(06-06-2011 01:32 PM)BlazerJoe Wrote:  and Transformers reminded me why I loved the series so much as a child...then, Michael Bay had to go and ruin all of that goodwill with Revenge of the Fallen.

But - BUT! - there is still hope for Dark of the Moon; I read the novelization yesterday, and it was flat-out fantastic.

Are they going with Unicron for DSotM? I can't think of anyone else they could use in that way. As long as they stay far away from the Quentisants story lines we will be ok.

RotF had to many stories and to many sub plots going on.

(06-06-2011 03:39 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(06-06-2011 01:32 PM)BlazerJoe Wrote:  and Transformers reminded me why I loved the series so much as a child...then, Michael Bay had to go and ruin all of that goodwill with Revenge of the Fallen.

But - BUT! - there is still hope for Dark of the Moon; I read the novelization yesterday, and it was flat-out fantastic.

Are they going with Unicron for DSotM? I can't think of anyone else they could use in that way. As long as they stay far away from the Quentisants story lines we will be ok.

RotF had to many stories and to many sub plots going on.

No Unicron. Shockwave is being billed as the primary villain, but there are a couple of other baddies that are gonna rear their ugly heads around. One is expected, but the other shocked me.

Has anyone seen the movie Salo? It's an Italian art flick that was recommended to me as "shocking." I watched it this weekend, and yes it was shocking, but in no way was it a good movie. The sex and blood are quite provocative, but the best part about the movie was the guy with the lazy eye and the nutso old lady telling the stories.

I've also recently watched the Japanese movie Audition, again because it was supposed to be shocking. There were certainly some strange and shocking moments, specifically what was in the bag, and I guess it was a bit interesting to watch, but again, and maybe I am jaded, it just seemed a lot less than described......

Unless you are actively looking for something way out of the mainstream, don't bother with either....

Why does it seem like all the movies today are remakes of comic books or video games? Doesn't anyone in Hollywood know how to create an original script any longer? Hollywood created plenty of movies with good scripts and little effort at one time. Now they can't write a good script, so they seek out successful video games and comic books to get their ideas, and then turn out movies that hardly resemble the original product, but have a ton of special effects you can't get in comic books...

(06-07-2011 12:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Why does it seem like all the movies today are remakes of comic books or video games? Doesn't anyone in Hollywood know how to create an original script any longer? Hollywood created plenty of movies with good scripts and little effort at one time. Now they can't write a good script, so they seek out successful video games and comic books to get their ideas, and then turn out movies that hardly resemble the original product, but have a ton of special effects you can't get in comic books...

They're the ones that get the most press and the most bang for your buck. The average moviegoer would rather to see crap blow up than to watch something deep. That being said, and I regret not mentioning these earlier, The Social Network is an example of something that's relatively original - albeit based off of a novel.

Oh, flyingswoosh, I wish to amend my list of truly great movies with The Social Network as well as The Dark Knight.

(06-07-2011 12:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Why does it seem like all the movies today are remakes of comic books or video games? Doesn't anyone in Hollywood know how to create an original script any longer? Hollywood created plenty of movies with good scripts and little effort at one time. Now they can't write a good script, so they seek out successful video games and comic books to get their ideas, and then turn out movies that hardly resemble the original product, but have a ton of special effects you can't get in comic books...

Its' not just comic books and video games - in fact those movies are showing more creativity than the old movie and tv shows remakes, or most of the sequels we see. Hollywood has become terribly risk averse. Even the most basic of movies are so expensive now that many in the industry are afraid to take on a new project without some kind of built in audience. Making movies based on novels has been around since near the beginning of Hollywood. Using comic books or video games isn't that far off. And I'm ok with it for the most part. But when you're remaking iconic movies like Psycho or Planet of the Apes it's just sad. Miami Vice? Sheesh. And even worse, I think, are the sequels: Caddyshack 2? Blues Brothers 2000? Look what they did to poor Indiana Jones and Rocky.

