5 Hollywood Secrets That Explain Why So Many Movies Suck

[Ducimus]

Not sure if this has been posted before.

Chances are if you're reading this, you are already mad at Hollywood. You've watched helplessly as it bastardized the franchises you loved as a child, or failed to promote -- or even release -- a project you had been excited about for years.

You can write it all off as greed and the terrible taste of the movie-going public, but there are other factors that make Hollywood the soulless blockbuster machine that it is. Some of which you'd never suspect ..

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_19012_5-hollywood-secrets-that-explain-why-so-many-movies-suck.html

[nikimcbee]

I blame CGI:stare:. More fluff, less substance:shifty:

[Platapus]

And the fact that the producers seem to feel that every movie has to be 2.5 hours + .

Not every move needs 2 1/2 hours. I would opine that most of the movies I see could be done and done well in about an hour.

[Bilge_Rat]

yes, it's called good old fashioned capitalism, despite that, you still have great films being made including:

..Inglorious Basterds, The Social network, The Hurt Locker, Il Divo, Zodiac, Coco & Chanel, Inception, The Kids are Allright, Red, Shutter Island, Solitary Man, Cemetery Junction, The Ghost Writer, The Limits of Control, The Girlfriend Experience, Public Enemies, The Informant!, Bronson, The Messenger, Young Victoria, The Blind Side, Me and Orson Welles, The Road, Up in the Air, The Lovely Bones, A Single Man, Crazy Heart, Sherlock Holmes, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, A History of Violence, Eastern Promises..

just to name some recent ones I have seen and liked...

[Weiss Pinguin]

and INCEPTION :D heeheeheehee

[MaddogK]

Seriously ??? Sherlock Holmes ?
:rotfl2:

Up in the air was pretty good, as was (surprisingly) Repo men.

[Feuer Frei!]

Pretty spoton list of reasons.

Writers Don't Come Up With the Ideas

This imo should have been No 1, so true.

Everything Is Simplified for the International Market
Dumbing down? Yep, true again.
The substance has gone from movies, look at ****e like Mchete, The Expendables, just to name a few. Oh, and Inglorious Basterds.

Movie Projects Get Killed for Bad Reasons
And sometimes this is for the better.

Gaming the Ratings System
The good 'ole ratings system. Too violent, so it gets binned, or banned from classification, or banned from screening in certain areas.
What about choice? What about freedom of viewing?
As if we haven't seen it all before.

Merchandising Supremacy
Well yea, that's just business sense.
Cater to a broader market. Cash in, milk the cow for what it's worth by doing 50 sequels, or basing a movie on a newly-released game.
Fail!

These factors can all be applied to the gaming industry too.
Perfectly, might i add.
Copy and pasta straight into the What's wrong with games today thread.

Movies these days are void of any sort of attempt to actively challenge a brain cell or two, certainly in my case.
It's either a war movie, where the (surprise surprise) the Germans get bashed and branded evil and get killed in the most violent ways, as if to drive home to the viewer that we can't forget that the Germans were all bad, point in case recently with Inglorious Basterds, that's one reason i haven't watched it, apart from Brad Pitt's lack of acting skills, or the mindless drivel of The Expendables, where you allow wouldbe actors, such as Sly Stallone to direct his own garbage. The plot of the movie? No plot, just a kill em all, how many words can you put together in a sentence type of film. A waste of time for me, time i will never get back.
Machete? Same garbage.
Hollywood needs to look at itself and re-invent itself.
Now!

