) are the worst. Directors came from stage and theater - now they come from music videos. Compare someone like Richard Donner to Zack Snyder. While Donner cut his teeth on WANTED with Steve McQueen, Snyder was directing Horses for a Budweiser commercial.
Hollywood has two types of filmmakers - there are storytellers and there are businessmen - the Storytellers usually give you something that you love and the businessmen are good at tricking into something you think you will like. Storytellers usually have a hell of a time selling their visions to studios but when these stories take off the businessmen are the first to say "we need a sequel" -- again, that's just business and the reason most sequels are terrible. It's possible for a storyteller to become a businessman but impossible for the vice versa to happen. Now - IMO the decline of story actually falls back on one man - and he is a storyteller. His movies, some good, some horrible but all "visions" gave Hollywood permission to start doing remakes, reboots, rehash or just resell their non visionary films. He himself is a thief, stealing his first big movie from a chinese action flick - but to the unknowing public it was fresh and clever - and it was, but still stolen.
Quentin Tarantino.
His style seems simple enough and he didn't come from filmschools or the inbred society that is Hollywood, but he has talent. Nevertheless he opened the door to the independent movie where Hollywood loves to graze, picking up those they feel will be their version of his films - problem is they're not. What Quentin did was to take all of his favorite 70's films and twist them into a modern background. His films are full of hidden nods and references from the knowledge of working at a video store for years. Now, I like his movies - but I don't like what they did to Hollywood. Execs took his ability to recraft and turned it into something ugly. They took his off the cuff dialogue and unique scenes and believed it simple to duplicate.
Now combine this warped version of storytelling and apply a 200m dollar budget and give it to Jerry Bruckheimer and you have the modern movie.
it used to be the writers in this town came from novels now they come from other movies - Quentin is the best example of this - people like Kevin Smith (IMO) are the worst. Directors came from stage and theater - now they come from music videos. Compare someone like Richard Donner to Zack Snyder. While Donner cut his teeth on WANTED with Steve McQueen, Snyder was directing Horses for a Budweiser commercial.
This is very true. When you look back at what movies were, they had to have substance, or there was very little to put up on screen. Now, it's way too easy to substitute substance with action and special effects. What really grabs you, is it the unique story, or the hundreds of CGI effects flashing on the screen. Giving you something you've never seen before in a movie applies to both a unique story, but to some, it means special effects. If the story is good, special effects play a supporting role, however, in many films now a days, the special effects make up a bulk of what you see on screen, leaving very little to the story.
Jet is right when he says Movies are more a business and less an art. Studios don't like to gamble, they want the effects laden "sure things" that will pull people in. If you think about it, it's the dumming down of the movie goers. Almost akin to sitting your 3yr old down in front of the TV to watch a video while you get some work done around the house. If the story is too complicated, people "Don't get it" and it's frustrating to listen to these people complain "How stupid" something was because they "Didn't get it". Making a movie where you have to think or follow a complicated story line is risky, because you have a movie going public who will hate a movie that makes them think instead of spoon feeding them eye candy for 2hrs.
If you dumb down the movie enough, and make it simple to follow, an adult and a 12yr old will enjoy the same movie. Take them to a complicated story driven movie, and they will both get lost and hate it. Those are the people Studios are aiming for. By making it simple enough for everyone to understand, they can count on them bringing their families and everyone coming to see the movie. Make something too story driven, and it appeals to a smaller group, and won't pull in as much cash
Now I don't mean to say people who enjoy effects laden sugar coated eye candy extravaganzas are dumb, I'm just saying they appeal to a broader base. I enjoy the eye candy myself. However, I can sit down for a few hours and enjoy something wit a good story as well
Jet is right when he says Movies are more a business and less an art. Studios don't like to gamble, they want the effects laden "sure things" that will pull people in. If you think about it, it's the dumming down of the movie goers. Almost akin to sitting your 3yr old down in front of the TV to watch a video while you get some work done around the house. If the story is too complicated, people "Don't get it" and it's frustrating to listen to these people complain "How stupid" something was because they "Didn't get it". Making a movie where you have to think or follow a complicated story line is risky, because you have a movie going public who will hate a movie that makes them think instead of spoon feeding them eye candy for 2hrs.
If you dumb down the movie enough, and make it simple to follow, an adult and a 12yr old will enjoy the same movie. Take them to a complicated story driven movie, and they will both get lost and hate it. Those are the people Studios are aiming for. By making it simple enough for everyone to understand, they can count on them bringing their families and everyone coming to see the movie. Make something too story driven, and it appeals to a smaller group, and won't pull in as much cash
Now I don't mean to say people who enjoy effects laden sugar coated eye candy extravaganzas are dumb, I'm just saying they appeal to a broader base. I enjoy the eye candy myself. However, I can sit down for a few hours and enjoy something wit a good story as well
BAK55
Well-Known Member
Maybe the younger group of people come to TCM to see GOOD movies that used to be broadcasted for free over the airwaves that they will never see otherwise. A lot of these films were broadcasted on the air a year after their releaese. A very few commercial interruptions had to be tolerated maybe every hour back then.
I also remember seeing classic science fiction movies early and late Friday evenings or after Saturday morning cartoons for free on open air broadcasts.
Gee, I even remember how my local movie theatre had short films telling us how cable TV would consume our dollars from us and still have to endure commercials, even after the promise that it would never happen.
I also remember seeing classic science fiction movies early and late Friday evenings or after Saturday morning cartoons for free on open air broadcasts.
Gee, I even remember how my local movie theatre had short films telling us how cable TV would consume our dollars from us and still have to endure commercials, even after the promise that it would never happen.
I miss this most of all. I would have never been the Godzilla fan I am today if it weren't for the lineup back then. Same goes for Kung Fu movies on Sunday and Tarzan in the afternoon.
Remember right before the new Sat morning cartoons would premiere Donny and Marie would have a "sneak preview show" on Friday night letting you know what was coming?
Similar threads