Super 8 is out in 3 days. Let's see how good it is and how much money it makes.

(06-07-2011 01:27 PM)BlazerJoe Wrote:  

(06-07-2011 12:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Why does it seem like all the movies today are remakes of comic books or video games? Doesn't anyone in Hollywood know how to create an original script any longer? Hollywood created plenty of movies with good scripts and little effort at one time. Now they can't write a good script, so they seek out successful video games and comic books to get their ideas, and then turn out movies that hardly resemble the original product, but have a ton of special effects you can't get in comic books...

They're the ones that get the most press and the most bang for your buck. The average moviegoer would rather to see crap blow up than to watch something deep. That being said, and I regret not mentioning these earlier, The Social Network is an example of something that's relatively original - albeit based off of a novel.

Oh, flyingswoosh, I wish to amend my list of truly great movies with The Social Network as well as The Dark Knight.

yeah that was a great movie. the writing and acting were superb

IMO a lot of the best films coming out are animations. They, at least, have original ideas...

(06-07-2011 03:00 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO a lot of the best films coming out are animations. They, at least, have original ideas...

believe in yourself?

family is strong?

C'mon, most of the "American" animation is the same ol same ol. Anime is a much better choice for more diverse plots, action, drama et. all....

Animè is animation. Or did that little fact escape your notice...

(06-07-2011 05:03 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Animè is animation. Or did that little fact escape your notice...

While I agree with your premise in general, Anime is more "adult" and most American animation tends to be more kid friendly.

(06-07-2011 01:27 PM)BlazerJoe Wrote:  

(06-07-2011 12:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Why does it seem like all the movies today are remakes of comic books or video games? Doesn't anyone in Hollywood know how to create an original script any longer? Hollywood created plenty of movies with good scripts and little effort at one time. Now they can't write a good script, so they seek out successful video games and comic books to get their ideas, and then turn out movies that hardly resemble the original product, but have a ton of special effects you can't get in comic books...

They're the ones that get the most press and the most bang for your buck. The average moviegoer would rather to see crap blow up than to watch something deep. That being said, and I regret not mentioning these earlier, The Social Network is an example of something that's relatively original - albeit based off of a novel.

Oh, flyingswoosh, I wish to amend my list of truly great movies with The Social Network as well as The Dark Knight.

I'd say that the cost of movies is hurting non-special fx movies. Think about it, at $10+/- (+$3 for 3D) a ticket do you want to see mundane comedy or deep dark drama? NO, you want to see a action extravaganza--good plot and drama is a bonus. This is going to push the non-action/sci fi moves more and more to net flix or the new streaming stuff that Hollywood wants to use.

(06-07-2011 05:57 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  I'd say that the cost of movies is hurting non-special fx movies. Think about it, at $10+/- (+$3 for 3D) a ticket do you want to see mundane comedy or deep dark drama? NO, you want to see a action extravaganza--good plot and drama is a bonus. This is going to push the non-action/sci fi moves more and more to net flix or the new streaming stuff that Hollywood wants to use.

Speak for yourself. Speed Racer lost over $100 million!!! For my $12 (minimum - haven't been $10 here for several years), I want to be entertained. For crying out loud, no one wants to see a "mundane comedy." Good stories and acting will still sell ("a bonus"? are you kidding?). The problem is that ALL movies are so expensive that the failures are killing Hollywood's willingness to take risks. They're greenlighting projects like Transformers Revenge of the Fallen because it had a built in audience and they knew it would make a bazillion even though it's one of the worst movies ever made. Same applies to films like the Madea movies but they're even easier because they're so cheap.

The movie theater experience works not because of action and special effects but because it lets the viewer be hypnotized. The lighting is perfect, the screen is huge, the sound fills the room, there are no distractions. (These are conditions that are difficult or impossible to create in most homes.) If the film is well made, the story is good, the actors effective, the audience will be entertained and happy to have purchased their tickets.

(06-07-2011 05:54 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(06-07-2011 05:03 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Animè is animation. Or did that little fact escape your notice...

