Does current Hollywood formula really work that well?

Rob Belics · June 7th, 2004, 07:42 PM

And Francis did a little series of films about somebodys grandpa. But the "standard" def of independent means not part of the system so American Zoetrope is independent. You can't judge independence by success.

If Zoetrope is part of the system then so is LucasFilms.

Like you said though, the definition depends on your perspective. I, too, used to think of independent films as those made by a guy who wrangled the money together from friends and relatives. The term "grew up" when Coppola and Lucas, et al, came along. Those were the mavericks who went off on their own and "did their own thing".

But we could go 'round and 'round in circles on this and who the hell cares anyway?

John Hudson · June 7th, 2004, 08:03 PM

This is true.

I wonder at what point can we not consider a 'company' independent? Surely prior to the Conversation was Zoetrope independent; but when can we assume the transition was made?

It is a line that seems to blur for sure. Lucasfilms? Thats just a monster there. I cant even begin to try and classify that one!

Richard Brennan · June 8th, 2004, 12:32 AM

On the subject of ‘what has happened to Hollywood’ – I’ve read some thoughtful observations here (including the idea that Hollywood has ALWAYS produced dreck.) While that’s certainly true, I think there is a noticeable difference today- and that is that studios depend on deriving ALL their profit from big “tentpole” movies. No studio head today would want to face investors saying that they are expecting to get 50% of their profits from a couple of big-budget summer flicks, and the rest will come from a slate of small movies with unknown actors. And this gets to what I think has changed. Now, studios ONLY produce huge mega-pictures. (Ok – they save one Meryl Streep movie for some Oscar buzz in December.)

This gets into the hidden agenda that I think lurks behind many films. It’s politics. Not politics like democrats and republicans. But politics as in the social dance between producers, agents, stars, studio heads and their corporate bosses. In order for the studio chief to keep his / her job, he/she needs to be able to sign STARS. Greenlighting a sensitive coming-of-age story by a promising new director staring brilliant, but unknown New York stage actors does not have the same cachet as saying “I got Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston to do romantic comedy together”.

It was previously mentioned that the quality seemed to change in the 80’s. I think what happened there started in the 70’s with the movie studios being bought by big corporations: Transamerica (United Artists), Gulf and Western (Paramount), Time Inc (Warner), and Sony (Columbia). At first, the big wigs were happy to have a little Hollywood glitter to bask in at corporate events. Then, as the 70’s became the 80’s a few cold splashes of reality: David Begleman embezzlement scandal (Columbia), “Heaven’s Gate” (United Artists), and the very expensive reign of Gruber-Peters at Sony. Suddenly, the corporations realized what a liability free-wheeling Hollywood could be. They clamped down. They may not have understood movie-making, but they understood business. And this was no way to run a business. Corporations don’t like feast or famine return on investment. They want you to GUARENTEE that there will be a 20% growth in profit next year.

Mike Medavoy said that "movies are art and there is no formula for art." Or, as James Goldman put it, “Nobody knows anything.”

Still, studio executives are paid great sums of money because supposedly they are smart enough to greenlight the good movies and turn away the bad. But, in reality, they don’t know what’s going to be a success. How many times was Star Wars turned down? How many studio heads guffawed as Mel Gibson put his own money into “Passion of the Christ”? They are paid to know something which is probably unknowable. So how do you know which studio executives are the best? By the number of stars they can sign. And where do they get the stars? Through the star’s agents. The agents know that they are in a sellers market – the studios need the “insurance” the star brings. So the agents put together package deals (and along the way become ‘executive producers’). And charge a great deal of money for their clients. And the budgets go up. And the more the studio invests, the more valuable the “insurance” becomes.

So, now it’s not enough to have a star, you have to have the high-concept movie (so brilliantly parodied in “The Player”). It always plays off something that has worked before. “You’ve got Jennifer Lopez, and she’s this big star singer on, like, the world’s largest cruise ship on it’s maiden voyage, and then terrorists take over the ship – and she and the cruise ship captain (Pierce Brosnan, I think we can get him, who is an ex-Marine and used to be her husband) slip out of sight and start fighting the terrorists. It’s The Bodyguard meets Die Hard meets Titanic!”

It becomes a vicious circle. The studio heads want to attract stars. The stars ask for big money, The corporations and shareholders want to invest in a known quantity. There is no longer a “buck stops here” person at the studio like Jack Warner, Daryl Zanuck, or Arthur Krim. I guess the buck stops now with the shareholders, and they don’t know anything either!

The other change is the way movies open today – on 3000 screens. They sink or swim their first weekend. In the 70’s a movie like “Godfather”, :The Way We Were”, or “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” would open only in a few theaters in big cities and build word of mouth. Then, slowly they would be released through the rest of the country. This allowed a film to find an audience, or to allow critics to alert the public to something special (“Chariots of Fire” comes to mind). Not any more – a film has to open BIG. And the only way to guarantee that seats will be filled is to get STARS. Sex, special effects, and explosions also help – especially if they can be crammed into a very loud trailer.

Side note: Actually we have an independent filmmaker to thank for the wide opening concept. In 1972, Tom Laughin and Warner Bros found theater owners unreceptive to the idea of booking Tom’s counter-culture hippie / martial arts film “Billy Jack”. So they invented “Four-walling”; they rented thousands of theaters and put “Billy Jack” playing continiously. At the same time they did a quick TV ad blitz. It worked. Tom’s $800k film grossed $98 million.

Of course, this is all just my opiniion.

// Ric

Rob Belics · June 8th, 2004, 06:50 AM

Politics is involved but what gets things done is money. He who makes the money has the power.

A studio executive doesn't sign a name star to keep his job. Name stars give a boost to potential income for a film. An exec can lose his job if it flops, not that he didn't attach a star to it.

Actually, studio execs approve projects, not stars. He may nix a deal unless someone is involved but don't get too involved directly.

The reason for this problem is the money involved. "Small" films now are under $30 million dollars. Can you imagine only making a few million dollars and losing $20 million or more? Can you imagine handing over $30 million to some new guy with unknown actors? Wouldn't you feel more comfortable knowing it was Oliver Stone and Brad Pitt? That is the "insurance" you are talking about.

