Bingowings said:
imperialscum said:
I make these observations:
1. If majority liked story-driven and character-driven films, the Hollywood would surely make them. The studios probe the audience and when they get a feedback on what people dig the most they start making just that.
2. They surely aren't making CGI action driven films because that would be cheaper compared to making a story/character driven films, as so many falsely assume around here. Making all the fancy CGI scenes costs lightyears more than just picking a story/character-focused screenplay, or adopt one of the countless great books out there. Many young writers are producing countless of screenplays every year. The studios pick what people like and what sells best in the end.
3. If Lucas/PT is guilty of anything, it is merely discovering what majority of people currently like the most.
1.I doubt it.
2.The reason why we get these brand fixated painted by numbers movies is because business managers are risk adverse.
If studios are going to make an expensive film about AI run amok (for one example) it's easier to stick the words Terminator or Galactica on the poster than take a risk with something new (risks can be taken but they tend to be lower budget). With those brands comes a level of audience expectation. When the plot to kill John Conner and replace him with a sympathetic cyborg was leaked before the release of Terminator Salvation, the resulting fandemonium made the studio flinch and rework the film to death.
Potentially astonishing sequels like Alien 3 were screwed up by studio anxiety about a pricey brand with a history of success. That also led to a screwy prequel or three.
3.I concede that generally speaking audiences are a bit like patrons at a restaurant. Some people know their way around the menu, some people are willing to take a stab at something new but most people will settle for something they know. And in this respect the marketing bots are probably on the right track.
Well I agree with the point that people stick to what they know and what they like. But that point is viable in "using established franchise vs making new one" argument.
However, I was mainly trying to point out that the notion that Hollywood studios go for CGI-action focused film because they are cheaper than story/character focused films is completely wrong. It is completely opposite.
That leads to the second point I was trying to make. Apparently majority of audience prefers CGI-action focused films, otherwise studios would not invest so much money into their production and would rather make less-expensive story/character focused films instead.
And I must also note that this does not mean that story/character focused films are not being produced. They are but they just don't seem to attract many people.
真実
generalfrevious said:
On a side note: if you factor out the 12 years gimmick, is Boyhood as great as moat critics say it is?
Boyhood is a great film whether you decided to not like it because of one asshole's stupid review or not. And the 12 years concept is not a gimmick, and is, in fact, crucial to the experience of the film.
But I don't see how Boyhood has anything to do with Star Wars (well, besides the two scenes where they talk about Star Wars).
It might be splitting hairs, but Young Sherlock Holmes is usually credited as having the first fully CGI character in a live action film, brief as this scene was.
This scene broke new ground in 1985. And it was done by Pixar when they were still part of Lucasfilm.
Where were you in '77?
DominicCobb said:
generalfrevious said:
On a side note: if you factor out the 12 years gimmick, is Boyhood as great as moat critics say it is?
Boyhood is a great film whether you decided to not like it because of one asshole's stupid review or not. And the 12 years concept is not a gimmick, and is, in fact, crucial to the experience of the film.
But I don't see how Boyhood has anything to do with Star Wars (well, besides the two scenes where they talk about Star Wars).
There were rumors going around in the 90's that Stanley Kubrick was secretly filming a young actor as he grew up for what eventually became A.I., so it's not a new idea.
Where were you in '77?
SilverWook said:
DominicCobb said:
generalfrevious said:
On a side note: if you factor out the 12 years gimmick, is Boyhood as great as moat critics say it is?
Boyhood is a great film whether you decided to not like it because of one asshole's stupid review or not. And the 12 years concept is not a gimmick, and is, in fact, crucial to the experience of the film.
But I don't see how Boyhood has anything to do with Star Wars (well, besides the two scenes where they talk about Star Wars).
There were rumors going around in the 90's that Stanley Kubrick was secretly filming a young actor as he grew up for what eventually became A.I., so it's not a new idea.
If a film has no interesting characters and/or poorly written dialogue, it cannot be a good film. Honestly, has anyone heard words like "welcome to the suck", "true dat", or "kewl" when you were growing up as a kid? Or when anyone was a high school/college student, did anyone have pretentious discussions about robots or the "moment seizing you"?
Yes.
DominicCobb said:
Yes.
Can you elaborate for me On your yes?
No, but I did hear "tubular", "totally", "grody to the max!", and even "gag me with a spoon!" back in the day. ;)
Where were you in '77?
generalfrevious said:
DominicCobb said:
Yes.
Can you elaborate for me On your yes?
I am actually the same age as the guy in Boyhood and yes I found the film to be very accurate in its depiction of youth for those 12 years.
generalfrevious said:
If a film has no interesting characters and/or poorly written dialogue, it cannot be a good film. Honestly, has anyone heard words like "welcome to the suck", "true dat", or "kewl" when you were growing up as a kid? Or when anyone was a high school/college student, did anyone have pretentious discussions about robots or the "moment seizing you"?
Sooooo....are you suggesting that the filmmakers actually went back in time 12 years and were thereby able to transplant anachronistic slang into the entire past of this kid, or wat?
Darth Id said:
generalfrevious said:
If a film has no interesting characters and/or poorly written dialogue, it cannot be a good film. Honestly, has anyone heard words like "welcome to the suck", "true dat", or "kewl" when you were growing up as a kid? Or when anyone was a high school/college student, did anyone have pretentious discussions about robots or the "moment seizing you"?
