3 ms·

Because art isn't a product: it's a process, like science. Art is a form of human expression, where someone makes something they have in their head and want to

Because art isn't a product: it's a process, like science. Art is a form of human expression, where someone makes something they have in their head and want to see brought it life. If you design movies, or other things, through a committee that's checking boxes on a template intended to meet the requirements for another entertainment product, it's not really art anymore. It's a cynical product. We've seen a shift from directors like Tarantino or George Lucas, auteurs who were meticulous about ensuring every aspect of the production lived up to their personal vision, to a rotation of glorified line managers serving a committee and being swapped out from film to film. The fact that we call them franchises, the same word we use for cookie-cutter fast food restaurants under the same umbrella, should be a clue. As much as people disparage George Lucas, he is Star Wars, and the idea that someone else can make Star Wars, or that the idea can be sold, is a bizarre and laughable concept. It's like saying "I exchanged money in the right way, so I'm William Shakespeare now. My upcoming six Hamlets are 'canonical' successors."

dexwiz 3y ago
That’s just survivorship biases of artists thinking there has been a shift in Hollywood. Hollywood has always been a commercial enterprise studded with artistic egos, some deserved some not. CGI had just made mainstream action movies balloon is price, so they have all become financial endeavors.
- mnky9800n 3y ago
  I think that's too cynical. This is why I like interviews with Orson Welles talking about what it takes to make a movie. When he made citizen Kane he had never made a movie so he didn't know the camera was noisy so put it in a box, or that actors were used to acting in a stage play like environment (watch Philadelphia story and citizen Kane back to back, both amazing, but for entirely different reasons). And he didn't have some kind of belief that he had some magic, just the advice of his director of photography that you need about half a day's training to learn how to make a movie and the rest of it is making a movie. And that's the truth. Go to your local art house cinema and watch whatever they are playing. There are people trying to create something that's their vision. But none of them work in Hollywood.
mnky9800n 3y ago
Also, people criticize George Lucas for the star wars prequels but he captured lighting in a bottle again with those movies. He created a believable CGI character in jar jar, as much as everyone hates him nobody complained about the CGI. He created the green screen movie that even these dumb new wrap around things are simply emulating but for the actors sake since they complained so much. He remade what cinema was again. None of the prequels were a critical masterpiece like empire strikes back. But they did change the way movies were made.

dexwiz 3y ago

That’s just survivorship biases of artists thinking there has been a shift in Hollywood. Hollywood has always been a commercial enterprise studded with artistic egos, some deserved some not. CGI had just made mainstream action movies balloon is price, so they have all become financial endeavors.

mnky9800n 3y ago
I think that's too cynical. This is why I like interviews with Orson Welles talking about what it takes to make a movie. When he made citizen Kane he had never made a movie so he didn't know the camera was noisy so put it in a box, or that actors were used to acting in a stage play like environment (watch Philadelphia story and citizen Kane back to back, both amazing, but for entirely different reasons). And he didn't have some kind of belief that he had some magic, just the advice of his director of photography that you need about half a day's training to learn how to make a movie and the rest of it is making a movie. And that's the truth. Go to your local art house cinema and watch whatever they are playing. There are people trying to create something that's their vision. But none of them work in Hollywood.

mnky9800n 3y ago

Also, people criticize George Lucas for the star wars prequels but he captured lighting in a bottle again with those movies. He created a believable CGI character in jar jar, as much as everyone hates him nobody complained about the CGI. He created the green screen movie that even these dumb new wrap around things are simply emulating but for the actors sake since they complained so much. He remade what cinema was again. None of the prequels were a critical masterpiece like empire strikes back. But they did change the way movies were made.