This is why the low budget indies can make great films on their own. The risk is lower because there is less money involved. You might be able to attract a name star because the story is so good and good actors like to perform good scripts.

I was just thinking last night that out of the last 10 films I've seen, only one was Hollywood and the other were indies seen at a Landmark theatre.

Laurence Maher · June 8th, 2004, 07:18 AM

Well guys,

Glad to see so much response. Man, most people I know aren't into movies like I am, so you gotta seek your company sometimes.

Anway . . . LOLOLOL

Most of this stuff is just what I was looking for. So now that we've got varying opinions about all sorts of stuff, I'll say that I don't mind at all the stuff going OT, becasue that's where real movie convo's go. I mean, it's gonna be a feat to change this type of thread into something that's not basically movie opinion talk, so please, say whatever about whatever.

Anyway,

I must say I agree that Lost in Translation and the type are SIMPLY NOT INDIE FILMS. Ya, good ol talented Sophia standing up there telling her friends, "thanks for the inspiration that got me to finish my script' . . . ya, cry me a happy river baby, with your dad who manages to get every known relative a part in the hollywood pie.

I should point out that I had far judged the movie before I ever saw it, assuming it would be complete and utter lameness, and was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't too bad, in fact I'd have to overall say good (not my kind of movie, but), and had great character development and you felt for them etc. So I can't say it was poorly done for what it was.

. . . but it also wasn't independent . . . not hardly.

When you have that kind of pull before you're even born, you can't make an independent film even if you tried too.

I think my opinion of independent would end up being closest to John'd here. Let me say though, that I'm impressed with all the valid arguments from everybody regarding all the subjects discussed thus far.

Ya, I guess there was always crap with the good flicks, and it's also true that only the good stuff stands the test of memory.

Still, after giving those facts their due, I have to say it's my opinionated opinion that movies as a whole have gotten worse. Even the Herbie movies had more of a solid story than Friday the 13th part 2,000,000,000. And you also have to remember that it wasn't until the late 70's that sequels really started becoming the fad. I mean, ya there was Bond and Phillip Marlow and the like, but to me those seemed much more "same character, different scenereo," as oppossed to,

"same character (....but really he's not because what the character does in this new movie is so far removed from what he'd ever do in the first film that we all know he only did the script becasue he got paid 20 mil...), different universe (we know this stuff is really out of place from the first film, but we REALLY wanted some exploding elephants this time to sell tickets). . .

Am I making sense?

Herbie was Herbie every time, didn't violate tradition.

Bond was Bond every time, didn't violate tradition.

But The Terminator WAS NOT The Terminator every time.

It was really with Jaws II where the super sequel thing kind of started, (So it's documented by history books). It was at that point where Jaws coined the film that coined "Blockbuster" by getting audiences to line up around a block to see a film.

By the way I should point out that I agree . . . All the matrix movies did make a complete story . . . A BAD ONE LOLOLOL!!!

Too bad they didn't stop #1 when they were ahead. LOLOLOL!!!

...aren't I a stinker.

Luis Caffesse · June 8th, 2004, 08:18 AM

"it's my opinionated opinion that movies as a whole have gotten worse. Even the Herbie movies had more of a solid story than Friday the 13th part 2,000,000,000"

I think you are again falling into the same trap.
The only reason you remember Herbie enough to reference it is because it HAS stood the test of time somewhat. I guarantee you that Friday the 13th part 2,000,000,000 (take your pick) will be forgotten in 50 years. Hell, apparently it has already been forgotten seeing as you didn't even reference a specific movie.
:)
Again, time will weed out the crap.

Although I find it difficult to judge the quality of movies today, seeing that we do not yet know what will be remembered, and what won't.... I am still tempted to agree that there is a shift, it seems to be a shift to the extremes however.

Given time, the art of filmmaking is maturing. At the same time that we may be seeing some of the stupidest films ever made, we are also seeing some real breakthrough storytelling that would not have been dreamed of back when Lumiere shot the train station. I'm thinking of things like Memento, The Sixth Sense, etc.

So, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
We definitely will always have our share of "White Chicks"... but at the same time there will always be those who help nurture and mature the art of filmmaking.

The other thing to consider, in terms of sequels and rehashing of old ideas, is that I think it is a bit unfair to say that films didn't used to be that way. Obviously there wasn't as much "rehashing" in the 50s, seeing as film was only half as old as it is now. There was not nearly as much to reference. Filmmakers now have grown up on films, and on Television, not on books like the filmmakers before them. Films, and especially tv, are a part of our everyday life, and the stories we've seen are engrained in us. It is only natural that the filmmakers of today would reference, pay homage, and flat out rip off, the stories they loved growing up.

But, good things can come out of that as well.... like him or not, most people seem to think that Tarantino is a good filmmaker, and even more people would agree that at least Pulp Fiction is a great film. As another example, look at someone like the Coen Brothers, their films reek with references to past filmmakers, and yet they are considered to be some of the best filmmakers of our time.

There are always those who will imitate, looking for the quick buck or the guaranteed success. But there will also always be those few who do not just imitate, but take what they love, and make it their own. And those are the films that will be remembered.

(in my opinion of course)

:)

-Luis

Richard Brennan · June 8th, 2004, 09:21 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Belics : Politics is involved but what gets things done is money. He who makes the money has the power. -->>>

You are absolutely right that money is the driving force. I was trying to leave money out of the picture only because the studios and their corporate owners look at money very differently, which makes it hard to come up with a unified theory on Hollywood finance. Wall Street sees money as a long term investment, a graph, if you will, moving over several years. Hollywood deals with money primarily in the “now”. The old adage “You’re only as good as your last picture” still rings true. For the studio exec – you’re only as good as your last deal + last weekend’s BO. The power-meter is constantly rising and falling, which may be why studio heads have such short shelf lives. Like this summer’s cicadas, they have to make a big impression fast, because second chances are hard to come by. Few manage to last more than a couple of years before being kissed off with a golden parachute and a production deal. The corporate goal of lone term profits and building a company over time is largely lost on them when their reality is that every movie is a self-contained package with it’s own financing, deals, merchandising, etc. There are no long-term relationships – your career is what you have working for you right now.

