posted
It's called business. If you spend millions of dollars making a movie, then proceed to not have that movie cater to audiences, then it is not successful as art or as a business venture. Even the artists of the Renaissance understood this.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i love the hellboy comic, and was a little worried about the movie. i still wish they put out an animated feature, but the movie wasn't half bad. it was fun, at least. i didn't regret seeing it, though it honestly doesn't hold a candle to the comic. a laser pointer, maybe. i think selma blair made a good liz sherman visually, though her voice grated on me a bit -- but she still did a good job. it really wasn't a bad go, but i would really like to see mike mignola collaborate on an animated series of sorts. i think i know what i also really missed: the comic is such a perfect mixture of detail and simplicity. mignola draws beautiful ornate sculptures and half lit tombs, huge explosive fight sequences, and small perfectly still single panel shots of that one thing amiss that only the reader gets to see. it is really well done. i don't think the movie quite captured that essence of the comic that keeps me so drawn to it. i would actually really like to see a sequel, though.
i LOVED eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. very poignant film, and not only was it meaningful and deep, it was also entertaining. i loved what a totally hopeless jerk elijah wood was.
and i like lost in translation as well.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Argent, do you believe that a work of art can choose *not* to cater to the public, yet still be popular?
What I mean is, can't a work draw the public to it because of its inherent quality, creativity and power? Can't a work forge public desires, rather than be governed by them?
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not if it's being made by an industry meant to make money off of it, which films are. If artists want to make art that makes a statement not trying to cater to a paying public, then they can do it on their own dime, not the money of others, and definitely not by spending millions of a large business' dollars without gaining a pre-agreed upon return. I don't know of any members of the MPAA who do charity.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That may change after Gibson payed for every penny of THE PASSION himself.
-
Also, I wouldn't consider any of Charlie Kaufman's films 'pandersome' at all. They're all risky ventures - the fact that they have Star Power has admittedly helped them a lot in getting people to come in the first place, but the wor dof mouth at how good they are keeps people coming.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
You're obviously not familiar with the real Number One Rule in Hollywood:
Nobody Knows Anything.
In otherwords, there's no such thing as any guarantees. Some of the biggest flops in cinema history were films that, according to the 'formulas', casts, and projections, everyone expected to be hits.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gibson's Passion movie had the biggest pandering target of all: The Catholic Church. It's not even that good of a movie, but because it follows Catholic passion plays to a tee, thus pandering directly to the largest common denominator, it was a shoo-in.
Whoever you mentioned after that would have no films played without some kind of big names. Even movies that cater to public interest need to pay for big names to get adequate screen time to earn back money. Art is a business, just like everything else. Movies that are no good for business will wilt and rot away, unless they're scooped up after the original author is long gone and praised as a legacy work. The idea of the art leading the crowd, instead of the other way around, is a completely 20th century idea, as far as I know. I can't think of a single art movement or medium that was that way before the 1900s.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
If I enjoy a thing (movie, book, comic, whatever), who cares?
I read lots of trashy novels. LOTS. Do I think about whether or not they are 'art' while I am enjoying the story? I try not to (it ruins the pacing of the plot). Do I think about how much money is involved? Sometimes, if the story is very badly written, I think "Why is this book selling like gangbusters?". Otherwise, nope.
I'm in it for the jollies, people, pure and simple. I live a simple life and I have simple pleasures. Don't ruin it for me with this "yes, but is it ART?" crap.
Robert Rodriguez (Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Spy Kids) made his first, very successful film (Desperado) for very little money. Now he has an in-home studio. A verrrry nice home studio. He makes lots of money. Good for him! Is it art?
Who. Cares.
I want to see HellBoy, I enjoyed the Tank Girl film, and I want to be Robert Rodriguez when I grow up. So there. Nyahh!
