Does current Hollywood formula really work that well?
 

Okay,

This was on another thread, but somewhere there suggested it was off topic, so I'm starting a new one here. I started it so people who have opinions about how Hollywood and indies of current can discuss them here. I always liked a debate of what is good filmmaking, what is bad filmmaking and why, in my opinion, Hollywood film formulas could be so greatly improved.

This was my original post:Here are some responses:

Rob Lohman Rob Belics posted:So lets hear the replies, hope this discussion will be fun!!!

Okay, all you auteurs, now you have a place to vent your frustrations!!!

Oh ya,

I was't saying at all that a sequel to the Matrix could have even better than the first. I don't think it ever could have been. What I'm saying is that I went and saw each Matrix sequel 1 time in the theater, and if the sequel had simply been GOOD films (not knocking on your opinion, I just ididn't like them), I would have gone back to see them 2 more times each like I did the first one.

Let's put it this way . . . a sequels are generally token rehashes of the first film, with the major difference being they have little to no story. What I'M saying is that it costs studios nothing more to make a good movie than a bad one. And what determines a sequel being a financial sucess or a financial juggernaut is ususlly the lame-o-story. I hold to my opinion becasue I know of films like Aliens where the sequel to many is arguably as good if not better than the first. It didn't follow formulas, and went a completely separate direction than the first, and people loved it becasue it built a second interesting and original story without ignoring the essential elements of the first film. The movie was so independent from the first in terms of action, etc.., many people who never saw Alien went and saw Aliens, and liked it because it was an intact story within itself.

What's always funny to me is that the reason a film like the matrix does so well is it's originalllity and story. Fx has something to do with it, but not as much as you'd think. The matrix 1 had no sequel to follow, and look how well it did. And any way you look at it, adding a good story into the sequel as opposed to just fx couldn't possibley make the sequel worse, just better. And the better the film is, that's some more audience response, that's some more sales due to good word of mouth. So if it isn't more expensive to make a good morvie as opposed to a bad one, why don't they just make a good movie, and the worst that can happen is they even more money than a crap sequel would make.

Your turns!

Thanks!!!

Intersting topic. I mostly agree with what has already been said; albeit The original Godfather was indeed a Great film in my eyes (not as suggested by Rob) and it just so happens that Part 2 was even better; makes the first one no less great.

Im thinking of films off the top of my head that were actually sequels and better?

The THIRD installment of Lord of the Rings was the best one.

ALIENS was better than the original.

The EMPIRE STRIKES back was damn close to being better than STAR WARS; and I say CLOSE.

Beverly Hills Cop 2 was better than the first.

X MEN 2 was better.

BRIDE OF FRANKENSTIEN is better than the orginal.



It is just a fact that Hollywood is indeed a business; and if they make cash on sequels then great. More often than not (every year in fact) they do manage to turn out some wonderful work. Its not just the independent films whose films usually are garbage.

Glad to see people here.

I have no opinions on God Farther I or 2 bing better.

Empire would be better, except for the ffact that it had no ending, so I consider star wars better via default of complete story.

I think first X men was better, but second was pretty good.

Lord of Rings, hard to say because they were basically 3 long chapters and in order to be true to the books . . . no real choice.

LOLOL, Come on man, don't start me on the Bev Cop II thing. Bev Cop I far superior IMHO.

Ya, sequels are really franchises disquised as movies, I think.

I have no arguements seeing why people say Aliens beats Alien, although for some reason I think I go with the first one, for without it's original statement of "what just 1 alien is capable of," the whole "now let's see what happens when there are hundreds of them" wouldn't work.

Keep it coming!

The main reason I generally hate sequels as a rule is that most of them end up violating the "universe" or "script rules" set up in the first film.