I see people are having a hard time coming to grips with what, exactly, is an independent film. I think the definitions were easier in the 80’s, or BS (Before Sundance). By the 90’s independents were embraced by the mainstream; they won prizes at Cannes. CAA represents David Lynch. Fox established Fox Searchlight. William Morris spun off a whole division dedicated to independent film. Bruce Willis, Robert Duvall, and John Travolta regularly alternate between multi-million dollar studio salaries, and making $1500 / week on independent projects. John Turturro, Eric Stoltz, Steve Buscemi, William H. Macy, Lili Taylor, and Parker Posey are well-known primarily for their work in independents.

Variety had an article a couple of years ago that showed that the audiences for independents and main-stream movies were largely different. The hard-core independent fan would rarely go to a summer blockbuster and vice versa. That may ultimately be the main practical distinction between studio and independent features: the audience. Each wants something different from the movie-going experience. Robert Redford said that an independent film is "not necessarily a bunch of people running around SoHo dressed in black making a movie for $25,000. It's simply a film that stays free as long as possible to be what it wants to be. In an ideal world, there won't be a distinction between types of movies, just a broader menu."

Here’s a question: Woody Allan – independent filmmaker?

// Ric

John Hudson · June 8th, 2004, 11:32 AM

Definatley ttrue; JAWS defined blockbuster and still one of my all time favorite films. And what a cast! Roy Schnieder, Richard Dreyfus and the legendary Robert Shaw. Jaws had it all; story, talent, execution.

Take the typical Hollywood blockbuster today and its hard pressed to get that kind of talent on the screen in the same place much less an actual story with wonderful dialog. Remember QUINTS speech regarding the INDIANAPOLIS? When is the last movie you saw that you remember a monologue like that?

I think another thing that can cntribute to the saturation is there are MORE studios and companies than in the past. No longer is it the MAJORS and even if the MAJORS are involved its in conjuction with a handful of other smaller companies.

Woody Allen? Independent? I don't think so. Not anymore. Woody is in a very unique spot where he can do pretty much what he wants and still have backing by a major studio. How many Directors get away with this? Spielberg maybe?

I think Woody used to be independent but his work is so cool he can pretty much greenlight anything he wants to do. He's like a 'Hollywood Operative'. They will niether deny nor confirm his existence!

Richard Brennan · June 8th, 2004, 03:01 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by John Hudson : Woody Allen? Independent? I don't think so. Not anymore. Woody is in a very unique spot where he can do pretty much what he wants and still have backing by a major studio. How many Directors get away with this? -->>>

I agree, I think he can pretty much say what he wants. But the reason I ask is, isn't that the definition of independent? He can do and say what he wants with (supposedly) little studio interference? Of course, at this point he doesn't have to struggle much (I guess) to get his films released. But does struggle = independent? It helps that his movies don't cost much and they can often be counted on to deliver a few Oscar noms, good for increased prestige if not BO.

Which brings me to a related topic - I don't think the Academy Awards get enough credit for forcing the majors to add at least some heft into their schedule. If it wasn't for the Oscar carrot, we'd probably have popcorn comic book movies 24/7. Sure they're tacky and somtimes of dubious judgement, but at least they give studios incentive to distribute films like In the Bedroom, Mystic River, Fog of War, My Architect, and Talk to Her (for example).

Everyone loves the chance to send a gofer out for Oscar polish.

Just my .02

// Ric

Keith Loh · June 8th, 2004, 05:32 PM

Producer condemns Hollywood films

The Mexican producer of the third Harry Potter film has called Hollywood movies worthless.

"Hollywood is a machine, 90% of whose product is garbage," said Alfonso Cuaron, the producer credited with the success of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

Hollywood makes "the world's worst cinema," he told reporters.

Rob Belics · June 8th, 2004, 09:13 PM

Well, 90% of everything is garbage. Including the Harry Potter films.

Laurence Maher · June 9th, 2004, 03:46 AM

John-O-John Hudson,

Ya,

Sa'll I'm sayn. HELL ya. Bring on the Jaws--bring on the goods, and a lot of credit to what I'm sayn. The film was a PRIME example of quality filmmaking. And now what has Spielberg got? Well, okay, he's doing a little better in recent years I guess. Ryan was pretty good, Schindler, Catch Me . . . okay, but please, until Jurrasic Park came out, he hadn't made a good film in a decade.

LOLOLOLOLOL

Ya, don't give me that crap about "Hook wasn't that bad." Yes it was. It was candy-laced cotton syrruped to the hilt like everything he and good'ol Lucas had been doing for years. Catering to the kids, with Ewoks and Jar Jar . . . and I don't care what anyone says . . . THAT GOD AWFUL CHARACTER DR. HENRY JONES . . . Ya, that's what I said . . . Indy 3 sucked, I mean bad, worse than Indy 2. That's just what every kid wants is to go on an adventure . . . with his annoying supid-ass dad. Man, when I heard Connery was gonna be in it, I jumped for joy . . . and then I saw a preview, and I knew there was no hope. Why not bring him in as the missing "Abner Ravenwood" from the first film or something . . . come on . . . stupid comic relief via HIS DAD?

I have literally boycotted Lucas Films at first run theaters. He used to be my favorite, then let me down so badly soooo many times that I just couldn't take it anymore. Ohhh, but I digress . . .

All I'm sayn is, there are those of us that are independent . . . we have no inherited or yet established Hollywood Indoors. If Bruce Willis, was in my next movie, I would never have the gall to call it independent, because come on, it's got automatic distribution the second I've gotten his first take.

Oooohh, I still digress . . . Jaws . . . now that's what I'm talkn about. A studio film? Yes. An awesome film by a HUNGRY-BUTT NO NAME KID NAMED SPIELBERG? Yes! That's why it was good. He was hungry. Spiele was hungry. It's like they say in Rocky 3 . . . you have to hold on to "the eye of the tiger". Stay with the beginner's mind, and you'll almost invariably do good work. But most big producer/directors fall sooner or later due to what I think is lack of real creative exercise. They got their millions, don't need to work as hard, whatever. They're fat on the Hollywood land, or maybe have lost heart in that they've had to bust so much heart trying to get things done right. I don't know.

