As most people have noticed this summer's "blockbusters" are a sight for sore eyes. I mean legally blonde 2, wtf is that? There are 16 seperate sequals comming out this summer, and none seem to be watchable. There seems to be less of a creative stirr in hollywood, and just taking good ideas from the past and mooching off of them. I mean come on, was there truely a need for T3 ten years after the second one? For the past few years, there seems to be less creative ideas and just more and more sequals (and/or just really bad movies).

I dont know if im just getting on a rant here, but I find it to be a little annoying... do you?

"Vision is the art of seeing things invisible" - Jonathan Swift

I think the movies have been pretty weak so far this year. I posted this list on another board (collegefilms.com) - movies coming out later this year that may be very good:

SEABISCUIT - Tobey Macguire, Jeff Bridges
True story about the legendary horse of the 30s. Could be very interesting.

PARTY MONSTER - Macauley Culkin
Mac has gotten some good press for this role. He plays a shy mid-western boy who moves to NY, becomes "King of the Clubs", then a convicted killer. Based on a true story.

MYSTIC RIVER - Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, dir by Clint Eastwood
Officer Sean Penn, investigating the death of a childhood friend's daughter, has a hard time controlling his emotions (revenge?). Sounded better than I explained!

THE HUMAN STAIN - Anthony Hopkins, Nicole Kidman
Classics professor Hopkins has a 50-year old secret that is made public and his best friend does a little background work to find out why Hopkins is, the way he is.

SECONDHAND LIONS - Haley Joel Ozment, Michael Caine, Robert Duvall
A shy boy moves in with his eccentric uncles and captivate him with their worldly ways! Sounded very good.

KILL BILL - Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu, David Carradine
Thurman awakes from a 5 year coma to find the five would-be assassins that put there there, saving "Bill" for last!

Mark M
MDM Productions

I dont understand how many times we have to go over this. While I may agree that most of the movies this summer are not of oscar-winning quality, and may not have that "good movie" edge, but you are forgetting the whole point in the minds of these producers and executives. Can you guess what it is? Lemme give you a hint...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Movies are big MONEY makers! They could care less about its art and social value. They care about gettin gpeople like YOU and ME and every other 18-23 aged males and 12-17 females to go and PAY YOUR 10 BUCKS for their product. This is the truth, and if you don't belive that, I cant help you. Take Matrix for example. The Wachowski Bros write a script, shoot the movie, and of a sudden it is a blockbuster hit. It still is the No. 1 DVD. The Matrix makes all this money, and all of a sudden Warner Bros and all the producers say.. "aahhhh.. ooohh.... gimme gimme!" And then comes the sequel, and they make it into theis huge thing, and before you know it, theyve made 200 Million in the first week. The Wachowski's are creative geniuses, and they may not be in it all for the money, but that doesnt mean that they have full control. Granted, it was a good movie, but it works the same way with all the sequels. When somethign is succesful, they just se that and say .. hey if peopel liked the first one, they will want to see the second one. You have to understand this concept.

There is NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS. Its called capatilism. Its business. Movies are a product, and you buy the products. If your so sick of the way that is, then go ahead and try to make a difference. Good luck. Just dont whine and complain about how "Hollywood sucks." Go out there and change it.

"This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time"

I agree that these aren't amazing movies -- some may argue their not even entertaining, but like Jason said .. its money.

Best thing to do is go out and watch all your fav. most emotional mindblowing films. This will make you feel much better.

Or better yet go make a movie!

If you don't have any emotional mindblowing films - here are some for you

Requiem for a Dream
Punch Drunk Love
The first season of Oz (just kidding)
Igby Goes Down
Road to Perdition

Watch those, and you SHOULD (if you were me anyways) feel better.

If you don't look I'll force you to _=_

Yeah, Hollywood is saying goodbye to most of its creativity.

As for sequels, some are meant to drag on, such as Star Wars, or the Matrix. These were written to be a continuing story even before they were big hits.

Movies such as the terminator, however, are in it for the money$$$ as said previously.

I believe, and I don't want to sound wishy washy, that we are the ones to change it. We see the problems in modern day filmmaking, and we want to fix it. So unless you have a really good story that people will love, NEVER make a part 2.

"What are you doing?"
"Oh . . .uh . . .nothin"

I don't disagree with the role of Hollywood being a business - if they don't make money, then they wouldn't make movies. For the most part, if they could make boring, dull pieces of crap and make money, they would . . . umm I guess they are!

