Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-09-2012, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Upstate NY!
13,814 posts, read 28,416,192 times
Reputation: 7615

Advertisements

If one defines Zsa Zsa Gabor as Hollywood, then yes...Hollywood is dying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-09-2012, 01:16 PM
 
46,823 posts, read 25,751,383 times
Reputation: 29302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Dan View Post
Technically they havent made a movie in Hollywood in 30 years.
The good people at Paramount Studios would be very sorry to hear you say that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2012, 02:38 AM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,180 posts, read 22,192,296 times
Reputation: 23801
Making movies has been a crapshoot since the 1950's, when TV nearly killed the motion picture off. They have survived in several ways:
Technological advancements such as CinemaScope, 3D, stereo sound (and later massive sound effects that required huge speakers) all attracted viewers, especially when the story was compelling.

Changing demographics. The most recent regular movie viewers have been adolescent boys, which is the reason we are seeing so many cartoon and comic book heroes onscreen these days. Shortly earlier, the biggest demographic were teenage girls. At other times, it has been college kids and other young adults, or families, going to the movies as a family event that was better than another night of TV.

The motion picture business had ways of offering what television could not for a long time. Nudity, cussing, blood and gore, big sweeping epic adventure, very adult themes such as bitter divorce, infidelity, and other similar themes, fantasy, science fiction, and other productions that were beyond the budget of television frequently saved the day in another slump.

These days, the motion picture industry is even more sophisticated than ever at pulling maximum profits from movies. DVD sales and rentals can make hits out of theater flops, and the latest tactic, premiering motion pictures in other countries first, has made the Avengers a huge hit here recently. The producers do not always follow the path of least risk; when a genre becomes over-worked, there are always a savvy few who learn which demographic is willing to spend money, and start making pictures that will suit that group.
Most recently, older adults have been targeted, as they as a group aren't interested in the high-tech video and computer games or the comic book stuff. They will go see a flick with a good plot and good characters in it, and the production does not have to be special effects laden to bring them out. The openings may not be blockbusters, but the productions that appeal to this demographic often develop long legs as word of mouth spreads.

This group is often attracted by re-makes, and Westerns that were good 40 years ago are proving to be just as attractive to this group as they were originally. True Grit is a very good example, as was 3:10 To Yuma. Other original Westerns, like There Will Be Blood, did very well.

The motion pictures aren't going to disappear anytime soon. As long as the industry supplies a product that a lot of people want to see, it will morph and shift and provide the goods by one way or another.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2012, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Earth Wanderer, longing for the stars.
12,406 posts, read 18,915,226 times
Reputation: 8910
Oh, don't let's talk about remakes. I do not have a ready sense of humor. I laughed myself silly when we saw the original 'Death at a Funeral'. Now that the not-so-funny remake is out there is very little press - VERY LITTLE - given to the original because, probably, it is a British production.

I think Hollywood rarely does justice to remakes. ALMOST inevitably the originals are better. Perhaps there is just a younger generation who never saw the originals.

Was Hollywood ever about art (as opposed to being ALL about money)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2012, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,180 posts, read 22,192,296 times
Reputation: 23801
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
Oh, don't let's talk about remakes. I do not have a ready sense of humor. I laughed myself silly when we saw the original 'Death at a Funeral'. Now that the not-so-funny remake is out there is very little press - VERY LITTLE - given to the original because, probably, it is a British production.

I think Hollywood rarely does justice to remakes. ALMOST inevitably the originals are better. Perhaps there is just a younger generation who never saw the originals.

Was Hollywood ever about art (as opposed to being ALL about money)?
The art in motion pictures was a natural outcome of using a new medium. As long as there is a producer who is gripped by a screenplay, an actor who is immersed in the character he portrays, a dancer who becomes a firefly when in motion, a musician who rises to her veery best, or a set designer or a camera man who sees beauty through a camera lens, art will happen in the furtherance of profit.

