Dustin Hoffman says the cinema is at it's worst.

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by DrewHarris, Jul 6, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    I love Madonna, but she wasn't any good in "Dick Tracy" either! :D

    "Panda 3" hits next year!

    Hoffman also contributed voice acting to various "Panda" direct to video shorts. Dude makes "Kung Fu Panda Holiday" and then gets sniffy and arrogant about the state of movies today? :wtf:
     
  2. progrocker71

    progrocker71 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Hollywood keeps making endless sequels, reboots and comic book films for a very simple reason....they make money, LOTS of money. That means happy shareholders.

    The only way this will change is if all of a sudden those films stop making money, then and only then will they look at other, more inherently risky options (like original ideas). It it ain't broke...
     
  3. Are you kidding? The US is the center more than ever to the point where many foreign actors and others are protesting the overwhelming stipulation of having the latest Hollywood CG fest in regional theaters instead of their local films.

    Not only that but have you noticed the trend of all these "nameless" Asian actors without any real speaking roles that pop up for a few seconds in US films lately? Those are fantastic A-list actors in their respective countries given crappy token roles in films to get foreign audience to support Hollywood films.

    Absolute bull-crap.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2015
  4. No, but better than Shanghai Surprise, Desperately Seeking Susan, et al. And in DT they gave her a character that matched her acting ability (The Blank) :D.
     
    Pete Puma likes this.
  5. You should've bolded the names of the directors. Then your statement would be correct.
     
  6. progrocker71

    progrocker71 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Bull-crap it may be, but it's very profitable bull-crap, so don't expect it to change anytime in the near future. Remember, Hollywood doesn't exist to create art, it exists to make money.
     
    wayneklein likes this.
  7. ganma

    ganma Senior Member

    Location:
    Earth
    Sequels have always been around ... how many Friday the 13ths were there? But I agree Superheroes are becoming mighty tedious. Superhero movies are the new Western. Of course the industry was a lot different back in the 30s ~ 50s before TV came along, but really Hollywood must have made about a billion trash westerns between 1930 and 1970.
     
    wayneklein likes this.
  8. No, it's not and
    Et me explain why:

    I see a lot more foreign films in the U.S. than in years pas thst might have been confined to small theaters before. As the theater chains have gobbled up all the market, there was less opportunity to see films that weren't build here or overseas for this market. There are more films getting notice, general releases on DVD, streaming models and financed than ever before.

    That doesn't mean that Hollywood doesn still dominate the market.

    You'll note I didn't say anything about them playing in theaters. I noted that there is more available in previous years.

    I also didn't say anything about Foreign theaters (how would I know I live in the U.S.?) but exposure of more projects than before to a broader audience.

    I can't do anything about Hollywood's attempt,to pander to the Asian market place but, given that some of these actors may not speak English well or would be suitable to be cast (for whatever reason), I can understand The U.S. Film industry doing what they are doing by niche marketing films based on country (for example, "Transformers" and the Chinese market place) . Do many of these actors come here? Sure--better paycheck, more offers of work, broader audience, etc.

    Those actors take the roles for the paycheck and if it is a crappy role, well, they want to work.

    Again, thst really has nothing to do with the explosion of smaller indie films, foreign films that never would have seen releae before.

    I can speak a bit to the U.S. Marketplace though--while these films appear to come out of one country they are, in fact, financed by more than one company and a multi-national corporation which doesn't necessarily have ties per se to the U.S. Market beyond the studio releasing it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2015
  9. progrocker71

    progrocker71 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    When you film in another country you generally have to cast a certain percentage of local actors. So, in Age Of Ultron you've got some South Korean actors in the sequences that were filmed in Seoul, in the last Transformers film you have some Chinese actors cast in the Hong Kong sequences. This is not a new development, this has been the case as long as I remember.
     
  10. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    People act like sequels are a modern phenomenon, but that ignores the fact they've existed virtually as long as Hollywood has existed.

    Just look at how many "franchises" started in the 1930s:

    Thin Man
    Sherlock Holmes
    Various Universal Monsters

    And probably a skillion I can't think of right now.

    Two of the most popular/well-regarded movies of the 1930s weren't "original", either. Both "Gone with the Wind" and "Wizard of Oz" adapted books - and "Oz" wasn't even the first movie version!
     
  11. progrocker71

    progrocker71 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Not to mention that many 1930s films were just talkie remakes of films that had been made the decade before as silents.
     
