Thread: Hollywood please just make movies.

Who said the a primary attribute of a service is not having the right to choose? Of course that liberty is still available, but what makes it a service is the fact that they try to appeal to as many people as they possibly can. This is why they make movies for the majority. It's a service industry.

Every hour there is atleast one screen play turned down by a production company. Is it because the film isn't artist or is it because it won't sell tickets? That's the logic of a service.

Anyway, I'd like to retract my statement a bit. Film is an art, I agree. Movie production is a service and all the things we're seeing in the theater is a movie production.

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

Who said the a primary attribute of a service is not having the right to choose? Of course that liberty is still available, but what makes it a service is the fact that they try to appeal to as many people as they possibly can. This is why they make movies for the majority. It's a service industry.

So explain the deluge of movies that few go to. If the purpose is to appeal to as many people as possible, why do they make art films where only a handfull of people are interested? Why are there movies like Smoke Signals that only a comparatively small number of people would be interested in?

They were made to cater to the few people that like that particular "message", that style of entertainment, that director/writer's viewpoint.

What makes it a service is not that they try to appeal to as many as possible, it's that they try to appeal to a particular population segment that appreciates their message, no matter how small that population segment.

This is really a lame semantics debate now, becuase we actually agree on the more important points. I'm not saying the service industry is about not having the right to choose. I'm saying the service industry is about providing a service. I don't consider being entertained by a film a service. I consider the movie a product I can use once (if it's in the theater). I consider bartending a service job (the bar provides the ingredients, the bartender provides quality combinations of said ingredients and timely refills of my beverage.), waiting tables (same idea), etc.

The point is, some movies are made to make you think, others are nothing but eye-candy. If you don't like one flavor of movie, don't go see it. The market will decide what kind of movies the (larger) production companies will produce. It all boils down to profit.

How many theaters did Smoke Signals open in? Thinking back I can't remember it in theaters.

Sure, all the time movies are made with low budgets and big ideas. Sometimes they're very good, but the reason it seems like a special interest movie is because it never got the chance to be mainstream. It's a movie with small time actors, a small time writer and small time director. It was produced by a small production company most likely because big production companies didn't think it would sell. If I would guess, maybe this movie would have done well with the main stream. All the reviews seem good for it and it's got a good rating, but consider that 3,064 people voted on this movie while 8,426 already voted for V for Vendetta, which has been out for what, 3 days? What does that tell you about how many people have seen this movie. I know I've never heard of it until today,

This movie backs my latest retraction that film is an art, but unfortunately movie productions are a mainstream service.

Well movies could practice some discretion and discontinue blatant references to common day hot buttons like blowing up buildings, religous texts (The Quran is mentioned in several films which is ok, but mentioning any other text is not ok.....see a problem here?), terrorists, etc, etc.

There are ways to get a message acrossed albeit without directly mentioning current day events. Allusions are easy to make in movies and you do your audience a dis-service by blatantly mentioning what you are alluding to. We are not stupid and we will make the connection. But V for Vendetta was a great flick until the political crapola in the middle that A) did not add to the plot, and B) was not in the original book.

V had so much going for it. It had dialogue of which I've not seen in any movie since the old black and white movies. Most of our new movies don't have much dialogue or script and rely on flashy effects and quick camera angle changes to tell the story. The old movies didn't have this resource and as such had to actually have some dialogue between characters to get the story out. I miss that a lot. But V fell flat in it's blatant mentioning of current day events and then by taking a current event completely out of context and throwing into a movie pretending the movie setting had the same context as the event did. Bad move. You can take anything out of context and make anything appear to be true based on that 'out-of-context' distortion - but that does not make it any more true.

I think the best movie I saw last year was King Kong. Hell, the ape was the best actor I saw all year and yet they gave all the awards to much less-deserving movies. Syrianna simply won for it's controversy because I know firsthand it's camera work was so shaky you felt like puking when you left the theatre.

And reviews and trailers are no longer reliable (as if trailers ever were). Two recent movies have great trailers making the movie appear to be something it's not and the reviewers also do not do the movie justice nor describe it accurately.

It is true that any work of fiction will have some bearing on reality or some commonality - but to go so far as to mention stuff that is currently on CNN, FOX and every other news channel in a movie.......just removes the fictional element from it.

So Hollywood....we just want movies. We don't give a ........ what your political viewpoint is. And if you 'do' have to make a point, do it in a more creative way instead of relying on the latest news flash.

I had this ... suspicion this thread was spawned by V for Vendeta. I agree with Bubba, the movie was very good until the random political stupidity thrown in the middle. Ruined it for me actually.

From WENN

Moore: "I Want Nothing To Do with 'Vendetta' Film"

V For Vendetta creator Alan Moore is desperate to be disassociated from the screen adaptation of his classic comic strip - and is begging the producers not to credit him for his work. The cartoonist, who also conceived From Hell and The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, hates seeing his work diluted by movie-makers, and refuses to put his name to the result. He says, "I want them to say, 'We're not going to give you any money for your work, you're not going to get any credit for it and we're not going to put your name on it.' To see a line of dialogue or a character that I have poured that much emotional involvement into, to see them casually travestied and watered down and distorted... it's kind of painful. It's much better just to avoid them altogether."

He's a good bloke, Alan Moore.

Originally Posted by Fordy

From WENN



He's a good bloke, Alan Moore.

He's gotta be in it just for the money, though. If he saw League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and still agreed to let them do V for Vendetta, there's no way he's not.

Actors have been voted as governors of California

Importing statesmen from Austria is overrated. Leads to disaster one way or another



V was pretty good I think. Yes, it was a movie. And probably worse than the (comic)book. Big flashy news. The book is better than the movie. Go figure. Never noticed that with any other movie.

Underworld Evolution was fine. Popcorn right away. Vampires, Werewolves, naked women, a lot of dead people ( they will need a completely new cast for Part III, no one but the mains survived II ).

SCARY MOVIE is next. I think that one should be free from political bull........ messages.

Originally Posted by nvoigt

Importing statesmen from Austria is overrated. Leads to disaster one way or another

You are awesome

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

He's gotta be in it just for the money, though. If he saw League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and still agreed to let them do V for Vendetta, there's no way he's not.

He says he gave all if the royalty money to the artist for "V".

Originally Posted by Thantos

If he's so insulted by them making movies from his work then why even give them permission?

He doesnt have the choice. That lies with DC comics, which is why he has now quit with them after many years.

Originally Posted by Thantos

And I liked League of Extraordinary Gentlemen....

The print version of the film version? If the later then god help you!

I just saw V for Vendetta last night. On the way home, he said that he honestly thought there was absolutely nothing politically oriented in the movie.

I hit myself in the face with a frying pan.