The PT's influence on today's movies — Page 2

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

The thought of the PT being "influential" is depressing indeed.

What about Ang Lee's Hulk? Somethingawful says it has actually influenced more superhero films than you think. Remember when we all though the Matrix was going to influence movies for decades to come? In the long run it was the Phantom Menace that big budget fis are following these days: too much CGI and not any substance.

Anchorhead said:

If it's strictly the style over substance trend, Independence Day, Armageddon, and the Matrix trilogy are every bit as responsible.

But these were original properties; modern style over substance films would be based on some comic book superhero, a remake of a forgotten 80s/early 90s movie, or a young adult novel series. Plus, they weren't trying to make cinematic universes out of Amadgeddon or Independence Day. Even the Matrix was just your average movie trilogy in the vein of Back To The Future.

The Raimi Spider-Man films are perhaps the real culprit behind our modern slate of blockbusters. 

The PT's influence was minimal. It popularized digital photography (though that was inevitable) and prequels, to some extent. But they really haven't had any influence besides that. 

How common were prequels before The Phantom Menace?

It seems ever since in movies and TV we've seen tons of prequels. Not much of it being very good.

Smallville. Gotham. Enterprise. The Hobbit Trilogy. The new X-Men movies. The Thing prequel. Oz the Great and Powerful. Prometheus. Even the Alien vs. Predator movies could be considered prequels to Alien.

Out of that list I did like X-Men Days of Future Past. Not much else.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

The thought of the PT being "influential" is depressing indeed.

 Well this should lift your spirits: it wasn't and isn't.

It was universally reviled and is now forgotten.

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.

Remember, the films that could have been the Alien, Star Wars, or Terminator of the 2010s have been aggressively stifled by the studio system. The best films being made today are from filmmakers who were working in the 80s and 90s at the latest. Once those directors leave the scene, cinema will be dead within 20 years. It's not that the public always chooses the safe and familiar on instinct, it's because the safe and familiar have been the only options for decades. Hollywood doesn't want another Heaven's Gate, and are willing to destroy the art form forever.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Darth Id said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

The thought of the PT being "influential" is depressing indeed.

Well this should lift your spirits: it wasn't and isn't.

It was universally reviled and is now forgotten.

 AH, good!  What a relief - that was a close one.

No, every Prequel got mixed reviews at release and only after a few months or years did they become universally reviled. But yes, no one remembers them besides being bad movies.

The problem: studio executives don't live in the real world, and can't realize that the prequels are awful and no one wants more of them. All they see is the $450 million Episode I made.

I blame the Alpha Draconians; they control the Illuminati and the Illuminati controls the film and music industries. The result is chaos -- pure, undiluted chaos.

Of course, I've found the perfect escape route:

http://img.docstoccdn.com/thumb/orig/98787422.png

Philosophers throughout infinity and eternity have been asking that question since existence began.

This is the closest anyone's ever gotten to finding an answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOavf3_e6Ac

It influenced J.J. so he would have sets built along the CGI stuff so the actors don't feel like morons.

What about Boyhood? If you think about it, the similarities are quite eerie:

1. Both take place over a twelve year period, with the main character growing up from a annoying little kid to whiny teenager.

2. They both have flat cinematography and badly written dialogue (true dat)

3. Both are overlong with very little happening within the movie.

4. Both have massive hype focused on one gimmick (12 year shooting period, entire film done in CGI)

5. Side characters are more interesting than main character

This is officially the dumbest thread ever.

Jar Jar Binks, as much as we hate him, was still the first entirely CGI character in film history. it doesn't mean this was a good innovation, but it one that happened anyways.

On a side note: if you factor out the 12 years gimmick, is Boyhood as great as moat critics say it is?

Danfun128 said:

Don't you mean first entirely CGI character in a live action movie?

 Yes, thank you.

Another thought: Michael Bay is more powerful and influential today than he was 15 years ago. If he lives to be 90, there could be several more decades in his reign of cinematic terror. I'm horrified that in 2050 he will be considered our country's greatest living director, in spite of destroying more IP's to resemble his Transformer movies.