# Movies: An obsolete form of storytelling ?



## G.E. (Feb 18, 2014)

I used to love movies growing up but lately I've been disappointed with this medium.I keep seeing the same old recycled crap over and over again and honestly I don't understand how people keep watching them.The worst part is that it seems there's a stronger emphasis on visual effects and action scenes while the story and character development are neglected.Whenever I see the name Michael Bay next to a movie I'm rolling my eyes and already know it's gonna be a horrible movie.Instead of wasting that HUGE budget on visual effects why not hire a talented writer and make a movie that actually has something to say?

Even the music seems to be taking the same path with recycling the same old epic hybrid tracks and rarely hearing something fresh and original.I suppose temp tracks are to take part of the blame for this.I know directors get overly attached to them and they act as an anchor that's holding back the composer.There's nothing wrong with that kind of music(I actually like it) but for the love of god,give it a break and try something different for a change.

Finally,my conclusion is that TV series are the future.I couldn't help but notice how far they have come and how much better they are than movies now.They have much more potential for better story ,better character development and plot intricacy.Shows like Breaking Bad or Game Of Thrones(and many others) are honestly 10 times better than any movie I've seen in the last 5 years.
Music is also much better.Some of my favorite music is from Bear McCreary on Battlestar Galactica and Da Vinci's Demons.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 18, 2014)

Ha ha - I've started a couple of threads now on almost identical lines. But I've come through the other side now - slightly, anyway.

Good movies are still being made, hell even blockbusters occasionally break the mould (Gravity). I've just seen The Lego Movie - seriously, its phenomenal on every level (including score and screenplay), and its an animation based on a TOY for crying out loud. Films like American Hustle get made (not a big fan, but certainly not generic) and 12 Years A Slave, answering the charge that no good middle ground films get made any more.

OK, so these are all the exception rather than the norm, but its reason enough not to abandon hope. You never know, with enough shining examples in there, execs might even notice that there's a market outside generic mediocrity and allow a few more though. In the meantime, with Breaking Bad and The Bridge, TV has never been so good.

Let the good times roll.


----------



## impressions (Feb 18, 2014)

good games are also great story tellers. if you ever played fallout, gothic 1, lucas films adventures, or any adventure for that matter. they are just as good as films and can deliver even a much better experience because of the participation.

there is always the crap and the recycled. besides more european movies don't have that cliche hollywood sound to them.


----------



## mverta (Feb 18, 2014)

Not long ago, I showed a 23-year-old the original _12 Angry Men_. After a few minutes of pointing and laughing at various aspects of it, they stopped talking, sat still, in silence, and didn't take their eyes off the screen again until the credits rolled. Didn't even look at their iPhone once.

"I've never seen a movie like that."


No, kid, you haven't. You know, if all people eat is shit all day, they start to discriminate between the "good" shit and the "bad" shit, utterly losing perspective on the fact that they're eating shit either way. It's a curious byproduct of the nearly limitless adaptability of humans, who can learn to hang by their thumbs.

_Mike


----------



## jleckie (Feb 18, 2014)

mverta @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> Not long ago, I showed a 23-year-old the original _12 Angry Men_. After a few minutes of pointing and laughing at various aspects of it, they stopped talking, sat still, in silence, and didn't take their eyes off the screen again until the credits rolled. Didn't even look at their iPhone once.
> 
> "I've never seen a movie like that."
> 
> ...



So well said -It had to be repeated.


----------



## maclaine (Feb 18, 2014)

I don't think they're obsolete, but I do think that they struggle to fight for the attention of the general public. Because there is so much choice out there for entertainment, and because movies are such a massive undertaking in both manpower and money, less risks can be taken. The end result is more garbage. I'm not the most avid moviegoer, though I think I have a pretty good barometer for quality storytelling. There have been some great, smaller movies in recent years. Off the top of my head, movies like Winter's Bone, Mud, The Road, and Take Shelter have all struck a chord with me recently. They are all small scope stories of people, written, acted, and shot beautifully. They just get drowned out in the noise of the next big explosion-fest.

Also, and I am 100% biased because of how I pay my bills, but I think that games are another avenue for great storytelling. There is just as much crap as there is in any other medium, but there are more and more great stories being told, from small games to big ones. A series like Mass Effect takes the tropes of big sci-fi epics and puts you in control of the entire thing. It has the small moments as well as the big, and you are able to affect the story as you want it across three titles. It's an incredible achievement. On the other end of things, there are titles like Dear Esther, Gone Home, or Kentucky Route Zero that are "games" only in the sense that they use the same technology that other games do, but the focus is squarely on telling a story and not killing enemies or scoring points. In the middle ground, there are titles like The Banner Saga, which has strategic gameplay akin to chess, yet it is wrapped up in jaw-dropping art and a story revolving around viking mythology which, like Mass Effect, you play a role in shaping based on your choices (all with beautiful music to boot).

To touch on what you said about TV shows (and what many people have been saying for years), I do think they are becoming better at telling some of the same types of stories that movies used to. I noticed this when watching the latest Superman movie. Even though the movie is quite long (not something I had an issue with), the pace of the storytelling felt breakneck to me compared to something like Game Of Thrones. Having 12 hour long episodes to let a story and characters breath is a welcome change of pace from relentless action, as it allows you to build up and cool down from major moments.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 18, 2014)

mverta @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> You know, if all people eat is shit all day, they start to discriminate between the "good" shit and the "bad" shit, utterly losing perspective on the fact that they're eating shit either way. It's a curious byproduct of the nearly limitless adaptability of humans, who can learn to hang by their thumbs.
> 
> _Mike



Nah, I don't buy it.

No quibble about 12 Angry Men - it's outstanding and still highly relevant (and, I notice, in the IMDB public top 10). But you overstate the case. There are outstanding contemporary movies being made every year - it's not all good shit and bad shit (and I suspect you know it). You could pick a dozen movies from this century that are worthy of being called - at least - very good (and of course there are hundreds from the 50's that haven't remotely stood the test of time - 12 Angry Men is, after all, a cherry pick).

