82 réponses à ce sujet

[Elastic Otter]

@ DJ: Well, it's a silver lining, at least. Not the "Burton Stamp," but the fact that he makes your guts twist a bit with each feeling.  He may overuse the device, but it's not something that you see everyone else using.

And there's Harry Belefonte. That, in itself, is redeeming.

Modifié par Elastic Otter, 04 mai 2010 - 02:19 .

[Elastic Otter]

I agree that reinventing yourself from time to time is a good thing. We've got enough cookie-cutters out there.  I'm just playing the foil.

Modifié par Elastic Otter, 04 mai 2010 - 02:25 .

[TallonRoe]

Elastic Otter wrote...

And there's Harry Belefonte. That, in itself, is redeeming.

Oh thank goodness, I thought I was the only one who still liked listening to him...

[uberdowzen]

I think it's an interesting point that people think that Burton is overusing his style (I definitly agree with this, I thought Alice in Wonderland was just the Lord of the Rings with a coat of weird) but you could also say the same about a lot of other directors. Michael Bay's movies, for instance, are all filmed in pretty much the same way (e.g. badly, nah just kidding) and yet no one seems to complain about that. I think directors need to learn to step out of their comfort zones.

[Krigwin]

Hollywood hasn't changed. The movie industry, like... well, pretty much every industry since the dawn of trade, has always been full of businessmen out to make a tidy profit by analyzing what works and shoveling it out with no concern for innovation or quality. That's nothing new. People were complaining about Hollywood no longer being new and original 10 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 30 years ago, probably stretching all the way back to the 60s. There are always going to be detractors, and obviously every single one of those people thought they were right at the time but today many would argue they were wrong. 10 years ago, movies like Memento, District 9, The Prestige, Million Dollar Baby, Training Day, etc., hadn't been made yet. Well clearly, Hollywood has been on an enormous downward spiral since 2000.

It really irritates me when people say [insert industry or field of art here] has gotten worse since when they were kids. No it hasn't. You just grew up. In the case of movies, you became more attentive to new movies as you grew up and learned to enjoy them. Back when you were a kid, not so. For instance, everyone remembers Jurassic Park as a revolutionary and innovative movie, but how many people are going to remember that 1993 was chock full of other movies that were bland and unoriginal and thus faded into obscurity? Same with the Matrix. Are you going to remember all the bad movies that came out in 1999? Of course you're not. You're only going to remember the outstanding ones, such as the Matrix. Can any of you name a movie off the top of your head released in 1972 besides the Godfather, or in 1984 besides the Terminator? Not many, I'd be willing to wager, because those were so far in the past. But you're going to remember all the bad movies that came out in 2009, because that's recent. Does this mean that 1972 or 1984 was a better year in cinema than 2009? Probably, but your judgment is going to be biased one way or the other.

And what's wrong with movies adapted from other sources? How many of you know that No Country for Old Men was adapted from a book? Or that the Departed was adapted from another movie? The Minority Report was originally a book too. The Lord of the Rings movies, obviously. Schindler's List was adapted from a book, too. Shawshank Redemption, yep. Or going back further, the Godfather was originally a book. The Magnificent Seven was actually a ripoff of Seven Samurai. It's a Wonderful Life was based on a short story. Gone With the Wind was copied from a book. Clearly, all of these are terrible, uninventive movies, and their directors completely lacking of any creativity, and their existence proof of the horrid decline of filmmaking.

Now granted, 2009 was a rather weak year in cinema, but 2008 was one of the strongest I've seen yet, and 2010 is extremely promising. All of this talk of "decline" and "creativity cap" is absurd. If anything, globalization and the information age has actually benefited the world of cinema - thanks to lightspeed communications via the internet, for the first time production companies are seeing bad movies totally flop first week or even first day, instead of cashing in on the "curiosity" profit that has existed since the dawn of film. Quality in films matter now more than ever, in terms of how much of a factor it'll be when determining profits, when people can know the instant a movie comes out or even ahead of time due to different intercontinental launch dates how good it is and whether it's worth their money. There are some movies, like Shawshank Redemption, that actually did terribly when they first came out due to low expectations, and only succeeded once word of mouth travelled that they were actually good films. Today, that word of mouth is the fastest it's ever been since humans first learned to speak. Plus, with global communications like we have now, we're seeing international cooperation on films at a level that's never been done before. Look at District 9. Terrific movie, maybe the best of 2009, made by a Canadian first-time independent director, filmed in South Africa with mostly South African actors, and financially backed by a New Zealander. That would have been impossible 20, 30, 40 years ago, and yet it happened in 2009.

