I think i faound yet another a reason why the 99% of all the films the days suck, theres to many dam people involved, they give jobs to people that could easily be done by the direotor himself. i mena these days we have an assistant to the seocnd assistant direcotrs????? WHO THE HELL NEEDS A SECOND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR!!!! Overall this clutters the project with to many chiefs and not enough indians......

Nah, I think what's causing crappy films is the fact that when you give a pitch to a studio exec, they don't say "What is innovative about this film?" but instead say "Which film is this like that made a lot of money at the box office?"

That is the case.... its the same with video games too.

They ask if the movie is like anything else thats been done because if it is and the other movie was a success they have something to aim for. They even cast actors based on films theyve been in. Some people are funny and some people are serious, but you dont have to cast people based on previous genres.

Ive also always been a fan of George Lucas' approach. Why make a movie for what they give you when you can use much less. He knows how to do everything and hardly has to pay anyone compared to a big budget studio film.

quote:

Originally posted by Blkmamba:
Ive also always been a fan of George Lucas' approach. Why make a movie for what they give you when you can use much less. He knows how to do everything and hardly has to pay anyone compared to a big budget studio film.

Yeah, but he has his own production company (LucasFilm) which reduces costs.

Hollywood is looking to make money, a quick pay off, nothing more.

When you're making a movie like Soul Plane, the director doesn't matter. You can have 6 assistant directors, you can shoot the whole movie in 14 days. They're looking for a low amount of shooting days, release it and make a quick buck.

Hollywood is trying to give the majority of Americans what they want. Not what they need. And of course, to make large amounts of cashola.

quote:

Originally posted by Trespasser:
Hollywood is trying to give the majority of Americans what they want. Not what they need. And of course, to make large amounts of cashola.

... and the rest of the world it seems. Cinemas over here only seem to show American films.

Do you guys even know what an assistant director does? It's a producing job. You do paperwork. You process and control extras. You delegate jobs to PAs. You coordinate the various departments. how is having two assistant directors a bad thing?

Personally, I don't see what's wrong with making films people want to see. Of course it's a business. And ultimately, the money men have the final word. This isn't just true in Hollywood. Independent cinema works the same way, for the most part. Just in the indy world, the money people and creative people are often the same people. Who are you (or any other filmmaker) to decide what I need in a film? Feature filmmaking is about entertainment and entertainment only. If Joe 'average american' Shmoe wants to watch Dumb and DumbererER, then it will be made. And that's fine. I blame it on the Joe Shmoe, not the hollywood system.

I think it's a great time for filmmaking.
Sure they're are a lot of crappy mainstream movies, but there are also some amazing, groundbreaking films being made.

quote:

Originally posted by Shookster:
... and the rest of the world it seems. Cinemas over here only seem to show American films.

that sort of reminds me of when they braught "the office" over to america. the original series, in britian, is absolutely hilarous. i loved it. but, when they made this new american version, i nearly threw up on my sofa. and i keep asking myself why they just didnt bring the original office over. then i remembered all the rednecks who would hear a british accent and change the channel. this is because we dont wanna explore outside the box, and corporations dont want to take the gamble of introducing it to us. they dont wanna lose ratings, or in a sense, money.

hollywood = money

but you have to realize, its always been this way. we are just getting to the age where we can reckonize it. we look back and see great movies in our history, but the fact is is that we are completely overlooking the really crappy movies that came out in the 90s, 80s, even 70s and earlier. just imagine, twenty years from now people will look back at the schindler's lists, teh fight clubs, the lords of the rings, and other great movies of our time. then look at their own crappy movies with a diamond in the rough of good movies and think our generation was above par. the truth is there has always been crappy movies to make money, but there are also those times where a great comes out, and those are the ones that are remembered.

think about the old school monster movies of the 50's and 60s. what a load of garbage that was. but you gotta think that this was during the same time that caseblanca came out, and other classics. its always been a mix, but ur here to experience the bad movies now. youll look back and not even remember soul plane.


(end rant)

quote:

Ive also always been a fan of George Lucas' approach. Why make a movie for what they give you when you can use much less. He knows how to do everything and hardly has to pay anyone compared to a big budget studio film.

Are you serious? Lucas wastes a lot of money with his greenscreen crap. I think Rodriguez would be a better example of working on the "cheap"...