Characters start getting watered down from their original interesting state to a bunch of equilized generic shapes that pretty much define the hollywood formula. Most people disagree with me, but I think one of the biggest examples of this was THE TERMINATOR. The first movie was a piece of work, perfectly intact and begged to be left alone for the sake of screwing it up. Then comes the sequel, and now Arnold has gone from relentless, cold, emotionless, unstopably violent, to some disney version of what kids need to be taught via an old proberb at Bedtime (probably becasue the studios need to sell more kiddy toys) . . . PATHETIC. The interesting clash of what this indifferent death-seeking robot would say from time to time in a society of civil human beings now becomes a catalyst for cheezy macho one-liners to get a cheap laugh. When everyone saw that film, they loved it . . . I couldn't wait to get out of the theater I was so dissapointed. Linda Hamiliton and the fx were the only good things about that film, and even the fx were lame to me because I could felt it was more of an excuse for Cameron to show off the current technology of the day.

Anyone who paid any attention at all to the original story would know that a sequel where another terminator came back in time went completely against one of the most important points in the first movie . . . skynet had been destroyed, at the last minute, they sent through the arnole terminator because it was a last ditch effort . . . but OH THEN IN THE SECOND ONE, it turns out there was a better terminator? Why didn't they send that one through instead? And then for the 3rd movie, there was an even BETTER 3rd TERMINATOR!!! For a bunch of machines that were ruling the planet, they were pretty stupid to even bother sending the arnold version through . . .

Hollywood makes the franchise films and then writes the script around them to try to catch up with the money-making idea . . . it's all i'm sayin.

Very few characters remain intact throughout sequels. Martin Riggs? No. Indiana Jones? No. John McLane? The Matrix gang? No. I mean even the horror villians get screwed up eventually. I mean how hard is it to screw up Jason or Michael Meyers or Freddy Krueger? But they do!!!

And Characters really are just the starting point, like I said entire universes change . . . i.e., things that never would have happened in the "universe" of the first films start happening in the sequels. Just bad. Bad, bad, bad.

Ya, I know, I get started, and . . . .

I really, really, really don't want to get into the Matrix (only) thing because I'm exhausted still from trying to explain it on other boards over the years. It, too, would be OT for this thread.

The Matrix had a nice conclusion for the first one but the three films are ONE story. You cannot view the last two without understanding the first. The last two cannot stand on their own. Especially the second one.

I usually tell people you have to think of them as acts. ACT I, II and III of a complete story.

I disagree with the statement that indies turn out garbage films. At least if you are talking about those that make it to larger chains like Landmark. Usually these are well written and directed but have flaws that may be introduced by lack of budget or experience. The indies, necessarily, are made with more spirit than a need to make millions of dollars. Hollywood films are made with a need to make millions so the spirit is sometimes lost.

For example, a Mystic River, House of Sand and Fog and InAmerica or Lost in Translation compared to what in recent Hollywood? The only one I can think of could be Spotless Mind or, uh, now I forgot.

Speaking of which, I could know today if I sold a script I've been working on to the Hollywood system. (heh)

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : Glad to see people here.

I have no arguements seeing why people say Aliens beats Alien, although for some reason I think I go with the first one, for without it's original statement of "what just 1 alien is capable of," the whole "now let's see what happens when there are hundreds of them" wouldn't work.
-->>>

More is not necessarily better but in this case *Aliens* is a different style of movie and is great on its own, not necessarily better than *Aliens*. Actually, I can watch *Aliens* today and it is totally undated but when you watch *Aliens*, it is exciting and has the same great plot but the special effects are actually quaint. The use of rear projection, some dodgy models, stop motion, all of that would be redone today. Also, it is funny to note that the type of gear the soldiers wear in Iraq today is much more sophisticated than what is worn by the Colonial Marines 'in the future'. That said, *Aliens* is superbly plotted and is one of the very few handful of sequels that don't let the 'franchise' down.

I felt the same way about *Blade II*. The original *Blade* is all right but *Blade II* just pulls out the stops. It is a much different movie in feel than *Blade*. In *Blade* if you don't accept something it is cheesy and sneer at it because the tone is a bit serious. In *Blade II* the tone is tongue-in-cheek so all the cheesy bits support the flavour.

I agree with your thoughts on *The Terminator* and its sequels. The original is very tight and pure. In the first one the Terminator goes into a police station and wipes it out. In the second one, he can't bring himself to hurt any and gets in touch with his feelings. Terrible. It had exciting stunts and set pieces but on the whole, a let down. The third one, on the other hand, had an interesting concept and ending but the plot was not very well balanced in the excitement department.