So settle down and chill out. The world of cinema hasn't changed or suddenly been stricken by a plague that specifically kills innovative movies and leaves overmarketed garbage alone. That overmarketed garbage has always existed, you just never noticed the pile until now. Ignore it, like you always have, and you'll see that the rare gem still pops up from time to time.

by the way, I saw the Human Centipede yesterday, and it was one of the sickest movies I've ever seen, and I've seen everything from the Hostels to the Saws to Inside to the Collector.

[Darthbill52]

TallonRoe wrote...

Elastic Otter wrote...

And there's Harry Belefonte. That, in itself, is redeeming.

Oh thank goodness, I thought I was the only one who still liked listening to him...

No tallon good music is good music ...i listen to him as well.  Btw geek out the game room yet ??

[Elhanan]

While the almighty dollar still is a priority in the land of Glitz, it no longer is the main one. I would say that political propoganda and influence is now the main focus, no matter the expense or loss of profit.



Personally, I have not seen the Academy Awards since FotR was nominated. And I used to want to be the director of the Best Pic; now meaningless, IMO.

[Tirigon]

I like Burton´s Gothic Fairytales style.



Take Corpse Bride for example - one of the greatest movies I know.

[Sloth Of Doom]

I Valente I wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

 Avatar (just kidding, that sucked),

I'm seriously tired of people trying to be hardcore movie buffs by hating everything that it insanely popular. Sorry my friend, I can't believe anyone would honestly think Avatar was a bad movie....unless you are saying so because it's popular and the genericcrowd of MTV-watching, explosion-hungry neanderthals likes it, but sometimes us neanderthalls are right. To hate something out of spite of its popularity is just as bad as loving something because of it.

Avatar had a boring, recycled plot and boring one-dimensional characters.  It was entirely predictable and derivitive.  What part of it was GOOD?


Of course, because you like shiny things and loud noises it stands to reason that everyone has to have crappy taste like you right?

[Tirigon]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

I Valente I wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

 Avatar (just kidding, that sucked),

I'm seriously tired of people trying to be hardcore movie buffs by hating everything that it insanely popular. Sorry my friend, I can't believe anyone would honestly think Avatar was a bad movie....unless you are saying so because it's popular and the genericcrowd of MTV-watching, explosion-hungry neanderthals likes it, but sometimes us neanderthalls are right. To hate something out of spite of its popularity is just as bad as loving something because of it.

Avatar had a boring, recycled plot and boring one-dimensional characters.  It was entirely predictable and derivitive.  What part of it was GOOD?

Of course, because you like shiny things and loud noises it stands to reason that everyone has to have crappy taste like you right?

Avatar had a very important message - which is why it is banned in China - and was great to look at because it had beautiful landscapes and well-made actions.
I agree that the plot isn´t exactly new, but it doesn´t need to be if it´s good - and that was the case.
Besides, to me the political message in Avatar seemed  more important than the plot anyways.

You don´t have to like  it - it´s not one of my favourites either - but saying it sucks simply because it´s successful is ridiculous.

[TheMufflon]

Krigwin wrote...

Hollywood hasn't changed. The movie industry, like... well, pretty much every industry since the dawn of trade, has always been full of businessmen out to make a tidy profit by analyzing what works and shoveling it out with no concern for innovation or quality. That's nothing new. People were complaining about Hollywood no longer being new and original 10 years ago, and 20 years ago, and 30 years ago, probably stretching all the way back to the 60s. There are always going to be detractors, and obviously every single one of those people thought they were right at the time but today many would argue they were wrong. 10 years ago, movies like Memento, District 9, The Prestige, Million Dollar Baby, Training Day, etc., hadn't been made yet. Well clearly, Hollywood has been on an enormous downward spiral since 2000.

