5 Hollywood Secrets That Explain Why So Many Movies Suck

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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.

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

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

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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.

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

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.