Fop 1 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Is it me, or does Hollywood churn out nothing now apart from sequels, prequels, remakes, and woefully formulaic Superhero films? Did it ever not? I think the big change though (a bit like computer and PC games) is cost, and that with films now it is possible to bomb at the cinema and still make a fortune through DvD sales. That probably hasn't helped. Top Gun 3: Misserick is now at the Top Gun school as an instructor - and this time it is she who has to deal with a cocky new black transgender pilot who is her mother (!!!!). Aye, not anymore though. I dunno, it always largely made whatever made money. Be that musicals or westerns or whatever. Even if that were the case that's a bit different to what you were saying, i.e. it was always thus (regarding the making sequels, prequels, remakes, and woefully formulaic Superhero films bit). It certainly used to make films that weren't derivative and not only in its pioneering days when it was obvious that would be the case. The way its long been set-up with the studios means that it basically has to make blockbusters that bring the lolly in but Hollywood seemed to be able to do that and still make great movies far more often. It's all true but the "superhero" bit, which depends on how pedantic you wish to be. The rest is a bit "when I were a lad we used to walk up hill both ways"; commercial pressures certainly do produce different issues now, but to say that it wasn't the case previously at all, right back to the earliest times (and even pre-movie things), is pretty blinkered. It's much like computer game history (only they've had a much shorter lifespan), but even back in the days of genuine bedroom hits, there were still the generic, the sequel and the blatant copy. Movies have been the same, one of the big issues at the moment (especially with "superheros") is the relative ease and power of computer generated special effects. Meaning Spiderman can now be done in a way that couldn't be dreamed of in the 80's, except in something like a comic book. Lucky I wasn't saying that then You agree with me then. Films used to run and run when there was no way to watch at home. A success could pull them in at the cinema for years, you didn't need a sequel when the original could make just as much given another cinema run. With home video, the demand for new product at the cinema went through the roof. I think there's just as much quality coming out as there ever was, maybe even more, but with the turnover required to give the public eight or nine prestige releases a week it's only to be expected that some of that is going to be rehashed ideas. DvD's have made a big impact, much bigger than video every did really, once they realise that mass volume cheap(ish) DvD sales could make a so so movie that did nothing at the cinema a decent profit maker over a couple of years (much more so than straight to video films ever did). But you've just got to look at things like Westerns to see it's been going on for as long as the movie industry to a significant degree. But the studios are making more sequels, prequels, remakes and superhero films than ever before. Never said they weren't, in fact I said their were. Just saying it's not new, apart from maybe in scale (although if you look at 80's/early 90's video movies maybe not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 No, I was pointing you misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise, the point I was making, going by the bit I bolded. It wasn't really a case of agreeing or disagreeing since you seemed to be making a different point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 No, I was pointing you misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise, the point I was making, going by the bit I bolded. It wasn't really a case of agreeing or disagreeing since you seemed to be making a different point. No, you agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 (edited) No, I was pointing you misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise, the point I was making, going by the bit I bolded. It wasn't really a case of agreeing or disagreeing since you seemed to be making a different point. No, you agree. To be honest, as usual you're all over the place in this thread, so it's difficult to say. My point, however, was that Hollywood was, essentially, less derivative in the past than it is now. Edited July 22, 2008 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 No, I was pointing you misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise, the point I was making, going by the bit I bolded. It wasn't really a case of agreeing or disagreeing since you seemed to be making a different point. No, you agree. To be honest, as usual you're all over the place, in this thread so it's difficult to say. My point, however, was that Hollywood was, essentially, less derivative in the past than it is now. Ok, in that you're wrong, at least in relative proportion if not absolute turnover. Why do you think Westerns existed at all? (or monster flicks etc.?