4 ms·

> VHS: 1976 "were so" != "nonexistent". Compare the home movie experience of 1994 to that of 201x. 'On-demand' wasn't even a pipe dream in 1994. > I think see

by vacri 10y ago

> VHS: 1976 "were so" != "nonexistent". Compare the home movie experience of 1994 to that of 201x. 'On-demand' wasn't even a pipe dream in 1994. > I think seeing a movie in a theater is more social than technical Maybe for teens who gather in cliques, but otherwise we're just going to disagree there. > He's talking about Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, The Star Wars middle trilogy was schlock. They were terrible stories. They sold on hype, colour and motion, and brand recognition. The first one even had a damn half-hour advert for a podracing videogame in the middle of it. And Lord of the Rings was an adaptation of the most successful fantasy novel ever (the genre-defining one at that); not exactly a typical datum. How many times can you do that? Don't get me wrong, I'm of the opinion that hollywood should spend a million less on special effects and a million more on screenplay, but the whole "people prefer good stories" just doesn't pan out when it comes time to open their wallets. For example, Lord of the Rings had been done a couple of times before in movie and TV form, and it wasn't that popular in that form... until it had mindbogglingly massive special effects and money thrown at it. Anyway, if you think that the Star Wars prequels were good stories and that pulled the punters, I strongly recommend you watch Plinkett's reviews of them[1] - the voice is annoying, the reviews are mostly funny, but really he eviscerates the exceptionally poor storytelling in them. In there there's even an excerpt from an editor's session where Lucas and Co. are talking about a problem with the ending, where they have the viewer rotating through four very different emotions from four different plotlines in only 90 seconds, none of which can be excised as they're all concluding at the same time... and the mood is very much "we've fucked this up". [1]http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/ http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
It's not spending, it's culture - or lack of it. Adult audiences are tired of getting beaten around the head by constant explosions, emotionally empty CGI, childish plots and scripts with breathtakingly bad writing, and tuneless Zimmer-esque BWAAAAAARRR!!!! scoring. It's not that Hollywood has stopped making movies, it's more that it's taken to making the same movie over and over, using the same (expensive) visual cliches and script tropes. After a while the spectacle stops being spectacular. Incredible CGI turns into "Well, that's just CGI" visual filler. LOTR was an exception because it was already well known. I'm fairly sure a Generic Fantasy Movie with similar effects would have crashed and burned. If studios want to survive, they need to diversify by becoming less like corporate waterfall-management giants, and more like try-this-and-see experimental startups. For the price of a single blockbuster, Hollywood could fund an entire generation of new directors/producers/writers. Find ten or so promising YouTube shorts, give the production team a small budget and some prosumer equipment, get out of their way, and see what they do on a shoestring.
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
  It isn't just about culture. It's like the form of entertainment has changed from being something like a theater production with deep and interesting characters to something like an amusement ride with friendly but not terribly interesting cliches. As much as you want the movies to go back to the first, the people who are paying to go to the theater now are looking more for the second. Television has taken over most of the role that used to be for movies because it allows viewers even more time with interesting characters than a two hour movie.
combatentropy 10y ago
No, I didn't mean the prequels.

by vacri 10y ago

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

It's not spending, it's culture - or lack of it. Adult audiences are tired of getting beaten around the head by constant explosions, emotionally empty CGI, childish plots and scripts with breathtakingly bad writing, and tuneless Zimmer-esque BWAAAAAARRR!!!! scoring. It's not that Hollywood has stopped making movies, it's more that it's taken to making the same movie over and over, using the same (expensive) visual cliches and script tropes. After a while the spectacle stops being spectacular. Incredible CGI turns into "Well, that's just CGI" visual filler. LOTR was an exception because it was already well known. I'm fairly sure a Generic Fantasy Movie with similar effects would have crashed and burned. If studios want to survive, they need to diversify by becoming less like corporate waterfall-management giants, and more like try-this-and-see experimental startups. For the price of a single blockbuster, Hollywood could fund an entire generation of new directors/producers/writers. Find ten or so promising YouTube shorts, give the production team a small budget and some prosumer equipment, get out of their way, and see what they do on a shoestring.

nikdaheratik 10y ago
It isn't just about culture. It's like the form of entertainment has changed from being something like a theater production with deep and interesting characters to something like an amusement ride with friendly but not terribly interesting cliches. As much as you want the movies to go back to the first, the people who are paying to go to the theater now are looking more for the second. Television has taken over most of the role that used to be for movies because it allows viewers even more time with interesting characters than a two hour movie.

combatentropy 10y ago

No, I didn't mean the prequels.