Is Hollywood in the midst of a "Golden Age"? - Page 2

Chuck Mayer · 03-14-2006, 04:59 PM

I'll rewatch Kong and Batman Begins quite often. Sith as often as I watch Return of the Jedi (every few yearsor so).

The New World is the best film I have seen in YEARS, not just last year, and I will make a special event to rewatch that. The New World alone would make 2005 one of my favorite years ever.

Sin City is even MORE episodic, as you can watch a chunk of it for a story.

I don't rewatch Blade Runner, The Godfather, or Gone With the Wind a lot...but they are still great movies.

dana martin · 03-14-2006, 05:45 PM

so are we hoping for a second golden era, independent film is taking off, in great directions, Digital has possibilities and the resurrection of a new 3D process leave many possibilities,

And as much as can be stated genre does matter to a point, certain ones are accepted more than others, a sos sos horror film can have a rabid following, that could explain Lugosi's popularity, he had crap to work with and still made it watchable.

top gun is a hell of a ride , but raiders is better, better than star wars, everyone has that film, and while some may say that batman begins wont have legs, for fans of the comic, it the closest interpretation so it will hold up, the fan boys and comic geeks are getting it closer to the source material.

so few places around the country have retro shows, how many of the new films have the legs to be in the theaters 6 to 9 months after its initial release, (Raiders did) and i paid to see it 46 times, its that damn good.few films in my hous get a twice a year showing Casablanca, Raiders, and Spartacus

Andy Sheets · 03-14-2006, 06:16 PM

Quote:

top gun may not be the greatest films EVER MADE, but it's one helluva ride and people watch it again and again and it's truly a classic because of its over-commercial-ness.

I don't know anyone that really cares all that much about Top Gun. It's a well-known film, especially because it was one of Tom Cruise's big early roles and he's obviously still a huge star, but I don't think I would call it a classic just because of that.

I think movies in general are doing alright, but most of the good stuff is being made outside the Hollywood studio system.

Oliver K · 03-15-2006, 05:03 AM

Hollywood in another golden age? A joke, surely?
Apart from a few 'incidents' (excellent films that struggle to get shown, filmmakers who try to be original) I'd say that 'Aluminum Siding Age' is closer to the truth.
For the last 10 or 15 years, I've found most Hollywood-produced films to be time wasters and no-brainers. But that's what you get when you let attorneys and agents run the asylum.
Hollywood films just completely lack the depth and subtlety that many European or Asian films still have - and to think that already in the seventies, someone like Billy Wilder had trouble getting a screenplay produced, now what does that tell you?
Not even the pure 'entertainments' (as writer/film reviewer Graham Greene used to call them) are up to the standard of the stuff that Hawks, Wyler, Curtiz, Ford or Von Sternberg graced the screens with. CGI-ing a cute people-as-animal animation, designing a soundtrack filled with irritating noises or concocting a zillion dollar publicity campaign is not what I'd call quality, let alone originality. 'Ladies and gentlemen: Art has left the building.' Then again, entertainments are where the money in a consumer society is. You eat a hamburger, get hungry an hour after, you eat another hamburger - ad infinitum.
You grow fat and lazy, your mind remains empty - junkfood society in a nutshell.

I've watched quite a few Hollywood classics on dvd over the last months and I say: let's put Hollywood out of its misery, because there isn't a hope in hell that the brilliance of 'Only angels have wings' or 'The best years of our lives' (to name a few examples) will ever return.
However, if people like Richard Linklater or Whit Stillman make an independent film every now and then, then I won't give up on American films altogether.

P.S.
3 more or less 'recent' American films I like:
'House of sand and fog'
'Ghost world'
'Lost in translation'
Just so you all know I bear no grudge...

Steve Christou · 03-15-2006, 07:34 AM

How old are you Oliver? 80? No I'm not being sarcastic, age has everything to do with it.
Young Adam_S on the previous page posts that we're in an "exceptional time period right now", in regards to cinema. I can imagine some of the old folk pulling at their wispy white hair every time an expensive mega-hyped film comes along, like Revenge of the Sith, Batman, Narnia or King Kong.

Do you think cinema can survive on a weekly diet of "Lost in Translation" and "House of Sand and Fog" and others of their ilk? It can barely survive on megahits like Kong, Sith and Harry Potter. Yes I'm sure foreign cinema is wonderful but I can't sit through 5 minutes of one without nodding off or quickly switching to another channel, any channel.

Hollywood is currently going through the doldrums, but it'll pick up again like it did in the 70's when Spielberg and Lucas [cue fistbiting by the snoots] released a couple of super-successful films and it was suddenly okay to go to the cinema again and again and again.

Eric Peterson · 03-15-2006, 08:25 AM

How old are you Oliver? 80? No I'm not being sarcastic, age has everything to do with it.

I don't see what that has to do with it at all.

I am nearly in complete agreement with Oliver, and I'm only 33. I will gladly take the films made before my time before the films made in my time.

Hollywood today doesn't understand how to make an even film. If it's action/adventure, it has to be action/adventure from wall-to-wall. Why is this? It must be car crashes, explosions, & CGI nonsense nonstop for 90 minutes. These are great tools for any film, but not when they are the sole structure of the film. The same goes for comedy. They only know how to make comedies that are wall-to-wall toilet/sex jokes. By no means, am I a prude, and I love coarse comedy as much as the next guy, but when that is the sole structure for the film it quickly gets boring.