Just a thought,
I don't think hollywood has ever been known for the qualityof its output. When we look back at the "good old days" we are falling into a dangerous trap. The trap of selective memeory. Nostalgia is not reality...
The 50's and 60's, for example, gave us literally 100's of generic and lame westerns- not to mention a flood of bad WWII movies. Countless frankenstein and werewolf movies- endless abbot and costello features. The thirties and forties were rife with terrible musicals, lame gangster movies, one micky rooney and judy garland movie after another- each with the same plot, but each somehow worse than the the one before it. Don't get me wrong, There were certainlly some fine films made in these periods, but for every "Forbidden Planet" or "2001" we have dozens of "Rocket Ship XMs", and "Silent Runnings". And kid's movies? Come on now! when I was a boy we had the "Gnome Mobile", and the "Apple Dumpling Gang", and second generation animation projects from Disney such as "Robin hood"
Pure dreck! Ever see disney's "Treasure Island"? It could be a primer in how to take great source material, alter it and produce pure crap. Anybody remember "The Cat From Outer Space"? Gahhh- or the Herbie movies- a franchize as sucky as any produced in the last 10years, that's for certain.

How about James Bond- I challange you to find a discernable plot in disasters like "Thunderball" or in "Goldfinger"- a movie in which Bond overhears the bad guys discussing their plans through air vents on three seperate occasions- not once, not twice, but three times- now that's a spy! .007 is actually how high these movies rate on a scale of 1-10. No wonder the iron curain came down if we had men like that working for us!

The fact of the matter is, making movies is difficult- Hollywood reguraly spends millions of dollars on flops- sequels are no more or less guilty than stand alone movies like "The 6th day" or "Cat in the Hat" Quality films will always be produced, and so will terrible films, and I suspect the ratio of good to bad will remain, with some minor fluctuations, fairly constant.

Sorry to go on so long there. "Good old days" talk always touches a nerve with me. Now is as good as it gets- and always will be, because we can interact with Now, and make it into something spectacular.

Michael

To clarify; I was generalizing that indi films typically are garbage. I love the ones mentioned above:

Lost in Translation
American Zoetrope had a hand in it; Francis Executive Produced; Bill Murray stars...

Mystic River
Warner Brothers Produced it, Clint Eastwood directs, stars EVERYONE...

House of Sand and Fog
Dreamworks Produces, stars Jennifer Connelly, Ben Kingsley...

InAmerica
I'd say this is the more independent of the lot. Truly done outside of Hollywood.

Aside from In America they're not really independent are they?
House of Sand and Mystic are not even remotely independent films.

Lost in Translation is disguised as an independent. I like to think an independent film comes from nowhere and hits you hard and you have no idea who the actors are nor who the filmmakers are. Now, thats independent. Think OPEN WATER perhaps?


People always classify INDI as this and that, but the reality is, that most of what people think are INDI are not.

John, although I see your point, I feel the need to point out that it is easy to be right when you define the terms yourself.

"People always classify INDI as this and that, but the reality is, that most of what people think are INDI are not. "

If most people agree that something is an 'independent' film, then it seems that the definition of an independent film has changed. Language goes with the majority.


Perhaps you meant 'low budget' films are typically garbage, or 'first time director' films are typically garbage.

It's difficult to discuss things that hinge on subjective terms and phrases such as "independent" or even "outside the hollywood system."

In any event, I agree with your point that the bulk of what you are calling "indies" are generally garbage.... but I think this has always been the case.

I would also agree with Michael. It's dangerous to fall into this nostalgic thinking of the years gone by. In 50 years people will be having the same conversations. Why? Because by then movies like "Garfield" "White Chicks" and "The Adventures of Pluto Nash" will have been forgotten completely. People will look back and look at the generation that produced "Traffic" "Fight Club" and "Fargo" and wonder where all the good movies have gone.

History has a tendency of erasing mediocrity from the collective memory. Only the strong survive...so it always seems nicer in the past.

