The movies are dead - long live the movies

[The Wingnut]

I've seen one Woody Allen film and that was all I could take of him. Forget his off-screen persona, he's terrible on screen.

The status quo film industry's biggest problem is that it has a self-important mentality, as if nothing exists outside its realm. The Academy Awards are a perfect example of this, an annual social backscratching, 'look how great we all are'. Like any subculture, with the passage of time it turns further inward on itself and becomes more and more a mockery of what once made it great.

 

[jake_fink]

I've seen one Woody Allen film and that was all I could take of him. on screen.

I hope that one was Purple Rose of Cairo. You'd like it.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

The movie industry, like everything else, is selling a product. With a change in community, the movie industry must follow that change. A company may be selling you the product, but they have to slave into your needs, not theirs. At least to get a buyer. The main problem in the decline of the movie going experience is that people have lost trust in this experience. $10 and up for a movie seems outragious, though you spend much more on dinner than you do seeing a movie. Once a gossip travels about someone thinking that ticket prices are too high, then others start to think the same. That's what has happened now.

The movie experience, like the articile states, can be experienced elsewhere, and not in a movie theater. You can be entertained on a computer, from a video game, a website, a television show. There is a much larger market for entertainment than there was in the past. When movies first began, they were mocked at, because live theatre reined supreme. But once the industry got the hang of it, people thought more about a movie than they did before. Live performance has alread declined, and there is just not enough interest in it for anyone who is not a eccentric millionaire, middle class citizen, a soccer mom, or the artsy type. But even they have other things to be entertained by. They are now all options, and not choices.

Like everything else, nothing lasts forever. One day, and hopefully not soon, the movie industry will leave the theater and then the only way you will see movies will be on your computer. They are pushing very hard to prevent this, but it is pushing back. Television is also declining to the popularity and need of the internet and a computer. You can only watch television on a television. You can only watch a movie in a movie theater. But you can listen to music, browse websites, shop, instant message your friends, and watch a movie and television, all at the same time on a computer.

We don't look at movies the way we used to, like the article also states. Only a vast majority think any meaning of it. But for most, it's just another night out, no more, no less. There isn't much excitement when you hear your friend say "hey, want to see a movie?", when you can do other things. Books also decline to a younger market, since many young people just don't read, or they associate books at school with books at home, and don't want to be "at school" when at home.

Trust is a big issue with the movies. When you can't trust something, you don't take the risk of doing so. You are thinking of many other things. The stars aren't glamourious. The events aren't the talk of the town. Just gatherings. We now somewhat match the ego of a celebrity, while not as well known, celebrities are just a newsprint, nothing more. I wouldn't even call an actor or actress a star. George Clooney a movie star? Not to me.

The next 10 years will tell what people's interests are, but they're all in a downward spiral right now. Someday there could be a revival of the culture and experience of the movies, but people have better things to do at the moment.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Sounds like the reason I don't go see movies with Ben Aflake in them. Not his love life. I just can't stand him. [huh]

I feel exactly the same way about Nicholas Cage. I can't stand him, period.

 

[Tango Yankee]

From the article: "Eighty-three percent of its respondents said they were satisfied with the content of the films they saw, but 60% nevertheless expected to spend less of their income on moviegoing in the future, citing dissatisfaction with the moviegoing experience (italics mine) and the emergence of better alternatives for their time and money."


The moviegoing experience is what generally kills it for me. The one change that I've liked is the stadium-style seating with enough room in the rows for people to pass without trodding on your feet. Other then that the changes that have been made to increase the revenue of the property (smaller theaters with smaller screens, etc.) have degraded the experience. It doesn't help matters that in my area the one new theater was apparently built with a minimum of soundproofing so you get to enjoy the explosions of the film in the next theater during quiet parts of the movie you're watching. In one movie I thought the sound of a freight train was a part of the movie until I realized that it was coming from the tracks outside the theater.

And, of course, the experience is further degraded by factors that have been discussed in one form or another in the Lounge, i.e. the general lack of respect for others and the immediate surroundings and situation.

Another thing that degrades the experience is the lack of coat checks. If you wish to see a popular movie in cold and/or inclement weather you can expect to spend a couple of hours holding your coat and hat in your lap--not the most comfortable way to watch a show.

So, when all is said and done, I have to really want to see a movie on a larger screen than my TV set to consider it worth my while.

