Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I keep hearing this, but I don't get it. TV is flooded with reality shows or dry crime dramas that all look alike to me. I'm not much of a TV watcher as it is, though. I spend most of my time on Netflix or other places watching sitcoms from the 80s or 90s. They have a nice happy medium between being silly while not being downright trashy like a lot of TV today.
Even if it's not reality TV, the popular "serious shows" that are out today just don't appeal to me. The only one I like is Walking Dead.
The rest of them either don't appeal to me or are in their third or fourth season and I don't have time to sit down and catch up on them. That's another reason why I prefer the film medium to TV. It's more self-contained.
The major networks are mostly garbage, but there are lots of great shows on cable. Off the top of my head:
Breaking Bad
The Walking Dead
Justified
Sons of Anarchy
Broadchurch
Downton Abbey
I agree with you about coming in late to a series. I tend to binge watch most series on DVD or Netflix. I may not tune in for episodes during the week, but I may well watch an entire season of a show over 3 days.
When it comes to drama, good writing, good acting, and intriguing stories, I haven't seen a single movie in years that measures up to today's best TV shows.
I'm betting this is false. Another article on the matter claims just that. Besides, actors don't really retire. Many claim to do so, but always come back for more.
IMO, there isn't any good stuff anywhere these days. I watch the oldies (like Cuckoo's Nest) over and over and over. They simply don't make 'em like that anymore. These days it's all about slutty behavior and who can squeeze in the most foul language.
I agree. To add to that. Even Stephen Spieldberg has said just last month that the movie industry is dead. His words not mine. For one, actors are paid too much money. Movies cost so much to make that if it fails in many cases a film company goes under. It's all about the opening weekend. The days are long gone that a movie stays on the big screen month after month. If a movie drops by the second week, it gets pulled. Plus Hollywood producers focus too much on advertising seven trailer moments. A movie can have the greatest script in the world, but because it might not have seven key trailer moments to preview, they won't make it. We live in a world where we want everything now. Action right from the beginning like that dumb movie "The Expendables". No patience. But I don't think Hollywood gives adults that much credit. They think unless it has non stop action we won't go. I personally like crime dramas. I could care less for all action movies with no plot. So they put out all these shoot em' up stupid movies because they're easy to get trailers out of. Trailer moments are basically what you see when a movie is advertised. Their key moments in the film that look exciting, etc. Sometimes these previews show the only funny parts of a movie. It's just gone down hill so long now that it's ridiculous.
People are sick of the same old sh t and are tired of watching remakes. Writers are discouraged because if they don't put a shoot em up scene or some sort of car chase, the producers are afraid to touch it. Plus, anybody can be an actor today. You have all these musicians and such jumping into the business at whim just because they can. Talent doesn't mean that much anymore. Look at Rhianna-yuck. The industry is dying and I agree at this point that you can find better things on paid programming like HBO and Cinema. Take the script, "Good will hunting". That almost didn't get made. If they pass on scripts like that and make movies like, The tooth fairy" what does that say. It's a frustrating situation. Reality t.v. really didn't help either.
For one, actors are paid too much money. Movies cost so much to make that if it fails in many cases a film company goes under.
Movie stars have ALWAYS been paid too much money. Movies have always been expensive. That's nothing new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by supermanpansy
It's all about the opening weekend.
That's entirely because of perception, not reality. The fact is that all of the major studios are now owned by mega-corporations run by billionaires. They don't just want a movie to be profitable. They insist it be MEGA-profitable. Any movie that fails to do that is therefore considered a flop.
The fact is that it is almost impossible to truly lose money on a movie these days. By the time a movie plays in foreign markets, sells cable rights, collects licensing fees, DVD sales, etc., even horrible failure like The Lone Ranger will run well into the black. But that isn't good enough for stockholders. They don't want a movie to be profitable. They want a movie to be ridiculously profitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by supermanpansy
People are sick of the same old sh t and are tired of watching remakes. Writers are discouraged because if they don't put a shoot em up scene or some sort of car chase, the producers are afraid to touch it. Plus, anybody can be an actor today. You have all these musicians and such jumping into the business at whim just because they can. Talent doesn't mean that much anymore. Look at Rhianna-yuck.
That's all true. But you know: That has ALWAYS been true. Even in the so-called golden age of cinema that was true. There have always been remakes. Studios have always done sequels. Success ful stars have rarely been about talent. The writer is always the most disrespected vital wheel in the cog. This is nothing new.
What has changed is that studios are now run by corporations who demand not profit, but billions in profit. And because of the rise of the internet, cable, etc., fewer people are actually going to the movies.
This is why all of the good writers and directors are now working in TV. It's why very talented actors who care about the material who would not have darkened a TV show with their shadow 10 years ago are now eager to get into TV.
Quality filmmaking isn't dead. It just isn't at the theater anymore. It's on TV.