It really irritates me when people say [insert industry or field of art here] has gotten worse since when they were kids. No it hasn't. You just grew up. In the case of movies, you became more attentive to new movies as you grew up and learned to enjoy them. Back when you were a kid, not so. For instance, everyone remembers Jurassic Park as a revolutionary and innovative movie, but how many people are going to remember that 1993 was chock full of other movies that were bland and unoriginal and thus faded into obscurity? Same with the Matrix. Are you going to remember all the bad movies that came out in 1999? Of course you're not. You're only going to remember the outstanding ones, such as the Matrix. Can any of you name a movie off the top of your head released in 1972 besides the Godfather, or in 1984 besides the Terminator? Not many, I'd be willing to wager, because those were so far in the past. But you're going to remember all the bad movies that came out in 2009, because that's recent. Does this mean that 1972 or 1984 was a better year in cinema than 2009? Probably, but your judgment is going to be biased one way or the other.

And what's wrong with movies adapted from other sources? How many of you know that No Country for Old Men was adapted from a book? Or that the Departed was adapted from another movie? The Minority Report was originally a book too. The Lord of the Rings movies, obviously. Schindler's List was adapted from a book, too. Shawshank Redemption, yep. Or going back further, the Godfather was originally a book. The Magnificent Seven was actually a ripoff of Seven Samurai. It's a Wonderful Life was based on a short story. Gone With the Wind was copied from a book. Clearly, all of these are terrible, uninventive movies, and their directors completely lacking of any creativity, and their existence proof of the horrid decline of filmmaking.

Now granted, 2009 was a rather weak year in cinema, but 2008 was one of the strongest I've seen yet, and 2010 is extremely promising. All of this talk of "decline" and "creativity cap" is absurd. If anything, globalization and the information age has actually benefited the world of cinema - thanks to lightspeed communications via the internet, for the first time production companies are seeing bad movies totally flop first week or even first day, instead of cashing in on the "curiosity" profit that has existed since the dawn of film. Quality in films matter now more than ever, in terms of how much of a factor it'll be when determining profits, when people can know the instant a movie comes out or even ahead of time due to different intercontinental launch dates how good it is and whether it's worth their money. There are some movies, like Shawshank Redemption, that actually did terribly when they first came out due to low expectations, and only succeeded once word of mouth travelled that they were actually good films. Today, that word of mouth is the fastest it's ever been since humans first learned to speak. Plus, with global communications like we have now, we're seeing international cooperation on films at a level that's never been done before. Look at District 9. Terrific movie, maybe the best of 2009, made by a Canadian first-time independent director, filmed in South Africa with mostly South African actors, and financially backed by a New Zealander. That would have been impossible 20, 30, 40 years ago, and yet it happened in 2009.
 

QFT

Hollywood was never very original and always all about the money.

Also, Mou Gaan Dou (or Infernal Affairs, in English), which is the movie The Departed was based off, is very good.

[Statulos]

Truth be told, recent films like No Country for Old Men or The Road (a couple I have seen again recently) tell you otherwise.

[Mr.Skar]

The short, snarky, and mostly incorrect answer is everything. It's fun to throw out every now and then amongst film fans to get them going.



My personal feeling on whats wrong is the remake craze. More importantly, remaking already perfect foreign films for another audience. Yes, I'm still sore about the news of a Let The Right One in Remake.



Also Stat, in regards to the two movies you listed, they are based off of some rather excellent (if somewhat bleak) source material. The books are challenging enough that it took some top notch film making to get the transition to film just right. Thank God they did, I don't know what I would have done if The Road was a terrible movie ; .;.

[Krigwin]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...
Avatar had a boring, recycled plot and boring one-dimensional characters.  It was entirely predictable and derivitive.  What part of it was GOOD?

Of course, because you like shiny things and loud noises it stands to reason that everyone has to have crappy taste like you right?

Wow, you're so edgy and cool for disliking popular things. That makes you edgy and cool. Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

PS. It's 'derivative'.

[Statulos]

Mr.Skar wrote...

The short, snarky, and mostly incorrect answer is everything. It's fun to throw out every now and then amongst film fans to get them going.

My personal feeling on whats wrong is the remake craze. More importantly, remaking already perfect foreign films for another audience. Yes, I'm still sore about the news of a Let The Right One in Remake.

Also Stat, in regards to the two movies you listed, they are based off of some rather excellent (if somewhat bleak) source material. The books are challenging enough that it took some top notch film making to get the transition to film just right. Thank God they did, I don't know what I would have done if The Road was a terrible movie ; .;.

