Do Hollywood flicks seem to be getting crappier?

[Brack Craver]

Why? Any thoughts?

[Dylan Couper]

Crappier than Earnest Goes To Camp and King Kong vs. The Three Stooges?

It's not getting crappier, you're just starting to notice it.

[Rick Bravo]

Nothing like a classic like Police Academy 5! Timeless!!!

[Brack Craver]

Heck Rick, your dad was on some of the greatest films of all time. Regardless, Ernest Goes To Jail and Ernest Saves Christmas- I saw both of those in an, uh, altered state of mind and they were awesome. That old dude in Ernest Goes to Jail was genius. I guess you're right in that crappy flicks have always existed but I used to be able to walk out of the theatre on a fairly regular basis after some great movie and the world would seem different. Do you know what I'm talking about? Everything seemed more alive, vibrant, the world full of possibilities. Does that make any sense? I know it sounds like complete bs but there are films that can do that to me. Maybe it's because I find the movie inspiring or something. I don't know. Anyway, the last movie where I had that kind of experience was The Ring. Or at least that's the last one I remember. I don't know, it just seems like I used to have that experience on a fairly regular basis. Maybe I was just drunk more. Full Metal Jacket, Alien, Blade Runner- I want that kind of feeling when I leave the theatre. Or I can give you a rundown of movies Rick's dad worked on that did that to me. :-) I'm tired of going to movies just so I can waste a couple hours.

[Rick Bravo]

Thanks Brack, you are absolutely correct about some of the movies my Dad worked on. I remember going on many a set with him and the only one that really comes to mind that had any kind of effects was "The Exorcist". The amazing part is that what I refer to effects was all done mechanically, on the set, not in a computer or against a blue screen. On of the most impressive effects in that movie was the use of music, pacing and camera work to build a tension that cannot be duplicated any other way.

I think one of the biggest problems with some of today's films is that they rely quite a bit on special effects, CGI, etc. This oftentimes leaves the actual content of the movie lacking. If you stripped some of these films of all the bells and whistles you'd have nothing but an empty shell.

Don't get me wrong, I sometimes crave "mindless" entertainment too. Movies should, above all else, entertain you and in today's world, sometimes you just need to disconnect from reality and not have to do too much thinking, so the occasional goofy movie is fine with me.


Here is one classic that was shot on one set with no special effects...Hitchcock's "Rear Window". Ahhh, those were the days!

RB

[Michael Wisniewski]

Yeah, they just keep re-packaging the same thing over and over again - especially the special effects.

One of the things that really annoys me now is how EVERY monster is just the T-Rex or Velociraptor from Jurassic Park in different costumes.

You know the whole, bristle, let out the EXACT SAME SCREAM, and then chase the hero, with the exact same loping gate. The Alien queen in AVP is just the T-Rex in drag. Makes me wish they'd go back to mechanical sharks or even little rubbery "things" skittering across the floor.


The good thing is that it leaves room for us, I just rented the original Diabolique and was mesmerized the whole way through. It was B&W and had no special effects you couldn't do in your own garage. Quite satisfying to watch, and it left me with the good feeling that I didn't waste my time.

[Rick Bravo]

The reason that "Jaws" worked so well is that Bruce, the mechanical shark, malfunctioned so much that they actually shot less of it than they had planned and made up for the deficit with acting and suspense building instead of hitting you over the head repeatedly with shots of Bruce.

RB

[Dylan Couper]

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Wisniewski : Yeah, they just keep re-packaging the same thing over and over again - especially the special effects.

Check out the queen Alien in AVP, for example, just call her the T-Rex in drag. -->>>

Many people could argue that the T-Rex is really just the queen Alien on steroids, seing as how ALIENS CAME OUT SEVEN YEARS BEFORE JURRASIC PARK....

Anyway, I do see your point somewhat.


Rick, you're right about the Stooges. Hmm....
How about.... Godfather III?

[Rick Bravo]

I still LOVE...Alien, Aliens and BladeRunner!

Alien III was somewhat disappointing, kinda like Godfather III but without the cool ethnic dialog!

"Senator, we're both part of the same hypocrisy..." Godfather 1 & 2 ROCK!

RB

[Michael Wisniewski]

Many people could argue that the T-Rex is really just the queen Alien on steroids, seing as how ALIENS CAME OUT SEVEN YEARS BEFORE JURRASIC PARK....

True, but after Jurassic Park, it's like all the monsters were cloned from the same CG DNA. The queen in Aliens still has a nice unique gritty persona and movement. Calling her a B!$*& feels like you're talking about a real creature.

[Rick Bravo]

More like QUEEN BITCH OF THE UNIVERSE!!!

Another reason the movie worked so well. They continued to tease your imagination with lightning fast shots of the beast without actually revealing what she looked like. The anticipation of the reveal and the build-up of how vicious she was did the trick!

RB

[Rob Lohman]

I think it is a mixed thing. Movies do tend to get worse (in my
opinion), but then again my standards have gone way up in the
last view years. Especially since I'm now "in this craft" basically.

It seems like two camps of people where one doesn't much
seem to care about the intellectial nature of a movie and the
other camp wants more and more challenging movies.

Good thing we have pixar with some grown-up-kids-movies eh <g>

[Yi Fong Yu]

nah. th more you talk about it the more it seems that way but the fact remains, there have always been an exuberant number of crappy movies compared to 'classics'. and even people have diff standards of 'classics'. some younger kids (20s) have said dude where's my car is a classic just as graduate is to baby boomers. go figure.

as far as film history is concerned even back in the 1910s-1920s for every hit that DW Griffith made he's also made blunders. crappy artistic mediums have always been with us. for every odyssey or oedipus there'll be uknown works lost in time that were crappy. even beethoven's symphonies are not ALL (every single note) good. so rest assured it's been going on since waaay back. heck i bet even the cave drawings that survived today may not have been "a classic" ;).

but on the other hand i have not seen another film top two of my favorite 'classics'; citizen kane & 7 samurai.

[Joshua Starnes]

The best of the best don't come out that often. Director's don't rely on CGI now any more than they did on mechanical effects (just watch some of the really corny James Bond movies, like Moonraker). The real difference is that mechanical effects, even back then, are more time consuming and expensive, so there was a much smaller number of films that could use them as a crutch.

[Rick Bravo]

First of all, there were NO REAL James Bond movies after Sean Connery! :0

The Roger Moore years were more a parody of the originals, if anything else. (Pay special attention to the LAST name and interpret my ensuing silence!) Sorry Chris...I couldn't resist!

It seems that a solid story, compelling dialogue and solid acting are not that important in today's film world...

but, what the hell do I know!?

RB