I agree. To add to that. Even Stephen Spieldberg has said just last month that the movie industry is dead. His words not mine. For one, actors are paid too much money. Movies cost so much to make that if it fails in many cases a film company goes under. It's all about the opening weekend. The days are long gone that a movie stays on the big screen month after month. If a movie drops by the second week, it gets pulled. Plus Hollywood producers focus too much on advertising seven trailer moments. A movie can have the greatest script in the world, but because it might not have seven key trailer moments to preview, they won't make it. We live in a world where we want everything now. Action right from the beginning like that dumb movie "The Expendables". No patience. But I don't think Hollywood gives adults that much credit. They think unless it has non stop action we won't go. I personally like crime dramas. I could care less for all action movies with no plot. So they put out all these shoot em' up stupid movies because they're easy to get trailers out of. Trailer moments are basically what you see when a movie is advertised. Their key moments in the film that look exciting, etc. Sometimes these previews show the only funny parts of a movie. It's just gone down hill so long now that it's ridiculous.
People are sick of the same old sh t and are tired of watching remakes. Writers are discouraged because if they don't put a shoot em up scene or some sort of car chase, the producers are afraid to touch it. Plus, anybody can be an actor today. You have all these musicians and such jumping into the business at whim just because they can. Talent doesn't mean that much anymore. Look at Rhianna-yuck. The industry is dying and I agree at this point that you can find better things on paid programming like HBO and Cinema. Take the script, "Good will hunting". That almost didn't get made. If they pass on scripts like that and make movies like, The tooth fairy" what does that say. It's a frustrating situation. Reality t.v. really didn't help either.
I agree with everything you said. Great movies do exist, though. It's just rare for a studio not to have their hands all over the finished product. But there are filmmakers out there now making really good stuff, they are just few and far in-between.
Movie stars have ALWAYS been paid too much money. Movies have always been expensive. That's nothing new.
I have to agree wholeheartedly with supermanpansy. Movies have always been expensive. But today all movies from a major studio are extremely expensive. During Nicholson's early days of acting, movies could be made for less. 1969's Hello Dolly was made for $25 million and only took in $26 million at the box office. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid was made for $6 million and took in $102 million.
During the New Hollywood era, when Nicholson matured as an actor, socially relevant movies could be made for cheap and be a hit. Easy Rider was made for less than $400,000 and took more than $40 million at the box office. Nicholson starred in Five Easy Pieces, movie that cost less than $2 million, but made $18 million at the box office. Both Five Easy Pieces and Easy Rider are considered classics. However, big Hollywood films during that era could be box office hits too. 1970's Airport was made for $10 million and took in $100 million. But Airport isn't considered a classic. In fact, even fans of the movie agree it is extremely dated.
True, movies have always been expensive. But back in Jack's time you weren't smothered in hyperactive blockbusters like today.
Quote:
That's entirely because of perception, not reality. The fact is that all of the major studios are now owned by mega-corporations run by billionaires. They don't just want a movie to be profitable. They insist it be MEGA-profitable. Any movie that fails to do that is therefore considered a flop.
Yes, they want movies to be profitable. Studio execs have always wanted movies to be profitable. But at least during Nicholson's time studios were putting out movies that were trying to be creative. It wasn't all remakes and franchises and sequels and superheroes.
Quote:
The fact is that it is almost impossible to truly lose money on a movie these days. By the time a movie plays in foreign markets, sells cable rights, collects licensing fees, DVD sales, etc., even horrible failure like The Lone Ranger will run well into the black. But that isn't good enough for stockholders. They don't want a movie to be profitable. They want a movie to be ridiculously profitable.
But a movie can still be ridiculously profitable with a lower budget, engaging script, and good actors. That's what supermanpansy is saying. Studios are mainly focusing on superhero movies and remakes. Why not focus on being profitable AND original?
Quote:
That's all true. But you know: That has ALWAYS been true. Even in the so-called golden age of cinema that was true. There have always been remakes. Studios have always done sequels. Success ful stars have rarely been about talent. The writer is always the most disrespected vital wheel in the cog. This is nothing new.
They did remakes and sequels. But the remakes and sequels are the most dominating movies from major studios. That's what he's having a problem with. Ironically, during Jack's time, in the 60s and 70s, the number of remakes and sequels was put out by major studios was extremely low. Today, by contrast, remakes and sequels are so constant that no one is shocked if a major studio puts out only remakes and sequels.
Quote:
What has changed is that studios are now run by corporations who demand not profit, but billions in profit. And because of the rise of the internet, cable, etc., fewer people are actually going to the movies.
I will say this: I know lots of people who don't go to the movie theater or have Netflix or watch any new movies at all. It's not hard to meet a person past the age of 30 who doesn't care to spend time and money on the new stuff. I'm a 29 year old guy and I live a 10 minute bike ride from the local AMC Theatre. I haven't been to the cinema since 2008. Seeing the Spirit on the big screen convinced me that new movies were, for the most part, not worth my time.
Quote:
This is why all of the good writers and directors are now working in TV. It's why very talented actors who care about the material who would not have darkened a TV show with their shadow 10 years ago are now eager to get into TV.
Quality filmmaking isn't dead. It just isn't at the theater anymore. It's on TV.
They've now gone to TV? So I guess they're putting their stuff to good use on all those reality shows that dominate television?
They've now gone to TV? So I guess they're putting their stuff to good use on all those reality shows that dominate television?
Those are the crap shows that litter TV. The shows in question are the ones on FX, AMC, HBO, etc. We are seeing actors who wouldn't normally do TV. Storytelling is now as good on TV as it in the movies, at least on a consistent basis.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