I thought (and I might be wrong) that the original post was that all movies this were "down" on the creative side. Last year there was ROAD TO PERDITION, GANGS OF NEW YORK, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, etc. While not Oscar winners (for best pic), they were entertaining (even if GANGS was too long!).

I just haven't seen anything this year that I could brag about. I'm hoping the better crop of films is coming up later this summer or in the fall.

Anyone heard of anything that looks interesting (besides the ones I previously mentioned)?

Mark M
MDM Productions

It is starting to bother me that everyone's "T3 was made just for money and it will suck" bullcrap. Yes it was made for a profit, just like any other movie is made to be released theatrically. Think about that sentence. Everyone is like, I'm in it for the art and the story. But that is crap because if any of us are going to make it, you can't rule out the fact that movies need to make money. It is a business just like anything else. You need money to keep making more movies. Now the solution here is to make movies that are entertaining and worthwhile, yet still make money. That would keep both you guys who are artsy and others who want to have fun and spend their $7 wisely worth it.

So before you bash a movie why don't you see it first. T3 was awesome in my opinion. It was everything I wanted it to be and much more. And the cool thing about it is that I thought it would suck just like everyone else. But I wasn't going to say anything until I watched it though. And now I am defending it. Why? Because they spent $170 million on this movie and every cent of it shows on screen. Personally I think they need to make more movies like this, Where they spend the money on explosions and stunts rather than CGI because I ***ing hate it. I was completely satisfied. The story wasn't stupid. It moved the plot from the other films along successfully and at the same time tied up loose ends from T1 and T2. And the end was awesome. It is open for potential sequels, which I am hoping for. When you watch the movie you will see why.

Another thing, I wonder if you wanted to be a filmmaker back when T2 came out, would you be saying the same things as you are about T3. Or how bout the Aliens sequel. Just a thought because I think you would. Money is important in movies whether you like that or not. If you don't, then I don't think you have any business making movies, because thats what it is: a BUSINESS. Film is art. But it is also profitable.

Thomas Verrette
tommy21485@earthlink.net
Imperial Pictures

Creativity is dead in hollywood. No more days of the Godfather, clockwork orange, etc. Nope its all gone.

I just pray to god that the people like us (that go to this site) will be the future of hollywood. Maybe we can turn it around.

"Vision is the art of seeing things invisible" - Jonathan Swift

No artist, no matter what genre: film, painting, photography, music, should have to conform their work to any standard apart from their own creative efforts. Money, or "making it" should have absolutely no effect on the creative process. One day all film makers should seriously consider this idea, because they suffer from this disease the most. I understand that there is a reason for this. In the old days, it would cost a substantial amount of money to make a film. Now that the boundries between professional and prosumer are being blurred gradually as time progresses, film makers can make high quality films without the financial aid.

I made both my the films on this site with no money. I am quite proud of them, and I made them for the cost of the dv tapes. I literally borrowed every other neccessary item.

For a moment consider some of history's greatest artists. Many of them had money, or little money, or none at all. Take Van Gough, Monet, and Dali for example. These guys were poor, and they were dead before anyone knew about how great they were. They never compromised their art to appease others for the sake of money. However, their art is eternal.

You might say, "I can't make a film like T3 if I don't have a multimillion dollar budget, and I can't make a film with a multimillion dollar budget unless I become vastly successful in the Big Buissness of Hollywood." That is a good point, but do you really want to make a film like T3, or Charlies Angels, or fast and furious, or any other marginally significant film?

None of these films are gonna be remembered in fifty to a hundred years, so why bother. 2001 will be remembered, Godfather will be remembered, but only the apex of artistry exhibited by hollywood's output will remain significant. Only the exception to the rule comes out alive. Only when Hollywood says "This film isn't going to be popular to the masses, it won't make a lot of money, but we'll make the film anyway because he's _____________(Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, Coppela).

If you want to be rich, then go ahead, go to hollywood and be a film slut. I'm fine with supporting myself outside my films. Using the skills I've learned through my film making. After all people need things filmed. Some people will give me lots of money to shoot their events. I've made money shooting operas for school, wedding videos, etc. But I'll be damned If I change one subtle aspect of my films, my art; to please the masses.