Think about it. '75 Jaws, '76 Rocky, '77 Star Wars, '78 Superman, '79 Empire Strikes Back, Alien, '81 Raiders, '82 First Blood, Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, Blade Runner, '83 Risky Business, Scarface, '84 The Terminator, '85 Back to the Future, '86 aliens, '87 Lethal Weapon, '88 DIE HARD, and then . . . .

'89 . . . Batman, Indy 3, Lethal II . . . god help us

'90 . . . Exorcist 3, Frankenstein Unbound . . . okay god, don't help us.

'91 . . . Hudson Hawke, The Last Boyscout, Terminator II

'92 . . . Mrs. Doubtfire was the hot thing . . . Elvis has left the building.

Can you see where I'm going with this? Maybe only the good will be remembered, but, what was considered good in the late '70's and mid '80's was generally much better than what started being considered "good" by the early '90's.

I mean now what do we aspire to see when the summer is coming? . . . Hellboy? Shrek 30? Chronicles of Riddick for Christ's sake? 'sall i'm sayn.

I'll get pummelled for this I'm sure, but I'd also say that our quality of actors isn't what it used to be either. Show me someone who could pull off Robert Shaw in Jaws, Heston in The Ten Commandments, or Gregory Peck in The Omen. The closest equivelency is Sean Connery, and what's he gonna do with some crap role like Indy's dad? (LOLOLOL)

Of course, I should calm down here and admit beauty is in the eye of the beholder, which changes with each generation. And in all fairness, I would very much agree Memento was good, and Taranteno and the Coen Brothers . . . well . . . they used to be good (snicker, snicker).

P.S.

I'm just having fun. Take me with a grain of salt.

John Hudson · June 9th, 2004, 11:58 AM

Im am totally picking up what you just put down. I couldnt have said it any better myself. Word for word and Ver Batim. You nailed it.

Man, INDY 2 was good and fun but INDY 3 was like the worst crap ever. Just embarrassing for all parties. We all know that INDY 4 is in the works and something tells me it will be this sensational suck fest. Raiders was soooooo epic; perfect in every sense of the word. Its a shame really.

And yes, Speilberg of late has gotten his act togther but for awhile there I was stressing on my choldhood idol; the one responsible for me wanting to even make films:

The good

Poltergeist (Phantom Director?)
GREAT GREAT GREAT TOBE DIRECTED BUT RUMOR IS STEVEN MUSED?

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
GREAT SCI FI WONDER

Raiders of the Lost Ark
PERFECT ADVENTURE FILM AND TAKEN SERIOUSLY

1941
I LOVE EVERY SILLY MOMENT

Close Encounters of the Third Kind
WOW ALIENS DO EXIST!

Jaws
PERFECT

Sugarland Express, The
GREAT

Saving Private Ryan
PERFECT WAR FILM

Amistad
UNDERATED GEM

Schindler's List
PERFECT ACCOUNT

Empire of the Sun
BRINGS WW2 TO LIFE FOR THE FIRST TIME

Color Purple, The
SAD BUT TRUE

The Bad
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
ONE WORD - SHORT ROUND KARATE KICKING BIG THUGS. BAD STUFF

Jurassic Park
GREAT GCI SPECTACLE; BAD MOVIE

Catch Me If You Can
OKAY

Minority Report
OKAY

Always
OKAY

The Ugly

Twilight Zone: The Movie
DUMB DUMB DUMB

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
PURE CRAP SHOULD BE OUTLAWED FROM CINEMA

Hook
MAYBE ONE OF THE WORST FILMS EVER MADE

Lost World: Jurassic Park, The - WHEN THE LITTLE GIRL DOES A GYMNASTIC MOVE AND KICKS THE RAPTOR IN THE HEAD I ALMOST WALKED OUT! TRAGIC CINEMA; STILL CANT BELIEVE STEVEN LET THIS GO.

Artificial Intelligence: AI
BEGINNING AND END WERE BAD. MIDDLE WAS FUN WITH JUDE LAW THOUGH

Michael Gibbons · June 9th, 2004, 01:51 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Loh : Producer condemns Hollywood films

The Mexican producer of the third Harry Potter film has called Hollywood movies worthless.

"Hollywood is a machine, 90% of whose product is garbage," said Alfonso Cuaron, the producer credited with the success of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

Hollywood makes "the world's worst cinema," he told reporters. -->>>

I would agree with 90% of Hollywood's output is garbage- but the worst cinema in the world? Well, whatever, I have watched a lot of movies from a lot of contries, and I don't think anyone has a monopoly on garbage. You don't need to be attached to a "Machine" to make a crappy movie. Furthermore, Cauron, at least as portrayed by the article, is attempting to promote the quality of latin american films, by denigrating Hollywood. Hollywood sucks, so everything else MUST be better, right? Whatever.

It also amuses me that he dismissed himself from being a part of the "Machine"- regardless of his involvement with Harry Potter. I bet he cashed the check- as would I.

Laurence,
It would indeed be a sad world if Sean Connery were the best living actor. Especially considering his performance as Indy's dad, or as Quatermain in LXG (talk about a steamer). But that said, I think I must respectfully disagree with your overall opinion of the quality of today's cinema as opposed to that of the golden days of yesteryear. Even were I to agree with you, I would feel compelled to point out that film is still a young art form, and will probably not reach it's peak until long, long after we're gone from this world.

I hope it gets better for you.

Michael.

John Hudson · June 9th, 2004, 08:14 PM

I have to agree with that statement. Hollywood does put out some 'formulaic' films that more often than not are just bad; but I think Hollywood makes the best films in the world. Even Hollywoods crap is better than most).

What can one do? They are the machine and they want to make money. Its those films that allow them to take chances on the smaller less received films that really do kick tail.