The profit motive has always created the greatest art in all forms. There is always a payoff somewhere in any public art production. The movies are no different.

There is no reason why a re-make cannot be superior to the original. As a safer investment, a re-make may not be so hot as is thought these days, but it depends on many factors.

And as far as it goes, there are many originals that are so derivative of other movies that there is very little originality in them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2012, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
14,100 posts, read 28,416,275 times
Reputation: 8075
Back in the day, Hollywood made thousands of films, most of which were garbage destined to late night movie marathons or drive-in theaters. Occasionally they'd make a gem that was to become a classic. Back in those days actors were virtual slaves to the movie studios. The actor was a property of the studio. Actors were contracted to make a certain amount of movies and couldn't work for another studio without permission of their owner/studio.

I just wish Hollywood had writers and actors who had military experience again. Another problem with Hollywood is they are completely out of touch with the majority of the country. Seems their world revolves around LA and NYC. Everything in between is just fly-over country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2012, 11:27 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,180 posts, read 22,192,296 times
Reputation: 23801
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailordave View Post
Back in the day, Hollywood made thousands of films, most of which were garbage destined to late night movie marathons or drive-in theaters. Occasionally they'd make a gem that was to become a classic. Back in those days actors were virtual slaves to the movie studios. The actor was a property of the studio. Actors were contracted to make a certain amount of movies and couldn't work for another studio without permission of their owner/studio.

I just wish Hollywood had writers and actors who had military experience again. Another problem with Hollywood is they are completely out of touch with the majority of the country. Seems their world revolves around LA and NYC. Everything in between is just fly-over country.
Very good observations, Dave.
Before the advent of TV, Americans either stayed home and entertained themselves, usually with activities like reading, singing along with one family member who played an instrument, listening to the radio, card games, or just visiting.
When all this became boring, they went out. Movies were more than TV is now; they were a way to socialize in a larger scope, the only visual way to see what was going on in the rest of the country and the world with the newsreels, and the only sober means of escaping the doldrums of daily life.

Movies were cheap entertainment. When I was growing up in the 50's, my family of 5 could go see a movie for less than $4.00, including the popcorn. For that money, we would watch a newsreel, a cartoon, previews, the main feature, and often a short feature. The experience would last about 2 hours.

Families would go to the movies as often as 3 times a week.

The motion picture system was geared up for the high production needed to provide for that amount of entertainment, just as the TV industry did later on. Like TV, most of the movies were done just as cheaply and quickly.

Unlike TV, the motion picture industry did not need to fill as many hours of the day or week to meet audience demands.

The actors weren't exactly slaves to the studios. They were pretty much in the same position as TV stars are now; they made more modest money, but they worked steadily if they were good. Because the studios did not have the enormous demand for production that TV has now, the producers could provide a range of fast & cheap disposable pictures mixed with higher cost & higher grade entertainment, such as costume dramas and the like. There were large audiences for all levels, just as there is now on TV.

Actors today ask for high salaries because they must. Actors never know if a motion picture will be their last; back then, just as today, actors can quickly rise and fall in popularity. Once fallen, it is actually easier for actors today than before TV, as TV will hire them, and a lower steady salary is often better than none at all.

I don't think military experience makes for good actors. Military movies come and go out of fashion, and an actor does not have to be a soldier to learn how to act like one, just as an actor does not have to be a horseman, nor an aviator, nor a doctor, nor a famous person. They only have to portray all these people, and if they can't ride or fly a plane, it is not hard to find someone who can but cannot act.

New York and L.A. have always been movie towns. It is cheaper, faster, easier to find casting, costumes, special effects, equipment, stunt people etc. in a movie town than anywhere else. That's why so many TV shows and movies are made in those 2 cities.
And it is not just the cities that are used. One big reason why L.A. became big movie center was the variety of scenery within a few hours' drive. The ocean was right there, forests and mountains and lakes very close by, and small towns ringed L.A. that could imitate hundreds of other towns.