I'm sure the past, the present, and the future all will share the same amount of crap films.... unfortunately.

-Luis

I do disagree that language goes with the majority. Just because people say it doesnt make it right. That's kind of flockish to say the least. It's like believing in the hype or living in a state of myopia. (Like the kids today dressing Punk; it's not really punk though is it? But it sure is cool.)

And no, not at all did I mean LOW BUDGET or FIRST TIMERS. I think some of the best work comes from this area as this is really when the Guerilla side comes out in creativity and resources.

What I specifically meant is that the majority of independent films I have seen I have not liked. I'm specifically referring to the typical art house film; NOT high caliber off-Hollywood films that like to throw the word independent around because it sounds cool.

On the same note; I think the majority of Hollywood Studio films are garbage as well. I think both sides contribute greatly to Cinema and both sides routinely churn out some great work. I agree with you, past, present and the coming future; the strong films will shine through.

This is exactly why it is difficult to discuss these topics. Your criticism about 'independent' movies hinges on what we mean by "independent." If we dont' all agree on what the term "independent" means, then there is no way to really discuss it.

"I do disagree that language goes with the majority. Just because people say it doesnt make it right. That's kind of flockish to say the least."

In a sense, I guess you are right, it is kind of 'flockish.' But if we do not have definitions that we all agree upon, then there is no concise and efficient way to communicate. That is why I said language goes with the majority. And if the majority of people are using a term to mean a certain thing...then that is the way the language has gone, and in order to communicate effectively, we should adopt the new definitions.



"It's like believing in the hype or living in a state of myopia. (Like the kids today dressing Punk; it's not really punk though is it? But it sure is cool.)"

I don't see how it has anything to do with hype, or myopia.
(maybe that's because I'm myopic)
:)

It may not mean the same thing that Punk meant 20 years ago, but definitions change. If anything, I would say that not realizing that definitions fluctuate is living in the past.

Look at the changing definitions within our own industry. The term professional does not denote the same thing it did 20 years ago. We can discuss that all we want, but many people today consider the XL1s to be a "professional" camera. And, if an overwhelming number of people begin to refer to it as professional, then that's what it will be called.

We can lament the loss of what it meant to be "professional,"
and to use "professional" equipment. But, this is the way things are, and we must adapt, or be left saying "back in my day, a professional didn't use 1/3" chips."

My point was not that the films you mentioned are 'independent' (by your definition). But that the definition of what makes a film "independent" has changed for the majority of the public.

I agree with you, I think it is wrong, but it is reality.
It is the way the term is being used, and I'm sure in the future it will evolve again. Most subjective terms like this do.

"What I specifically meant is that the majority of independent films I have seen I have not liked. I'm specifically referring to the typical art house film"

What is the "typical art house film"?
I think I know the type of film you mean...but again we are dealing with subjective terms with no clear definition.
The "Typical" art house film is usually a film that tries to be anything but "typical."

(and I agree, I don't like most of them either).

Sorry I didn't mean to side track this conversation....
I just have a hard time reading a discussion where the terms being batted around haven't been clearly defined.

I guess it doesn't matter what most people consider to be "independent" or "art house," as long as we can agree on our own definitions here.

-Luis

Independent, by my terms, means "independent of the studio system". Which is why "Lost in Translation" is "independent". Zoetrope is not part of that system. You're right about the others, though. Mystic had not been financed by Warner when I had a (very, very small) hand in it and I was wrong about Sand. That's what I get for trying to type and think at the same time.

That's the trick; getting everyone to agree on that one thing.

There is no way I can agree on House of Sand and Fog or Mystic River being an independent film but I can lean on Lost in Translation being independent; barely and only for accomadation. No. Scratch that. I can't. Not with Zoetrope producing. Not with Francis behind it.

Open Water? Independent to the 'T'.

Primer? Totally.

Back to using Punk as a example; Definitions do change but tell that to a real 'Punk'! Definitions changing; that's a tough one. I don't know... Things aren't the same as they used to be thats for sure, but as far as the definition changing? Going down this road might lead one to think Hollywood is Independent! (Eventually)

No worries Rob. It's not about right or wrong :p I like talking film and reading different perceptions.

