The Future Of Film Making

[Lady Day]

Oh, I dont think you give THEY enough credit. To their defense (and I guess insult), THEY will eat up just about anything WE can give them, if its packaged right (meaning, look, and story). I think THEY can keep US in check. WE have gotten lazy in it as well.


LD

 

[scotrace]

The future seems to be bringing mumbling, whispering and inaudible dialogue.











It can't be my failing hearing...

 

[HadleyH]

I really think that film making as we know it ,is on its way to an inevitable doom... I belive a new chapter is beginning for the movie industry May be I'm right may be I'm wrong Who cares anyway. lol

 

[LizzieMaine]

The real problem right now is the circular thinking that seems to dominate the business: Studios make multiplex schlock because that's what theatre owners want to book because that's what attracts the kids because they're the customers who buy the most tickets because adults stay away because there's too many kids who go to see the multiplex schlock that the theatre owners book because that's what the studios think they want.

There *are* quality films out there. There are quality theatres that show them in pleasant surroundings and with proper attention to showmanship -- you just have to make the effort to find them. Support your local indie theatre!

 

[CharlieH.]

Nowadays, executives and studio brass seldom allow anything worthwile to happen, and that's studio brass that I'm pretty sure has little or no experience in actual movie making. Films are apparently seen today as little more than merchandise that must appeal to the largest common denominator, wich also happens to be the lowest and unless Hollywood puts actual filmmakers in command, the future of the craft (on a mainstream level) will be bleak at best.

Either that, or current film makers are just plain lousy (and lazy).

 

[CharlieH.]

The real problem right now is the circular thinking that seems to dominate the business: Studios make multiplex schlock because that's what theatre owners want to book because that's what attracts the kids because they're the customers who buy the most tickets because adults stay away because there's too many kids who go to see the multiplex schlock that the theatre owners book because that's what the studios think they want.

Dont ya just hate living in a world where culture is dominated by youth?

 

[Feraud]

Dont ya just hate living in a world where culture is dominated by youth?

Actually it is the grown ups that are dominated by the almighty dollar.
The kids do not call the shots nor make the policy.

 

[Dr Doran]

Actually it is the grown ups that are dominated by the almighty dollar.
The kids do not call the shots nor make the policy.

That is actually not accurate. One of the hugest markets for entertainment is people under 20. This demographic dominates many entertainment sectors, not only video games. TV watching, moviegoing, and more. They have allowances or part time or full time jobs. They have money. They don't have children and they aren't married; their money is up for grabs. Moreover, that sector as a consuming demographic growing. They certainly dictate a great many things.

Here is what some movie theaters have done to reverse the creeping rot. There is a theater in Oakland, the Paramount, which is in an art deco building, serves drinks downstairs, has film noir nights, and has a raffle before the show. Another theater is the Parkway in Oakland and its sister theater in El Cerrito (near Berkeley). They do raffles, serve pizza and beer, and have second-run films as well as old films. I think that can work if your audience is boho enough.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Here is what some movie theaters have done to reverse the creeping rot. There is a theater in Oakland, the Paramount, which is in an art deco building, serves drinks downstairs, has film noir nights, and has a raffle before the show. Another theater is the Parkway in Oakland and its sister theater in El Cerrito (near Berkeley). They do raffles, serve pizza and beer, and have second-run films as well as old films. I think that can work if your audience is boho enough.

This is exactly how we do it at the Strand -- we have a small bar in the balcony with beer and wine, we mix our regular schedule of current indies with selected classics and special events, and we consistently attract an adult audience which is always complimenting us on how "civilized" a place it is to see a movie. And the thing is, we aren't some boho enclave -- we're a working-class city of about 9000 people. And you'd be surprised how many of those people have gotten into a regular weekly moviegoing habit just because they have a pleasant place to go see a show.

It *can* be done -- it's just a matter of having the willingness to try.

 

[Feraud]

I see what you are saying Doran and agree to a point. When I read Lizzie's comments below-

This is exactly how we do it at the Strand -- we have a small bar in the balcony with beer and wine, we mix our regular schedule of current indies with selected classics and special events, and we consistently attract an adult audience which is always complimenting us on how "civilized" a place it is to see a movie. And the thing is, we aren't some boho enclave -- we're a working-class city of about 9000 people. And you'd be surprised how many of those people have gotten into a regular weekly moviegoing habit just because they have a pleasant place to go see a show.

It *can* be done -- it's just a matter of having the willingness to try.

