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...vies-suck.html

[nikimcbee]

I blame CGI. More fluff, less substance

[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.

[papa_smurf]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

I blame CGI. More fluff, less substance

Just look at Star Wars: Episodes 1 to 3

[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!]

Originally Posted by Penguin

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

Übertrieben. I agree.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by 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/

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.

[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.

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by 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/

Yep that was a great movie 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.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

I blame CGI. More fluff, less substance

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.

[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!]

Originally Posted by STEED

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.

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.

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

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.