And who cares if your film is popular anyway. Make a film because you are an artist, not because you want to superficially entertain someone, or you want everybody to like it, or you want to be famous. In other words, don't wh0re your art. And please don't contribute to making a wh0re out of the film genre.

[This message was edited by dhorowitz on July 04, 2003 at 10:02 AM.]

[This message was edited by dhorowitz on July 04, 2003 at 10:04 AM.]

ohhh I DEFINITELY wanna make a film like T3 or charlies angels if someone would give me a chance:P

dudes... heres an interesting fact for you.

6/10 hollywood movies don't make enough money to cover their production cost, let allone marketing costs etc.

1 - 2/10 hollywood movies just cover costs.

1 - 2/10 hollywood movies does well

1/10 hollywood movie is expected to cover the losses of the others, AND make the studio profit.

FACT:
The studios would make more money with their money sitting in a bank account.


and thats why I HATE hollywood films

the adverage cost per a film in hollywood is 150 million dollars. now do the maths over 10 films.

Your conclusion fails to take into account the money made in selling television, PPV, and video rental rights or money made from DVD or video retail. Not to mention merchandising. Most films end up making their money back on video sales alone.

These days a movie's theatrical release is little more than an extended advertisement. The better a movie does the more a studio can sell the broadcast rights to a television network. And if a movie is in theaters the title is more likely to resonate with home video buyers.

Also, the overseas (foreign) distribution - video and TV - is in addition to North America/US. That's added $$$!

Mark M
MDM Productions

I have set here and read everyoneâ™s post. Most of which I agree with. However, no one has spoken of the actors' side of the story. Because even through you have a script you still need actors to act out the scenes. And if you would like to go a little bit farther, what about the pre-production, production, and post-production crew. The people behind the scenes.
Yes, they do make movies to make money. Yeah, they do make s***less crap not worth seeing. But if you think about it, what would happen to all of those people would be without a job because the industry is waiting for those gifted scripts to come along. So to make a long point short, sequels are needed even though they might help corrupt the industry a little faster.

quote:

---

If you don't have any emotional mindblowing films - here are some for you

Requiem for a Dream
Punch Drunk Love
The first season of Oz (just kidding)
Igby Goes Down
Road to Perdition

---

road to perdition was nothing special...i mean..sure visually it was nice to look and the score i guess was decent...but c'mon, hanks acting was dull and bad...the story was nothing original either...it was basically another revenger film with really little originality broight to the table...plus the ending was not only predictable ( mean 'cmon...we KNOW hanks will die. the writer is trying to create drama...father and son spend lots of time together and become close...finally understand eachother...dad dies. cliche) it was a cliche. yes, i enjoyed the movie...but after seeing T3 today...i enjoyed T3 much more.

better than the godfather? bull shi t...i'm not a big fan of the godfather...but to even compare the films...they arn't even similar....i hate critcs and morons who compared the films. thats like comparing Milo & Otis to Pulp Fiction; Milo to Vincent, Otis to Jules. Stupid.

most GOOD movies are made from independant directors and shi t...hollywood is making films for money...sure directors say they are expressing themselves through films like T3...but to us it's just wiz bang effects...deep down the director cares no matter what...the reason he's directing is because he liked the script.....it suddenly becomesa personal thing for him/her.

but the whole time the producers are playing Deliverence with the director...fuc king themin the ass...telling them how to do shi t...sure you can say, "Oh, how the fuc k do you know this, kyle?"

because most movies suck.

most independent films are funded for their good story and artistry...

hollywood is for what the peopl wants...i don't conisder movies like charlies angels film...charlies angels is a movie. film is art.

----------------------
its only a movie...

I agree and respectfully disagree. Personally for me, ROAD TO PERDITION was a very good movie (one of my favorites, so my opinion may be jaded!). Conrad Hall did a great job as DP. As for the story and Hanks acting are concerned, that's probably a debate on opinions! Though I think Hanks has a pretty wide range, he kept himself in check as stern patriarch who would do anything for his family. For me, it was nice to see him as dark, murderer!

As for being better than THE GODFATHER? I don't think so, but the comparison is because of the genre (crime family). I like both equally as well. For me, if RTP were on TV and GF was on at the same time, different channel (both unedited!), then I would watch RTP. Maybe because I've seen GF so many times, I don't know, but I liked RTP a lot.