I conclude the choice to show indie films, classics, or blockbusters are determined by the adults exploiting the market that will give the biggest return. Adults promote the films to youth, use product placement, change the rating system to get more films viewed by younger audiences, push every horrible big budget action film, and choose to not promote smaller, better films under the guise of "not marketable".
Btw, there is nothing wrong making money but I cannot sit around and blame "The Youth" for bad films or the theaters that show them. Business minded studios conceive, make, and promote all the films we despise yet we shouldn't blame them?

 

[Leading Edge]

This is exactly how we do it at the Strand -- we have a small bar in the balcony with beer and wine, we mix our regular schedule of current indies with selected classics and special events, and we consistently attract an adult audience which is always complimenting us on how "civilized" a place it is to see a movie. And the thing is, we aren't some boho enclave -- we're a working-class city of about 9000 people. And you'd be surprised how many of those people have gotten into a regular weekly moviegoing habit just because they have a pleasant place to go see a show.

It *can* be done -- it's just a matter of having the willingness to try.

As attractive as that sounds (and I am sure Philly has something comparable), I am not so sure that those are the type of money-making venues the industry needs to sustain creative inventiveness. Also, the 20-something demographic seem to be intrigued by interactive materials that stimulate (I would rather say over stimulate) the senses. Hence, explosions and fireworks abound.

 

[Dr Doran]

I see your point, Feraud ... let's convince the studios that if they push better movies they will make a profit.
This may require making the youth like this kind of stuff.
This may require a cultural revolution (no guns please).
I was reading an interesting interview with Dan Clowes of Eightball fame about two years ago. He was talking about being in Hollywood to negotiate for either the movie about the two girls with anomie or else Art School Confidential. I cannot remember which. He said something very fascinating and horrible. He said that he had always assumed that cheesy hollywood big budget dumb movies were made sort of tongue-in-cheek, that the producers knew these movies were silly and were offering them up in the spirit of "good dumb fun." After speaking to several execs, he was chilled to realize that THESE GUYS REALLY THOUGHT THESE BIG DUMB MOVIES WERE HIGH QUALITY. Their imagination was THAT limited. They thought the stuff they were purveying was perfectly legitimate.

Liz, is the Strand your theater? Do you own it? sounds nice.

 

[dr greg]

Finally Fantastic

C'mon people, I remember last time the world was going to end filmwise, it was 2001, aptly enough, and the film was FINAL FANTASY;
here's what I wrote about it then, and actors are still earnin big bux.

The exponential advances in computer graphic technologies that are bringing rapid changes to film animation reach their current zenith in this sci-fi blockbuster. Not being of the Game-Boy Generation means that I had no preconceptions about the plot, (or any other manifestations of the story’s previous incarnation as some sort of whiz-bang computer program for antisocial adolescents). There are seven different editions of this story, each more complex (one assumes) than the one before it. Apparently the fans of this series were generally unhappy about the metamorphosis of their game into a drama that by necessity had to follow at least some of the conventions of cinema. I can only view it as a piece of entertainment, and consider it in the light of the concerns raised by some commentators and critics about the prospect of computer-generated actors replacing the well-loved grinning faces of some overpaid and over-used Hollywood identities. I view this type of film as merely the latest in a long line of animated drama that goes back to the earliest days of the moving image. Film-maker’s fantasies have always been constrained by the physical and budgetary considerations of the production, and imagination has outstripped technology all the way. Disney’s Fantasia in the 30’s has become a benchmark of emotional engagement by an audience in what is basically a moving cartoon, and the consequent outpourings over the years have been a gold-mine for various studios.
Final Fantasy however, is slightly different in that it seeks to break down our perception of these characters as representations of two-dimensional figures as seen in such Japanese Anime and Manga pictures as AKIRA: in that film we are left in no doubt that this a cartoon: a highly developed and ambitious one maybe, but still a jumped-up comic. Final Fantasy, seeks to make the lead characters so lifelike that we actually relate to them as real identities behind the mask. Which is iconoclastic in a way considering that the whole craft of acting has relied since the Ancient Greeks on the supposed loss of identity of the actor when putting on the mask. The thing that intrigued me as a purely disinterested (sic) observer, was the fact that I was not aware who had done the voices of the characters until the final credits. Whether that is because the publicity for any film is limited in our bush cinema or not, is rendered irrelevant by the practise of other big-budget animations doing the rounds recently such as SHREK which made great play of actors such as Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy being “in” the film. This is widespread in other manifestations of the form such as Aardman’s Chicken Run with Mel Gibson at last personifying the chook-act that he is, and some other Disney Pharoah nonsense with Jennifer Lopez etc etc. Final Fantasy had well-known players in the sound studio but didn’t allow our preconceptions of those actors to colour the character. Which brings us to the big question: will real people ever be replaced by cyber-actors?
Not on the strength of this film, but perhaps looks alone might become less of a path to glory for toothy buffoons like Julia Roberts and her ilk…bring on the pixels.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Liz, is the Strand your theater? Do you own it? sounds nice.

