Has Hollywood Lost It?

[Quorthon]

Hey all. Sorry this is so damn long, but it's good. (think Indiana Jones:) "Trust me."

I've been considering this for some time: I think Hollywood has lost it.

Hollywood has lost it's originality, creativeness, subtlties, and artistic integrity.

I was trying to think of the last "monumental" film. The last film released that was fresh, new, fun, adventurous, shocking--and most important--surprising in that it actually gave us something NEW, something we'd always remember.

I think it's safe to say, that back in the day, Hollywood (and the film industry in general) was great at giving audiences genuine surprises. Fantastic new stories and visuals that no one had ever seen before. Films that were a monumental experience as much as they were a memorable story. I think that King Kong 1933 is one of Hollywood's greatest monumental films, if not in fact the greatest. It gave audiences a vast and incredible adventure film that had a love story, amazing visuals, strong characters--anything you could ask for--all interwoven into the film.

But now, with a constant stream of remakes and sequels and sequels to remakes, it really looks like Hollywood has lost it way. The razors edge is spoon-dull. I was thinking about it, and I think the last movie that was released that was as much a new, refreshing, amazing monumental experience was Jurassic Park. And that was waaaaaaaaaayyyy back in 1993. It gave us special effects so real, coupled with likable characters dropped into an adventure story no one could've dared to believe could ever be seen. Sure, dinosaurs had been done before--but with either poor effects, underused or shallow creatures, bland stories and blander characters. Jurassic Park was an immense accomplishment--and 12 years later, even some of the biggest films have a terrible time equalling the quality of the effects *cough*vanhelsing*cough*, and forget surpassing them.

So, what else do I consider to be monumental, fresh, and amazing films? Films that shocked and awed people so much that the very film itself is damn near it's own legend?

Exorcist
Star Wars Episode IV (let's face it, Episode III was fun, but it was just another story in something we'd all seen before--5 times)
Psycho
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Alien
2001: A Space Odyssey

Okay, I picked a roster of sci-fi and horror flicks. But we all know these are my primary tastes. On top of which, it seems for a film to be a monumental, truly original experience, it has to have all kinds of elements: Truly, or relatively original story, ground-breaking special effects, suspense that holds your attention, characters you'll always remember, and a musical score that's not, not, made up of current "trendy" music. A monumental film is one where, when you walk away, you're breathless with what you've, not just seen, but experienced. A monumental film is one that people remember, more as an experience than a movie even years later. You remember the weather the day you saw the film, or the time of day or the people around you or the impact it left on you. (For me, I saw Jurassic Park with my brother, as I recall, and right after it I was obsessed--I read the novel, bought the novel, got the game for the NES, had a day-planner calender JP-themed for school, read the novel again and shit a brick when I heard about the sequel.) A monumental film is something fresh--something that's not a remake, because after all, how can any remake be fresh--when it's obviously been done before. As a side note, I consider Carpenter's take on "The Thing" and Cronenberg's "The Fly" to be films that may be initialy monumental experiences--because while the stories were done before--everything we saw in those films was shockingly fresh and new the first time through.

Braveheart was a great epic film, but let's face it, it'd been done before tons of times. Same goes for Titanic and Gladiator. Is the new Kong a monumental film? Of course not! It's the second time that story's been done! How about Rocky? Well, even though I haven't seen it (harp on me later), seems to me that "underdog boxing" films had been done long before... perhaps starring one Mr. Brando...? Sin City? I think noir had a very long day in the sun some time ago. And don't even try to mention the comic book/super hero part of it! Comic-based movies have become extremely commonplace these days.

So, what does everyone on here think are some of Hollywood's truly "monumental experience" films? And I'm sure many, if not all, of you guys disagree with me on what the last one was (Jurassic Park). So what was the last monumental film?