I agree with you that there a lot of indie films being made for art and that H'wood films are made for money. But I wonder . . . if any of those indie films are picked up for distribution, that the same director would bend over for H'wood money in an instant! Maybe not all would, but I would be surprised if one didn't!

And I'm not sure that's all bad. It's a business, a living and a career. I mean, let's face it. If we could direct films that make no money (or a very marginal profit) and keep artistic control (but have to work a full-time job), would we do that over directing under H'wood control, doing something you enjoy and making a good living? There are very few people in this country working for a living in the career/field that they choose! Most do it because they have to (support a family, themselves, etc.).

I think it was said in an earlier post someone, in another thread, that once you make money in H'wood and get established, then you can make your own 'art films'.

You made some good, interesting points.

Mark M
Sugar Free Productions

quote:

---

did you ever consider the possibility that rather than make a sequel they would just make a new film and consequently the same # of jobs would be had? whats this like a warning about the high unemployment level that we may have if ppl stop selling out? if they stop making sequels the money will still be out there for ppl to pay to see other movies that havent sold out.

---

Yeah, I know that people lose their jobs everyday. I also realize it is mostly because people "sell out". However, my point is that even though sequels are a waste most of the time, they still are income to those who are involved with them.

Also if people stop "selling out", how many do you actually think would pay money to have a film made off of a script that they don't particular believe in? How many people do you know will take a chance on something new? Wouldnâ™t it be easier to go with something that has already made money and will likely make money again because the public enjoys it? In my opinion, those who have complete faith in their babies make the greatest films.

However this has just been my opinion, I meant no harm.

This is some heartwarming stuff...

Lecture with Billy Bob Thorton:
http://foxsearchlight.com/lab/lectures/thornton/index.html

Lecture with Joel Shumacher:
http://foxsearchlight.com/lab/lectures/index_schumacher.html

-C. Davis, President AFC

You all really need to watch the Billy Bob Thornton video.


To put into a nut shell what he's saying: "Do what comes natural, don't try to be what you think people want". That's not at all the same thing as saying "f u c k Hollywood".

There are so many wanna-be's that are trying to be what they aren't. Trying to d o
mini-Hollywood type films. No one want's to see you "try" to do a mini-hollywood film that
is nothing more than a bad attempt a copying a popcorn blockbuster. Likewise who needs these **** ty disjointed micro-indie films that masquerade themselves to b e
art. Either "extreme" is not good for the medium. Make sense?

He makes so many great points for new film makers. The insight you'll get from watching
this will help you "understand" what it's all about. He's telling you to "go make a great
movie". P retty simple stuff, but if you aren't listening you may just miss the mesage he try to tell you (just look at his eye's..... he's wondering if you all are really "getting" what he's telling you, you can see it in his face). Another great point he makes is that "now" is the time to do your "real" film, the
one from the gut, because things change once the momentum starts. They change quick. Notice though, that he's talking about filmmakers wi th a budget, not $100 films. He cracked on 12k films....


You'll also notice that he doesn't place blame solely on the studios, in fact he places most of
the blame on the audience. Are you paying attention? Or is this stuff over your head?


Look this g uy is involved with some really amazing people in the film world, think about
who he's worked with. But! He makes the claim that he could make 175 films with
$175,000,000, you gotta put that into perspective, though. Low budget to him is 15-mil, not $10 0. He's not saying that he doesn't want to
make money, or that h aving his films do well is not part of the goal. He's telling you that
good "Character Driven" films aren't that expensive (relatively speaking). The bottom line is a
1-mil film can be wa y more "profitable" than a $175,000,000 film, that's what he's tel ling
you. He's not condemning Hollywood, after all he lives in Hollywood, his agents are in
Hollywood, he's represented by the biggest agency there is, he lives in a fabulously expensive house, he
has money$$$.

The point he's getting at, is for people like you to do great films, that's it! He's telling you to
write a script that is "about something". Therefor your film has a chance of being about
something....

He's "middle of the road", not ultra-indie, not ultra-Hollywood. And that is a problem th at
many indie-newbies fall into, being the "ultra-indie guy" who's films are unwatchable. Don't
be that guy!

Like he said, Hollywood "wants" you to do something interesting, artistic, moving,
innovative etc. etc.

That's how you get to be where he's at.......

Anyway, do yourselves a favor and watch the clips! Then come back and discuss what
you've heard......

.r