Hollywood
I'll just say it flatout... I hate Hollywood. The culture is pretentious, backwards, phoney, and the sludge it produces just seems to be getting more and more predictable, trite, and just all around worse.
I've long said that I will never actually pay to see a movie in theaters again. Furthermore, I don't really understand why people do. I know it's been explained to me in the past on these boards that the "big screen" makes the experience better -- but that doesn't sell me. Putting shit on a bigger screen does not change the fact that it's shit. At least not for me. I need more than that.
If a movie can't hold up on a small screen -- then it's probably a bad movie. Maybe that's short sighted of me. But whatever.
Anyway -- my gripes have mainly been that "all they make are sequels and comic book movies". Nothing really original. But I thought about it and realized that was only my perception -- and that I've been away from movies (and just commercialism in general) for so long that I really didn't know what movies were like anymore. If you asked me to name 5 movies that came out in the last 5 years -- I would seriously struggle with it. I honestly have lost touch.
So maybe my impression is wrong? How can I know?
Well -- I decided to conduct an experiment. Using IMDB, I did a search for "Top Movies of <Year>" and listed the top 10... marking which ones were sequels or comic book movies. Doing every single year would be tedious, so instead I started with 1985 and did it in 5 year increments, and stopping at 2013 (since we're still in 2014, it wouldn't be fair to count it yet).
I decided to create an arbitrary "originality" percentage which would be deducted for sequels, remakes, or comic book movies. Note that "comic book movies" is inclusive of graphic novels, comics, and really anything that has pictures -- but does not include actual novels (since it does actually take creativity to interpret words and bring them to life -- more than it takes to bring pictures to life).
The general rules are:
- Look at top 10 movies only
- Start at 100%
- Deduct 10% for each movie that falls in the remake, sequel, or comic book category.
- Deduct an additional 5% for each additional category it falls in (ie, comic book sequel would be -15%)
What I found did actually surprise me in some ways. The originality score in later years was much higher than I thought it would be. However, as I expected, it took a serious dive near the birth of the modern internet (which is around when I got fed up with Hollywood) but it actually did somewhat recover!
I might continue this and do each individual year. I find this fascinating
Summary:
And... the actual movies:
I've long said that I will never actually pay to see a movie in theaters again. Furthermore, I don't really understand why people do. I know it's been explained to me in the past on these boards that the "big screen" makes the experience better -- but that doesn't sell me. Putting shit on a bigger screen does not change the fact that it's shit. At least not for me. I need more than that.
If a movie can't hold up on a small screen -- then it's probably a bad movie. Maybe that's short sighted of me. But whatever.
Anyway -- my gripes have mainly been that "all they make are sequels and comic book movies". Nothing really original. But I thought about it and realized that was only my perception -- and that I've been away from movies (and just commercialism in general) for so long that I really didn't know what movies were like anymore. If you asked me to name 5 movies that came out in the last 5 years -- I would seriously struggle with it. I honestly have lost touch.
So maybe my impression is wrong? How can I know?
Well -- I decided to conduct an experiment. Using IMDB, I did a search for "Top Movies of <Year>" and listed the top 10... marking which ones were sequels or comic book movies. Doing every single year would be tedious, so instead I started with 1985 and did it in 5 year increments, and stopping at 2013 (since we're still in 2014, it wouldn't be fair to count it yet).
I decided to create an arbitrary "originality" percentage which would be deducted for sequels, remakes, or comic book movies. Note that "comic book movies" is inclusive of graphic novels, comics, and really anything that has pictures -- but does not include actual novels (since it does actually take creativity to interpret words and bring them to life -- more than it takes to bring pictures to life).
The general rules are:
- Look at top 10 movies only
- Start at 100%
- Deduct 10% for each movie that falls in the remake, sequel, or comic book category.
- Deduct an additional 5% for each additional category it falls in (ie, comic book sequel would be -15%)
What I found did actually surprise me in some ways. The originality score in later years was much higher than I thought it would be. However, as I expected, it took a serious dive near the birth of the modern internet (which is around when I got fed up with Hollywood) but it actually did somewhat recover!