In case you're wondering, the last film I saw that I thought was truly original (though not quite a monumental event) was Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

I came upon this thinking when I realized (based on the current horror situation) that there are too many weak PG-13 horror films, what few R-rated ones we have are poorly written, geared towards the trendy, or low-brow Neo-Slasher films that ceased being shocking and fresh once the credits began to roll on the first Scream. Now, finally, after the dreadful post-Scream Neo-Slasher era, and the post-Ring PG-13 pussyfilm era, we're stuck in epicenter of the current remake-o-rama era. Dawn of the Dead, House of Wax, The Ring, The Grudge, The Fly 2006, Creepshow 2006, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Evil Dead 2006/7, The Hills Have Eyes 2006, Last House on the Left 2006/7--not to mention the non-horror King Kong, Longest Yard, Fun with Dick and Jane, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, The Manchurian Candidate, Ocean's Eleven... and don't get me started on sequels...

[ZapRowsdower]

First of all, I agree with most of the points you brought up. Back in the old days, a classic would be released all the time. In my film appreciation class, we went over what happened to Hollywood, and it all started in 1975 with the release of Jaws.

Jaws broke the box office record, and ever since then, all Hollywood has been concerned with was making a quick buck on the blockbuster. It's sad how it took them nearly 70 years to convince the supreme court that cinema was an art, not a business; and it took them less than 10 years after that to turn the art of cinema into a business.

Potentially great films are not getting the greenlight anymore, because there's no way to market them in. An artistic filmmaker's only salvation is Sundance or Cannes... or Project Greenlight, but when was the last Project Greenlight movie YOU'VE seen in theaters?

They blame piracy on low ticket sales - I don't download movies, and I know that's not the problem. And by Hollywood blaming piracy, they fail to address the real issue: they're not making good movies. They're not making movies good enough to spend $10+ on. What made these dumbasses think anyone wanted to see the Honeymooners? Or Rebound? Or Son of the Mask? Really, who are the assholes who keep coming up with these ideas?

These days, you can't really expect anything original anymore. The reason being, everything has pretty much already been done, and I think Charlie Kaufman took the last original idea when he wrote Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. So we can't be looking for originality anymore. What we need are original takes on stories that have been done before. I DO consider King Kong (2005) a monumental picture, not for its original story, but for what Peter Jackson managed to do with it. In 1933, that story alone was great. But the level of depth Peter Jackson added to it ensured that King Kong would not be just another remake.

I thought Sin City was a very memorable picture. Sure, it's not "original", but it does meet the criteria of memorable characters and scenes, and you'd better believe I'm gonna remember it in a few years.

I can understand the difficulty of coming up with something new and fresh in an age where most everything has been done. My complaint comes from the blatant copies of cult horror films, with celebrities taken straight from the WB and MTV, and toned down to cater to 13-year-old boys who wouldn't know a great movie if it slapped them right in the face. My complaint is that hacks like Paul W.S. Anderson are allowed to touch anything involving film when in reality every studio should put a restraining order on them. The fact that they're releasing movies I know nobody is gonna want to see unless they've had a full frontal lobotomy (Catwoman). The fact that they're trying to pass off rappers and professional wrestlers as actors. The fact that ever since the introduction of the medium in the 70's, no filmmaker has ever made a video game-based movie worth anyone's time. The fact that Disney became a corporation... and that's where it all begins.

Has Hollywood lost it? Absolutely. They lost it in their greed. They lost it in their search for more money. They lost their way, they lost the concept of cinema as an art (and not a business), they lost their balls.

[Pulpmariachi]

I think "monumental" films, as you call them, come on a more personal basis.

I can remember everything that you described when I went to see The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. I remember the weather (it was right after a snowstorm, the ice was slowly melting and the remaining snow was really nothing but powder), I remember the theater I saw it in (7), my friends who came with me and how there were only about nine other people in there with me and my friend and I were the only ones LAUGHING.

Has Hollywood lost it? I don't know. And I guess that's why you gotta cling to those rare good movies.

[Termination]

Look no further than Focus Features, Fox Searchlight Pictures, Warner Independent Films & Sony Picture Classics to get QUALITY pictures. Everything else falls into the hollywood cliche.

btw Q,

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was from Focus Features.

Has Hollywood lost it?

Depends, how old you are I guess.

[Quorthon]

I also came upon the whole "they've lost it" idea from an article I read about Nintendo's new (no pun intended) gameplan for their next console.

They pointed out that the video game and filmmaking worlds are running into similar problems: Higher production costs, films/games geared to too specific a demographic, and from that--lack of market growth.