[Bilge_Rat]

the Germans were all bad, point in case recently with Inglorious Basterds, that's one reason i haven't watched it, apart from Brad Pitt's lack of acting skills,


easily the best movie on my list, you owe to yourself to watch this film and make up your own mind, critics have tried to pigeonhole it in this or that category, but it defies description, brillant writing and film making. :up:

[Oberon]

Sherlock Holmes was a good film, surprisingly enjoyable all things considered. I had my doubts when I went to watch it, but I think that the use of CGI in recreating the scenery of the time instead of wasting it all on massive explosions everywhere was good, and Downey made a good, if unconventional, Sherlock. I will definitely be seeing the sequel. :yep:

Now, Robin Hood on the other hand... :damn: AUF MICH ZU DIRECKT!! :haha:

[Feuer Frei!]

easily the best movie on my list, you owe to yourself to watch this film and make up your own mind, critics have tried to pigeonhole it in this or that category, but it defies description, brillant writing and film making. :up:
Thanks for the suggestion, i mean that, but i'll pass.
Seen too many of these types of movies churned out by Hollywood to even go near it.

[Jimbuna]

Wasn't all that impressed with Inglorious Bastards, thought the ending in particular made little sense but did enjoy Sherlock Holmes.

Avatar anyone? :DL

[Feuer Frei!]

Sherlock Holmes was a good film, surprisingly enjoyable all things considered. I had my doubts when I went to watch it, but I think that the use of CGI in recreating the scenery of the time instead of wasting it all on massive explosions everywhere was good, and Downey made a good, if unconventional, Sherlock. I will definitely be seeing the sequel. :yep:

I enjoyed Sherlock Holmes too, Downey was ok in the role, i couldn't stomach the not so funny quips or one-liners though.
Apart from that, it was a good movie.
What is it about movies these days, moreso action movies when you have to have a character playing the lead which has to be a smarta** and roll off 1-liners like it was going out of fashion, which might i add are more annoying than funny, imo.
I'm also pointing at you, Star Trek the movie.
Man oh man, Chris Pine as Kirk, Aaaaaaargggggghhhhhh.

[Growler]

My wife's writing for Hollywood at the moment, and actually a part of something rather... large.

All I can say is, things are not always as they appear, and this is both blessing and curse.

[frau kaleun]

Everything Is Simplified for the International Market

Riiiiight. Cuz the US market just loves those artful, complicated, intellectually stimulating films. :haha:

[joegrundman]

Thanks for the suggestion, i mean that, but i'll pass.
Seen too many of these types of movies churned out by Hollywood to even go near it.

nah, you'd like it. it's a unique movie.

[kiwi_2005]

Sherlock Holmes is a great movie. That Downey is a fab actor imo

Movie I just seen recently 'The Warriors Way' was a really bad movie. Kinda disappointing as the main actor is a good actor he just had a bad script or director or both. I just about fell to sleep in some parts. Don't even bother.

One of my all time favourite movie is Primer. No hollywood stunts, made on a low budget and yet is a real superb movie. About four friends who at night get together in their garage and play around with their inventions one night they realize they have created a time machine. Not an action flick just a good story. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/

[Gammelpreusse]

Thanks for the suggestion, i mean that, but i'll pass.
Seen too many of these types of movies churned out by Hollywood to even go near it.

You miss out! Epic movie and quite contrary to most Hollywood Flicks in their stereotypes. In fact I was mighty impressed by Tarantino as he got the 08/15 German more authentic then any other US movie I have seen so far.

But I dunno, the American movie industry in general is like Fast Food, easy to consume, good tasting in it's own ways and so predictable you always know what you get. However, with some noteworthy exceptions.

My only real critique would be those constant remakes of movies in ever shorter circles. Even Jurassic Parks gets a remake now! Then those never ending series and relaunches(Spiderman IV anyone?). And finally remakes of foreign movies isntead of releasing the originals.

[papa_smurf]

I blame CGI:stare:. More fluff, less substance:shifty:

Just look at Star Wars: Episodes 1 to 3:nope:

[Feuer Frei!]

I'll tell you what IS a great movie though, a movie with depth, real character, great acting, great story and a legendary director:
Sergio Leone's
Once Upon a Time in America


Now that's a movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087843/

[Penguin]

well folks, there are tons of non-Hollywood movies out there, or as the Germans say: "Other mothers also have beautiful daughters!"

