PDA

View Full Version : Where do movies go wrong?


omega sentry
05-05-2014, 01:01 PM
To be honest....horrible movies could be avoided all together.

Where do they go wrong? do they start from script and some one high on cocaine goes you got your self a movie....nice coke.

Is it the directors fault for not seeing his own movie ?

surely the director should be able to see his own plot wholes?

Is it at editing.....where the gut the movie just so it is a certain length?

Does the director not see the edited movie after?

Is it due date pressure that makes them go...oh well....

Is it the money?


I mean they could spend a little more time in covering the wholes because in the end it will make them more money or am I wrong?


Lastly is it the audience?


Which reminds me, I have not idea why last action hero didn't do so well.

Lets be honest that movie was far better than a lot of crap they put out there that is successful.

It was a movie with intentional movie clichés and plot wholes....making fun of the fact that movies are retarded like that...it was honest about the craptacular movie that is a big hit.....even when he goes to the real world it was honest...movies are dumb, with cliché, with loop wholes, the actors are and directors are idiots and are celebrated. Jack slater was real in the real world.

Justice41
05-05-2014, 08:58 PM
The movie process is solely based on Marketing. Scripts are sent directly to marketing to see if it's viable for tie ins and ads as well as sponsors before it even gets the green light. All that Studio BS about working up to the last minute on SFX and the like is BS. Notice they always have time to create great well done well FX'd trailers for Hardees or the post office or the NBA or Soccer for these CBM's

Buckyrig
05-05-2014, 10:39 PM
Most movies suck. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8QtaLewipU&t=4m58s)

Bishop
05-05-2014, 11:21 PM
Which reminds me, I have not idea why last action hero didn't do so well.

Lets be honest that movie was far better than a lot of crap they put out there that is successful.

It was a movie with intentional movie clichés and plot wholes....making fun of the fact that movies are retarded like that...it was honest about the craptacular movie that is a big hit.....even when he goes to the real world it was honest...movies are dumb, with cliché, with loop wholes, the actors are and directors are idiots and are celebrated. Jack slater was real in the real world.
I would argue that it was due to them marketing it as an Arnie action flick, but delivered a Arnie kids movie that had some action in it. The audience felt duped. At least, I did.

Justice41
05-06-2014, 12:12 AM
I would argue that it was due to them marketing it as an Arnie action flick, but delivered a Arnie kids movie that had some action in it. The audience felt duped. At least, I did.

plus you basically had a movie calling it's audience a buncha idiots.

cheeseisgood1918
05-06-2014, 10:27 PM
It's a lot of things, really. Roy is right in a way, it mostly has to do with money. Big budget pictures have a formula they use. Essentially, it has to do with who they cast, how much money those cast members other movies average at the box office, same thing with the director. I'm not sure what the actual formula is, but I have it on good authority that it exists, which is kind of depressing when you think of it.

Also, a great many movies you see are based on a concept from a book or other media, and then chopped up and torn apart to become a movie. This is especially true with sequals. Take Die Hard 2 for instance. That screenplay was actually adapted from a book that had nothing to do with the original movie. They took some of the concepts from the book, gutted the story and added John McClane.

There are also the financiers to factor in. The actual creators, who may be the only ones involved in the movie who actually want to see their properties done justice, often only get a token EP (executive producer) credit, which is basically a higher paid "special thanks", and they may have little to no input on the film.

Who DOES get input are the Producers, who may have no artistic vision whatsoever, but are funding the movie. Sometimes it turns out fine, but often times you get the 2 "bad" types of producer.

The first type is the crazy one, who thinks they have great ideas and thinks the new Spider Man movie could really use a comedy beat halfway through to break up the thension and drama, and this can best be accomplished by adding a break dancing polar bear. Since this joker holds the purse strings, we get a compromise with emo bangs dancing Toby McGuire.

The second kind is the producer who's been in the business for years and knows what audiences want to see, so the action film never breaks from the mold that all big budget action films fit into. And there always has to be a love interest/damsel in distress no matter whether this plot device fits into the story, because you have to put something in there for the ladies whose husband's drag them to see it. I can't blame these types of producers because they are right in many ways. They have found a formula for films that works pretty wrll, that audiences as a whole continue to go see, and we live in an age when movies can cost insane amounts of money to make, and one flop can cost a studio hundreds of millions. Producers are investors, and they need a return on that investment. It may not make for good art all the time, but for many it's not art; it's business. So you have take decisions based on good business. Now, can this crazy, outside the box, nothing like it ever film starring this complete unknown maybe become movie magic? Maybe. But I know if I cast Brad Pitt as the lead, and go with my trusty formula of intro, action beat, action beat, comedy beat, exposition etc..., I KNOW my movie will make X amount of dollars, most people will go with the safe bet, even of the movie they make is forgettable milquetoast.