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 (edited) No, I was pointing you misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise, the point I was making, going by the bit I bolded. It wasn't really a case of agreeing or disagreeing since you seemed to be making a different point. No, you agree. To be honest, as usual you're all over the place, in this thread so it's difficult to say. My point, however, was that Hollywood was, essentially, less derivative in the past than it is now. Ok, in that you're wrong, at least in relative proportion if not absolute turnover. Why do you think Westerns existed at all? (or monster flicks etc.?) To make money. I actually made the point the studios existed to make money. Are you arguing Hollywood is less derivative than it used to be btw? Genuine question. Edited July 22, 2008 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 No, I was pointing you misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise, the point I was making, going by the bit I bolded. It wasn't really a case of agreeing or disagreeing since you seemed to be making a different point. No, you agree. To be honest, as usual you're all over the place, in this thread so it's difficult to say. My point, however, was that Hollywood was, essentially, less derivative in the past than it is now. Ok, in that you're wrong, at least in relative proportion if not absolute turnover. Why do you think Westerns existed at all? (or monster flicks etc.?) To make money. I actually made the point the studios existed to make money. Exactly, which is why they've always done what they have done and do. Are you arguing Hollywood is less derivative than it used to be btw? Genuine question. Nope. Like I said if anything more so, but then it's always been derivative to a large degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Then you actually agree with me Fucking hell man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Then you actually agree with me Fucking hell man. No, you agree with me, agreeing with you, agreeing with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Then you actually agree with me Fucking hell man. Typical Flip Flop Fop tbh, contrary even when he agrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 If you say so Fop. You were trying to get the subject on computer games about 2 posts in though. Enough said really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Then you actually agree with me Fucking hell man. Typical Flip Flop Fop tbh, contrary even when he agrees. All you need is a bit of and everything will be ok. If you say so Fop. You were trying to get the subject on computer games about 2 posts in though. Enough said really Computer games have gone through a similar thing, they just haven't been around as long. But in the same way, they were always doing what they do now to a large degree, even when financial pressures weren't what they are. Actually I guess there may end up being a Bollywood/East European development similarity too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Then you actually agree with me Fucking hell man. Typical Flip Flop Fop tbh, contrary even when he agrees. All you need is a bit of and everything will be ok. If you say so Fop. You were trying to get the subject on computer games about 2 posts in though. Enough said really Computer games have gone through a similar thing, they just haven't been around as long. But in the same way, they were always doing what they do now to a large degree, even when financial pressures weren't what they are. Actually I guess there may end up being a Bollywood/East European development similarity too. Could you qualify that remark Fop? Without getting in your favourite game on the Commodore 64 if possible. It's just, it's so vague it could mean nearly anything. I mean, they're making money and making films in Hollywood just lilke they always did but I really don't know what you're getting at exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Then you actually agree with me Fucking hell man. Typical Flip Flop Fop tbh, contrary even when he agrees. All you need is a bit of and everything will be ok. If you say so Fop. You were trying to get the subject on computer games about 2 posts in though. Enough said really Computer games have gone through a similar thing, they just haven't been around as long. But in the same way, they were always doing what they do now to a large degree, even when financial pressures weren't what they are. Actually I guess there may end up being a Bollywood/East European development similarity too. Could you qualify that remark Fop? Without getting in your favourite game on the Commodore 64 if possible. It's just, it's so vague it could mean nearly anything. I mean, they're making money and making films in Hollywood just lilke they always did but I really don't know what you're getting at exactly. You either genuinely don't comprehend or you're just doing the "quick, off into the swamps" thing. Either way I cba repeat it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Then you actually agree with me Fucking hell man. Typical Flip Flop Fop tbh, contrary even when he agrees. All you need is a bit of and everything will be ok. If you say so Fop. You were trying to get the subject on computer games about 2 posts in though. Enough said really Computer games have gone through a similar thing, they just haven't been around as long. But in the same way, they were always doing what they do now to a large degree, even when financial pressures weren't what they are. Actually I guess there may end up being a Bollywood/East European development similarity too. Could you qualify that remark Fop? Without getting in your favourite game on the Commodore 64 if possible. It's just, it's so vague it could mean nearly anything. I mean, they're