Here's a little cherry picking of my own, based solely on the Best Picture noms of the past four years:

12 Years A Slave
Captain Philips
Dallas Buyers Club
Philomena
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty
Lincoln
Armour
Argo
Moneyball
The King's Speech
Inception
The Social Network
Toy Story 3

No doubt all of us would find fault with a number here (heading off "I don't like X so will conflate that to invalidate the whole argument"), but you can't casually dismiss the whole lot as merely relatively good, but still ultimately shit.

William Goldman (all praise be) was fond of pointing out every year that the Oscar nominations of whatever year it was he was writing couldn't hold a candle to those that didn't get nominated in, say, 1941. I suspect that, overall, he's right and the quality level has dropped, and blockbusters in particular have suffered an atrocious 10-15 years. But its imo lazy cynicism to denigrate everything.


----------



## mverta (Feb 18, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> Nah, I don't buy it.



Well, you can disagree with how it applies to this argument, but it's a psychological fact. It's why life-in-prison inmates don't all go insane. In time, they scale their "joy" to little, relative things. Like Taco Tuesday or whatever. I used to wonder about the truth of this, but 14 years of working with prisoners later, I've learned it is an immutable truth.

So the question is, if relative judgment is a fact, why would you think that opinions on movies are an exception? It's not an exception in fashion, food quality, or anywhere else I can think of. The shoes they felt "comfortable" in in 1800 were not, by today's standards. Have you eaten a chicken, raised on an actual farm, eating actual grass and walking around all its life, killed an hour before you ate it? It tastes like something completely different than what we eat usually. I was stunned the first time I did. I had no idea; prior to that moment I had my own, relative scale, of good chicken and bad chicken. It was all bad chicken.

_Mike


----------



## G.E. (Feb 18, 2014)

Can't believe I forgot about games but yeah,I agree.On paper,there wasn't anything remarkable about Mass Effect.It wasn't a bad plot either.But playing it and being able to interact with the story and shape it was truly something special.Gone Home is another example of an amazing story that couldn't be as effective if told through any other medium.It's a shame really that so many people dismiss games and fail to realize that they can be so much more than killing zombies with an ak47.Of course there's just as much crap in games as there is in movies.

Movies were always about making money.There's no doubt about that.But there was a time when the people involved in making them were passionate about what they were making.Now a movie (Excuse me for generalizing.I know there are exceptions) is just another product and the people who are calling the shots have no artistic sense whatsoever.They are seeing everything through just a business perspective.

But I agree with what Mike V. is saying.There's no way you can be disappointed if your expectations are low enough and the bar hasn't been set any higher.I think we are all guilty of that in some form or another.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 18, 2014)

mverta @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Tue Feb 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Nah, I don't buy it.
> ...



Ha - go see The Lego Movie and re-read this post, those writers are way ahead of you 

Down this road of course, all is relative and debate becomes meaningless. Personally, I find the notion that absolutely no decent movies are made nowadays of any kind anywhere in the world relative to the 1950s to be, shall we say, not compelling. But nevertheless I'm delighted that someone presumably raised on a diet of Michael Bay has finally seen a decent movie, regardless of when it was made.


----------



## Rctec (Feb 18, 2014)

Painting: an obsolete art-form.

If that Monet paints another water lily I'll scream! Or those Degas ballerinas. Talk about repeating yourself. And why not just use a camera? Much more modern. Actually, I meant "smart-phone", of course.
Yes, Tv is having a golden age. Especially Scandinavian. "The Killing", "The Bridge" are really great in their original form. Well, it can't be compared to movie-making. Dogs and Deer. A movie is a novella or short-story at best, a Tv series can be a Russian novel. Lots of time for character development.
I blame Spielberg and Lucas. Making movies that they wanted to make that brought us 'High Concept' and where so successful with that "Starwars" thing or that "Jaws" thing that it created the business model for the block-buster.
Michael Bay has fun making movies he likes. And he gets paid for them. What's wrong with that?
Yes, we'd all like Shakespeare and Goethe to write our scripts, or Ben Hecht or Peter Morgan. (oh, Peter Morgan is writing my scripts, but then know one went to see "Rush"...)
There are more movies being done all over the world than ever before. If you are a Spanish composer, you are laughing, because suddenly you are doing big Hollywood movies because you have the right passport. And good for them! That should bring some variety and new voices into the mix.

There have never been as many opportunities to create art and be paid for it as now. Come on, Video games didn't exist a few years ago. There have never been as many opportunities to take advantage of artists, to rip them off, to have artists cut each other's throat by undercutting each other as now.
It is the best of times, it is the worst of times. If you don't like it, change it. Write something so undeniably compelling that it can't be ignored. That's all it takes. Not who you know, where you live and all the other excuses why it's all bland and mediocre out there.
And stop stating the obvious. (That goes for me, too)

-H-


----------



## Greg (Feb 18, 2014)

Stop complaining and start working... 

Who else will save the world from SHIT if they don't know what isn't SHIT?


----------



## TheUnfinished (Feb 18, 2014)

Yeah, Guy, so until you've watched the perfect film, shut up about films will you?!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to wear-in my new free-range chicken shoes...


----------



## AC986 (Feb 18, 2014)

Attention span and items that don't help. Like iPhones.

Issue #1. People watch films from when they start watching films. They hardly ever step back. 

Issue # 2. To appreciate films or Monet, you need to go back to the known beginning and work up to the present. Otherwise you have no compass.

Issue # 3. You never get to see the great photographers, script writers, filmscore writers, actors, and above all the great directors that were really special, if you can't start at the beginning.

You miss out on all the genres, like film noir, that influence what happens today that allows for a more forensic and intellectual approach to making a judgement about what you just watched. Was it really awesome?

Just remember that Hitchcock doesn't make films anymore.

Just this evening I could have watched anything. I went for The Spiral Staircase made in 1945 in B & W so I could check out the photography and Roy Webb's score and just general enjoyment.


----------



## G.E. (Feb 18, 2014)

By no means am I complaining.I feel that I have enough forms of entertainment to choose from that there's no reason to complain.If Hollywood isn't giving me the quality I'm looking for I can always take my money somewhere else,right?Though I am mostly curious to hear what others have to say about this subject and see if I'm the only one who thinks this way.