June 8th, 2004, 05:32 PM	#25
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	Biting the hand ... Producer condemns Hollywood films The Mexican producer of the third Harry Potter film has called Hollywood movies worthless. "Hollywood is a machine, 90% of whose product is garbage," said Alfonso Cuaron, the producer credited with the success of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Hollywood makes "the world's worst cinema," he told reporters. __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

June 9th, 2004, 01:51 PM	#29
Michael Gibbons Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA Posts: 292	Re: Biting the hand ... <<<-- Originally posted by Keith Loh : Producer condemns Hollywood films The Mexican producer of the third Harry Potter film has called Hollywood movies worthless. "Hollywood is a machine, 90% of whose product is garbage," said Alfonso Cuaron, the producer credited with the success of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Hollywood makes "the world's worst cinema," he told reporters. -->>> I would agree with 90% of Hollywood's output is garbage- but the worst cinema in the world? Well, whatever, I have watched a lot of movies from a lot of contries, and I don't think anyone has a monopoly on garbage. You don't need to be attached to a "Machine" to make a crappy movie. Furthermore, Cauron, at least as portrayed by the article, is attempting to promote the quality of latin american films, by denigrating Hollywood. Hollywood sucks, so everything else MUST be better, right? Whatever. It also amuses me that he dismissed himself from being a part of the "Machine"- regardless of his involvement with Harry Potter. I bet he cashed the check- as would I. Laurence, It would indeed be a sad world if Sean Connery were the best living actor. Especially considering his performance as Indy's dad, or as Quatermain in LXG (talk about a steamer). But that said, I think I must respectfully disagree with your overall opinion of the quality of today's cinema as opposed to that of the golden days of yesteryear. Even were I to agree with you, I would feel compelled to point out that film is still a young art form, and will probably not reach it's peak until long, long after we're gone from this world. I hope it gets better for you. Michael. __________________ " When some wild-eyed, eight foot tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head against a bar room wall, and looks you crooked in the eye, and he asks you if you've payed your dues, well, you just stare that big suker right back in the eye, and you remember what old Jack Burton always says at a time like that, 'Have you paid your dues, Jack? Yes sir, the check is in the mail."

June 7th, 2004, 07:42 PM	#16
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	And Francis did a little series of films about somebodys grandpa. But the "standard" def of independent means not part of the system so American Zoetrope is independent. You can't judge independence by success. If Zoetrope is part of the system then so is LucasFilms. Like you said though, the definition depends on your perspective. I, too, used to think of independent films as those made by a guy who wrangled the money together from friends and relatives. The term "grew up" when Coppola and Lucas, et al, came along. Those were the mavericks who went off on their own and "did their own thing". But we could go 'round and 'round in circles on this and who the hell cares anyway?

June 7th, 2004, 08:03 PM	#17
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	This is true. I wonder at what point can we not consider a 'company' independent? Surely prior to the Conversation was Zoetrope independent; but when can we assume the transition was made? It is a line that seems to blur for sure. Lucasfilms? Thats just a monster there. I cant even begin to try and classify that one!

June 8th, 2004, 12:32 AM	#18
Richard Brennan New Boot Join Date: May 2004 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 22	On the subject of ‘what has happened to Hollywood’ – I’ve read some thoughtful observations here (including the idea that Hollywood has ALWAYS produced dreck.) While that’s certainly true, I think there is a noticeable difference today- and that is that studios depend on deriving ALL their profit from big “tentpole” movies. No studio head today would want to face investors saying that they are expecting to get 50% of their profits from a couple of big-budget summer flicks, and the rest will come from a slate of small movies with unknown actors. And this gets to what I think has changed. Now, studios ONLY produce huge mega-pictures. (Ok – they save one Meryl Streep movie for some Oscar buzz in December.) This gets into the hidden agenda that I think lurks behind many films. It’s politics. Not politics like democrats and republicans. But politics as in the social dance between producers, agents, stars, studio heads and their corporate bosses. In order for the studio chief to keep his / her job, he/she needs to be able to sign STARS. Greenlighting a sensitive coming-of-age story by a promising new director staring brilliant, but unknown New York stage actors does not have the same cachet as saying “I got Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston to do romantic comedy together”. It was previously mentioned that the quality seemed to change in the 80’s. I think what happened there started in the 70’s with the movie studios being bought by big corporations: Transamerica (United Artists), Gulf and Western (Paramount), Time Inc (Warner), and Sony (Columbia). At first, the big wigs were happy to have a little Hollywood glitter to bask in at corporate events. Then, as the 70’s became the 80’s a few cold splashes of reality: David Begleman embezzlement scandal (Columbia), “Heaven’s Gate” (United Artists), and the very expensive reign of Gruber-Peters at Sony. Suddenly, the corporations realized what a liability free-wheeling Hollywood could be. They clamped down. They may not have understood movie-making, but they understood business. And this was no way to run a business. Corporations don’t like feast or famine return on investment. They want you to GUARENTEE that there will be a 20% growth in profit next year. Mike Medavoy said that "movies are art and there is no formula for art." Or, as James Goldman put it, “Nobody knows anything.” Still, studio executives are paid great sums of money because supposedly they are smart enough to greenlight the good movies and turn away the bad. But, in reality, they don’t know what’s going to be a success. How many times was Star Wars turned down? How many studio heads guffawed as Mel Gibson put his own money into “Passion of the Christ”? They are paid to know something which is probably unknowable. So how do you know which studio executives are the best? By the number of stars they can sign. And where do they get the stars? Through the star’s agents. The agents know that they are in a sellers market – the studios need the “insurance” the star brings. So the agents put together package deals (and along the way become ‘executive producers’). And charge a great deal of money for their clients. And the budgets go up. And the more the studio invests, the more valuable the “insurance” becomes. So, now it’s not enough to have a star, you have to have the high-concept movie (so brilliantly parodied in “The Player”). It always plays off something that has worked before. “You’ve got Jennifer Lopez, and she’s this big star singer on, like, the world’s largest cruise ship on it’s maiden voyage, and then terrorists take over the ship – and she and the cruise ship captain (Pierce Brosnan, I think we can get him, who is an ex-Marine and used to be her husband) slip out of sight and start fighting the terrorists. It’s The Bodyguard meets Die Hard meets Titanic!” It becomes a vicious circle. The studio heads want to attract stars. The stars ask for big money, The corporations and shareholders want to invest in a known quantity. There is no longer a “buck stops here” person at the studio like Jack Warner, Daryl Zanuck, or Arthur Krim. I guess the buck stops now with the shareholders, and they don’t know anything either! The other change is the way movies open today – on 3000 screens. They sink or swim their first weekend. In the 70’s a movie like “Godfather”, :The Way We Were”, or “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” would open only in a few theaters in big cities and build word of mouth. Then, slowly they would be released through the rest of the country. This allowed a film to find an audience, or to allow critics to alert the public to something special (“Chariots of Fire” comes to mind). Not any more – a film has to open BIG. And the only way to guarantee that seats will be filled is to get STARS. Sex, special effects, and explosions also help – especially if they can be crammed into a very loud trailer. Side note: Actually we have an independent filmmaker to thank for the wide opening concept. In 1972, Tom Laughin and Warner Bros found theater owners unreceptive to the idea of booking Tom’s counter-culture hippie / martial arts film “Billy Jack”. So they invented “Four-walling”; they rented thousands of theaters and put “Billy Jack” playing continiously. At the same time they did a quick TV ad blitz. It worked. Tom’s $800k film grossed $98 million. Of course, this is all just my opiniion. // Ric