Novel and cinema are different languages in the end and even though one borrows from the other on a normal basis, I see no issue on that. In fact, some of the best films out there were books before.

[TheMufflon]

Statulos wrote...

Novel and cinema are different languages in the end and even though one borrows from the other on a normal basis, I see no issue on that. In fact, some of the best films out there were books before.

But there are no good books that were movies before.

[uberdowzen]

Tirigon wrote...

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

I Valente I wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

 Avatar (just kidding, that sucked),

I'm seriously tired of people trying to be hardcore movie buffs by hating everything that it insanely popular. Sorry my friend, I can't believe anyone would honestly think Avatar was a bad movie....unless you are saying so because it's popular and the genericcrowd of MTV-watching, explosion-hungry neanderthals likes it, but sometimes us neanderthalls are right. To hate something out of spite of its popularity is just as bad as loving something because of it.

Avatar had a boring, recycled plot and boring one-dimensional characters.  It was entirely predictable and derivitive.  What part of it was GOOD?

Of course, because you like shiny things and loud noises it stands to reason that everyone has to have crappy taste like you right?

Avatar had a very important message - which is why it is banned in China - and was great to look at because it had beautiful landscapes and well-made actions.
I agree that the plot isn´t exactly new, but it doesn´t need to be if it´s good - and that was the case.
Besides, to me the political message in Avatar seemed  more important than the plot anyways.

You don´t have to like  it - it´s not one of my favourites either - but saying it sucks simply because it´s successful is ridiculous.

I don't dislike Avatar because it's popular and having an important message doesn't excuse a bad plot. District 9 also had an important message but it a) didn't shove it in your face and did have a good plot.

[addiction21]

uberdowzen wrote...


I don't dislike Avatar because it's popular and having an important message doesn't excuse a bad plot. District 9 also had an important message but it a) didn't shove it in your face and did have a good plot.

A) Are you blind?
Same plot as Avatar so how can one be good and the other bad when they are the same?

[Mr.Skar]

Statulos wrote...

Mr.Skar wrote...

The short, snarky, and mostly incorrect answer is everything. It's fun to throw out every now and then amongst film fans to get them going.

My personal feeling on whats wrong is the remake craze. More importantly, remaking already perfect foreign films for another audience. Yes, I'm still sore about the news of a Let The Right One in Remake.

Also Stat, in regards to the two movies you listed, they are based off of some rather excellent (if somewhat bleak) source material. The books are challenging enough that it took some top notch film making to get the transition to film just right. Thank God they did, I don't know what I would have done if The Road was a terrible movie ; .;.

Novel and cinema are different languages in the end and even though one borrows from the other on a normal basis, I see no issue on that. In fact, some of the best films out there were books before.

I agree, and that's pretty much what I am saying. But I would really like to see more great films come out that aren't based on books. Even though some of my favorite films are based on books, film that is new and exciting (story, setting, characters, etc.) should be the push. 

[yrithe]

Is It me or are people running out of ideal's for decent topic's i mean seriously amongst all the slew of Viral video's and recycled internet jokes i have not seen one decent off-topic discussion out in what seem's like decade's, maybe im just pessimistic but i dont forseeforums as being the mecca of the bioware community within the next decade, i mean another topic ****ing about hurr durr hollywood suxx come on

[FutureBoy81]

yrithe wrote...

Is It me or are people running out of ideal's for decent topic's i mean seriously amongst all the slew of Viral video's and recycled internet jokes i have not seen one decent off-topic discussion out in what seem's like decade's, maybe im just pessimistic but i dont forseeforums as being the mecca of the bioware community within the next decade, i mean another topic ****ing about hurr durr hollywood suxx come on

Actually that's not what the thread is about maybe you should read the original post before you decide to comment somthing that has absolutly nothing to do with the topic ...

[uberdowzen]

addiction21 wrote...

A) Are you blind?
Same plot as Avatar so how can one be good and the other bad when they are the same?

A) No, I won't deny that Avatar was pretty. But after 2 hours that began to wear off and I was left thinking how predictable the plot was. By an hour in I new every detail about how it would end except what would happen to Sam Worthington at the end. And that was answer when something happens to one of the characters (Signouney Weaver, although I suspect everyone here knows what I'm talking about)

How are the plots of D9 and Avatar the same? They have some similar elements.