> If you don't like it, change it. Write something so undeniably compelling that it can't be ignored. That's all it takes. Not who you know, where you live and all the other excuses why it's all bland and mediocre out there.



We all know it doesn't work that way.But again,I'm not complaining.


----------



## Rctec (Feb 18, 2014)

Yes, G.E., it works EXACTLY this way! I speak to very successful (some are even original and creatively innovative) people on a daily basis. Their 'backstory' of how they made it - how they got into a position (and maintain that position - one-hit wonders don't count) - are remarkably similar - and ordinary. Just a headful of ideas, a bellyfull of fire, a love for their art and a willingness to put in the hours and the work.

...and than there is this: http://skinnyartist.com/9-warning-signs ... ur-artist/

Of course, some art-forms evolve, or become superseded by new technologies. And from Gutenberg to Pixar, it's a lot to do with technology. But our basic thirst for good storytelling - visual, musical - pick your language, is what connects us as humans. Shared Dreaming, to quote that boring "Inception"...

-H-


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 18, 2014)

One difficulty isn't that there not enough good stuff; it's that there's so much mediocre stuff that the good stuff gets buried. With all the films that are shown in festivals, who can see them all? And how can one really find the gems from title, paragraph, and a trailer?



adriancook @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> ...and Roy Webb's score.



I love Roy Webb's work! For Christmas, I got the Val Lewton "horror" collection, which I believe was all scored by Webb. In an odd way, he reminds me of Bartok: he likes both simple innocent melodies as well as the dissonant. Webb doesn't go so far afield - he needs to please producers and mainstream audiences - but you get the feeling that he easily could.

I like Cat People, The Seventh Victim, and I Walked with a Zombie (yes, that's the title!) best, but seeing the whole collection, I appreciate every one of his films.


----------



## mverta (Feb 18, 2014)

Hold on, Hans, I'm trying to decipher your main point...

The OP was saying he thinks movies suck now, and I think you were saying, "So what? There are other things to write for; more than ever, so stop complaining or change the movie industry." Did I get that?


----------



## Rctec (Feb 18, 2014)

Dear Mike,
as usual, I was garbling my metaphors and mixed messages... so, in best Zimmer stream-of-something: I think that no one sets out to make a bad movie deliberately Not a director, or a studio, or a writer or "The System". I think people are forever complaining without realizing that every year is a bad and great year for movies. Other than - as William Goldman keeps reminding us - 1939. But that was a bad year in all other aspects, except for movies and Mel Brooks. I think the paradigm is - just like in the rest of society - shifting to the 1% super-expensive movies and, on the other hand, the technology affording us to make a movie like "Rush", which just wouldn't have been possible without go-pros and cheap non-linear editing systems, etc., etc.. Remember, I worked on "Days of Thunder", so I'm doing some comparison shopping here . I believe that there where always great stories badly told - which is the only reason in my mind for a remake - and surprisingly thin little stories elevated to something fantastic by talented film-makers. (What are the stories that move us in a Fellini film, for instance? They really work best as pure cinema, not as a novel) 
I believe - and I use myself, or - since I just worked with him, Steve McQueen - as an example, that it's not who you know in Hollywood, but what and how you do it that gets you noticed. The way to get your foot in the door is to do compelling work that happens to be in sync with the Zeitgeist. And yes, it's still about a fair amount of luck. 

Then we have the question that Tv and cable really are stepping up by being more daring and original than they'd been in a long time (excluding The Simpsons! - always great and cutting-edge for 25 years or so...)
And now we have video games. I think it is undeniable that the written word is still a great thing, but the Kindle or the IPad have shifted not only the delivery form, but the contend, and if we only look outwards, not inwards all the time, given us a whole world of amazing content to discover. I think games have - most often not for the better - influenced movie making, while movies are very much influencing games I think for the better. (no, there will not be a "12 Years A Slave" game anytime soon).
But stop the whining. (I don't mean you, Mike).
Put some effort in discovering the great stories being told by new masters. Don't come at new movies with a sense of pre-conceived expectation that is just a sentimental leftover from going to the movies in your teen-age years.
This is supposed to be a forum for creators. So create The Next Big Thing. Or join a forum of critics...
I could go on, but I'm very bored with my patronizing drivel 
Actually, only Mike will get this rant, since he knows me. 
-H-


----------



## The Darris (Feb 18, 2014)

Hans,

I admire your thoughts on this subject. Something that strikes me as a somewhat 'revolution' in cinema are the indie films that are hitting the streets lately. Even a lot of A list actors and directors are turning back to a more indie feel that doesn't have the restrictions that a lot of studios tend to put on them (correct me if my preconceived notions are wrong with that). This is also very prevalent in the indie-games genre. Just these last 2 years, we've had an indie game win game of the year and this past year the first score for a game was nominated for a grammy. A lot of these people creating these amazing stories and music were not famous before these awards and such, they were all like us, chasing a dream to share their art with everyone. It really does put the focus on us, to try and create that new thing and help shape the industry into what we want. Not to blow smoke up your *** but I feel your success is due to your ability to evolve with the industry and always try something new. That same logic applies to The Simpsons. If they still wrote their show like they did 25 years ago, it would have been off the air long ago. As we press into the future, the styles and trends we (the population) have, change and evolve. It is up to us to stay with it, especially as creators and artists.

-Chris


----------



## Neifion (Feb 18, 2014)

I've gone back and forth with the idea that movies are starting to go downhill. For example, when I saw Avatar, I yawned at the same old story. When the movie came out, I think a critic compared it to the experience he got watching Star Wars for the first time. I thought, "no way, if this is supposed to be the Star Wars of our generation, then things are slipping."

But then not long after, I saw District 9. And that movie, to me, is one of the best sci-fi movies ever made, period. And to go a step further, I think it's more effective as a movie than, say, a book. I don't think you'd get as much of that visceral feeling. At least, I don't think I would.

