6 ms·

Knew this was Critical Drinker before I clicked on it. Mate introduced me to it and he is absolutely spot on for the most part. Modern movies (and TV for that

by jpgvm 5y ago

Knew this was Critical Drinker before I clicked on it. Mate introduced me to it and he is absolutely spot on for the most part. Modern movies (and TV for that matter) have become so commercialized and expensive that the series they are now rehashing (Star Wars for instance) wouldn't be possible to create today. George Lucas definitely didn't have the name or history necessary when Alan Ladd gave the go ahead to make Star Wars that you would need these days for a comparably ambitious film. It's weird because I feel like some other forms of media, namely games and music have gone in the opposite direction because of the availability and power of tools for independent production. However movies just need so much more resources the same indie competition hasn't been able to come in and shake things up sadly.

k__ 5y ago
So true. I feared the Hollywoodization of the game industry. But it never happened in the mindless extend of movies and music. Indie games are still going strong.
- viraptor 5y ago
  I think all media you mentioned have similar effects and all have both Hollywood and indie areas. I mean, some sports games are definitely hollywoodized with "let's just swap some colours, change 2021 to 2022 and charge another $70". On the other hand Bill Wurtz still releases new tunes on YouTube and Ben Levin continues doing... Ben stuff. In movies you can still get quality indie productions like Joel Haver's full movies. My random selection of course, but the point is, there's definitely indie stuff available if you want it.
  - xvilka 5y ago
    There are some jewels in the category of the short movies. For example, some films, even mini-series from the DUST channel on YouTube.
- dgb23 5y ago
  I mean there’s indie games that are works of art just like there are indie movies for the lack of a better term. Similarly there are plenty of popcorn games with big budgets and shallow content.
  - k__ 5y ago
    This might be true. But to me it seems like Indie games make real money. Mosty because making a good game requires less personel than making a good movie.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    most indie games have shallow content as well... you are probably just cherry picking the top of the iceberg.
    - pawelmurias 5y ago
      Plenty of indie games have stunning visuals and lame cookie cutter gameplay.
objclxt 5y ago
> George Lucas definitely didn't have the name or history necessary when Alan Ladd gave the go ahead to make Star Wars that you would need these days for a comparably ambitious film. I don't know if that's entirely true. George Lucas had come off the back of American Graffiti, which was an incredible commercial success. It had made 50x its budget, and in 1977 was the 13th highest grossing film of all time. The question was really whether Lucas could turn his hand to a completely different genre. It's down to American Graffiti's success that Lucas was able to re-negotiate a deal for Star Wars that gave him merchandising rights.
- jpgvm 5y ago
  True, American Graffiti was pivotal in him getting the shot he did. What I am saying is I don't think that plays out the same way today given movie budgets, you can't just have one person like one film you made and force through the production budget of a AAA film anymore.
  - JKCalhoun 5y ago
    Was "Star Wars" a AAA film though? I don't know what typical budgets were for films from that studio at that time were but in so many other regards it feels like it was a B-movie that over-achieved. I mean just one aging star (sorry, Alec) in the film's credits.... That doesn't sound like a AAA studio effort.
    - whycome 5y ago
      Wait, what does AAA mean here? For beef, AAA is top of the line. For baseball, its the 'not quite good enough' level.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  My recollection of the history of The Star Wars though was that Lucas had begun to shop it around before Graffiti's success. Also "American Graffiti" was not an instant success but had more of a slow-burn upon its release. Of course then "American Graffiti" caught fire and I suspect that (and the urgings of Francis Ford Coppola) is when Ladd gave the green light.
onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
The biggest problem with movies is none of the labor has been automated much. You still need an entire film and sound crew. You still need a cast of actors and a director and a screenwriter and a composer. You still need to raise money, producers, etc. Sure, video & sound editing have had a lot of automation improvements via software - but that's pretty much it. One person can make a game with a bunch of cheap pre-made assets and make something really interesting and cool. You just can't do that with film.
- justinator 5y ago
  There are many examples of making a film on a budget of almost nothing. Clerks, Evil Dead, the Sweding movement, most all of Tik Tok… You can make a compelling story via flip book.
  - bmelton 5y ago
    ahem PRIMER
    - elevaet 5y ago
      I came here to say that too. If ever there was a quintessential HN movie...
  - Joeboy 5y ago
    "Almost nothing" in movie terms means "the cost of a house". Not "almost nothing" on a normal human scale.
    - justinator 5y ago
      I would actually say, "almost nothing" in movie terms means, "human scale almost nothing" all the way to perhaps, "cost of a house". We all have phones, video editing software is free, there's plenty of distribution channels. If you want to make a movie for "almost nothing", you can do so. Doesn't mean it's going to be good, or that anyone wants to see it. Is this a peculiar concept? We all work OSS every day, right?
loonster 5y ago
I agree with the box office movie theater experience, and yet movies as a whole still allow the offshoots. You cant find them in theaters, but you can fine them on streaming services.
CodeGlitch 5y ago
> Knew this was Critical Drinker before I clicked on it. Absolutely. He seems to be consistently spot-on with his analysis of TV and Movies and the wider industry. I also enjoy Red Letter Media: https://www.youtube.com/user/RedLetterMedia https://www.youtube.com/user/RedLetterMedia Both channels use a humours approach to their reviews and analysis.
CuriouslyC 5y ago
I don't think this argument holds for TV. Unlike movies which have a large sunk cost, require a coordinated rollout and expensive marketing, television can make a short proof of concept pilot season and doesn't require a marketing blitz. Television also doesn't have the expectation of budget breaking CGI/effects. As a result, TV can take chances and do things the suits would never approve for movies. If a show fails, it fails small, but if it succeeds it can do just as well as any movie (e.g. friends).