Now, in the UK, I've been to see movies in the theatres in London--and I mean real theatres, with pre-booked seating, huge screen and balcony seating. That was quite a different experience! Going to see a movie there was a bit more than just something to do to kill a couple of hours.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[John in Covina]

Quantity over Quality

I think that movies have lost that edge because there are so many out at the same time and that means a loss of focus on the exciting best feature. In otherwords the year "Lawrence of Arabia" came out, how many movies came out that same year? You don't get the same Buzz from the public over a great film because the viewers are getting spread thin with too many choices.
[huh]

 

[Lady Day]

To me, there are some super quality films coming out, but most have that title of "indie" or "foreign" attatched that can kill a movie in a specific audience.

There are TONS of people who I know who wont see a film with subtitles. :eusa_doh:

I also think that a lot of people are glazing over the effort it takes to get a movie made and looking the way it does. The average audience will crit a film like a critic did decades ago. Thats different.

Also people know how to look at the CG phenomenon that has saturated the film industry. They can tell the crappers from the good stuff, and not care either way. If its too perfect, than its prolly CG.

LD

 

[Cacklewack]

I feel exactly the same way about Nicholas Cage. I can't stand him, period.

:arated:

Matt

 

[Marc Chevalier]

What an awful actor Nicolas Cage is. The only decent work he ever did was in Valley Girl (his first big role) and The Cotton Club (1984) -- made by his uncle, Francis Coppola. It's been downhill from there.

.

 

[Feraud]

What an awful actor Nicolas Cage is. The only decent work he ever did was in Valley Girl (his first big role) and The Cotton Club (1984) -- made by his uncle, Francis Coppola. It's been downhill from there.

.

I would add Honeymoon in Vegas to the list and call it quits.

Btw, Ghost Rider is horrible!! Cage has turned into a cheesy Elvis impersonator.

 

[The Wingnut]

He was the wrong choice for that role. The Ghost Rider character is supposed to be much younger than Cage's 43, by about half that age.

So many potentially great roles and films are completely blown before production even starts. There's too much 'Hollywood' factor involved, formulaic 'blockbuster' over-production and typecast, worn-out stars who don't fit at all the roles they've been chunked into.

 

[BegintheBeguine]

Not to mention the 20 year olds who play doctors and lawyers.
(I never thought I would say this, but I liked hammy Nicolas Cage in something: 8mm.)

 

[Paisley]

He was the wrong choice for that role. The Ghost Rider character is supposed to be much younger than Cage's 43, by about half that age.

So many potentially great roles and films are completely blown before production even starts. There's too much 'Hollywood' factor involved, formulaic 'blockbuster' over-production and typecast, worn-out stars who don't fit at all the roles they've been chunked into.

There was a movie that starred Glenn Ford, when he was in middle age, as a South American playboy. He was stiff during the dance scenes and just couldn't pull off the part. He looked like he just wanted to take some milk of magnesia and call it a night. Now, I loved Ford in Gilda, but he was roughly 28 or 30 then.

 

[jamespowers]

He was the wrong choice for that role. The Ghost Rider character is supposed to be much younger than Cage's 43, by about half that age.

So many potentially great roles and films are completely blown before production even starts. There's too much 'Hollywood' factor involved, formulaic 'blockbuster' over-production and typecast, worn-out stars who don't fit at all the roles they've been chunked into.

Ah, another person who has actually read the comic book. Interesting how Johnny Blaze also went from blonde to brunette. :eusa_doh:
You are right about who they put in what role. They pay no attention to what they start with. They will make the movie no matter what the original story calls for. A woman will be a man or vice versa. :eusa_doh: [huh]
Marc is right. If Nick Cage's uncle wasn't Copola then he would be waiting tables.

Regards,

J

 

[Lady Day]

He was the wrong choice for that role. The Ghost Rider character is supposed to be much younger than Cage's 43, by about half that age.

So many potentially great roles and films are completely blown before production even starts. There's too much 'Hollywood' factor involved, formulaic 'blockbuster' over-production and typecast, worn-out stars who don't fit at all the roles they've been chunked into.

Exactly.
Like Halle Barry as Storm? :eusa_doh:

LD

 

[Marc Chevalier]

There was a movie that starred Glenn Ford, when he was in middle age, as a South American playboy.

You're thinking of the 1950s remake of The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Based a hugely successful 1920s novel by an Argentine writer, it was made into an equally popular silent film that made Rudolph Valentino (in Glenn Ford's role!) a star. Difference is, Valentino really did know how to dance the tango.