  12. Haristar

    Haristar Apollo C. Vermouth

    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Ok he may have decent points, but a famous person above the age of 45 says that the medium they are famous for has gotten worse since they were younger?

    Yawn.
     
  13. SgtPepper1983

    SgtPepper1983 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    Kinda off-topic but didn't Sean Connery lay his career to rest after the horrible experience he had on the set of League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen? I'd call that movie a prototype of those modern Hollywood blockbusters.
    Graham Linehan, the great Irish comedy writer, recently said about computer games that while the technology is getting better and better, the storytelling and general cleverness is taking a nose dive. His theory was that modern game creators don't read books anymore and they're realm of imagination is based on other games so the industry is kind of stuck in itself, which is never very good. Of course it's a generalization, but I think a similar point could be made about modern blockbuster movies.
     
    Myke likes this.
  14. mpayan

    mpayan A Tad Rolled Off

    I liked the League Of Extrodinary Gentlemen.
     
  15. If you mean America isn't the center of attention as much any more, I still call bull. Not only are most distribution models bent heavily to conform to Hollywood needs, but foreign markets (most notably China) are focusing all their efforts to make more Hollywood styled movie complete with their (even worse) version of CG. And furthermore they've been casting Western actors in their films (Christian Bale, Time Robbins, that guy from the Pianist & King Kong- I forgot his name, John Cusack, etc.) in order to give their local films more "gravitas". It used to be that in Asia, if they wanted cross-over appeal they'd hire actors from other Asian countries and Europe. They hardly every had the will or clout to have A-list Hollywood actors in their films. Additionally, many foreign films are cleverly marketed in the West as not being foreign at all. Hollywood is the center all film markets more so than ever.

    As for the idea of more things being released I would have to see some hard numbers on that. The only thing that supports this is maybe streaming allows easier advertising for foreign movies, but in my opinion you probably just never noticed foreign releases before. Whether or not they would've seen the light of day is another story. They were there. US companies had foreign divisions to release these films. And even in the digital age distribution contracts still have to be made.

    EDIT: I'm guessing you meant for the viewer America is the epicenter of film any more. Which I guess would be correct-theoretically. But my assessment still stands and, ironically, Hollywood's influence has a negates much of the local flavor on the many foreign films you now have access to.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2015
    wayneklein likes this.
  16. bopdd

    bopdd Senior Member

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    But isn't the discussion at hand really more about the quality of films as provocative works of art and how their artistic integrity is being compromised by a formula-driven, risk-averse environment that relies on virtually all studio movies to be as safe and predictable as possible in order to suck the most dollars out of the most wallets? Furthermore, no one is saying this is the first time such a thing has happened--all they're saying is that it's happening now more than ever and that the reliance on a franchise model has basically taken over entire spectrum, whereas in the past it was part of a spectrum that still left room for mid-range movies that took actual risks and challenged the notions of what was possible within the medium. What difference does it make that they made sequels or adapted books in the past if the movies that resulted pushed the medium forward and provoked actual discussion? Sure, there was Jaws 2 but there was Godfather 2 as well. Don't get me wrong. There have been some great movies from the past decade without a doubt, but the climate itself is kind of sterile and it's probably more common these days to find a "fanboy" than it is a "film buff" because the medium is lacking artistic merit. When seasoned actors and writers are looking to truly challenge themselves, they nowadays appear just as ready to turn toward TV as they would film, when in the past a career on TV was always sort of looked upon as a step down from a career in film.
     
    Ghostworld likes this.
  17. bopdd

    bopdd Senior Member

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    If by richer, you mean more films are being made from more countries, then yes. But there have always been foreign films of exceptional quality and I'm not sure I buy that there are more top movies being made internationally now than ever before. Maybe countries like Korea and Iran are celebrating a peak as far as cinematic output, but is it such a peak that it topples the French New Wave or the slew of masterpieces coming out of Italy between the 40s and 70s, etc?

    But I think that's exactly the problem people like Hoffman have with modern American studio films. The story is virtually the same every time and half the time the story and the acting takes a backseat to the spectacle. It's like these movies are being made to cater strictly to the people who came out in droves for Star Wars and everyone else can have their art-house films made on shoestring budgets. It's the fanboys who "lose themselves" time and again in the CGI and they seem to care less about the nuances that made classic cinema such an achievement in decades like the 70s or even the 90s. As a result, more and more crap gets made and the audience complains but goes to see it anyway.