I think the real question is:

What is INDEPENDENT? Here is a list of just a few of the films American Zoetrope has Produced:

Don Juan DeMarco
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
Haunted
In My Life
Jeepers Creepers I and II
Rainmaker, The
Sleepy Hollow

(Not to mention a ton of others)

Not sounding too independent all of a sudden. They're as much as part of Hollywood as the next one. I dont even wanna get started on what Zoetrope Studios has done.

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?

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!

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

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.

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.

"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

<<<-- 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

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!

<<<-- 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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Yet again,

Not say'n they're all bad. They're not. The truth is, even though Hollywood makes mostly bad movies, the worlds best movies undoubtedly come from the same place. No machine on earth other than Hollywood could put out Die Hard. No machine on earth other than Hollywood could put out The Matrix. Yes, american cinema is the best in the world, I think followed by cheesy but often well shot and original oriental cinema (early John Woo was a barrel of monkeys, too bad they gave him MI: 2).

Please, everyone, stop stroking the French, especially if you're French. Who could really compare visual/audio quality with Hollywood. No one. That said . . . . .

Best 80's movies were better than best 90's. Case closed. (LOLOLOL)

Actually, a few have popped up in the last so many years. Matrix awesome, Fight Club awesome, Identity really cool. Memento. Lord of Rings pretty darn good.

OH, JOHN, OH, JOHN!!!!!

Don't get me started about the gymnist chick in Jurrasic Park II! (LOLOLOLOOLOOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOOLOLOLOOOOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL)

Perhaps the worst Spielberg Scene EVERRRRRRRRRR!!!!!
So bad, it was good, you know what I mean.

There's that point in a movie where a film just falls off the face of even the bad, and then it actually becomes good becasue it's soooooo much fun to watch. (Well, or you get out stress via tears).

Hahahaha you had to remind me of the gymnast girl fighting the raptors... hahaha

There was a good review somewhere about JPII where they predicted in III that Goldblum would have adopted an Asian boy who would defeat the raptors with superior soccer dribbling skills.

All I want from my movies are for them to be taken it seriously; as in PLAUSIBLE.

I know the following scenarios aren't real:

Star Wars
The Magical Ark of the Covenant
Superman
Killer Shark chasing boat
Mutating Thing in the Artic
Dinosaurs running around terrorizing

But if they did how would it go down? Thats what I want. Lets pretend for a second "What if........."


What gets me is when this suspension of disbelief is violated with things like a 13 year old gymnast beating down the Velociraptor and Superman actually thinking Margo Kidder is attractive

(okay Im kidding on that one; well not on the unattractive comment)

<<<-- Originally posted by John Hudson : All I want from my movies are for them to be taken it seriously; as in PLAUSIBLE.



What gets me is when this suspension of disbelief is violated with things like a 13 year old gymnast beating down the Velociraptor and Superman actually thinking Margo Kidder is attractive

(okay Im kidding on that one; well not on the unattractive comment) -->>>

RE: Margot Kidder
Not only unattractive, but unattractive in a sleazy, late 70's, disco refugee sort of way. I haven't seen the movie in like 10 years and I can still hear the "can you read my mind" part, Uggh!

At least they didn't do a nude scene.

Michael

LOLOL,

Ya, man. I so hear ya guys. The first rule of thumb (in my opinion) is to NOT . . . VIOLATE . . . YOUR UNIVERSE. Dude, you can set up any universe you want. You can make it a cheesy universe, you can make it serious. What you're allowed to get away with the entire film is all about the first 10 minutes. That's why we're okay with True Lies being cheesy, because it was set up that way. We know Harry Renquist is the basically a James Bond Parody. The script is going to have a lot of action, but it's going to be tounge and cheek. We see it coming from the get go, so we accept it. But Aliens is not a parody. It was set up from the get go as something that was supposed to taken seriously. So if Ripley by the end of the movie starts slinging cheesy one-liners at the Aliens in the middle of a heated scene, it completely takes you out of the action. That's also why Newt didn't start swinging around on the pipes above and kicking the aliens through walls, and she was not able to effectively karate-kick bad guys like Burke, who were 5 times her size.