.

 

[dr greg]

caged

I feel I have to defend Nic Cage, purely because he is a noted collector of vintage hawaiian shirts but seriously he wasn't too bad in Lord Of War, and c'mon guys, Wild At Heart was a classic part. I just think he takes too many roles...maybe his agent is greedy. Whether or not he would be a star without the early intervention of his uncle is a very debatable point tho..after all didn't Harrison Ford get his first role through being a carpenter on George Lucas' house?

 

[The Wingnut]

I won't dismiss Cage entirely, either...you may be right that he takes too many roles, though. I've seen him in far more that I didn't like than that which I did. He has a great range of character but definitely gets typecast far too often, and seems to end up with a lot of dud movies(bad directing, bad writing, overall bad, etc).

 

[Leading Edge]

Thank you for mentioning . . .

Hustle & Flow?

the biggest surprise, best urban-themed, and underrated production pieces of the past fifty years (yes, I am including "shh, hush your mouth" Shaft!)

 

[Leading Edge]

Just a few more words . . .

Neal Gabler's initial premise: "the truth is that the industry is in a state of ongoing disquiet" is a truth that officially passed into yesterday's news when greed, excuse me, I meant to say fiscally responsible economic strategies prompted the industry to create multiplexes. Unless the industry confronts its own pernicious narcissism, I cannot help but agree with The Wingnut that "with the passage of time [it will become] more and more a mockery of what once made it great." Finally, although I would like to agree with Serial Hero that "movies are not dead, just in a coma," for Tango Yankee, myself, and many other potential big screen aficionados it is "the moviegoing experience [that] generally kills it for me."

Gabler's analysis of the causes and consequences of the on-going demise of this once great cultural art form exposes the flaw of inductive reasoning when used in the critique of any humanity, i.e., the conclusions/generalizations derived from facts/details are sometimes nothing more than opinions dressed up in select substantive data. For example, he begins with "what is happening may be a matter of metaphysics" (did anyone else raise a questioning brow?) and concludes with "movies increasingly sit on the cultural margins" without even making a pit stop at what Happyfilmluvguy and anyone else with an interest in the actual PRODUCT has noted as the fundamental reason for the rise (and decline) of movies:"when movies first began, they were mocked at, because live theatre reined supreme. But once the industry got the hang of it, people thought more about a movie than they did before. Live performance has alread(sic) declined, and there is just not enough interest in it." Perhaps, had Gabler not been as impressed by the fact that reviews by Pauline Kael no longer generate firestorms (isn't the real concern here that reviewers do not impact/effect public opinion like drama critics do), he might have examined more closely the salient fact that the movie industry has not been responsive to the tremendous opportunities inherent within technology nor to the people who have found compatible forums and outlets within its interactively responsive environs.

Happyfilmguy said it best: "Like everything else, nothing lasts forever." In the final analysis what made movies great and kept them on top of the heap was a vigorously dynamic interaction between the message and the medium. With each advancement in the medium (B&W film, B&W film with sound, B&W film to color film, film to video, film to DVD, film to CGI, DVD to HDDVD), the industry has experienced a surge of renewed creativity and public interest. IMHO, greed, excuse me I meant to say fiscally responsible economic strategies necessitated a formulaic process for the message, and, consequently, the stagnation of the essential other half of that dynamic equation that made one anticipate going to the movies, that "don't-tell-me-how-it-ends" feeling. Thus, as Gabler noted, "Where the movies once supplied plots, there are alternative plots everywhere. Where the movies once supplied community, there is less hunger for it."

I have no idea what he means when he says as his final "answer to the problem" that "the answer is likely to lie less in the executives' hands than in our heads." I do know that when television got desperate they went back into the archives of their heyday and remembered what is now dubbed as "reality TV." IMHO movies need to not only do the same, but also accept, allow, and integrate the creative energy provided by the internet; understand and learn from the appeal of sites such as You Tube; and ultimately recognize that "we the people want the truth to be known" because "there's enough to go around, so let's put away greed." (We the People, Pele Juju Live, 1977).

Until then, when there's a choice of submitting myself to eardrum shattering volume, rude patrons, sticky feet which make me wonder/worry about what I might be sitting in, AND exorbitant ticket/popcorn prices, I choose hanging out here at the Lounge.