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 'person I mentioned after that', Charlie Kaufman, is the writer of Being John Malkovich, Human Nature, Adaptation, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
Now, Hollywood actors are CLAWING at getting a chance to be in a Kaufman script. Not because of the money, but because he writes fascinating, bizarre and amazingly fun to act roles.
And stories that people can't stop thinking and talking about once they leave the theater, even though they haven't been 'pandered too'.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, as for the art thing, I think that is just a broadening of the discussion. Lemme get back to movies.
I think the pandering has gotten more out of hand recently - more than it has in the past.
We seem to be seeing three types of movies coming out of Hollywood:
- Sequels - Adaptations - Remakes
Now, granted, some of the adaptations are done very well. And some of the remakes (okay, not many) are worthwhile. Even some of the sequels have merit, on occasion.
But these films are glutting the box office. Sure, every so often we get an original movie, but it's pretty rare. It's getting to the point where it's not simply pandering to the public, but making every effort to dupe the public into paying money for something they don't really want to see. They only *think* they do, because the trailer hits the right Pavlovian triggers.
Underworld is a good example of that.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was pretty disappointed with Hellboy. Maybe my expectations were too high. I didn't think it was subtle at all and there was hardly anything in there that I haven't seen done better in other movies. Del Torro should have done Blade 3 instead.
As to The Passion's box office appeal and expectations, Jon Stewart said it best (as usual):
quote:Who knew a religion with over 2 billion followers would make for such lucrative box office?
And in response to Mel Gibson's interview with Bill O'Reilly:
quote:Yes, it's a courageous move, releasing a pro-Jesus film in America. Very unusually bold.
posted
I LOVE being pandered to. That's why I liked The Last Samurai so much.
It depends on whether the pandering is very very obvious, though. And whether your pandering to the common denominator or small groups, who individually appreciate it.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
If Hellboy can talk to the dead, why didn't he try to talk to the professor when he died? I guess one explanation is that Hellboy can only talk to people in hell... does the comics explain this?
Yes, I'm the same type of person who believe LOTR would be a much better book if the eagles dropped off the hobbits at Mt. Doom. Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw Hellboy, and it was... okay. Effects were good, story was decent, Perlman was perfect. I thought the stuff with the firegirl were kinda weak, but my biggest complaint was that the ending was bleah for my tastes. I can't offer specifics without ruining the ending, but there just didn't seem to be enough of a dramatic buildup, especially for the final fight, for me to care. And the closing firegirl scene seemed to come out of nowhere.
So, OK, but no reason for me to see it again.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taalcon, I saw none of those movies, only heard about one of them being in theatres, never heard of the others, and I wonder how you know so much about what Hollywood actors are doing to get into his films. You seem to have an idealistic view towards those making movies, and you refuse to accept that moviemakers are generally out to make money. There are some idealistic writers and actors, yes. Those idealistic people, to survive in the business, must often cater to the demands of a business where they do not get everything they want all at once. A business. We, the regular people, are the customers. Refuse to give the customers what they want, and they stop patronizing your shop. That's simple business, and that's how Hollywood works.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Brakhage was one of my film advisor's favorite filmmakers. It was such a pity, too, because I loved everything else he had us watch...
But Brakhage? I've seen more than ten of his films, in several different formats, and every single one is offensive, impossible to understand, and/or headache-inducing.
So enough bitching about "Lost in Translation" fans being "film snobs" who hate the mainstream. Give me a break.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Taalcon, I saw none of those movies, only heard about one of them being in theatres, never heard of the others, and I wonder how you know so much about what Hollywood actors are doing to get into his films.
Perhaps because a) I am a student filmmaker myself, b) I read the daily industry trades, c) many of my teachers are people who have, or still do, work in the industry (One of my teachers has directed both Leonardo DiCaprio and Angelina Jolie).
In short, this is my field. I do research. I stay in touch. I know what's going on a little better than those who just make assumptions based on what they see and what their friends say.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then you should know more than anything about how it's a business, and those who watch are your customers.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
