Top 5 reasons why movies today really do suck.

[The True Adonis]

oh Noh you diddent

I already set I'm expecting no fucking masterpieces, you can take a top ten of ever year before and after 93, and you'll see a marked decline.

Not all movies back than were perfect. But atleast there's a few that are ok.

Why are you using ticket sales as your measuring stick for the content (quality) of a movie?

[MikMaq]

Why are you using ticket sales as your measuring stick for the content (quality) of a movie?

There are a ton of great movies out there.

Never said there wasn't but 20 years ago I could of went to a theatre and said fuck it, one of these ten will be good, nowadays you simply lack these options.

The top ten is simply a condensed version of a much larger trend.

You can't pretend with the movies listed that there wasn't a vast difference in how the big studio's operate.

As I said this isn't about art/indie films this is about the popcorn films.

[daddy8ball]

what the hell are you talking about?  "anything new and novel will make money" LOL weren't you just talking about "tested audiences"?  what's the point of banking on a "sure thing" if "anything new and novel will make money"?

Are the studios barred from taking multiple approaches? (Answer: no) However, the reason you see so many remakes, reboots, and adaptions is that the audience is established. If a studio can make money from a NON-ESTABLISHED audience with unknown actors, limited budget, etc. They will. Paranoral Activity is an example. Which brings another point. The best scripts an aspiring screenwriter can write are horror and romantic comedy. Low budget, possible huge payoff.

are great directors, actors, makeup artists, wardrobe people, computer artists, -- you know, the people who actually MAKE the movies -- incapable of thinking anything other than "HOW CAN I MAKE THE MOST MONEY???" every waking second?

They make the movie. But somebody pays them. The people who pay, call the shots.

it seems like you, and practically everyone else here, wants to portray the movie industry as some soulless money gobbling machine, as if people are purposefully trying to make bad movies in order to make the most money possible.  the reality is, people try to make the BEST movie possible WHILE STILL BEING PROFITABLE.  it's not that complicated.

It's a business. Businesses exist to make money.

[Stark]

Says a guy with a screenshot of Prometheus for his avatar.

[The True Adonis]

He really has earned the title of moron.  It would be best if he left this thread altogether at this point.

[cephissus]

They make the movie. But somebody pays them. The people who pay, call the shots.

"call the shots"?  what shots are those?  certainly not every shot, or else who needs the directors, actors, etc.?  and who makes the shots the execs don't call?  maybe the people who love to make movies, who try to make the best movies possible?

businesses exist because people make them.  money is one reason, but there are others.

[Emmortal]

Movies exist for one reason: To make money.

They don't exist to illustrate great writing. Or to further the art of film making. (I'm talking about big budget films here.)

Making a movie costs many millions of dollars. Into the hundreds of millions these days.

They will make what they think the people will buy.

That's why you have sequels, remakes, and reboots. The audience has been proven and they can bank on it.

There are PLENTY of GREAT movies out there that you will NEVER see just because they will never get funded. I dabbled in screenwriting for a number of years and tried to sell movies to Hollywood.  I've read a LOT of screenplays that are better than 99.999% of the shit you see in the movies that will never see the light of day. Sad, really.

There's a few exceptions, any Terrence Malick flick (Tree of Life, The Thin Red Line were incredible) and a few other guys who play by their own rules, making "film" and not "movies" namely The Coen Brothers, Darren Aronofsky, Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, Terry Gilliam, Paul Thomas Anderson etc.

[MikMaq]

He really has earned the title of moron.  It would be best if he left this thread altogether at this point.

Shut the fuck up troll, your side tracking a solid fucking argument and you know it.

Whether or not you personally would rather see cars 2 versus a few good men or not is irrelevant. You at least have to admit there is a drastic way in how the top pop corn films are made.  

I'm not mad that the studio's have resorted to this to make money, I'm simply mad that I'm expected to watch childrens movies if I wanna go to a fucking theatre.

If mcdonalds served only happy meals, I'd complain too.

[daddy8ball]

Movies exist for one reason: To make money.

They don't exist to illustrate great writing. Or to further the art of film making. (I'm talking about big budget films here.)

Making a movie costs many millions of dollars. Into the hundreds of millions these days.

They will make what they think the people will buy.

That's why you have sequels, remakes, and reboots. The audience has been proven and they can bank on it.

There are PLENTY of GREAT movies out there that you will NEVER see just because they will never get funded. I dabbled in screenwriting for a number of years and tried to sell movies to Hollywood.  I've read a LOT of screenplays that are better than 99.999% of the shit you see in the movies that will never see the light of day. Sad, really.

My original post above. I was talking about big budget films from major studios. If there was a nuclear holocaust tomorrow and people were eating corpses, movies would still be made..simply for the art. No money would be made, but the films would be produced.

[Emmortal]

Why are you using ticket sales as your measuring stick for the content (quality) of a movie?

The Shawshank Redemption did very poorly at the box office and is considered by many to be in the top 5 films of all time.

[Palpatine Q]

There's a few exceptions, any Terrence Malick flick (Tree of Life, The Thin Red Line were incredible) and a few other guys who play by their own rules, making "film" and not "movies" namely The Coen Brothers, Darren Aronofsky, Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, Terry Gilliam, Paul Thomas Anderson etc.