by jpgvm 5y ago

k__ 5y ago

So true. I feared the Hollywoodization of the game industry. But it never happened in the mindless extend of movies and music. Indie games are still going strong.

viraptor 5y ago
I think all media you mentioned have similar effects and all have both Hollywood and indie areas. I mean, some sports games are definitely hollywoodized with "let's just swap some colours, change 2021 to 2022 and charge another $70". On the other hand Bill Wurtz still releases new tunes on YouTube and Ben Levin continues doing... Ben stuff. In movies you can still get quality indie productions like Joel Haver's full movies. My random selection of course, but the point is, there's definitely indie stuff available if you want it.
- xvilka 5y ago
  There are some jewels in the category of the short movies. For example, some films, even mini-series from the DUST channel on YouTube.
dgb23 5y ago
I mean there’s indie games that are works of art just like there are indie movies for the lack of a better term. Similarly there are plenty of popcorn games with big budgets and shallow content.
- k__ 5y ago
  This might be true. But to me it seems like Indie games make real money. Mosty because making a good game requires less personel than making a good movie.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  most indie games have shallow content as well... you are probably just cherry picking the top of the iceberg.
  - pawelmurias 5y ago
    Plenty of indie games have stunning visuals and lame cookie cutter gameplay.

objclxt 5y ago

> George Lucas definitely didn't have the name or history necessary when Alan Ladd gave the go ahead to make Star Wars that you would need these days for a comparably ambitious film. I don't know if that's entirely true. George Lucas had come off the back of American Graffiti, which was an incredible commercial success. It had made 50x its budget, and in 1977 was the 13th highest grossing film of all time. The question was really whether Lucas could turn his hand to a completely different genre. It's down to American Graffiti's success that Lucas was able to re-negotiate a deal for Star Wars that gave him merchandising rights.

jpgvm 5y ago
True, American Graffiti was pivotal in him getting the shot he did. What I am saying is I don't think that plays out the same way today given movie budgets, you can't just have one person like one film you made and force through the production budget of a AAA film anymore.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  Was "Star Wars" a AAA film though? I don't know what typical budgets were for films from that studio at that time were but in so many other regards it feels like it was a B-movie that over-achieved. I mean just one aging star (sorry, Alec) in the film's credits.... That doesn't sound like a AAA studio effort.
  - whycome 5y ago
    Wait, what does AAA mean here? For beef, AAA is top of the line. For baseball, its the 'not quite good enough' level.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
JKCalhoun 5y ago
My recollection of the history of The Star Wars though was that Lucas had begun to shop it around before Graffiti's success. Also "American Graffiti" was not an instant success but had more of a slow-burn upon its release. Of course then "American Graffiti" caught fire and I suspect that (and the urgings of Francis Ford Coppola) is when Ladd gave the green light.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

The biggest problem with movies is none of the labor has been automated much. You still need an entire film and sound crew. You still need a cast of actors and a director and a screenwriter and a composer. You still need to raise money, producers, etc. Sure, video & sound editing have had a lot of automation improvements via software - but that's pretty much it. One person can make a game with a bunch of cheap pre-made assets and make something really interesting and cool. You just can't do that with film.

justinator 5y ago
There are many examples of making a film on a budget of almost nothing. Clerks, Evil Dead, the Sweding movement, most all of Tik Tok… You can make a compelling story via flip book.
- bmelton 5y ago
  ahem PRIMER
  - elevaet 5y ago
    I came here to say that too. If ever there was a quintessential HN movie...
- Joeboy 5y ago
  "Almost nothing" in movie terms means "the cost of a house". Not "almost nothing" on a normal human scale.
  - justinator 5y ago
    I would actually say, "almost nothing" in movie terms means, "human scale almost nothing" all the way to perhaps, "cost of a house". We all have phones, video editing software is free, there's plenty of distribution channels. If you want to make a movie for "almost nothing", you can do so. Doesn't mean it's going to be good, or that anyone wants to see it. Is this a peculiar concept? We all work OSS every day, right?

loonster 5y ago

I agree with the box office movie theater experience, and yet movies as a whole still allow the offshoots. You cant find them in theaters, but you can fine them on streaming services.

CodeGlitch 5y ago

> Knew this was Critical Drinker before I clicked on it. Absolutely. He seems to be consistently spot-on with his analysis of TV and Movies and the wider industry. I also enjoy Red Letter Media: https://www.youtube.com/user/RedLetterMedia https://www.youtube.com/user/RedLetterMedia Both channels use a humours approach to their reviews and analysis.

CuriouslyC 5y ago

I don't think this argument holds for TV. Unlike movies which have a large sunk cost, require a coordinated rollout and expensive marketing, television can make a short proof of concept pilot season and doesn't require a marketing blitz. Television also doesn't have the expectation of budget breaking CGI/effects. As a result, TV can take chances and do things the suits would never approve for movies. If a show fails, it fails small, but if it succeeds it can do just as well as any movie (e.g. friends).