I might continue this and do each individual year. I find this fascinating
Summary:
1985: 90% 1990: 80% 1995: 75% 2000: 75% -- birth of modern internet -- 2005: 35% 2010: 55% 2013: 70% |
And... the actual movies:
1985 (90%): 1) The Goonies 2) Back to the Future 3) The Breakfast Club 4) Weird Science 5) Clue 6) Legend 7) Brazil 8) St. Elmo's Fire 9) Rambo: First Blood Part 2 [Sequel] 10) The Color Purple 1990 (80%): 1) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles [Comic] 2) Goodfellas 3) Total Recall 4) Home Alone 5) The Witches [??? was this a picture book???] 6) Edward Scissorhands 7) Pretty Woman 8) Misery 9) The Godfather Part 3 [Sequel] 10) Ghost 1995 (75%): 1) Seven 2) Twelve Monkeys 3) The Usual Suspects 4) Braveheart 5) Toy Story 6) Clueless 7) Jumanji 8) Casper [Comic] 9) Heat 10) Batman Forever [Comic,Sequel] 2000 (75%): 1) Memento 2) American Psycho 3) Gladiator [Semi-remake of Sparticus -5%] 4) Requiem for a Dream 5) X-Men [Comic] 6) Snatch 7) How the Grinch Stole Christmas [Picture book] 8) The Patriot 9) Remember the Titans 10) Bring it on 2005 (35%): 1) V for Vandetta 2) Batman Begins [Comic, Remake] 3) Sin City [Graphic Novel] 4) Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire [Sequel] 5) Constantine 6) Charlie and the Chocolate Factory [Remake] 7) Pride & Prejudice [Remake] 8) Brokeback Mountain 9) The 40-Year-Old Virgin 10) Star Wars: Episode 3 [Sequel] 2010 (55%): 1) Inception 2) Despicable Me 3) Kick-Ass [Comic] 4) Alice in Wonderland [Remake, picture book] 5) Insidious 6) Easy A 7) Shutter Island 8) Black Swan 9) Toy Story 3 [Sequel] 10) Scott Pilgrim vs. the World [Comic] 2013 (70%) 1) Snowpiercer 2) Horns 3) The Hunger Games: Catching Fire [Sequel] 4) Frozen 5) Begin Again 6) Wolf of Wall Street 7) The Conjuring 8) Fast & Furious 6 [Sequel... 6 of these dumbass movies?] 9) The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug [Sequel] 10) Nymphomaniac: Vol 1 |
Last edited on
Sin City is a graphic novel...so 10% more off of 2005. And wouldn't Alice in Wonderland be a remake and a picture book? And if you really really wanna think about it, it was also a sequel.
Last edited on
Was it a picture book? I just thought it was a novel.
EDIT:
I guess Clue (1985) could count as "something with a picture". But the only real imagery is the art on the cover of the box... and discounting that would be like discounting any novel that had art on its cover -- so I'm going to let that one slide.
EDIT2:
Also... Kick-Ass was a comic -- I'll deduct the full 10%
EDIT:
I guess Clue (1985) could count as "something with a picture". But the only real imagery is the art on the cover of the box... and discounting that would be like discounting any novel that had art on its cover -- so I'm going to let that one slide.
EDIT2:
Also... Kick-Ass was a comic -- I'll deduct the full 10%
Last edited on
There's more than 6 Fast & Furious movies. They all blow from a movie critique perspective but not that bad from a cult following.
My problem isn't the remakes... it's whenever something has to be Michael Bay'd(TM) for people to enjoy it. I don't necessarily blame Hollywood for everything... there's a tendency for things to follow where the money is. People pay more for shitty movies... or maybe they're not shitty movies and I just have shitty taste since most people like them?
I honestly don't care. I watch what I think is good and everything else doesn't bother me. I rarely go to the movies though since I've grown tired of people in the theater ruining. Someone's cell phone going off constantly, people throwing popcorn, people talking during the movie loudly (I can even handle whispering... it's the loud blatant lack of concern for others that gets me), and children. I can understand why someone would bring a preteen to see How to Train Your Dragon in theaters but not an infant or even a toddler.
My problem isn't the remakes... it's whenever something has to be Michael Bay'd(TM) for people to enjoy it. I don't necessarily blame Hollywood for everything... there's a tendency for things to follow where the money is. People pay more for shitty movies... or maybe they're not shitty movies and I just have shitty taste since most people like them?
I honestly don't care. I watch what I think is good and everything else doesn't bother me. I rarely go to the movies though since I've grown tired of people in the theater ruining. Someone's cell phone going off constantly, people throwing popcorn, people talking during the movie loudly (I can even handle whispering... it's the loud blatant lack of concern for others that gets me), and children. I can understand why someone would bring a preteen to see How to Train Your Dragon in theaters but not an infant or even a toddler.
V for Vendetta was a graphic novel too.
I imagine what will happen if this method of scoring would be applied to "Top Animes of <Year>" list.
I imagine what will happen if this method of scoring would be applied to "Top Animes of <Year>" list.
| V for Vendetta was a graphic novel too. |
Jeez, that puts 2005 at 25%. That's pretty terrible.
| I imagine what will happen if this method of scoring would be applied to "Top Animes of <Year>" list. |
Well that's kind of what Anime is, isn't it? Animated renditions of mangas?
| Well that's kind of what Anime is, isn't it? Animated renditions of mangas? |
I am surprised that Casper and Toy Story come out in the same year. Because they do not look like that.
I am little unsure on whole [Sequel] thing. I mean, making a sequel because original was popular (Toy Story, Rambo, Fast & Furious) is one thing, when making sequel because it was planned that way (Back to the Future, Harry Potter, Star Wars) is another.