IMHO,

That is the MAIN problem with a bad script. Universe violation. This is also what makes most sequels so bad. What filmmakers don't understand is that when you make a sequel, you have to follow a rule that you don't have to follow as with a "First Episode" movie. From frame one, the audience is in THE SAME UNIVERSE AS THEY WERE IN THE ORIGINAL FILM. The same characters will act the same ways given certain similar circumstances. It's okay if they have changed some, but you can't make Martin Riggs, a world-class bad ass from Lethal Weapon I, consider get his ass kicked in by some out of shape half-baked crime organization boss at the end of Lethal III just because you've run out of tough characters that can now be formitable opponents. Of course, it was wonderful that they had Riggs down on all fours pretending to be dog so he won't get attacked by a giant rotweiler, becasue, see, they had to show he was still crazy and . . .

. . . no wait, that was stupid too.

Michael Gibbons

LMAO when I read the 'Can you read my mind' line!

I have to agree with Luis Caffesse
opinon on this. Most of the films that people are refering to in this discussion are neither art, not especially good films. Just escapist entertainment, nothing more.

If you want to get your blood boiling and really discuss independent film, try this link

http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/
Then come back and talk here.....

Ray Carney is the premier authority on Cassevetes and other American Independent film makers. He will pis# you off and attack all your cherished beliefs about what constitutes the difference between great film and drek.

(He is not any relation to me btw).

You will find that the main problem in hollywood is money itself. How many of us would take chances with hundreds of million dollars of someone elses money? Knowing if we fail, we are finished. Our careers over, our reputations ruined. How many business' risk so much for so little chance of gain? That sort of risk and situations can turn even the strongest, most brilliant visionary into a myopic coward.
I don't hate Hollywood, I feel sorry for all of it.
For all that is lost to cretins with deep pockets. For a public that has been brainwashed to accept drivel as good movie making and not caring about the difference. Worse yet, never wanting to care about the difference.


A truly Independent movie has nothing to do with where a film is made, whether inside or outside a studio. Money has nothing to do with it either. If it were based on the above, then George Lucas is the greatest independent film maker of all time (barf... barf) And Speilberg is a modern day Shakespeare (okay, now really barf).

And Lost in Translastion is an independent film if you judge it by it's ideas and how it was made instead of condeming someone because of their DNA. It was honest, it was truly adult, it spoke up to it's audience instead of feeding them all sorts of signs posts. It let you figure out when to laugh, when to get upset.

When to feel anything required you to pay attention instead of being told when and how to think, feel and react (like 99 percent of all films made). That fact that it was a comedy was especially rare.


btw, Ray Carney is one of the most hated people in hollywood. You even mention his name and people clam up and ignore you or get downright hostile.

His is not about getting you to agree with him. He is a teacher at heart and his real goal is to get you to think through what you are doing. Whether you are going to make the next great genre film, the next great character study, or what ever, studying him will raise your film conciense to the next level.
The down side is you start noticing all the lame crap that permeates 99 percent of movies (both big screen, small screnn, low budget,, what ever).

He has especially harsh words for the vast majority of film critics. He (like myself) felt the late Pauline Kael was a true cancer on the film scene.

I encourage those of you reading this to follow the link and start a new discussion after reading as much as you can stomach.

I have the book Cassevettes on Cassevettes. It's one of those books I keep coming back to again and again when I feel I'm losing my way.

Sorry for the rant, but there are too many clueless dilitants wandering the net passing judgement on things they know nothing of.

The above post reminded me of an interview I read once with Scorsese about Cassavetes.

I'm sure most of you have heard this story, but if you haven't I think it's worth repeating.

Scorsese had just finished a rough cut of his first studio film "Boxcar Bertha" for producer Roger Corman. The first person he showed the print to was his friend and idol at the time, John Cassavetes. When the movie ended, Cassavetes turned to him and said, "Marty, you've just spent a year of your life making a piece of shit. It's a good movie, but don't get hooked into that stuff."