Nope, I'm just a hired hand -- the owner is a longtime summer resident who got very upset at the fact that the place was sitting there empty and decaying, and decided something had to be done about it. The interesting thing is, though, even though he's the actual owner, there's a real sense of proprietary interest from the people of the town -- you hear them talking about "Our Theatre," "Our Strand," in a way that no one would ever think of talking about the multiplex out on the highway.

I think that demonstrates something very important -- the value of reaching and engaging filmgoers on a personal level, something that goes beyond just herding them into a big empty room and flashing a picture on a sheet on the wall. Exhibition is every bit as important as production in the survival of the industry, and I think a friendly, intimate sort of venue can really give people an incentive to come see a picture in ways that a big impersonal mall theatre can't. As the saying goes, If You Build It, They Will Come.

 

[Fletch]

How true

And if you knock it down, they will go away. And they won't come back.

Of course, some places don't want that kind around.
Drive off Business and Development and all that.
So they say...

 

[Twitch]

Lizzie you made a good point in saying that theater owners have a desire for films pandering to younger audiences. When I was a kid films that targeted kids were few and far between. Films were aimed at adults. And as Lady Day said now it's an explosion of animated movies. At one movie a few months ago every preview was of a forthcoming animated flick!

It's like Hollywood and the eternal pendulum keeps producing extremes. They've lost their way in many respects. All the studios jump on a plot scenario and do the same thing that everyone else is doing and we get a gaggle of similar movies. It's the same on TV. When a hit comes along each network attempts to produce their formulated version of the same thing.

It's like the horror genre stuff. Each one tries to out-do the last with gore, shock and slime. In the 50 we got Godzilla and Rodan on a double feature Saturday matinee. Now it's a blood splatter fest for the sake of it.

So now we have to put up with with Ferraris and Lamborghinis catapulting through the air in completely unrealistic ways to sate the demand by the teenyboppers who actually put down Grand Theft Auto on the X-box to go to the movies. While I like to go to the movies to escape and be entertained there are simply too many impossible and juvenile plots abounding which border on sci-fi in their un-realism.

Perhaps it is simply because we see a larger quantity of films coming out than we did in the 50s-60s. There are decent films released but you have to be selective due to the fact that there are so many of all categories shotgunned out by the studios.

 

[Dr Doran]

Nope, I'm just a hired hand ... If You Build It, They Will Come.

I hope there is some profit sharing.
There are two old cinemas in San Francisco that were torn down or rejiggered. One became a fitness center (at least the building remained). One is shut. This happened when a multiplex opened. The multiplex, to its credit, plays art films as well as blockbusters. There are still many small theaters, local neighborhood ones, everywhere in SF. I already mentioned the good theaters in El Cerrito and Oakland. The other possibilities are the McMenamins theaters in Oregon and Washington State which serve food and beer. This brings in people and they can charge tiny prices for second run films. That seems to work out well for all parties concerned.

 

[John in Covina]

One thing that has suffered is the big epic pictures. CGI can make a film where the extras in a formation styled battle scene are digital and that can look great. BUT the grandeur of the masses in films like Sparticus, Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia. the Ten Commandments seems to have something that digitally is not represented as well with a live human factor. We probably won't see that again.

Another thing that I find bothersome in many films lately is that the cutting of action scenes are so jumpy and abrupt that I can't really tell what the heck is going on. In several of the latest Alien Vs Predator films the fighting is nearly impossible to follow to my satisfaction.

The shaky hand held filming for supposed realism is lost on me too.

 

[John in Covina]

I have yet to go to the movies to see anything in 3D.
What's the general consensus on that?
Gimmick, hype or good?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Gimmick. How does it add to the storytelling capability of the medium? Does it improve the script, the acting, the directing?

But then, I also think widescreen is a gimmick that simply caught on and survived long enough that a whole generation of film goers doesn't realize there was ever anything else. There are very few films shot in 1.85 or 2.35 that wouldn't tell their stories just as well in 1.37.