So like Hans said, every year is a good year and a bad year. For just about every bad, uninspired movie, there's a probably a good, fresh one (with some exceptions).

If you do argue the other way - that movies really are going down - well, I think it's like economics. Things may go down, even way WAY down, but things always stabilize again and the cycle continues. Sooner or later, there's going to be another movie that blows everyone away; another Star Wars phenomenon. I think it kinda-sorta happened with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and will probably happen again within a decade or two. Of course, by that time people's opinions of what a good movie is will probably be different (and they'll still complain about movies - and games - going downhill, too!)


----------



## mverta (Feb 19, 2014)

Thanks for the clarification, Hans...

There's no arguing your point: there are more opportunities to work now, than ever. And a globally connected world means we have the ability to cast nets worldwide in search of our "ideal" project/clients. If after all that you still can't make a go at it, yes, absolutely go back and try again because that's on you.

I think it's fair to infer the OP was indirectly talking about filmscoring opportunities, but I initially read his post as just a take on the storytelling itself. Surely it can't be argued that films today are structurally and procedurally different from even 20 years ago. In fact, I've been seeing a lot of scripts using "8-Act Structure." I guess after 2000 years, someone figured Aristotle was dated... And I recall you once telling me you thought today's films "rejected" the leitmotif approach of my youth. That, in itself, was a weighty statement indicative of a substantial change. I mean, most of us don't even get locked picture anymore (I bet/hope you do/should), which wreaks havoc with the structural weaving that was once the backbone of a score. Plus, still putting my hours in as a visual effects artist, I can attest with confidence that huge, giant sections of films are now motivated by directors asking what our latest tricks are - stuff that's cool - so he can find excuses to put them in the film. I've had this exact request from a couple heavy-hitters just in the last few months. That's 180-degrees from George-Lucas-v1.0's statement in the early 80's that a special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing. (v2.0 made the prequels.) 

In any case, I guess love 'em or hate 'em, you can either beat 'em, or join 'em. Either way, "film is forever"; nostalgia eternal. You can fire up _Goodfellas_ anytime you want.

_Mike


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 19, 2014)

JonFairhurst @ Wed Feb 19 said:


> One difficulty isn't that there not enough good stuff; it's that there's so much mediocre stuff that the good stuff gets buried.



This. Or almost this - I wouldn't say "gets buried" since much excellent work is in plain sight, but the weight of the Hollywood Machine That Produces Standard Fare is considerable.

***skip to next post alert****

I want to talk about The Lego Movie some more (spoiler free).

It really is a quite astonishing piece of work. When we see that Hollywood is turning Battleship into a movie, our expectations hit rock bottom, and they are more than met. It seems to confirm everything we suspect, and as detailed in the OP. And there's no reason to presume Lego would be any different.

But it is. Its taken me a few days of thinking to realise the scale of that achievement to be honest. The speed of the quality gags is so ferocious its tempting to just see it as the most superior kind of sitcom writing (with a canny asdf movie aesthetic for the kids), but there's more going on. Within 10 minutes it was abundantly clear that this was a subversive movie (having its Lego cake and eating it, mind since this will indeed sell toys... but as a byproduct, not a raison d'etre). There is a moment in the film with explicitly tells us exactly what the writers are doing by packaging subversive thought into a palatable, innocuous exterior that can get through the system. You gotta love that. Its - at its core - a complete rejection of conformist thought. It's a Planet Of The Apes for a new generation.

There's been a lot of discussion recently about the film critic HULK lately - indeed one writer said its the best book on screenwriting ever written. I've not read enough to know, but his take on The Lego Movie (with spoilers) persuasively focuses on these things and more - http://badassdigest.com/2014/02/11/film-crit-hulk-smash-the-real-awesomeness-of-the-lego-movie/ (http://badassdigest.com/2014/02/11/film ... ego-movie/) . 

The point is - its soooo lazy to dismiss everything. Original thought still happens. You can still take the same boring old 3 act Heroes Journey and create something genuinely new with it. You can swim against the tide - in plain sight. These things are all rarities, but lets celebrate them rather than shutting the doors and winding back the clocks to 1957.

_[And what about Place Beyond The Pines? A recent mid-budget American movie that is spectacularly daring in its structure and form (didn't totally love it, but sure as hell admired it).]_

From feeling a year ago that we were in a Very Bad Place, I've almost come full circle. There are films made now that are as bold and daring as anything in movie history, and which succeed on their own terms. PLUS - and its a big CAPS LOCK PLUS - TV has never been better. In both cases, mediocrity is still the main order of the day, but the joy in seeing the jewels among the crap is life-affirming stuff. In the past 6 months I've adored the final season of Breaking Bad, Gravity, The Lego Movie and The Bridge II. Has there been a better 6 months of film and TV with that diversity in my lifetime? Probably not.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 19, 2014)

JonFairhurst @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> adriancook @ Tue Feb 18 said:
> 
> 
> > ...and Roy Webb's score.
> ...



I wish someone would buy me Val Lewtons horror collection for Christmas. Maybe the OP might like to make a start with that collection of films. 

Like all great film score writers, Roy Webb knew when to not write. Eg the swimming pool scene from Cat People. Creepy.~~~~~~~~

It was a great shame what happened to Roy Webb's scores and I think that may have finished him off.

You could also look at, if you can get it, The Night of the Demon with scoring by Clifton Parker and His Kind of Woman with scoring by Leigh Harline. And Walter Schumann who scored The Night of the Hunter and unfortunately died aged 44. Adolph Deutsche's background score to Some Like it Hot.

What people don't understand or realize, just as musicians who write to media like to borrow and be let's say, influenced by other writers, so too do makers of films. You see modern day films that are constantly rehashing old films all the time. But in order to know that, you have to have seen the originals in the first place.

I don't know much about video games, but I would bet that they are rehashing all the time.