> I did a search for "Top Movies of <Year>"
¿what does that mean? your list seems to correspond with "most popular", but given that there are other categories like "highest rankest", "top-us-grossing", "most voted", I wonder what is the meaning of popular
https://xkcd.com/606/
I don't tend to watch things prior to 1990
> I rarely go to the movies though since I've grown tired of people in the theater ruining.
we've got a cinema that is falling apart, the tickets are quite cheap (a little more than 1 litter of milk) when the movie is kind of "special" (e.g., Computer Chess).
So for a small price you end enjoying it in an almost empty room,
¿what does that mean? your list seems to correspond with "most popular", but given that there are other categories like "highest rankest", "top-us-grossing", "most voted", I wonder what is the meaning of popular
https://xkcd.com/606/
I don't tend to watch things prior to 1990
> I rarely go to the movies though since I've grown tired of people in the theater ruining.
we've got a cinema that is falling apart, the tickets are quite cheap (a little more than 1 litter of milk) when the movie is kind of "special" (e.g., Computer Chess).
So for a small price you end enjoying it in an almost empty room,
Last edited on
The same can be said with just about everything that involves some sort of creativity with a large development cost. The game industry is just about in the same state as hollywood, it is just easier to make a sequel of an established game than to make a new one all together. Call of duty, final fantasy, halo, assassin's creed, etc are probably some of the worst with numerous sequels. Part of the problem is funding, where that money comes from and what kind of influence on the final product it comes with. Star Citizen was one such game, they needed to raise at least X amount of money in a crowd funding campaign before investors committed because they weren't sold on the idea. They've raised so much money though that they are entirely crowd funded right now, i believe.
I don't really see what the problem is with using a story from another form of medium. So what if the story isn't original, it doesn't really have that great affect on how a movie will turn out. I thought the old batman movies were over the top and didn't really make much sense, the new ones were pretty solid, even though they both have the same source material they went in two entirely different directions. The cost of producing a novel or comic is by far cheaper and as such carries less risk, that's just how it is.
I'm not a very big fan of reading novels, i'd rather read a textbook than read a novel, as such i've never really fully read a novel in my life. If a story was created in one medium not everyone would really have access to it if it was entirely restricted to only one form of storytelling. It doesn't have to be original to be enjoyed. Speaking of which, looking forward to the conclusion of the hobbit this december.
I don't really see what the problem is with using a story from another form of medium. So what if the story isn't original, it doesn't really have that great affect on how a movie will turn out. I thought the old batman movies were over the top and didn't really make much sense, the new ones were pretty solid, even though they both have the same source material they went in two entirely different directions. The cost of producing a novel or comic is by far cheaper and as such carries less risk, that's just how it is.
I'm not a very big fan of reading novels, i'd rather read a textbook than read a novel, as such i've never really fully read a novel in my life. If a story was created in one medium not everyone would really have access to it if it was entirely restricted to only one form of storytelling. It doesn't have to be original to be enjoyed. Speaking of which, looking forward to the conclusion of the hobbit this december.
If you're judging by originality, wouldn't a movie based on a novel, or a true story, be just as unoriginal as one based on a comic book, and more unoriginal than a sequel?
Another thing of note. Taking the top ten is really is giving you a sense of the unoriginality of the public's taste rather than of Hollywood. Although the two are of course linked. The make movies to make money so it's no wonder they make movies that the majority will spring for.
One of the biggest factors of all which may not be obvious, is that films now days are made for an international audience. Titles people have heard of do better in other many other countries than no name movies for some reason. Also they make movies with an attempt to make them to be "universally funny", which generally means dumbed down so that you don't need much context, etc.
That being said, I think it's the actual production that really matters.
One thing that bothers me a little is when they make movies based on true stories, but they make so many changes to "make it a better movie", that calling it a true story is just fraudulent and irresponsible.
Take 'The Butler" for example, almost nothing in the film is based in the true story except for the fact he worked in the white house as a Butler. It's just a grad distortion of history.
Another thing of note. Taking the top ten is really is giving you a sense of the unoriginality of the public's taste rather than of Hollywood. Although the two are of course linked. The make movies to make money so it's no wonder they make movies that the majority will spring for.
One of the biggest factors of all which may not be obvious, is that films now days are made for an international audience. Titles people have heard of do better in other many other countries than no name movies for some reason. Also they make movies with an attempt to make them to be "universally funny", which generally means dumbed down so that you don't need much context, etc.
That being said, I think it's the actual production that really matters.
One thing that bothers me a little is when they make movies based on true stories, but they make so many changes to "make it a better movie", that calling it a true story is just fraudulent and irresponsible.
Take 'The Butler" for example, almost nothing in the film is based in the true story except for the fact he worked in the white house as a Butler. It's just a grad distortion of history.
Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.