They estimated that in the 80's, roughly 30% of American homes had video games in them. Now, that number is a whopping 35%. The reason the industry appears to be doing so well? Everyone of those 35% homes has more than one game console, and there's been slight population growth and very slight market expansion.

Nintendo has (evidentially) foreseen immense problems in the next few years: Games with the next consoles will cost literally twice as much, and likely more, to produce than before. From the Xbox to the Xbox360, game production costs have more than doubled. But there's no market expansion. So either the consumer suffers from higher priced goods, or the industry stagnates under the weight of generic "lowest common denominator" games--say goodbye to artistic integrity and originality and hello to WWII-based shooter #48567. Or Metal Gear Solid 14. The games look prettier, but are exactly the same as they have been since 1996 when the N64 and Playstation introduced new ways to play.

Nintendo cited that Hollywood suffers similar ills, namely, too many films targeted towards males between 16-30. That's a pretty small demographic. Hollywood isn't focusing on creating new, original, fantastic experiences--they're too reliant on what they believe will sell the most, but focusing on the same tired small demographic. How much money can really be made from the fiftieth copycat of The Ring? Or the 80th copycat of Darkness Falls/They/Boogeyman? Almost every horror film now is a weak neo-slasher or a weaker PG-13 "suspense horror" film. Every movie's a remake. Same shit, prettier package, and the general focus is on very small demographics.

Sure, now and then there are a few films or games made that will be interesting to different demographics or groups of people. But they all-too-often struggle for attention. Because that demographic simply doesn't care enough because there isn't enough attention given to them. How many grand epics and adventure films have we had the last few years? Four Harry Potter films, Narnia, three Lord of the Rings movies...

Nintendo believes that their next console (still code-named the Revolution) must be targeted towards wider audiences. The game industry as a whole must do this to survive, they say. And I agree. My Mom likes Pac-Man. It's simple. Move the guy and have fun. If she looks at a controller for the Xbox 360 with it's multitude of buttons, she gets overwhelmed and won't even try. So far, with the Nintendo DS system, this strategy of targeting the "usual non-gamer" demographic has worked. More DS owners are female than for any other current video game system.

They're trying to pass along the idea that games are both an art and a business, and should be appealing to everyone. Not just males ages 13-30. And they pointed out that Hollywood suffers similar problems--they're too busy trying to bank on "guaranteed sellers" that have been done before all-too-often. They're selling us what we've seen before so much that we're tired of it. Movie goers need something new, and we need a wider range of films to choose from. I know my Mom barely feels like seeing anything anymore--nothing appeals to her. She thought House of Wax (remake) was just awful.

The few films we have that are seemingly original vanish pretty quickly--many still make their money, but Hollywood just wants too much more. Nintendo predicted that without something truly refreshing and new, the game industry would likely run into extremely painful financial times, bankruptcies (been happening already, Acclaim company bankrupt last year), creative drought and possibly a death to the games industry.

Hollywood needs to stop making blockbusters, and go back to making movies. Thank whatever god there is that the independant industry still thrives. Bubba Ho-Tep made only about $2,000,000. Sure, that's not a lot, but it only cost about $50,000 (as I recall) to make. That's a very successful film. But not a blockbuster. But it was also a very refreshing, unique, and fun film.

RANT OVER!

[Phoenix]

Hollywood needs to stop making blockbusters, and go back to making movies. Thank whatever god there is that the independant industry still thrives. Bubba Ho-Tep made only about $2,000,000. Sure, that's not a lot, but it only cost about $50,000 (as I recall) to make. That's a very successful film. But not a blockbuster. But it was also a very refreshing, unique, and fun film.

A-MEN! Another example? Love it or hate it, Napoleon Dynamite spoke to a lot of fans looking for a unique, clean, funny original movie. Budget: $400,000 Gross? $40,000,000 in the United States. DVD sales? 60 million so far.

I agree with all you guys' points.

Another thing hurting the movie industry is HDTV and bigger budgets for TV shows (perhaps that is where a lot of the creative writers have gone!!!). For example, I can watch an hour of 24 and enjoy it more than a 2 hour action-film. It most likely has better acting and a well-written story and best of all it's free! and on my HDTV it's better than the quality I seen in the theaters. Since we've gotten the HDTV we've gone to the movies MUCH LESS. And TV shows are getting better and better. Rome HD is some of the best, most gruesome and exciting action I've seen this year.

[ZapRowsdower]

I agree. It's the overbudgeting, which causes such ridiculously high ticket prices. I can imagine putting a high budget on a James Cameron movie or a Peter Jackson film. Fine, they're good filmmakers. Why spend $80 million to make a movie where Kevin Costner gets to direct himself playing the reluctant hero? Sure, he made Dances with Wolves which is one of the greatest films of all time, but he also made Waterworld.

[Heineken Skywalker]

quorthon said:

Is the new Kong a monumental film? Of course not! It's the second time that story's been done!

Um, it's the third time, unless you meant second remake.

phoenix said:

Another thing hurting the movie industry is HDTV and bigger budgets for TV shows (perhaps that is where a lot of the creative writers have gone!!!). And TV shows are getting better and better. Rome HD is some of the best, most gruesome and exciting action I've seen this year.

Personally, I know that we found ourselves going far less to the movies this year than any other in recent memory, and watching a lot more TV. And not just because we had a baby.
Series like LOST, THE SOPRANOS, DEADWOOD, ROME, CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM, SMALLVILLE, etc. are more interesting/entertaining to me than most of what's being released in theaters. Most of them look as good as any movie, ie: effects, sets, costumes. And the scripts and acting can compete with most movies, and often times are better. There are lots of TV snobs out there who claim they never watch tv, but do go to movies. Personally, nowadays, I think the TV watchers are getting the much better entertainment value.

[Quorthon]

heinekenskywalker said:

quorthon said:

Is the new Kong a monumental film? Of course not! It's the second time that story's been done!

Um, it's the third time, unless you meant second remake.

Oh yeah. Oopsy, I meant the second time it's been remade. Damn my eyes!! Where the hell is that originally written...?

[Heineken Skywalker]

quorthon said:

Oh yeah. Oopsy, I meant the second time it's been remade. Damn my eyes!! Where the hell is that originally written...?

Fourth paragraph from the bottom.

[Quorthon]

iamthesmitty said:

I agree. It's the overbudgeting, which causes such ridiculously high ticket prices. I can imagine putting a high budget on a James Cameron movie or a Peter Jackson film. Fine, they're good filmmakers. Why spend $80 million to make a movie where Kevin Costner gets to direct himself playing the reluctant hero? Sure, he made Dances with Wolves which is one of the greatest films of all time, but he also made Waterworld.

I liked Waterworld, so I'm in that little group of 15 people that liked that film. It's a decent Science-Fiction/action piece.

The rumors of the budget, I think, actually worked negatively for that film. Which is funny how people were back then, just a few years ago: "It cost a 100 million to make? Oh for stupid. I'm going to see that!"

I heard people like that back then.

[LivingDeadGirl]

phoenix said:

Another thing hurting the movie industry is HDTV and bigger budgets for TV shows (perhaps that is where a lot of the creative writers have gone!!!). It most likely has better acting and a well-written story and best of all it's free!

I totally agree w/ you & Heineken on this point. A couple of weeks ago me & the brother & the sis-in-law were talking about going to the movies & I said, "Oh wait, such and such show comes on tonight we can't go see a movie. That's when I realized that a lot of the stuff on tv is better than what's at the theatres. And I also realized that there's at least one show on every night of the week that I watch. I NEVER used to watch that much tv.

[Quorthon]

Turns out everyone on here watches more TV than they admitted to back when I put up that thread about the ultra-cheap cable with On-Demand and HBO that the wife and I are getting.

[Termination]

quorthon said:

Turns out everyone on here watches more TV than they admitted to back when I put up that thread about the ultra-cheap cable with On-Demand and HBO that the wife and I are getting.

If your refering to tv on dvd than I'd probably say I've watched more hours there than films on dvd. Payin' $30/month for sattelite & watched 1 or 2 shows.

AND Smitty change your AVATAR MAN!

[LivingDeadGirl]

termination said:

quorthon said:

Payin' $30/month for sattelite & watched 1 or 2 shows.

$30? Man, you're gettin' off cheap...or I'm payin' way too much. I would get rid of my satellite completely but there's too many shows I watch on there...The Shield, The Sopranos, Dead Zone, American Chopper, etc.