----------



## Resoded (Feb 19, 2014)

In no particular order:

The Lord of the Rings trilogy
The Dark Knight
In Bruges
Django Unchained
Inception
The Prestige
Warrior
Into The Wild
Gran Torino
Gone Baby Gone
The Kings Speech
Brothers
Rush
Inglorious Basterds
The Departed
The Place Beyond the Pines
Intouchables
Million Dollar Baby
Law Abiding Citizen
The Wrestler

These are all fairly recent movies. Different levels of shit? Just the same stories all over again? I beg to differ.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 19, 2014)

G.E. @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> Instead of wasting that HUGE budget on visual effects why not hire a talented writer and make a movie that actually has something to say?



Hitchcock and loads of that school of directors would re-write a script all the time. Send it to different script writers 6 or 7 times. Even more. Until in his case, his wife liked it. And your premise is a good idea as part of the overall way some of this might go.

Unfortunately for all of us, you can't re-write crap. If the thing is crap in the first place all the re-writing in the world won't matter.

All great directors through the years have one thing in common. They are always looking for THAT story. It's the story first and then the screen and script writers move in. And even then it can be a matter of some luck involved if it works out due to a million other factors of film making I would have thought.

One film recently I couldn't understand was True Grit. The film was basically a complete copy of the original with almost an original script. Nowhere near as good as the original film. Why bother? Waste of time and talent.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 19, 2014)

mverta @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Tue Feb 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Nah, I don't buy it.
> ...



Most people do that anyway and don't need to be in prison to prove it. :wink:


----------



## MichaelJM (Feb 19, 2014)

Making movies is hard. Making a good movie is even harder.

Just a little personal story. When I first started film school not too many years ago, I would go to screenings, and watch the most awful things made by students. I would wonder aloud whether the person on stage who directed that mess knew how bad it was. At what point in the process did they realize it wasn't going to end well? The thinking is a little bit arrogant perhaps, but I had an opinion, and that's something I cherish. More than arrogant, it was a little naive.

Fast forward 4 years, and I'm the one on stage, thanking my crew, and my cast, after having spent the last 63 hours awake, failing an exam, and completely re-doing the sound mix to _my_ film the night before. My film, which I knew wasn't very good. Yet, I was still on stage, asking an audience to watch it. I didn't set out to make a bad movie. I loved the script I picked out. It was perfect. But soon into the process I was told that it wasn't, and that it needed to be changed. Maybe they were right? Maybe they weren't. But here's my point. In my humble opinion, directing is about taking a "perfect" idea, the perfect story, and protecting it through the filmmaking process; fighting for it, trying to maintain its integrity so that hopefully, one small shred of that idea ends up on the screen. And hopefully, that little piece affects an audience in the way you want it to. That's really tough to do. My film wasn't very good. But it wasn't just me on stage, and it wasn't just my ideas on film. It was the joint effort of a whole slew of people, and our film was perfect.

Coming back around to directly address the topic at hand, there will always be good movies and bad movies. I agree with Hans, I don't think anyone sets out to fail. Movies are made for different reasons. Transformers probably wasn't made with everyone in mind. There are good and bad examples of every genre. It can seem like all the good movies are old, but that's partly because time has allowed the bad movies to fade away. Go to the theaters now and the classics are mixed in with the rubbish. And just because I think it's rubbish, doesn't mean the director isn't passionate about it. I saw a director trying to tweak the marketing of his film, and let's just say I thought it was a lost cause. But he was as passionate as those students sharing those terrible student films I watched.

Lastly, I just wanted to say, while there is "recycled crap", the best stories are the ones that we keep telling.

Oh, and I thought the score to Gravity was incredible, and one of the most original scores I've heard in a long while. (but I didn't really like the movie that much)


----------



## G.E. (Feb 19, 2014)

Hans,
There's no doubt that what you are saying is true.I apologize for not explaining what I meant.
Regarding "If you don't like it,change it"
Movies follow a trend,and unfortunately this trend has been going on for too long.If all it took to change an entire industry is one talented man making a great movie and showing the rest of them how it's done,then movies would have changed for the better a long time ago.There were undoubtedly some diamonds in the big pile of dirt in the last 10 years but nothing has changed overall.Maybe something can change, but unfortunately I'm not a film maker, so it's up to others to revive this art form.

I don't blame anyone for making a bad movie.But if you can't make a good movie why are you at the top of the game in Hollywood,getting all that funding for your project, when the talented independent film makers are struggling to get their film noticed by someone ? I suppose that only we,the audience ,are to blame for this, because we keep watching those bad movies.Maybe I'm looking at this all wrong.Maybe Michael Bay is just giving the audience what they want to see. 

"Lord of the rings",now that was a good trilogy.Good story,good execution,and Howard Shore did such a great job on the score.One movie I've been meaning to watch is "The best offer".The trailer intrigued me and it seems to stand out from everything else.I'll just have to see it and hope that I won't be disappointed.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 19, 2014)

G.E. @ Wed Feb 19 said:


> Movies follow a trend,and unfortunately this trend has been going on for too long.If all it took to change an entire industry is one talented man making a great movie and showing the rest of them how it's done,then movies would have changed for the better a long time ago.



It was. The talented man was Orson Welles and the film is called Citizen Kane. Ever seen it?


----------



## Daryl (Feb 19, 2014)

adriancook @ Wed Feb 19 said:


> G.E. @ Wed Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Movies follow a trend,and unfortunately this trend has been going on for too long.If all it took to change an entire industry is one talented man making a great movie and showing the rest of them how it's done,then movies would have changed for the better a long time ago.
> ...


The thing is, even that is opinion. I hated it and didn't rate the score either. Now everyone who knows anything will tell me that I'm a moron for thinking that, but I can't just change what I like, or what I think, and believe me I wanted and tried to like it.

D


----------



## Jetzer (Feb 19, 2014)

G.E. @ February 19th said:


> "Lord of the rings",now that was a good trilogy.Good story,good execution,and Howard Shore did such a great job on the score.



True, but it had excellent source material, as in one of the best books ever written, with a whole history behind it. Plus they took years to write the script, years to make the movie. Even the score took years. Not every film has that luxury of time + funding + story + support (+talent + vision etc...)


----------



## G.E. (Feb 19, 2014)

> It was. The talented man was Orson Welles and the film is called Citizen Kane. Ever seen it?