I will take the films of Wilder, Hitchcock, Hawks, etc... over the films of today and most of the time I do.

As I mentioned in my previous thread, I usually watch about 25-30 films from the current year each year, but of these only 3-5 do I have any interest in rewatching, and only another 1-2 do I hold much interest in ongoing viewings. The only films of the past 3 years that I have watched more than twice are "Lost in Translation" & "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind".

Pure and simple, most of the filmmakers of today are lazy. They don't know how to write!!

Steve Christou · 03-15-2006, 08:51 AM

Quote:

The only films of the past 3 years that I have watched more than twice are "Lost in Translation" & "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind".

And there you have it in a nutshell. Personal taste. The films I could happily watch more than once within a few months you wouldn't and probably couldn't watch even once.

I'm a huge Hitchcock fan, still my favorite director, but I also like a lot of todays films, I'm not trapped in the past. I have a huge weakness for sci-fi and fantasy cinema so in that respect I'm very happy with todays cinema.

Quote:

Pure and simple, most of the filmmakers of today are lazy. They don't know how to write!!

Do you? Maybe they've run out of stories to tell, it's possible, they're remaking The Poseidon Adventure for chrissakes so they've definitely run out of ideas. But on the other hand how many variations of "Lost in Translation" can they make. Lets see 100,000 movies, how many stories are there left to tell? Can you think of a fresh new story that hasn't been told a thousand times before? And one the audience will respond to, or doesn't it matter if the audience likes it? As long as its something that appeals to you right?

dana martin · 03-15-2006, 09:36 AM

i am glad that someone pinged on CGI, while a wonderful tool, along with all of the other technical aspects that have advanced, has led to somewhat sloppy film making. , and to paraphrase a movie that used it correctly Jurassic Park , "you figured out how, but for got to ask if you should"

Why is Scotts Alien so good, because it is real. Writing is sloppy i agree, very few hit it out of the park so to speak. not all action films have to be wall to wall, not all comedies need to be a joke in your face all the time, what happened to the slow burn??? a great thriller should build over time.

While not a complete masterpiece, one of the best examples of giving the director time, would be Carpenters Thing,
not rushed it builds.

But the fast food reference is the closest to what it really is anymore. Cookie Cutter movies, put together, where someone decides that this actor "sales" better to this market so that is who should play the part.

so the question of who is the next Spielberg, hell better yet where is the next wells, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Wood, at this point ed wood would be refreshing, or at least fun.

the over hyped summer releases don't have the same punch that they did in the late 70's early 80's.

Eric Peterson · 03-15-2006, 09:38 AM

And there you have it in a nutshell. Personal taste. The films I could happily watch more than once within a few months you wouldn't and probably couldn't watch even once.

In the end, this whole thread is about personal taste.

I'm a huge Hitchcock fan, still my favorite director, but I also like a lot of todays films, I'm not trapped in the past. I have a huge weakness for sci-fi and fantasy cinema so in that respect I'm very happy with todays cinema.

Who's trapped in the past? I still watch a lot of newer films, I just prefer the classics. By definition, to be trapped in the past requires one to ignore the present or future, and generally also means that one is trapped in their childhood or early adulthood. That quite simply does not apply to me. I discovered these classic on my own, in my mid 20s after being continually disappointed by the newer movies that I was watching.

Do you? Maybe they've run out of stories to tell, it's possible

If that's true that only backs up my point that they are lazy. I have a notebook with 20+ ideas in it that have never been told, and those are just ideas that strike me at random points, with very little effort put in.

Remakes are also another sign of laziness. In any other field of art, people would mock you. Imagine if painters kept repainting "The Mona Lisa" or "Whistler's Mother".

But on the other hand how many variations of "Lost in Translation" can they make. Lets see 100,000 movies, how many stories are there left to tell? Can you think of a fresh new story that hasn't been told a thousand times before? And one the audience will respond to, or doesn't it matter if the audience likes it?

To be honest, I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. I never said anything about wanting every film to be like "Lost in Translation", just that it was one of the only films that felt fresh and new to me. If remakes and restructures of the same plotlines are acceptable to you, then more power to you, but they are not acceptable to me.

By the way, how old are you?

SteveJKo · 03-15-2006, 09:40 AM

I don't see what that has to do with it at all.

I am nearly in complete agreement with Oliver, and I'm only 33. I will gladly take the films made before my time before the films made in my time.

Exactly! But what do I know? I'm 46, so I'm that much closer to 80 than you are Eric.

...age has everything to do with it...

Is it age or experience? In the 70's and 80's friends of mine who were casual movie watchers (as opposed to us film nuts here on THTF) were much more into watching classics than audiences today. This lead to them having a good sense of proper writing/cinematography etc. At that time, just before the VCR destroyed "revival" cinema, a local 1920's movie house would show classic films, and I'd have to limit the number of friends who could come with me to see PSYCHO or THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD because of the number of seats in my car. But today I know of people (of a similar age range as me and my friends in the early 80's) who won't watch a film simply because it's in black & white. Yet the few who I've managed to open up to "classics" really appreciate it, and like Eric said, understand that even in an action film it is the story that is most important. I liken it to being a kid and thinking a burger is the greatest kind of beef. Then we grow up and discover filet mignon.