making money and making films in Hollywood just lilke they always did but I really don't know what you're getting at exactly. You either genuinely don't comprehend or you're just doing the "quick, off into the swamps" thing. Either way I cba repeat it again. To be honest Fop, while I'm no great cineaste like some on here and on N-O etc. I like discussing cinema and I love my films. It was a straightforward enough question so I don't know why you're accusing me of being evasive (i assume that's what the "quick, off into the swamps" comment is getting at). I don't see how I'm being evasive at all. And I didn't ask you to repeat what you said, I asked you to explain what you meant / to be more specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Then you actually agree with me Fucking hell man. Typical Flip Flop Fop tbh, contrary even when he agrees. All you need is a bit of and everything will be ok. If you say so Fop. You were trying to get the subject on computer games about 2 posts in though. Enough said really Computer games have gone through a similar thing, they just haven't been around as long. But in the same way, they were always doing what they do now to a large degree, even when financial pressures weren't what they are. Actually I guess there may end up being a Bollywood/East European development similarity too. Could you qualify that remark Fop? Without getting in your favourite game on the Commodore 64 if possible. It's just, it's so vague it could mean nearly anything. I mean, they're making money and making films in Hollywood just lilke they always did but I really don't know what you're getting at exactly. You either genuinely don't comprehend or you're just doing the "quick, off into the swamps" thing. Either way I cba repeat it again. To be honest Fop, while I'm no great cineaste like some on here and on N-O etc. I like discussing cinema and I love my films. It was a straightforward enough question so I don't know why you're accusing me of being evasive (i assume that's what the "quick, off into the swamps" comment is getting at). I don't see how I'm being evasive at all. And I didn't ask you to repeat what you said, I asked you to explain what you meant / to be more specific. I didn't say you were being evasive, just trying to use the terrain. But like I said I cba to repeat it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Then you actually agree with me Fucking hell man. Typical Flip Flop Fop tbh, contrary even when he agrees. All you need is a bit of and everything will be ok. If you say so Fop. You were trying to get the subject on computer games about 2 posts in though. Enough said really Computer games have gone through a similar thing, they just haven't been around as long. But in the same way, they were always doing what they do now to a large degree, even when financial pressures weren't what they are. Actually I guess there may end up being a Bollywood/East European development similarity too. Could you qualify that remark Fop? Without getting in your favourite game on the Commodore 64 if possible. It's just, it's so vague it could mean nearly anything. I mean, they're making money and making films in Hollywood just lilke they always did but I really don't know what you're getting at exactly. You either genuinely don't comprehend or you're just doing the "quick, off into the swamps" thing. Either way I cba repeat it again. To be honest Fop, while I'm no great cineaste like some on here and on N-O etc. I like discussing cinema and I love my films. It was a straightforward enough question so I don't know why you're accusing me of being evasive (i assume that's what the "quick, off into the swamps" comment is getting at). I don't see how I'm being evasive at all. And I didn't ask you to repeat what you said, I asked you to explain what you meant / to be more specific. I didn't say you were being evasive, just trying to use the terrain. What the fuck does that mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 When the seagulls follow the trawler, its because they think sardines will be thrown in to the sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 What the fuck does that mean? When the seagulls follow the trawler, its because they think sardines will be thrown in to the sea. Surprisingly Happy Face seems to have got the gist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Didn't answer my question though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11101 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 There's a fucking surprise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Didn't answer my question though. There's a fucking surprise... Fishy seems to have got the gist too.... this is fucking scary now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Scary to think I thought maverick was cool as fuck when I was younger, does this make me gay Meenzer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Scary to think I thought maverick was cool as fuck when I was younger, does this make me gay Meenzer? Aal the lasses fancied him at school so he must have been doing something right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Scary to think I thought maverick was cool as fuck when I was younger, does this make me gay Meenzer? Aal the lasses fancied him at school so he must have been doing something right. Who? Meenzer? SMO reckons he was the fanny rat in their school Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now