June 8th, 2004, 06:50 AM	#19
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	Politics is involved but what gets things done is money. He who makes the money has the power. A studio executive doesn't sign a name star to keep his job. Name stars give a boost to potential income for a film. An exec can lose his job if it flops, not that he didn't attach a star to it. Actually, studio execs approve projects, not stars. He may nix a deal unless someone is involved but don't get too involved directly. The reason for this problem is the money involved. "Small" films now are under $30 million dollars. Can you imagine only making a few million dollars and losing $20 million or more? Can you imagine handing over $30 million to some new guy with unknown actors? Wouldn't you feel more comfortable knowing it was Oliver Stone and Brad Pitt? That is the "insurance" you are talking about. This is why the low budget indies can make great films on their own. The risk is lower because there is less money involved. You might be able to attract a name star because the story is so good and good actors like to perform good scripts. I was just thinking last night that out of the last 10 films I've seen, only one was Hollywood and the other were indies seen at a Landmark theatre.

June 8th, 2004, 07:18 AM	#20
Laurence Maher Join Date: May 2004 Location: denton, texas, usa Posts: 416	Well guys, Glad to see so much response. Man, most people I know aren't into movies like I am, so you gotta seek your company sometimes. Anway . . . LOLOLOL Most of this stuff is just what I was looking for. So now that we've got varying opinions about all sorts of stuff, I'll say that I don't mind at all the stuff going OT, becasue that's where real movie convo's go. I mean, it's gonna be a feat to change this type of thread into something that's not basically movie opinion talk, so please, say whatever about whatever. Anyway, I must say I agree that Lost in Translation and the type are SIMPLY NOT INDIE FILMS. Ya, good ol talented Sophia standing up there telling her friends, "thanks for the inspiration that got me to finish my script' . . . ya, cry me a happy river baby, with your dad who manages to get every known relative a part in the hollywood pie. I should point out that I had far judged the movie before I ever saw it, assuming it would be complete and utter lameness, and was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't too bad, in fact I'd have to overall say good (not my kind of movie, but), and had great character development and you felt for them etc. So I can't say it was poorly done for what it was. . . . but it also wasn't independent . . . not hardly. When you have that kind of pull before you're even born, you can't make an independent film even if you tried too. I think my opinion of independent would end up being closest to John'd here. Let me say though, that I'm impressed with all the valid arguments from everybody regarding all the subjects discussed thus far. Ya, I guess there was always crap with the good flicks, and it's also true that only the good stuff stands the test of memory. Still, after giving those facts their due, I have to say it's my opinionated opinion that movies as a whole have gotten worse. Even the Herbie movies had more of a solid story than Friday the 13th part 2,000,000,000. And you also have to remember that it wasn't until the late 70's that sequels really started becoming the fad. I mean, ya there was Bond and Phillip Marlow and the like, but to me those seemed much more "same character, different scenereo," as oppossed to, "same character (....but really he's not because what the character does in this new movie is so far removed from what he'd ever do in the first film that we all know he only did the script becasue he got paid 20 mil...), different universe (we know this stuff is really out of place from the first film, but we REALLY wanted some exploding elephants this time to sell tickets). . . Am I making sense? Herbie was Herbie every time, didn't violate tradition. Bond was Bond every time, didn't violate tradition. But The Terminator WAS NOT The Terminator every time. It was really with Jaws II where the super sequel thing kind of started, (So it's documented by history books). It was at that point where Jaws coined the film that coined "Blockbuster" by getting audiences to line up around a block to see a film. By the way I should point out that I agree . . . All the matrix movies did make a complete story . . . A BAD ONE LOLOLOL!!! Too bad they didn't stop #1 when they were ahead. LOLOLOL!!! ...aren't I a stinker.

June 8th, 2004, 08:18 AM	#21
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	"it's my opinionated opinion that movies as a whole have gotten worse. Even the Herbie movies had more of a solid story than Friday the 13th part 2,000,000,000" I think you are again falling into the same trap. The only reason you remember Herbie enough to reference it is because it HAS stood the test of time somewhat. I guarantee you that Friday the 13th part 2,000,000,000 (take your pick) will be forgotten in 50 years. Hell, apparently it has already been forgotten seeing as you didn't even reference a specific movie. :) Again, time will weed out the crap. Although I find it difficult to judge the quality of movies today, seeing that we do not yet know what will be remembered, and what won't.... I am still tempted to agree that there is a shift, it seems to be a shift to the extremes however. Given time, the art of filmmaking is maturing. At the same time that we may be seeing some of the stupidest films ever made, we are also seeing some real breakthrough storytelling that would not have been dreamed of back when Lumiere shot the train station. I'm thinking of things like Memento, The Sixth Sense, etc. So, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. We definitely will always have our share of "White Chicks"... but at the same time there will always be those who help nurture and mature the art of filmmaking. The other thing to consider, in terms of sequels and rehashing of old ideas, is that I think it is a bit unfair to say that films didn't used to be that way. Obviously there wasn't as much "rehashing" in the 50s, seeing as film was only half as old as it is now. There was not nearly as much to reference. Filmmakers now have grown up on films, and on Television, not on books like the filmmakers before them. Films, and especially tv, are a part of our everyday life, and the stories we've seen are engrained in us. It is only natural that the filmmakers of today would reference, pay homage, and flat out rip off, the stories they loved growing up. But, good things can come out of that as well.... like him or not, most people seem to think that Tarantino is a good filmmaker, and even more people would agree that at least Pulp Fiction is a great film. As another example, look at someone like the Coen Brothers, their films reek with references to past filmmakers, and yet they are considered to be some of the best filmmakers of our time. There are always those who will imitate, looking for the quick buck or the guaranteed success. But there will also always be those few who do not just imitate, but take what they love, and make it their own. And those are the films that will be remembered. (in my opinion of course) :) -Luis