CGI is nothing bad, it's just a tool, helping to create immersion if used right. However the use of it in today's movuies reminds me of a woman not just painting her eyes (I'm a sucker for kohl, kajal) but jumping into a pool of paint.

[Feuer Frei!]

woman not just painting her eyes but jumping into a pool of paint.

Übertrieben. I agree.

[Bilge_Rat]

I'll tell you what IS a great movie though, a movie with depth, real character, great acting, great story and a legendary director:
Sergio Leone's
Once Upon a Time in America


Now that's a movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087843/

Sergio Leone is one of my all time favorite directors. He only made a few movies, but his influence is still felt throughout the popular culture.

That said, I am not a big fan of Once upon a time in America which I found overly drawn out. I much preferred Once upon a time in the West and my personal favorite For a Few Dollars more which struck the right balance between crisp story telling and the Leone style.

Incidentally, much of Inglorious Basterds is structured as a spaghetti western, with much of the first chapter being a obvious homage to Once Upon a Time in the West. The first chapter of IG is even called Once Upon a Time in Nazi occupied France. :arrgh!:

[Bilge_Rat]

On Sherlock Holmes: it is a studio film; the producer is Joel Silver who specializes in big budget action movies; it is a retread of an idea; it includes the obligatory action scenes to draw in the teenage/young adult crowd. It could easily have been your standard pablum fare.

Yet it is recognizably a Guy Ritchie film, albeit toned down from his normal British gangster flicks. Many of the plot elements, characters and even lines spoken by the actors are taken directly from the original novels, including the fact that Holmes was an expert in martial arts and engaged in bare knuckle boxing:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0988045/trivia

Downey and Law were perfectly cast as Holmes and Watson. On the whole, it is a worthy successor to the old Jeremy Brett tv series which to me set the gold standard of what Sherlock Holmes should be.

[Platapus]

I'm also pointing at you, Star Trek the movie.
Man oh man, Chris Pine as Kirk, Aaaaaaargggggghhhhhh.

ACK! One simply does not mention that movie. For the sake of our society, that movie (whose name shall never be said) needs to be quickly forgotten.

Concerning these "alternate universe" crap.. well in my universe the 2009 version of "that movie" simply does not and should not exist.

[MaddogK]

Sor-ry
Didn't think how important Sherlock Holmes would become in film history until I saw the response here. Me not being impressed with such a milestone film likely explains why I wasn't particularly impressed Inglorious Basterds, The Road, Avatar, Youth in Revolt, Titanic, Public enemies, Star Trek, Tron Legacy, Transformers, The Dark Knight.

I agree with cracks reasons why so many movies suck, Hollywood isn't making very many 'new' movies as the cookie-cutter formula works for the masses, thankfully the indy's still make some fresh movies, tho sometimes the big studios do make really good films (by accident)- Alice in wonderland, Up.

I'll be ripping 'Sucker punch' in a couple weeks if you want to check back.
;)

[kiwi_2005]

I'll tell you what IS a great movie though, a movie with depth, real character, great acting, great story and a legendary director:
Sergio Leone's
Once Upon a Time in America


Now that's a movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087843/

Yep that was a great movie :yeah: Good Fellas is another one.

[vienna]

On PBS' new Roger Ebert movie review show last week, he had a bit commenting on the differences between films now and films of the past in terms of writng. It compared the depth of writing, use of language and character development with films now; older films by Capra, etc. that glorified writing and language as opposed to films now that are all special effects and, particularly, explosions. It ended with a clip of the ols SCTV skit of the redneck movie reviewers who liked films because '"they blew up real good". In this vein, compare the big screen "Sherlock Holmes" with the recent BBC series "Sherlock". Sometimes you don't need to blow things up if you have great writing and film making.