Anyway, the "problem" with Hollywood is nothing new, and Alex, I think the ratio of crap to good films hasn't significantly changed. What has changed is the increasing visibility of garbage flicks - in the 40s and 50s, the movies that had no artistic aspirations whatsoever weren't marketed as quality films, they were sloughed off to drive-in theaters for teenagers to make out to. Now, "The Amityville Horror" is screened at the same multiplex with "Maria Full of Grace" or "Hotel Rwanda." This goes a long way towards increasing the more intelligent moviegoer's recognition of said crap flicks, and breeding disgust for them.

you're right alex, I guess there is some sort of balance between the good and the shi**y movies...it just seems like today they (in TV and film) are producing more crap than ever.

hahaha as soon as you do a more advanced film, you will be damn happy about a second assistand director. In fact, you will wish you had 10 of them, and 20 location manager, and 30 producer, believe me! Why would any director on set want to do anything else than talking to the DP and the actors?

the problem is these filsm are given huge budgets, so everything is handled and no artistic vision is put into the film. its all ready been handled by the prop man, the director simply says, "the script needs this...prop man, go get it" There's too many different artistic visions clashing. I think the director/writer should handle everything. EV ERYTHING! (but thats just me) I enjoy writing the script, I enjoy finding all the locations, and I enjoy working out the costumes. I like to do it all, and I have a very limited budjet. this makes me think abut all the things I already have (or can find for free) that I can use in my movies. maybe im talking out of my ass because I havent put any movies on this site yet, but come this summer and you'll get a taste.

the only technology needed to make a film is the camera, everything else just gets in the way of making a good movie. the more you limit yourself, the more ideas will come to you.

iamgien if Rodriguez, or Tarantino, or Scorsese went back to having small budjets. I can guarantee we'd have soem better things than what they've done recently. Has anyone seen Tarantino's early unfinished film "My Best FRiend's Birthday" ? I was entertained the whole way through, the dialogue and camera work and acting is really great for a studentfilm, I now look at Kill Bill and wonder what happened to him. kill bill is a good movie, but when you look at Tarantino's older work, you know he could be doing things so much better. im rambling on

What? So, say a film like LOTR, where Pete Jackson probably only directed 1/5th of it (not to mention everything else he trusted his crew of over 200 people to do), wasn't his vision because he didn't personally execute every creative decision? In your example Kyle, the director communicates his artistic vision and the prop man gathers and builds props that support the director's vision.

To use your logic, the writer/director would have to also act out all the parts in the film to accurately get their vision across. It would be like 'being john malkovich.' Nonsense!

"using creativity is more effective than money"

1)The motivation for the making of a product should have no impact on your level of enjoyment with that product.


2)Our whole American economy is grounded on the principle that people will work harder if they know they will get a higher reward. As Adam Smith said:

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

I would go so far as to say that Hollywood would produce much higher quality films in greater quantities if they were focused more on making money. If making money was their highest priority, all the employees would work to their maximum potential knowing that a larger paycheck was around the corner. With everyone working so far above their normal level achievement, the quality of the product would incomparably better.

if its not real it doesnt look real. everytime I watch a hollywood movie the characters are over the top, the costumes look fake, and their faces are too clean. this is what I mean by too much focus on money, if they didnt have money they'd use their resources to find way neater looking costumes, rather than perfect pink dresses. something like alex said in a clockwork orange "funyn how the colors of the real world only look so real when you viddy them on the bigscreen"

there's hardly any real movies, everythings a big show saying, "look, I have money!"

quote:

Hollywood is trying to give the majority of Americans what they want. Not what they need. And of course, to make large amounts of cashola.

This quote and entire post is what I've been preaching with trouble for the past year or so, hopefully people will start to re-consider my so-called "pie in sky" idea of forgetting about all of the technical bull and going for the meaning and reason, why people "need" to see your film. More of the good films I see are good becasue they drop the technical **** dead where it belongs, secondary, light all you ****ing want, cgi all you ****ing want, won't make the movies any better. the saddest part is that i feel in order for films to get good it will take sites like this to start to cut into the hollywood pay check, and only then will they care, but they'll hijack good filmmakers like they did in the 60's and 70's and give them everything they want as they sell out. i hate cyclical hollywood, the lil guy can never win!

Yeah right now almost all of my favorite movies are independent, kung fu hustle, donnie darko, etc.

The sad part is, making it over the top works for them, they get SO much money off of it, it's crazy. Money almost to me deflects creativity, I will try to be as cheap as possible in my movies, not by story and actors but you know