The other reason L.A. took over is it's climate. It is warm and sunny, seldom cloudy, windy, rainy, or cold. There is very little wasted time spent waiting for the weather to clear. New York and New Jersey simply had too many days of bad weather, but New York still had all the other things needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 08:43 AM
 
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
14,100 posts, read 28,416,275 times
Reputation: 8075
banjomike, the reason why I brought up military experience is because of quality and accuracy. Before, during, and right after WW2 there were quality military based movies made that were pretty accurate because the writers, actors, and even some of the directors had served in the military. It was around the mid to late 1960s that the quality of the military movies began to go down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 10:16 AM
 
46,823 posts, read 25,751,383 times
Reputation: 29302
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailordave View Post
banjomike, the reason why I brought up military experience is because of quality and accuracy. Before, during, and right after WW2 there were quality military based movies made that were pretty accurate because the writers, actors, and even some of the directors had served in the military. It was around the mid to late 1960s that the quality of the military movies began to go down.
Perhaps coinciding with Vietnam and the demise of the dramatic convention that the US military would always be, unequivocally, on the side on what's good and just?

Be that as it may, historical and technical accuracy is a luxury that a lot of movies can't afford. Sometimes literally - the budget wouldn't let us build replicas of Panzer IVs, so we painted some rented M48s in Wehrmacht colours. (And for most directors, M48s would have been an unthinkable extravaganza.) Sometimes because it simply makes for better action. If Rommel is shown using correct signals procedure from his Corps HQ at a pivotal point, hardly anyone would understand WTF was happening and even if they did, it wouldn't be an interesting visual. (Guy looks at map. Guy talks into radio. Guy listens to radio, looks at map again. Talks again. Takes a very, very skilled actor/director to inject tension into that.)

It's the same for all specialized areas. If you have knowledge of computer security, you know to turn off that part of your brain whenever hackers and firewalls and whatnot are mentioned. I'm sure medical people have the same reaction. Or physicists, or...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,180 posts, read 22,192,296 times
Reputation: 23801
Good points, Dane. Motion pictures are a commercial enterprise. The costs vs. the returns are always weighed and balanced- they have to be.

Dave, remember that it was easy for Hollywood to get the use of some military equipment used during World War II to make a war movie for many years after the war. There were millions of some items, like small arms, that were manufactured. Now, that war is 70 years in the past, and the major stuff, like ships, airplanes, trucks, tanks, etc. are all growing old and scarce.

Thankfully, we have amazing digital re-creational abilities these days. There are no Japanese Betty bombers left, and none of the German bombers are left outside of a few museums, as examples, but they can still fly on forever in the movies.
It's not true that Hollywood was always accurate historically. It all depended on the production. Some productions went to great lengths to be historically accurate, and others did not.

In some ways, it is unfair to judge accuracy of an old movie next to a new one. Robin Hood is a very good example.
Errol Flynn's Robin Hood was done in the 30's, a dreary time when drought was severe and people were broke. They didn't want to go see an accurately grungy Robin Hood in a dull brown wool cloak that was greasy, dirty, and tattered. They wanted an adventure that was historical fantasy, and the Flynn movie supplied it. The colors were bright, the costumes were clean, the actors well groomed, and there was much more fun than blood in the flick.
The tattered, poor, worn audiences who spent their nickels to go see Robin Hood walked out a little happier, with a little brighter outlook on life.

Compare that to Kevin Kostner's Robin Hood, made for another generation in another time. It was much more historically accurate, much grungier, much explicitly bloody, and featured a black man as a main character, something that was unimaginable in the 30's.
The audience who went to see the movie was cleaner, better dressed, mostly employed, and lived in much brighter times. For them, rusty chain mail and the details of the 12th century was more appealing than tree-jumping stunts and garishly bright costumes.

Times change, and the movie industry changes with them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top