[Growler]

On PBS' new Roger Ebert movie review show last week, he had a bit commenting on the differences between films now and films of the past in terms of writng. It compared the depth of writing, use of language and character development with films now; older films by Capra, etc. that glorified writing and language as opposed to films now that are all special effects and, particularly, explosions. It ended with a clip of the ols SCTV skit of the redneck movie reviewers who liked films because '"they blew up real good". In this vein, compare the big screen "Sherlock Holmes" with the recent BBC series "Sherlock". Sometimes you don't need to blow things up if you have great writing and film making.

To which, I offer:

12 Angry Men (the Original, starring Henry Fonda, EG Marshall, Jack Klugman, Lee Cobb)

Perhaps one of the greatest film-making masterpieces I've ever watched over and over and over again, filmed on three locations, with two of them appearing for a few moments and the third being a jury room set. The entire film is tightly written and beautifully directed.

[Platapus]

To which, I offer:

12 Angry Men (the Original, starring Henry Fonda, EG Marshall, Jack Klugman, Lee Cobb)

Perhaps one of the greatest film-making masterpieces I've ever watched over and over and over again, filmed on three locations, with two of them appearing for a few moments and the third being a jury room set. The entire film is tightly written and beautifully directed.


I doubt Hollywood would be able to make such a movie these days. 12 angry men had a plot, good writing, and actors with talent.

Today's audience would be bored watching it.

Why do movies suck these days? Because the movie industry recognized that casting pearls before swine is economically non profitable. :D

[Growler]

I doubt Hollywood would be able to make such a movie these days. 12 angry men had a plot, good writing, and actors with talent.

Today's audience would be bored watching it.

Why do movies suck these days? Because the movie industry recognized that casting pearls before swine is economically non profitable. :D

I really wish I had some witty retort for this.

But there ain't, cause you're right. Thanks, Michael Bay and Uwe Boll.
:wah:

[Gargamel]

On Sherlock Holmes: it is a studio film; the producer is Joel Silver who specializes in big budget action movies; it is a retread of an idea; it includes the obligatory action scenes to draw in the teenage/young adult crowd. It could easily have been your standard pablum fare.

Yet it is recognizably a Guy Ritchie film, albeit toned down from his normal British gangster flicks. Many of the plot elements, characters and even lines spoken by the actors are taken directly from the original novels, including the fact that Holmes was an expert in martial arts and engaged in bare knuckle boxing:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0988045/trivia

Downey and Law were perfectly cast as Holmes and Watson. On the whole, it is a worthy successor to the old Jeremy Brett tv series which to me set the gold standard of what Sherlock Holmes should be.

It's actually becoming regarded as the most true-to-the-books Homes movie made. If the keep the quality up, I can easily see this being a well done franchise, ala Bond.

[STEED]

I blame CGI:stare:. More fluff, less substance:shifty:

Agreed, plus there are actors who just can not act. Hollywood loves to churn out big CGI, big bang crash wallop explosion films with poor story lines. :nope:

[MaddogK]

Not buying it, Avatar was all CGI, made a ton of money and set all kinds of attendance records, tho I wasn't particularly impressed with the story, the acting or the direction.

On the other hand The Watchmen had less CGI, a more imaginative story (IMHO), better acting, and the best direction I've seen in a long time, but wasn't a hit.

I'm more apt to believe it was too much movie for the simple minds looking for all those explosions found in Avatar. CGI didn't hurt District 9.

[Feuer Frei!]

plus there are actors who just can not act So true. I forgot to add that to my reasons in my earlier post. Many many names come to mind here. Hollywood loves to churn out big CGI, big bang crash wallop explosion films with poor story lines. :nope:True again. Too wrapped up in attemtping to give that bang experience.

On the other hand The Watchmen had less CGI, a more imaginative story (IMHO) Another movie about Super Heroes. better acting Hmm, i thought the acting was mediocre at the best of times.
I'm more apt to believe it was too much movie for the simple minds looking for all those explosions found in Avatar. CGI didn't hurt District 9.Probably. Like i said in my previous post, times have changed, so have movie goers' expectations.
The 'patience' factor has gone, people want action action action, i think most don't give a rat's about story line anymore.
Could you imagine Once upon a time in America being redone?
The movie was looong, but one of the best movies i've ever seen.
And with today's yuppies, hip teenie boppers and pimply-faced gum-chewing crowd they'd throw rotten eggs at it.