I've come to realize that we really aren't going to see anything truly new and exciting from mainstream movies anymore.

I hope that answers your question, depressing as it may be.

sevans
05-08-2014, 01:05 AM
If they hire Nicolas Cage.....

Alyssa
05-09-2014, 05:50 AM
The movie process is solely based on Marketing.

Basically this. Although I s'pose you could argue that Marketing merely caters to what the majority demands, and in that case, the fault is with us.

I mean, I thought "Faces In The Crowd" was a pretty awesome movie as far as those kinda movies go. I highly recommended it to my uncle. He turned it off half-way through, said the movie was too cerebral. REALLY? Anyone who's seen that movie will know that it's really not that deep or confusing. But given that he chose to watch Star Wars The Phantom Menace instead (REALLY? SW#1??) kinda shows me that maybe thrillers in general are a bit too deep for him.

The majority wants empty, soulless, unrealistic eye-candy. Hollywood delivers. I reckon that as the generations progressively become more zombie-like, the movies are gonna get worse.

Alyssa
05-09-2014, 05:58 AM
Also, a great many movies you see are based on a concept from a book or other media, and then chopped up and torn apart to become a movie.

Ha, this reminds me of an episode of Bones (I have a mild David Boreanaz obsession, sue me). Synopsis quote from IMBD:

Picture the pyramids. Now, two agents -- a man and a woman -- charge the screen as the ancient EXPLODES behind them. We're watching a movie preview for "Bone of Contention, based on a novel by Temperance Brennan. "Action so intense ... you can feel it in your bones!" promises the narrator. Back at the Jeffersonian, Camille, Angela, Sweets and Hodgins watch the preview. They all agree that the movie looks "awesome."

Back on set, the actors prepare for a scene while Bones complains that the director has changed pretty much all the details from her book. She then meets producer Mandy, who clearly doesn't care about Bones' contention that there are "errors in the science." Nor does the director. And nor does podiatrist Doug Philmore, who have met B&B before and is working as a technical advisor on the film -- much to Bones' horror.


I've come to realize that we really aren't going to see anything truly new and exciting from mainstream movies anymore..

QFT. *passes tissue*

Lovecraft13
05-09-2014, 12:56 PM
I watched the Robocop remake last night.

Or I tried on the account of me rolling my eyes through the whole thing.

The movie was just soulless. It had some generic crime boss that didn't do anything nefarious in the movie but stockpile weapons. We were just told he was bad. Never shown (terrible storytelling technique). Detroit was too clean. Too sterile. It was probably filmed in Vancouver, like everything else. And the lead? Where did they dig up that corpse? That man had about as much charisma as a glass of water. At least the original Robocop had Nancey Allen opposite Weller. This remake had "generic detective partner #1."

This movie went wrong at the conceptual level and went downhill from there.

cheeseisgood1918
05-09-2014, 08:58 PM
I watched the Robocop remake last night.

Or I tried on the account of me rolling my eyes through the whole thing.

The movie was just soulless. It had some generic crime boss that didn't do anything nefarious in the movie but stockpile weapons. We were just told he was bad. Never shown (terrible storytelling technique). Detroit was too clean. Too sterile. It was probably filmed in Vancouver, like everything else. And the lead? Where did they dig up that corpse? That man had about as much charisma as a glass of water. At least the original Robocop had Nancey Allen opposite Weller. This remake had "generic detective partner #1."

This movie went wrong at the conceptual level and went downhill from there.

It's a good example to illustrate my point with as well. Did a franchise work at one time? Remake it! Did it work just a few years ago? Reboot it! Did it Never work (http://html5.warnerbros.com/us/darkshadows/), but it has a big name director loved it, and wants to bring it back? Good enough!

Movies are in a state of diminishing returns right now for true movie lovers, unfortunately. Luckily, there are still some indy gems out there, and sometimes they even get some much deserved attention. Nebraska was excellent, at least.

sevans
05-09-2014, 10:24 PM
I decided not to watch the Robocop remake just from the trailer.
The original had a dark, vicious side to it, matched by it's humour, and didn't see any of this in the trailer.

A good film usually has a good clear vision,narrative and style behind it. Not always one that will please the masses either.

Many good films weren't always crowd favourites (crowd as in movie execs).
Take the old film 'Princess Bride'. It took years and years before the treatment was picked up, and then they expected nothing from it.

Bishop
05-10-2014, 12:06 AM
Luckily, there are still some indy gems out there, and sometimes they even get some much deserved attention. Nebraska was excellent, at least.

I watched Blue Ruin this week. It was pretty good too. Good revenge movie.

cheeseisgood1918
05-11-2014, 12:29 AM
I watched Blue Ruin this week. It was pretty good too. Good revenge movie.

I've never heard of that until now, but I'm gonna check it out! I watched the trailer and it looks right up my ally. I love noir-ish films!