    Definitely. TV (primarily cable) and services like Netflix have filled the void and there is definitely as much top quality storytelling out there as there has ever been--it's just appearing less and less on the big screen with a few exceptions every year. But honestly, when was the last time a truly important film came out? The kind of movie that challenged the tenants of the medium itself and reminded us that film is probably the most effective artistic statement humans can make when accomplished with an earnest degree of passion and authenticity?
     
    Ghostworld likes this.
  18. progrocker71

    progrocker71 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    If you look at the film landscape of the 80s it's really not that much different than what you have right now. Many popcorn movies, raunchy comedies, low budget horror films, quickly produced sequels, remakes (think of Invaders From Mars, The Blob), sci-fi action/adventure, testosterone-fueled macho action films, etc. Prestige pictures usually held toward the end of the year so they will be remembered come award season.

    It's basically the same exact scenario now. The primary difference is there are very few mid-budget films coming from the major studios (unless they fall into profitable genres like comedies or horror films), those films tend to be made by independent studios at this point. The studios really don't seem interested in spending $30 million on a movie with the hopes of making $70 to $100 million at the box office. They want to spend $200 million and make 1.5 billion with a single film.
     
    SandAndGlass, bopdd and wayneklein like this.
  19. Precisely my meaning however, having said that, there is certainly the potential for far more films of exceptional quality just as there are films of crap. As far as films from the 40'-70's and how the current films compare? It's not a competition and we're dealing with a different sort of audience today.

    As far as the films bring made on a shoe string budget, many of them didn't need the massive budget to begin with unless you want to pad the pockets of those who make them.

    Hey, I like good CGI as much as the next movie buff as well as a great action movie but neither one replaces good drama, writing, acting and direction. The big issue with many big budget films is that they are made even more by committee than before without true input from the more creative people on the team and there's s real lack of trust that turned the corner in the late 70's/early 80's. The same creative folks thst helped create many masterpieces also contributed to its downfall.
     
    bopdd likes this.
  20. I think the thought process is that mid level films are more of a risk with less potential for a big pay off.
     
  21. ganma

    ganma Senior Member

    Location:
    Earth
    In Japan, however, the trend has been steering in the opposite direction. When I came here in the '90s you couldn't stop hearing about Brad Pitt and Leonardo Dicaprio, now you're average Japanese would be hard pressed to name a recent Hollywood star. Japanese have become bored with blockbuster CGI movies (exceptions being big Disney movies) and instead are flocking to see homegrown films. I don't think Japanese movies are high quality in general as they tend to be over sentimental and overacted, but that's what Japanese like ... I think it must be the Kabuki culture which brings with it a predisposition for 'theatrics' over 'acting'.
    On another note, the trend in popularity away from American (and British) pop has been even more pronounced over the past 15 years. Popular music is almost 100% local acts now, whereas 30 years ago it was close to 70% western acts.
     
    SandAndGlass likes this.
  22. Maybe that's a good sign and eventually we'll see a return to more sensible budgeted films. Variety keeps it interesting as much as I like the Marvel films, too much of anything is a bad thing given and it also dilutes the quality of the good films they make whe other bad films are made.
     
    Vidiot likes this.
  23. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    I think the concept of the Hollywood Blockbuster goes back a lot further than that. Read the book George Lucas' Blockbusting: A Decade-by-Decade Survey of Timeless Movies, which goes into great detail about this stuff. I would point to Jaws as the first movie that kind of stunned Hollywood into realizing there was a summer market for films, and also that it was possible to come up with an (almost) sure-fire formula to make a movie that grossed over $100M.

    There have always been huge "event" films, going back to Gone with the Wind and Ben Hur and 2001 and many more, but all of those were not about huge explosions and effects and stuff like that. It was more about telling stories, creating great characters, and at least aspiring towards art. I do like the Marvel films, but for every decent Marvel comic-book movie there's a half-dozen others that are utter crap. And I think we need a variety of different movies in theaters -- not all comic-book tentpoles and action films.
     
  24. SgtPepper1983

    SgtPepper1983 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    ^^You are, of course, right. But Extraordinary Gentlemen was one of the first big CGI blockbusters where I thought how bad it all looked and how charmless it felt, and I realized CGI must be getting cheap.
     
    wayneklein likes this.
  25. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    Greats posts. I enjoyed reading them.

    As to this question, man, that's a hard one. "Schindler's List?"
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine