Re: Speed Rubbish

Tim,

while I appreciate that you enjoy real film as I do, you have to understand that someone is going to step up to the plate and give the general population what they $want$. Hollywood has to appeal to "average" movie viewer because that is where the money is. Hollywood does indeed buy scripts only to just grab a few ideas from them too, with the result not resembling the original story in any way. But regardless, the money is in the numbers. And people who buy into *only* Hollywood blockbusters are likely the type who just don't realize what separates bad acting from good acting, or clichés from originality. They just want to see stuff blown up and stuff, or see cute situational crap that's been repeated since the days of silent film.

How else can you explain why Spiderman 3, Shrek the Third, and Transformers all grossed well over $300,000,000 while a beautifully written film with perfect casting and acting like "Away from her" (easily the best film in recent memory - certainly of the year IMO) grossed under $16,000,000? It's easy - the average movie watcher has spoken with their $$$. We on this site aren't "average", or we wouldn't be on a movie related message board. Keep in mind that we don't really represent the greater population.

---

[Post edited by Skyhawk on Dec 4, 2007]

Skyhawk,

I agree. Thank goodness there are independent films out there, however, sorting through all of the "crap" to find the good ones can be just as frustrating! Recently, my wife and I watched a movie called "The Taste Of Tea"... this was a very interesting, and one of the most bazaar films I've ever seen. I can't say that I loved it, nor did I hate it, but it was "different", which is a good thing.

A great film that didn't make much money (comparatively) is "Waking Ned Divine". It was funny, unexpected, and brilliant.

Will,

I agree with Tim. As much as you writers need to put food on your own tables, it doesn't excuse the garbage that Hollywood is producing. Though, you do have a point. If people didn't pay to see the garbage, it wouldn't be made.... simple supply and demand. So what's the answer? I've been doing my part in not going to these obvious box-office blunders. So why is America so willing to shell out so much money to see crap?

In the last 15 years or so, when my friends and I go to see a film hopeful, we have a standing motto of "I hope it doesn't suck". I think it might be that the teen and twenty-something crowd (a big piece of the $ pie) is overly enamored with CG. So the money gets spent there, instead of on the script.



- Josh

---

[Post edited by Nachtkriechen on Dec 4, 2007]

Quote:
How else can you explain why Spiderman 3, Shrek the Third, and Transformers all grossed well over $300,000,000 while a beautifully written film with perfect casting and acting like "Away from her" (easily the best film in recent memory - certainly of the year IMO) grossed under $16,000,000? It's easy - the average movie watcher has spoken with their $$$. We on this site aren't "average", or we wouldn't be on a movie related message board. Keep in mind that we don't really represent the greater population.

Actually . . . I have to agree with you. Really, everything in your last post I'd agree 100%.


No really, I understand you probably figured I pick a fight with you, but I actually agree with what you said.


Really . . .

Tim

I never meant to imply writers should be blameless. They are a part of the Hollywood machine. They are a small cog in it as much as we are as ticket-buyers.

In any event, I don't see much point in bemoaning the way things are. That Hollywood Machine has been around long before any of us were born and will still be around for decades to come. There are hundreds of films out there dying to be discovered. I think time and energy would be better served in finding these films, instead of complaining about mega blockbusters. The world isn't going to end because of giant robot movies. And great films aren't gonna be erased from existence because of them.

-Will

Quote:
No really, I understand you probably figured I pick a fight with you, but I actually agree with what you said.

Tim,

Actually I didn't think you'd pick a fight, nor did I want, nor think I might provoke one. I've read some of your reviews, and although we may disagree on picture quality for some of these titles, I actually relate to what you write about the movie itself. This is a good thing, considering after getting over the "HD Faze" I remembered that the movie was the most important thing. Back in the "ol'days" of HD, about 30 seconds ago for someone my age, I often rented or bought movies just because I was overwhelmed by the picture quality on HD DVD or Blu-ray. I'm back to being more picky now )

That being said, I can't say I hate the Hollywood film industry, period. I think even lately, they've released some very good, and "important" films that took on subject matter that's difficult for Hollywood because of the mass appeal problem ... from Hotel Rwanda to Brokeback Mountain. Speaking of which, can you imagine that Hotel Rwanda only grossed $23,472,900 at the box office? To be honest, I'm just glad that they give us movies like these and experiment still despite the risk of possible losses.

Indie film is like Hollywood in that you have to sift through a lot of crap to get good ones, but the freedom of independent film making without worrying about the bottom line so much (since so many are government funded or low budget) makes them leave the bounds of "majority rule" and allow for more artistic freedom. There is no shortage of movies in this category.

In 200 years, what movies will be championed as classics? Spiderman 3? I don't think so. You get my drift.

I can understand some of you guys and the pain you feel. However, I put faith in the Warshawski Brothers who wrote and are directing the Speed Racer film. I was'nt to happy when Charley and The Chocolate Factory was being made. But I put all my faith in Tim Burton and I thought the movie was amazing. Who knows it may end up being a crappy film, but lets see how they vision Speed. They said they are huge fans and they will not let the die hard Speed Racer fans down.

Invisible Biker,

No offense, but, there wasn't much substance to the cartoon in the first place. I watched it as a kid as well, and, while its fun to lament, attempting to transfer a cartoon like "Speed Racer" to reality (or more realistic) is about as good an idea as making the movie based on the "Doom" video game was!

There was actually some merit to the Scooby Doo movies, in that they were directed at the under 12-year-old audience, with some humor for the parents interspersed. In my opinion, the only possible reason to see "Speed Racer" the movie, would be to see and hear a real version of the Mach 5 perform. You could turn off the dialogue track altogether, and the movie might be somewhat enjoyable. However, this thread isn't so much about "Speed Racer", as it is the type of movie "Speed Racer" is, and how Hollywood keeps shelling them out.



- Josh

I agree with several of you, but I also blame people that dont apreciate movies that much, that spend money to just watch whaver because it comes out. Also others that wont see a movie because it isnt popular. These are guys that make alot of these bad films make alot of money.