[Gargamel]

Not buying it, Avatar was all CGI, made a ton of money and set all kinds of attendance records, tho I wasn't particularly impressed with the story, the acting or the direction.

Avatar was just a technology show piece for Cameron to show off his new toy, the live CGI rendering program. He was able to move the camera's around the actors doing their motion control bits, and it was instantly rendered (lite version of course) on a monitor so he could change the shot's as he needed to make them work better. Brilliant idea really, in the future it will allow for more meshing of real action and CGI. BUt I'm not really sure how the movie did so well. It was visually stunning, but after that, it was just fluff. Meh script, Meh acting.

[Growler]

Avatar was Aliens with Stockholm Syndrome.

[Feuer Frei!]

Avatar was just a technology show piece for Cameron to show off his new toy, the live CGI rendering program. Dam him, there's 2 hrs approx that i will never ever get back in my life.
Go 'practice' somewhere else :O:

[jumpy]

On Sherlock Holmes: it is a studio film; the producer is Joel Silver who specializes in big budget action movies; it is a retread of an idea; it includes the obligatory action scenes to draw in the teenage/young adult crowd. It could easily have been your standard pablum fare.

Yet it is recognizably a Guy Ritchie film, albeit toned down from his normal British gangster flicks. Many of the plot elements, characters and even lines spoken by the actors are taken directly from the original novels, including the fact that Holmes was an expert in martial arts and engaged in bare knuckle boxing:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0988045/trivia

Downey and Law were perfectly cast as Holmes and Watson. On the whole, it is a worthy successor to the old Jeremy Brett tv series which to me set the gold standard of what Sherlock Holmes should be.

I liked the film and the downy jnr/law leads, a little grudgingly it must be said, as I too have a great affection for Messrs Brett and Hardwicke.


Another film that appears to have taken an age to come to fruition: Solomon Kane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Kane_%28film%29
Being familiar with the R E Howard character, it was at least as pleasing as Conan the Barbarian in it's reproduction of the original concept. Hopefully there will be two more SK instalments. With any luck they will be better than the two conan the barbarian sequels: conan the destroyer, and red sonja :x

[MaddogK]

Another movie about Super Heroes.
More human than superheros, with human problems. 1 character with real superpowers, 1 other with the gift of intelligence and speed, the rest were cops wearing masks. Could you imagine the outrage if Superman said
"I'm tired of the Earth, these people, and the entanglements of their lives" like Dr. Manhattan said ?

Hmm, i thought the acting was mediocre at the best of times. I was making a little joke, Avatar didn't have 'actors'. They had bodies wearing little reflectors and the computer did the rest, voices added later.


Could you imagine Once upon a time in America being redone?
The movie was looong, but one of the best movies i've ever seen.
And with today's yuppies, hip teenie boppers and pimply-faced gum-chewing crowd they'd throw rotten eggs at it. Yes, I'm sure it will be redone, updated, and called better tho we who've seen the original will laugh. Remakes and updates drive the industry's money making machine, they'll keep remaking the 'classics' to appeal to newest generation who believes that a film 5 years or older can't be any good. Eventually Blade Runner, Apocalypse now, the Godfather will all be redone and updated, it's the way of hollywood.

[Gargamel]

I was making a little joke, Avatar didn't have 'actors'. They had bodies wearing little reflectors and the computer did the rest, voices added later.

Actually, that was the tech showpiece. The actors were mapped in realtime and they could make adjustments to their performance to better fit the CGi output. And they used the voices as they acted. The behind the scenes stuff for that movie is pretty amazing, cooler than the movie itself IMO. Yes, of course they used voice overs later, as all movies do.