Cassavetes then told him, "you should only film something that you're dying to make."

That's what urged Scorsese to rewrite and eventually film "Mean Streets."

Well,

don't know much about carney, but from the glance I took at his web site, he strikes me as someone who I can only KIND OF relate to.

I'm sure he's right that in general MOST Hollywood movies are drivel, but I'm also quite sure that there are some Hollywood movies that this guy hates that makes him . . . in my opinion . . . .a, ummmm . . . well . . .

. . . an idiot.


Few people I've met have the oddasity to think they know enough about filmmaking or life to say these 2 sentences back to back:

"Marty, you've just spent a year of your life making a piece of shit." . . . and . . . "It's a good movie, but . . . ." . . . well, by this point, I know not to listen to him, so the rest of the second sentence doesn't really matter, now does it.

Perhaps Carney has a dual pesonality and doesn't realize it.

Ya, ya, all about "finding in a movie what you as an observer would bring to it". Dude, if you're gonna do that, just hang out at a park and watch people all day. Or go through a stranger's photo album. Or go meditate. Or even just sit in a chair for a period of 4 hours and do absolutely nothing, no TV, no book, silent in a room, nothing, and see what happens in your head. Doing these things will tell you a lot about yourself, your pains and discomforts will come to the forefront, and perhaps too your strengths, and you'll start to get an idea of what you are as a being.

. . . but hell, keep it out of the theater, man. In my opinion, it takes a FAR MORE talented director to take you on a precisely prescribed roller coaster ride than to put a bunch of images in front of you and let you figure out from it what you want. Hell, everything you see is based on who you are as it is. YOU are the only way possible to perceive things. Your ego is a filter of the world as it comes to you. So no matter what I throw at you, you're going to have a twist I can't control.

Art is about control. That's why an olympic gymnist doing a parallel bars routine is more impressive to watch than an uncoordinated college drunk trying to do the same thing. The gymnist toned that routine to perfection, and we as an audience regard what we see in his routine on a very similar level. The college drunk, well, some people will watch him becasue he's funny, some people will get annoyed because they don't like drunks, some will be embarrased for him, and some of us will want to go get drunk and try the same thing because it looks like fun . . . but none of these things were brought about by ART. This is simply our own filters acting upon a not-too life changing experience.

A good martial artist controls his opponent in a fight. A bad martial artist gets his ass kicked in.

A good Christopher Walkin immitator sounds closer to Christopher Walkin than a bad one.

A portrait painter can paint Christopher Walkin better than a bad one.

A great pianist plays cleaner 16th notes than a bad one.

My point is, ART, true art, is the discapline and refinement of something specific, not just a simple-minded collection of crap labeled art. And one of the oldest and truest forms of this is storytelling. Since filmmaking in it's most popular form has manifested itself via storytelling (in my opinion, a very specific craft, with the goal of any 2 audience members experiencing relatively the same journey throughout the yarn being told), guys like Carney don't know where to go. Guys like Carney want direly to do somehting ELSE with film that is not storytelling, yet they want to be uniformally accepted by the masses as a great filmmaker/critic. Unfortuantely, for Carney, storytelling and filmmaking kind of go hand in hand now, and all he has left to do is cry because that's not what he wanted . . . oh, and because he's no good at storytelling, would be my guess (haven't seen any movies he's done).

Any way you look at it, I can tell you this with certainty. If Carney thinks he knows something about storytelling, and also thinks that THE TERMINATOR (the original, not the sequels) is simply the typical watered down Hollywood drivel as opposed to a film that stands above the norm, then Carney is definitely . . . .

. . . . an idiot.


If he's the type I think he is, he can go hang in a bar with the ghost of Andy Warhol and watch re-runs of that 6 hour feature which was nothing but a 6 hour static shot of the Empire State Building, meanwhile . . .

Elvis has LEFT that building.

P.S.

Anyone who wants to see my definition of an ART HOUSE MOVIE can go to this link and scroll down a little ways.

http://www.almostmovie.com/About%20the%20Movie.htm