Thin red line was great. Tree of Life is on my "recently downloaded, going to watch" list. But that pocahantas film he made was fucking brutal

[PJim]

As TA said, there are plenty of great flicks out there, absolutely tonnes.
 My favourites do tend to be older and happen to be mostly Kubrick's work. This is mainly because he knew how to shoot films perfectly from a technical point of view and I get pretty pissed off on a daily basis that we couldn't get any more out of him before he died.

[cephissus]

There's a few exceptions, any Terrence Malick flick (Tree of Life, The Thin Red Line were incredible) and a few other guys who play by their own rules, making "film" and not "movies" namely The Coen Brothers, Darren Aronofsky, Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, Terry Gilliam, Paul Thomas Anderson etc.

this kind of thinking is dumb as well.

Tree of Life was mediocre at best.  The rest have many great movies between them, but guess what... many of them are popular, and made a lot of money.  Many of them share lots of traits with very popular "movies".  Many of these directors have directed "mere movies".  For example, what about Scorcese's Shutter Island distinguishes it as a "film"?  Is it just a "movie"?  It has a lot more in common with your average "genre flick" than a "real film" like Goodfellas, for example.  So does it suck?

Nope.

[MikMaq]

As TA said, there are plenty of great flicks out there, absolutely tonnes.
 My favourites do tend to be older and happen to be mostly Kubrick's work. This is mainly because he knew how to shoot films perfectly from a technical point of view and I get pretty pissed off on a daily basis that we couldn't get any more out of him before he died.

At what point was there a debate about good films being out there. As I alluded to from the start this isn't about fucking art films existing, in fact I'd say it's much better in the post miramax era.

My point was specifically about the films you can actually see at your local theater. The ones that anyone can watch.

I explained a trend that is backed up by statistical evidence, and the thread was sidetracked.

[cephissus]

My original post above. I was talking about big budget films from major studios. If there was a nuclear holocaust tomorrow and people were eating corpses, movies would still be made..simply for the art. No money would be made, but the films would be produced.

Again, were Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Star Wars, etc. not great movies that "furthered the art of filmmaking"?

"But but but, the POINT was to make money!"  Maybe from the perspective of some of those involved.  What about the rest of the staff?  Are you saying there's some fundamental difference between how George Lucas felt about his movies and, say Gasper Noe does about his own films?

Do no one's intentions count for anything except the jew writing the checks?

[daddy8ball]

At what point was there a debate about good films being out there. As I alluded to from the start this isn't about fucking art films existing, in fact I'd say it's much better in the post miramax era.

My point was specifically about the films you can actually see at your local theater. The ones that anyone can watch.

I explained a trend that is backed up by statistical evidence, and the thread was sidetracked.

 

[daddy8ball]

Again, were Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Star Wars, etc. not great movies that "furthered the art of filmmaking"?

"But but but, the POINT was to make money!"  Maybe from the perspective of some of those involved.  What about the rest of the staff?  Are you saying there's some fundamental difference between how George Lucas felt about his movies and, say Gasper Noe does about his own films?

The point was EXACTLY to make money. It's not a charity. Is this something you don't understand?

[PJim]

At what point was there a debate about good films being out there. As I alluded to from the start this isn't about fucking art films existing, in fact I'd say it's much better in the post miramax era.

My point was specifically about the films you can actually see at your local theater. The ones that anyone can watch.

I explained a trend that is backed up by statistical evidence, and the thread was sidetracked.

I was making a general observation on the trend of the thread tbh old chap.

[MikMaq]

I was making a general observation on the trend of the thread tbh old chap.

I'm not directing that comment directly at you, more pissed off at TA, for derailing the thread.

[cephissus]

The point was EXACTLY to make money. It's not a charity. Is this something you don't understand?

WHOSE POINT?  What is a "point"?  Do "points" grow on trees?  No, points are ideas, held by PEOPLE.  So, for whom was it THE POINT that the movie made the most money possible, to the exclusion of everything else?

The "exec" of course.  No one is arguing that.  But execs don't dictate movies down to the last detail, or even anything close to that.  The battles between "execs" and "creatives" are well known and publicized.  These fights happen because, from the perspective of the "execs" and the perspective of the "creatives," the POINT of the making the movie is often somewhat DIFFERENT.  And because, ultimately, both of these groups are involved in making the movie, it's only sensible to say the POINT of making the movie is not PURELY for profit.  Anyone who attempts to analyze them on this premise will simply be WROOOOONG.

Like I said, it's not that complicated.

[daddy8ball]

WHOSE POINT?  What is a "point"?  Do "points" grow on trees?  No, points are ideas, held by PEOPLE.  So, for whom was it THE POINT that the movie made the most money possible, to the exclusion of everything else?

The "exec" of course.  No one is arguing that.  But execs don't dictate movies down to the last detail, or even anything close to that.  The battles between "execs" and "creatives" are well known and publicized.  These fights happen because, from the perspective of the "execs" and the perspective of the "creatives," the POINT of the making the movie is often somewhat DIFFERENT.  And because, ultimately, both of these groups are involved in making the movie, it's only sensible to say the POINT of making the movie is not PURELY for profit.  Anyone who attempts to analyze them on this premise will simply be WROOOOONG.

Like I said, it's not that complicated.

If you say so. I'm certainly not going to argue with you. You feel pretty strongly about movie production. lol

[cephissus]

Nah, just bored at "work" and would rather argue than study for finals.  No hard feelings!

[Marty Champions]

I liked that movie zardos with sean connery back in the day

[Kwon_2]

I liked that movie zardos with sean connery back in the day

Yes, his outfit was very good for accentuating the muscledefinition.

[bebop396]