June 8th, 2004, 09:21 AM	#22
Richard Brennan New Boot Join Date: May 2004 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 22	<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Belics : Politics is involved but what gets things done is money. He who makes the money has the power. -->>> You are absolutely right that money is the driving force. I was trying to leave money out of the picture only because the studios and their corporate owners look at money very differently, which makes it hard to come up with a unified theory on Hollywood finance. Wall Street sees money as a long term investment, a graph, if you will, moving over several years. Hollywood deals with money primarily in the “now”. The old adage “You’re only as good as your last picture” still rings true. For the studio exec – you’re only as good as your last deal + last weekend’s BO. The power-meter is constantly rising and falling, which may be why studio heads have such short shelf lives. Like this summer’s cicadas, they have to make a big impression fast, because second chances are hard to come by. Few manage to last more than a couple of years before being kissed off with a golden parachute and a production deal. The corporate goal of lone term profits and building a company over time is largely lost on them when their reality is that every movie is a self-contained package with it’s own financing, deals, merchandising, etc. There are no long-term relationships – your career is what you have working for you right now. I see people are having a hard time coming to grips with what, exactly, is an independent film. I think the definitions were easier in the 80’s, or BS (Before Sundance). By the 90’s independents were embraced by the mainstream; they won prizes at Cannes. CAA represents David Lynch. Fox established Fox Searchlight. William Morris spun off a whole division dedicated to independent film. Bruce Willis, Robert Duvall, and John Travolta regularly alternate between multi-million dollar studio salaries, and making $1500 / week on independent projects. John Turturro, Eric Stoltz, Steve Buscemi, William H. Macy, Lili Taylor, and Parker Posey are well-known primarily for their work in independents. Variety had an article a couple of years ago that showed that the audiences for independents and main-stream movies were largely different. The hard-core independent fan would rarely go to a summer blockbuster and vice versa. That may ultimately be the main practical distinction between studio and independent features: the audience. Each wants something different from the movie-going experience. Robert Redford said that an independent film is "not necessarily a bunch of people running around SoHo dressed in black making a movie for $25,000. It's simply a film that stays free as long as possible to be what it wants to be. In an ideal world, there won't be a distinction between types of movies, just a broader menu." Here’s a question: Woody Allan – independent filmmaker? // Ric

June 8th, 2004, 11:32 AM	#23
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	Definatley ttrue; JAWS defined blockbuster and still one of my all time favorite films. And what a cast! Roy Schnieder, Richard Dreyfus and the legendary Robert Shaw. Jaws had it all; story, talent, execution. Take the typical Hollywood blockbuster today and its hard pressed to get that kind of talent on the screen in the same place much less an actual story with wonderful dialog. Remember QUINTS speech regarding the INDIANAPOLIS? When is the last movie you saw that you remember a monologue like that? I think another thing that can cntribute to the saturation is there are MORE studios and companies than in the past. No longer is it the MAJORS and even if the MAJORS are involved its in conjuction with a handful of other smaller companies. Woody Allen? Independent? I don't think so. Not anymore. Woody is in a very unique spot where he can do pretty much what he wants and still have backing by a major studio. How many Directors get away with this? Spielberg maybe? I think Woody used to be independent but his work is so cool he can pretty much greenlight anything he wants to do. He's like a 'Hollywood Operative'. They will niether deny nor confirm his existence!

June 8th, 2004, 03:01 PM	#24
Richard Brennan New Boot Join Date: May 2004 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 22	<<<-- Originally posted by John Hudson : Woody Allen? Independent? I don't think so. Not anymore. Woody is in a very unique spot where he can do pretty much what he wants and still have backing by a major studio. How many Directors get away with this? -->>> I agree, I think he can pretty much say what he wants. But the reason I ask is, isn't that the definition of independent? He can do and say what he wants with (supposedly) little studio interference? Of course, at this point he doesn't have to struggle much (I guess) to get his films released. But does struggle = independent? It helps that his movies don't cost much and they can often be counted on to deliver a few Oscar noms, good for increased prestige if not BO. Which brings me to a related topic - I don't think the Academy Awards get enough credit for forcing the majors to add at least some heft into their schedule. If it wasn't for the Oscar carrot, we'd probably have popcorn comic book movies 24/7. Sure they're tacky and somtimes of dubious judgement, but at least they give studios incentive to distribute films like In the Bedroom, Mystic River, Fog of War, My Architect, and Talk to Her (for example). Everyone loves the chance to send a gofer out for Oscar polish. Just my .02 // Ric

June 8th, 2004, 09:13 PM	#26
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	Well, 90% of everything is garbage. Including the Harry Potter films.