I haven't seen it though maybe I should...



JH @ Wed Feb 19 said:


> G.E. @ February 19th said:
> 
> 
> > "Lord of the rings",now that was a good trilogy.Good story,good execution,and Howard Shore did such a great job on the score.
> ...



I'm aware of that.Though it's an example of how visual effects serve the story and not the other way around.There have certainly been movies even better than LOTR made with less time + less funding.


----------



## Hanu_H (Feb 19, 2014)

I think there's lots of good movies coming every year. But I also think that you should blame the producers about the downfall of blockbuster movies. I am pretty sure that scriptwriters and directors are artists and want to make the best movie they can, but many times the producers and people with the money will force the story to places where it should not go. Good example are these superhero movies. They got great stories already, but always they have to change the original story, so it fits the modern blockbuster mold. You always have to have a love story, apocalypse or threat from space and so on...It's like the same story over and over again with different characters. But all the magic that is the storytelling is not about that, it's about people getting related with the main characters.

But once again the biggest blame should go to the audience. This modern society is ruining many beautiful art forms with it's faster, better, cheaper attitude. And I am pretty sure those blockbusters that many of us might hate, are the perfect movies for most of the viewers. And that's why those movies sell more than these "good" movies that do not follow the same pattern.

Cheers,

-Hannes


----------



## Jetzer (Feb 19, 2014)

I don't believe in the tv-series will take over movies theory. There are some good ones out there, but it is a totally different experience. The theater / cinema is one of the few places were people can actually be totally 'immersed' without distractions for two hours. It happens, and it's quite magic when you think about it. Thinking about nothing else, no distractions for two hours? When does that happen in this day and age? At this moment I can only think of concerts and sport games. 

Television is at home, the few who watch it on tv will have to sit trough commercials. You talk with your friends/wife. You have whatsapp messages coming in. Plus there is your laptop, iPad, etc. How many people check Facebook during the slower Breaking Bad scenes, I wonder? 

I am not saying that people aren't getting distracted in the cinema as well, of course. I have even seen people phoning for 2-3 mins during the intro :| 

Oh and I couldn't resist:


> *There have certainly been movies even better than LOTR made*



NO!


----------



## AC986 (Feb 19, 2014)

Daryl @ Wed Feb 19 said:


> adriancook @ Wed Feb 19 said:
> 
> 
> > G.E. @ Wed Feb 19 said:
> ...



Not at all Daryl. The point on whether you or I like it or not is moot. The point about the film is based in time, not in likes or dislikes. Fact, not subjective opinion, is that the film changed everything AT the time. Greg Tolands photography, Herrmann's score went away from the Viennese tradition, the quick exchange dialogue ie. talking at the same time on camera, and so on.

The Mercury Theatre Group were also responsible for the change. But Welles was THEEEE man. That's not to say there were not good films before Kane. Of course there were. The 'Screwball Comedy' was very much alive and kicking e.g. Bringing Up Baby and was even revived years later in things like Monkey Business.

How you would change cinema today is almost impossible to imagine because everything is basically derivative anyway. All plots, story lines, camera angles etc have been covered, not least by Shakespeare. Many times you could be watching say, Star Trek from the 60s and say out loud, MY GOD, NOW THEY'RE DOING OTHELLO!! :mrgreen: 

Different technology makes actors re act differently than 70 years ago.

Nothing wrong with any of that, IMO.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 19, 2014)

G.E. @ Wed Feb 19 said:


> > It was. The talented man was Orson Welles and the film is called Citizen Kane. Ever seen it?
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it though maybe I should...



Have you seen Metropolis directed by Fritz Lang?

Watch Ronin if that's no good. Greatest car chase ever.

:mrgreen:


----------



## G.E. (Feb 19, 2014)

> The theater / cinema is one of the few places were people can actually be totally 'immersed' without distractions for two hours.


Actually, the last time I went to see a movie at the cinema all I could think about is how can I convince my girlfriend to leave early. :lol: 



> Television is at home, the few who watch it on tv will have to sit trough commercials. You talk with your friends/wife. You have whatsapp messages coming in. Plus there is your laptop, iPad, etc. How many people check Facebook during the slower Breaking Bad scenes, I wonder?



That doesn't describe my experience with TV series at all.I mostly watch everything on dvd,blu ray, Netflix or HBO GO so I don't sit through commercials.There's also nothing stopping me from removing all the distractions around me.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 19, 2014)

adriancook @ Wed Feb 19 said:


> It was. The talented man was Orson Welles and the film is called Citizen Kane. Ever seen it?


 Of course, Citizen Kane (and The Magnificent Ambersons that followed) nearly bankrupt RKO. Which brings us to the dilemma: 

Does the talented person show people how films can be made to be great or how films can be made to be profitable? Answer: these are not mutually exclusive. Do both.

The next phase for RKO was poetic. They saw the financial success of Universal Pictures' films like Frankenstein, Dracula, and The Wolfman in the 1930s and chose low budget horror B-movies as the key to their recovery. The executives would choose a marketable title, provide enough budget for a three week shoot, and hand the creative decisions to a producer and crew that could work fast. 

The first such movie was Cat People, produced by Val Lewton. Produced for $134,000, it grossed $4,000,000. The irony is that while posters implied that we would see women turn into cats (a la The Wolfman), the most provocative things we see are shadows (and a woman in a bathing suit.) It's really more psychological thriller than horror film. The risk is that the film would under-deliver on its promise, but being a rich story based on deep fears rather than special effects, word of mouth led to a successful box office.

This low-budget, story-based, shadowy style led almost immediately to RKO's bread and butter in the 40s and 50s: Film Noir. (Forget the modern Film Noir cliche of bad narration by a detective over cigarettes in a bar. True Film Noir is about the human state of despair.)

Anyway, films need both profit and quality. And for profit, they need the right balance of budget and audience. And if our personal tastes don't align with a large enough audience, we are bound to be disappointed.


----------



## G.E. (Feb 19, 2014)

Goodfellas.THAT was a great movie ! It had some of the most memorable and entertaining dialogue in film history.