While I agree with your premise in general, Anime is more "adult" and most American animation tends to be more kid friendly.

Obviously you've never seen Fritz the Cat...

(06-07-2011 07:00 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-07-2011 05:57 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  I'd say that the cost of movies is hurting non-special fx movies. Think about it, at $10+/- (+$3 for 3D) a ticket do you want to see mundane comedy or deep dark drama? NO, you want to see a action extravaganza--good plot and drama is a bonus. This is going to push the non-action/sci fi moves more and more to net flix or the new streaming stuff that Hollywood wants to use.

Speak for yourself. Speed Racer lost over $100 million!!! For my $12 (minimum - haven't been $10 here for several years), I want to be entertained. For crying out loud, no one wants to see a "mundane comedy." Good stories and acting will still sell ("a bonus"? are you kidding?). The problem is that ALL movies are so expensive that the failures are killing Hollywood's willingness to take risks. They're greenlighting projects like Transformers Revenge of the Fallen because it had a built in audience and they knew it would make a bazillion even though it's one of the worst movies ever made. Same applies to films like the Madea movies but they're even easier because they're so cheap.

The movie theater experience works not because of action and special effects but because it lets the viewer be hypnotized. The lighting is perfect, the screen is huge, the sound fills the room, there are no distractions. (These are conditions that are difficult or impossible to create in most homes.) If the film is well made, the story is good, the actors effective, the audience will be entertained and happy to have purchased their tickets.

As the price moves upwards so does the threshold for seeing something that is of lower quality. We just hit $10 around here and at $10 I had better see a LOT of good stuff for me to fork out that kind money. Even the matine discount might not get me to see something that is not heavily fx driven.

There is too much money at stake for studios to be risk averse.

****

As for Speed Racer.... to do that in live action, I thought the movie was pretty good. The FX in that movie probably drove up the cost. The Washowskis probably bankrolled that off their Matrix profits.

(06-07-2011 07:36 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  As the price moves upwards so does the threshold for seeing something that is of lower quality. We just hit $10 around here and at $10 I had better see a LOT of good stuff for me to fork out that kind money. Even the matine discount might not get me to see something that is not heavily fx driven.

So fx=quality? Unbelievable.

Quote:There is too much money at stake for studios to be risk averse.

I'm guessing you left out a word or two. If so, you agree with me. If not, you don't know what risk averse means.

Quote:As for Speed Racer.... to do that in live action, I thought the movie was pretty good. The FX in that movie probably drove up the cost.

Cost $200 million to make, almost certainly not including marketing etc. Took in about $93 million. That movie was a joke. All icing, no cake. And even the icing was overbearing.

Speed Racer was a terrible movie; I'll give it that. But, it remains a guilty pleasure of mine. I'll never own it under any capacity, but I'll stop what I'm doing to watch it when it's on - with the exception of tending to my daughter; she comes first.

(06-07-2011 07:57 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(06-07-2011 07:36 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  As the price moves upwards so does the threshold for seeing something that is of lower quality. We just hit $10 around here and at $10 I had better see a LOT of good stuff for me to fork out that kind money. Even the matine discount might not get me to see something that is not heavily fx driven.

So fx=quality? Unbelievable.

NO, but you want to see a lot for your money.

Quote:There is too much money at stake for studios to be risk averse.

I'm guessing you left out a word or two. If so, you agree with me. If not, you don't know what risk averse means.

To avoid risk, risk averse, they will invest in sequels and big budget movies that have a built in audience. It will be harder for good dramas to get good budgets because of costs.

Quote:As for Speed Racer.... to do that in live action, I thought the movie was pretty good. The FX in that movie probably drove up the cost.

Cost $200 million to make, almost certainly not including marketing etc. Took in about $93 million. That movie was a joke. All icing, no cake. And even the icing was overbearing.

Salt / NF Stream
--Not bad. Kind of did and didn't play out like I thought it would. Liev Schreiber makes for awesome "dark" characters.