June 9th, 2004, 03:46 AM	#27
Laurence Maher Join Date: May 2004 Location: denton, texas, usa Posts: 416	John-O-John Hudson, Ya, Sa'll I'm sayn. HELL ya. Bring on the Jaws--bring on the goods, and a lot of credit to what I'm sayn. The film was a PRIME example of quality filmmaking. And now what has Spielberg got? Well, okay, he's doing a little better in recent years I guess. Ryan was pretty good, Schindler, Catch Me . . . okay, but please, until Jurrasic Park came out, he hadn't made a good film in a decade. LOLOLOLOLOL Ya, don't give me that crap about "Hook wasn't that bad." Yes it was. It was candy-laced cotton syrruped to the hilt like everything he and good'ol Lucas had been doing for years. Catering to the kids, with Ewoks and Jar Jar . . . and I don't care what anyone says . . . THAT GOD AWFUL CHARACTER DR. HENRY JONES . . . Ya, that's what I said . . . Indy 3 sucked, I mean bad, worse than Indy 2. That's just what every kid wants is to go on an adventure . . . with his annoying supid-ass dad. Man, when I heard Connery was gonna be in it, I jumped for joy . . . and then I saw a preview, and I knew there was no hope. Why not bring him in as the missing "Abner Ravenwood" from the first film or something . . . come on . . . stupid comic relief via HIS DAD? I have literally boycotted Lucas Films at first run theaters. He used to be my favorite, then let me down so badly soooo many times that I just couldn't take it anymore. Ohhh, but I digress . . . All I'm sayn is, there are those of us that are independent . . . we have no inherited or yet established Hollywood Indoors. If Bruce Willis, was in my next movie, I would never have the gall to call it independent, because come on, it's got automatic distribution the second I've gotten his first take. Oooohh, I still digress . . . Jaws . . . now that's what I'm talkn about. A studio film? Yes. An awesome film by a HUNGRY-BUTT NO NAME KID NAMED SPIELBERG? Yes! That's why it was good. He was hungry. Spiele was hungry. It's like they say in Rocky 3 . . . you have to hold on to "the eye of the tiger". Stay with the beginner's mind, and you'll almost invariably do good work. But most big producer/directors fall sooner or later due to what I think is lack of real creative exercise. They got their millions, don't need to work as hard, whatever. They're fat on the Hollywood land, or maybe have lost heart in that they've had to bust so much heart trying to get things done right. I don't know. Think about it. '75 Jaws, '76 Rocky, '77 Star Wars, '78 Superman, '79 Empire Strikes Back, Alien, '81 Raiders, '82 First Blood, Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, Blade Runner, '83 Risky Business, Scarface, '84 The Terminator, '85 Back to the Future, '86 aliens, '87 Lethal Weapon, '88 DIE HARD, and then . . . . '89 . . . Batman, Indy 3, Lethal II . . . god help us '90 . . . Exorcist 3, Frankenstein Unbound . . . okay god, don't help us. '91 . . . Hudson Hawke, The Last Boyscout, Terminator II '92 . . . Mrs. Doubtfire was the hot thing . . . Elvis has left the building. Can you see where I'm going with this? Maybe only the good will be remembered, but, what was considered good in the late '70's and mid '80's was generally much better than what started being considered "good" by the early '90's. I mean now what do we aspire to see when the summer is coming? . . . Hellboy? Shrek 30? Chronicles of Riddick for Christ's sake? 'sall i'm sayn. I'll get pummelled for this I'm sure, but I'd also say that our quality of actors isn't what it used to be either. Show me someone who could pull off Robert Shaw in Jaws, Heston in The Ten Commandments, or Gregory Peck in The Omen. The closest equivelency is Sean Connery, and what's he gonna do with some crap role like Indy's dad? (LOLOLOL) Of course, I should calm down here and admit beauty is in the eye of the beholder, which changes with each generation. And in all fairness, I would very much agree Memento was good, and Taranteno and the Coen Brothers . . . well . . . they used to be good (snicker, snicker). P.S. I'm just having fun. Take me with a grain of salt.

June 9th, 2004, 11:58 AM	#28
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	Im am totally picking up what you just put down. I couldnt have said it any better myself. Word for word and Ver Batim. You nailed it. Man, INDY 2 was good and fun but INDY 3 was like the worst crap ever. Just embarrassing for all parties. We all know that INDY 4 is in the works and something tells me it will be this sensational suck fest. Raiders was soooooo epic; perfect in every sense of the word. Its a shame really. And yes, Speilberg of late has gotten his act togther but for awhile there I was stressing on my choldhood idol; the one responsible for me wanting to even make films: The good Poltergeist (Phantom Director?) GREAT GREAT GREAT TOBE DIRECTED BUT RUMOR IS STEVEN MUSED? E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial GREAT SCI FI WONDER Raiders of the Lost Ark PERFECT ADVENTURE FILM AND TAKEN SERIOUSLY 1941 I LOVE EVERY SILLY MOMENT Close Encounters of the Third Kind WOW ALIENS DO EXIST! Jaws PERFECT Sugarland Express, The GREAT Saving Private Ryan PERFECT WAR FILM Amistad UNDERATED GEM Schindler's List PERFECT ACCOUNT Empire of the Sun BRINGS WW2 TO LIFE FOR THE FIRST TIME Color Purple, The SAD BUT TRUE The Bad Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom ONE WORD - SHORT ROUND KARATE KICKING BIG THUGS. BAD STUFF Jurassic Park GREAT GCI SPECTACLE; BAD MOVIE Catch Me If You Can OKAY Minority Report OKAY Always OKAY The Ugly Twilight Zone: The Movie DUMB DUMB DUMB Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade PURE CRAP SHOULD BE OUTLAWED FROM CINEMA Hook MAYBE ONE OF THE WORST FILMS EVER MADE Lost World: Jurassic Park, The - WHEN THE LITTLE GIRL DOES A GYMNASTIC MOVE AND KICKS THE RAPTOR IN THE HEAD I ALMOST WALKED OUT! TRAGIC CINEMA; STILL CANT BELIEVE STEVEN LET THIS GO. Artificial Intelligence: AI BEGINNING AND END WERE BAD. MIDDLE WAS FUN WITH JUDE LAW THOUGH

June 9th, 2004, 08:14 PM	#30
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	I have to agree with that statement. Hollywood does put out some 'formulaic' films that more often than not are just bad; but I think Hollywood makes the best films in the world. Even Hollywoods crap is better than most). What can one do? They are the machine and they want to make money. Its those films that allow them to take chances on the smaller less received films that really do kick tail.