----------



## Jetzer (Feb 19, 2014)

> That doesn't describe my experience with TV series at all.I mostly watch everything on dvd,blu ray, Netflix or HBO GO so I don't sit through commercials.There's also nothing stopping me from removing all the distractions around me.



Mine neither, but I think what I described is the average difference between a movie -experience and a tv-experience for most people. Getting distracted in the cinema is more difficult that at home. 

But I could be wrong.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 19, 2014)

Jon there's a lot to be said for and against the old studio system.

If only there was an RKO today. The serial killer film I mentioned, The Spiral Staircase is RKO. A great studio.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 19, 2014)

G.E. @ Wed Feb 19 said:


> Goodfellas.THAT was a great movie ! It had some of the most memorable and entertaining dialogue in film history.



And just to prove the point, I don't like Goodfellas...

It's a pretty pointless debate at this point, isn't it? Several of us have listed what must be a few dozen pics generally regarded as excellent made in the last few years. I'm not sure if the OP considers them all of them to be rubbish or what.

So is it really all just opinion? Well, we can appeal to critics, if we accept Rotten Tomatoes meta-rating. Of the top 20 best reviewed films of all time, here's how the decades break down

Prior to 1930 - 1
1930 - 1939 - 5
1940 - 1949 - 3
1950 - 1959 - 5
1960 - 1969 - 3
1970 - 1979 - 1
1980 - 1989 - 1
1990 - 1999 - 0
2000 - 2009 - 0
2010 - 2014 - 1

So by this yardstick movies went down the crapper in 1970, not 2010. (interesting side note - the one movie in that list post-1990 is Gravity, much derided in this forum, so I'm not quite sure what that says about critics. Or us.)

But why stop here? For fun, let's take 12 Angry Men (1957), which only managed 92% fresh. By RT's critics yardstick, The Lego Movie is "better than 12 Angry Men" (actually to be fair that's a tough call). In fact, approx 60 films were released last year that were "better than 12 Angry Men". So - according to the professionals who assess movies, Mike Verta's supposition isn't looking very healthy.

Well, screw critics - what did they ever know? What about the people, that's what counts, right?

The number 1 film in the imdb top 250 - public vote - is The Shawshank Redemption (1994), which doesn't feature in the RT critics' top 20 at all -along with any other movie from the 90s. 12 Angry Men DOES feature very highly at number 8 - but that's still not as good as The Dark Knight (2008) or Pulp Fiction (1994), according to ordinary folks (and remember - this isn't based on the number of people who have seen a film, its based on what those who actually saw a film thought). In fact, for the public the decadal breakdown goes as follows:

Prior to 1930 - 0
1930 - 1939 - 0
1940 - 1949 - 0
1950 - 1959 - 2
1960 - 1969 - 1
1970 - 1979 - 4
1980 - 1989 - 1
1990 - 1999 - 7
2000 - 2009 - 4
2010 - 2014 - 1

I rather suspect this says more about the age of the imdb demographic, and people loving films made in the era they fell in love with movies, but who knows? Regardless, based on their top 20, people seem to prefer movies made post-1990, and definitely not before 1950.

If we can't sensibly appeal to critics or the public to tell us whether or not films are getting better or worse, than I'm not sure to whom we can appeal. Any ideas?


----------



## AC986 (Feb 19, 2014)

I don't like Goodfellas for quite few reasons. And one is.....

I can't stand that fuckng shitty fucking bollocks Scorcese does with his fucking bollocks fucking record collection. And that's giving him the benefit of the doubt.

However, Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy are great. There's also a weird one he did set in Los Angeles I forget the name of that I like.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 19, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Wed Feb 19 said:


> There's been a lot of discussion recently about the film critic HULK lately - indeed one writer said its the best book on screenwriting ever written.



His book is decent. He gets some things right, some dead wrong.

One of the big reasons we see more quality in TV is how much better they treat their writers. The writers are in positions of power, treated with more respect, better paid etc. I've found the development process in network TV to be very relaxing compared to that of the feature world. I can only imagine how nice cable must be.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 19, 2014)

It's the same with film as with every other human endeavor, whether it's artistic, scientific, or anything else: only the best are the best. You need lots of people making films for there to be best ones.

choc: "Monuments Men." I'm sure George Clooney was treated very well and in a position of power. And you certainly can't accuse anyone of not hiring a great cast.

There are a few great movies every year, and the rest aren't. That's how it's always been.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 19, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Feb 19 said:


> It's the same with film as with every other human endeavor, whether it's artistic, scientific, or anything else: only the best are the best. You need lots of people making films for there to be best ones.
> 
> choc: "Monuments Men." I'm sure George Clooney was treated very well and in a position of power. And you certainly can't accuse anyone of not hiring a great cast.
> 
> There are a few great movies every year, and the rest aren't. That's how it's always been.



Well at the same time you don't want too much power or you can end up with a Lucas situation. And while each film is still somewhat of a crapshoot, you can increase your chances of making something decent by not firing and replacing writers right away and believing in the development process ala Pixar and other animation studios. 

BTW I actually kind of liked "Her" a little bit. Kept me sort of interested and had some stuff I hadn't seen before.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Feb 19, 2014)

Has anyone noticed that one of the main "leitmotifs" in 'the Killing' is almost exactly the music from the elevator scene in Drive minus the crystal bachet? Obvious temping. Not that I'm complaining…just saying..


----------



## Markus S (Feb 20, 2014)

G.E. @ Tue Feb 18 said:


> I used to love movies growing up but lately I've been disappointed with this medium.I keep seeing the same old recycled crap over and over again and honestly I don't understand how people keep watching them.The worst part is that it seems there's a stronger emphasis on visual effects and action scenes while the story and character development are neglected.Whenever I see the name Michael Bay next to a movie I'm rolling my eyes and already know it's gonna be a horrible movie.Instead of wasting that HUGE budget on visual effects why not hire a talented writer and make a movie that actually has something to say?
> 
> Even the music seems to be taking the same path with recycling the same old epic hybrid tracks and rarely hearing something fresh and original.I suppose temp tracks are to take part of the blame for this.I know directors get overly attached to them and they act as an anchor that's holding back the composer.There's nothing wrong with that kind of music(I actually like it) but for the love of god,give it a break and try something different for a change.
> 
> ...