Sooooo....are you suggesting that the filmmakers actually went back in time 12 years and were thereby able to transplant anachronistic slang into the entire past of this kid, or wat?
Bad dialogue is still bad dialogue.
generalfrevious said:
Jar Jar Binks, as much as we hate him, was still the first entirely CGI character in film history.
MCP would like a word with you.
In case you haven't noticed, most dialogue in real life isn't actually all that "well-written" . . .
DominicCobb said:
This is officially the dumbest thread ever.
The official 4k transfer thread would like a word with you.
Are you sure the MCP was CGI? I was under the impression that Tron, ironically, had very little CG in it
A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em
TV's Frink said:
generalfrevious said:
Jar Jar Binks, as much as we hate him, was still the first entirely CGI character in film history.
MCP would like a word with you.
Again, it's down to splitting hairs. The MCP doesn't walk around or physically interact with live actors. Tron doesn't get enough credit for blazing the trail it did though.
Where were you in '77?
SilverWook said:
TV's Frink said:
generalfrevious said:
Jar Jar Binks, as much as we hate him, was still the first entirely CGI character in film history.
MCP would like a word with you.
Again, it's down to splitting hairs. The MCP doesn't walk around or physically interact with live actors. Tron doesn't get enough credit for blazing the trail it did though.
Thinking about it, MCP wasn't designed to sell merchandise first and be an actual character second.
bkev said:
Are you sure the MCP was CGI? I was under the impression that Tron, ironically, had very little CG in it
IIRC, Tron has nearly 20 minutes of CGI in it. The rest is traditional matte paintings, and some of the most labor intensive backlit hand drawn animation ever done for a film.
The MCP was all CGI, except for right before he derezzed. ;)
The scenes where he's wrapped around Sark on the carrier are a series of CGI generated frames that were used like animation cels to make him speak.
Where were you in '77?
Well that joke got a lot of reaction...
DominicCobb said:
generalfrevious said:
DominicCobb said:
Yes.
Can you elaborate for me On your yes?
I am actually the same age as the guy in Boyhood and yes I found the film to be very accurate in its depiction of youth for those 12 years.
I have to disagree on that one. Kids portrayed in movies taking place decades before my time (Such as Stand By Me for kids and Heathers for teens) felt more accurate to what I remember those ages acting like than the Boyhood kids did. In those older movies they say dated things, but they still feel and act like kids and teens. I'm not saying Boyhood is not a good movie or anything, but I definitely thought the kids acted how out of touch adults would imagine they act.
The Person in Question
Speaking of the PT's influence on today's movies, James Berardinelli has a couple of relevant points in his review of Jupiter Ascending:
Visually, Jupiter Ascending excels, although those with an aversion to CGI may be offended. A close cousin to the special effects excesses of George Lucas in the Star Wars prequels, Jupiter Ascending makes sure that its entire budget ends up on display.
Jupiter Ascending is episodic and none of the episodes are developed as fully as they should be. The sense of incompleteness increases as the movie unspools. The love story between Jupiter and Caine is rushed, giving the Padme/Anakin affair in Attack of the Clones a run for its money as the least convincing sci-fi screen romance in recent memory.
Maybe we should be asking if the PT's influence on today's movies is ever a good thing...
Thinking about it some more though, Guardians of the Galaxy could also be accused of CGI excess, pointing out that the cure for that is good writing, direction, and acting.
It really is not a fair comparison since Lucas had three films for exposition, and Jupiter Ascending is the first of a trilogy with the exposition to be added later.
Its the same thing they did with the Matrix and we all know how that turned out II and III sucked but made tons of money.
I would not be surprised if the second and third films never happen and it fails like Cloud Atlas or Speed Racer.
Based on the trailer i said this is the next John Carter it looks so expensive the sequels will probably never be made.
Even with Sean Bean i probably won't go see it. It looks like shit. Star wars looks more promising. Both feature a young heroine but i think i would rather see Daisy Ridley than the girl from the seventies show as the hero.
Both feature a tired cliche concept of a chosen one who will save the universe/galaxy i still would prefer force awakens.
I mean the last film the Wachowski's made i liked was the first Matrix the so called low budget one off, the sequels are far more like the star wars prequels by way of comparison.
Even if the chosen one motif is overused and cliche you forgive it if you like the movie, like the original star wars trilogy, the matrix or the lord of the rings trilogy. Still i think more sci fi films with regular folks working together that are not demi gods or superheroes should be made, but would they make money?
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
skyjedi2005 said:
Even with Sean Bean i probably won't go see it. It looks like shit. Star wars looks more promising. Both feature a young heroine but i think i would rather see Daisy Ridley than the girl from the seventies show as the hero.
Ah, Mila Kunis ... Her annoying voice has made it impossible for me to even entertain the thought of watching her in a serious role.
Another Jupiter Ascending review, another prequel trilogy comparison.
So the PT's influence is that it provides a measure of how an attempted franchise film can fail. I'm waiting for the fanedits of Jupiter Ascending:
DuracellEnergizer said:
skyjedi2005 said:
Even with Sean Bean i probably won't go see it. It looks like shit. Star wars looks more promising. Both feature a young heroine but i think i would rather see Daisy Ridley than the girl from the seventies show as the hero.
Ah, Mila Kunis ... Her annoying voice has made it impossible for me to even entertain the thought of watching her in a serious role.
At least she isn't Natalie Portman.