Well, I agree with you to some extent, especially regarding big budget feature films, like Iron Man 3, Batman x, Captain America 16, Thor 8 and so on.

Truth be told what annoys me most about the newer block buster films is that they pretend to be more. "We're not just a popcorn movie, we're significant, we can talk deep shit as well. And plenty.." it really becomes pathetic. If already you are doing a pop corn movie, the least thing you can do is to assume it. There is a guy in pyjamas flying around with super forces resolving the world's problems all by himself, please don't take yourself too serious.

It certainly doesn't help that a director like Christopher Nolan makes Batman films. 

However it's not like all films made are this type. Have you tried to look in other directions, maybe even other countries (sub titles rock)?

There have been a lot of great movies made, IMO, here are some I liked, maybe not all very recent (not sure what time period you are aiming at) but still :

Memento - psychological drama (Christopher Nolan)
The Machinist - psychological drama
Zombie Land - it's fun, some kind of zombie comedy
There will be blood - historical drama with an outstanding score
12 years a slave - still a nice historical drama
American History X - social drama
Planet Terror - zombies again, but fun

Some international stuff :

Usak - little Turkish masterpiece - social drama
Import / Export - it's a film from Austria, social drama
The Audition - psychological horror film from Japan
Pola X - social drama from France
Gegen die Wand - social drama from Germany

OK, it's not your typical super hero stuff, but if you want to go deeper story, authentic characters and real emotions, there you are. Very much enjoyed all of them. I'm sure there are many more around.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 20, 2014)

Markus S @ Thu Feb 20 said:


> Truth be told what annoys me most about the newer block buster films is that they pretend to be more. "We're not just a popcorn movie, we're significant, we can talk deep shit as well. And plenty.." it really becomes pathetic. If already you are doing a pop corn movie, the least thing you can do is to assume it. There is a guy in pyjamas flying around with super forces resolving the world's problems all by himself, please don't take yourself too serious.
> 
> It certainly doesn't help that a director like Christopher Nolan makes Batman films.



Heavens yes, that's one of my favourite rants. I promise I won't mention The Lego Movie again in this thread, but it was such a thrill to see that so perfectly parodied. Choco has already linked this in the Lego thread I know, but - Batman's song is a stroke of genius - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ded5xU2y-UU ("This is really good music, you should really listen to the words").

But exactly as you say, there IS other stuff out there. I really don't know how much longer the tortured superhero genre can go on, its got to run out of steam soon, surely?


----------



## Markus S (Feb 20, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Feb 20 said:


> I really don't know how much longer the tortured superhero genre can go on, its got to run out of steam soon, surely?



Well, they wouldn't be super heros, would they, if it'd be that easy to extinct them..


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 20, 2014)

Bladerunner still kinda haunts me. In writing songs and production music, I find myself using BR referential titles: "Tears in Rain", "Dreaming of Electric Sheep". The monologue was sort of cheesy I guess, but I see the film about once a year and parts of it still give me chills. The head of the company giving Roy the speech about a life lived intensely though briefly, Roy's decision not to kill and his ending speech (partially improvised by Rutger Hauer), the analysis of the nature of humanity, etc etc.. The creepy lighting, the dessicated buildings, the weird Asian vibe, the blimp- things with huge LCDs...

Thing is, I'm unable to be objective about it. Someone saying " eh, a piece of post- apocalyptic fake- noir crap" would get only feeble objections from me, because I KNOW I can't judge it fairly, lo these many years later...and I think finally, you like what you like, and the fact that you like it or don't makes it "good" or "bad", and the weight of Rotten Tomatoes or Armond White or Andrew Sarris or ten million of your compatriots is probably not going to sway you much. So what if you're an outlier? You paid your way in and you can have your opinion.

Note to Guy- not caring for something and making your case for why isn't necessarily derisive any more than liking something and making your case why is unbridled fanboy-ism.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 20, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Thu Feb 20 said:


> Bladerunner still kinda haunts me. In writing songs and production music, I find myself using BR referential titles: "Tears in Rain", "Dreaming of Electric Sheep". The monologue was sort of cheesy I guess, but I see the film about once a year and parts of it still give me chills. The head of the company giving Roy the speech about a life lived intensely though briefly, Roy's decision not to kill and his ending speech (partially improvised by Rutger Hauer), the analysis of the nature of humanity, etc etc.. The creepy lighting, the dessicated buildings, the weird Asian vibe, the blimp- things with huge.....



A bit like South Sheilds on a Saturday night.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Feb 22, 2014)

"Voici ma petite théorie très très holisitque":

I'd say, there's one thing we should all learn to do, anytime, anywhere...

It is to practice Emotional Intelligence (EI), in art, relationships, whatever.. Even in the purely intellectual domain of "critique".

It indeed makes you less focused on what is less necessary to think about and rather makes you focused in doing & observing EVERYTHING with the heart...

It makes you look inward and makes you more appreciative, and want to give more of yourself, than to act on an obstinacy to deconscruct other people's works, especially when one would consider it "intellectually" bad, it'd still make it subjective...

It's so true that focusing on yourself and deciding/commiting to making the best work you can each time WILL get you noticed, and I'm not just talking about success & recognition. I mean a sense of magical transcendent admiration (that I wish anyone lives) from the other one that will make HIMSELF want to be better in anything...

This admiration has to be so STRONG that one "repeatedly" chooses to do better himself...

I'm so sure that John Williams deeply influenced Spielberg, when their relationship was well established, in his process of making future movies and making them even better...

He's not just THE master, he is, [at least to me], not unlike other well-deserved famous composers, one BIG "emotional" master. AND let's all just look at how he speaks, how he sees everything, with the heart, and remember him, and thank him on a daily basis for that...

So I think, it doesn't even have to only be filmmaker inspiring other filmmakers and showing how it's done...

Anyone in anything can inspire anyone in anything to strive in his own domain(s)...
Period

Alex


----------

