Reasons to be angry at Hollywood.

I’ll start

#1 Wecraven is set to direct the movie version of American Mcgees Alice instead of Tim Burton.


This is a problem?

Watch the last (and only one besides the first he directed) Nightmare on Elm Street movie and tell me Wes isn’t a genious. If anyone can pull off the twisted visuals it’s him.

So I’ll give you my own #1. Paul W.S. Anderson is set to direct another video game movie, this time based on Driver.

Uh, they suck?

Okay, now to the real post.

Yes, Europeans are real. They exist. They sometimes even make movies. Some of those movies are good. People watch them and stuff.

They don’t need to be remade with changes suggested by the Executive Producer’s brother’s pool boy’s pet pshychic’s girlfriend.

You can do good work, Hollywood. “Seven”, “The Usual Suspects”, good stuff.

You don’t need to give “The Vanishing” a happy ending. “Nikita” was just fine as it was. “Leon” would not benefit from the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio or Vin Diesel. “Delicatessen” does not require Sylvester Stallone and a rocket launcher to reach its full potential. “Romance” has no need for a slapstick sub-plot involving mismatched rogue cops who’ve been told to get off the case.

The French are never going to have a “blockbuster feel-good movie of the year”. You, though, have the potential to do anything you want to do.

Why not do more of that? Forget “Jaws” and “Star Wars”. Stop thinking you have to send $150,000,000 to make a movie I will want to see. Just make a good movie.

I was 4 when “The Conversation” came out. I’ve seen it. How many others like that could you have made for the price of “Ishtar”, “Heaven’s Gate” and “WaterWorld”?

They didn’t give Jerry Goldsmith an Oscar for his score to “Under Fire”.

That’s for starters.


ugh. Why?

Amelie came close. Well, for a foreign film. I loved it.

two words: Jerry Bruckheimer.

Another reason to hate Hollywood–their utter stranglehold on theatrical distribution.

How many Police Academy movies did we need, really?

Absolutely. We’ve got the multi-million dollar films, but where are the penny dreadfuls?

You could not possibly have any idea just how much I agree with this statement.

Anyone following the Superman debacle going on now has millions of reasons to hate Hollywood

I really liked it too. I made my wife watch it and she laughed through the whole thing.

John Woo. Why do you let him direct films that have a chance to serious, touching films and turn them into stupid special effects romps. Yes, I am talking about Windtalkers.

To be honest, I don’t get mad at Hollywood that much. I try to remember that they’re a business, and the art form is secondary. They’ve got actuarial-style tables and tracking surveys and all sorts of other bright-boy MBA-oriented risk analysis tools to tell them whether they should cast Owen Wilson or Jon Favreau opposite Eddie Murphy in the I Spy movie. What? Script? Oh, we’ll just knock one out based on Robert McKee, any chimp could do it. Then when the movie fails they add some specific performance numbers to the database next to director Betty Wilson’s name, and their calculus tells them not to let her attempt to direct action again. Or whatever.

Important: They aren’t trying to make good movies. They’re trying to make profitable movies. Lord knows, Pearl Harbor wasn’t a good movie, but it was a profitable one, so we’ll get more like it.

To understand why this doesn’t really bug me, look back in the 80’s when the auteurist producer David Puttnam ran Columbia for a short period. With movies like Midnight Express, Chariots of Fire, and Local Hero on his resume, he’s obviously interested in quality filmmaking. Unfortunately, while he ran Columbia, his focus on quality meant not one of his projects returned serious coin. That’s a problem for any business that wants to keep its doors open for more than a season or two, particularly in these days when none of the studios (disregarding the mini MGM/UA) is run independently; they’re all part of big conglomerates for which shareholder value is the primary concern.

So I don’t really look to Hollywood for quality anymore, and I’m not irritated by their business model. When something remarkable like Adaptation or Royal Tenenbaums slips through the cracks, I’m grateful, but by no means do I assume that’s the way it should be at all times: those are the exceptions.

And to be sure, it’s never been that way. Go back to Selznick, Jack Warner, Thalberg, and the other titans of pre-60’s cinema. They were ruthless barons, basically. They’d force the exhibitors to take the crummy B-grade gangster flick on the second half of the bill with the Bogart main event, like it or not, just to keep the money flowing.

Furthermore, looking back at the late 1960’s through the mid 1970’s, which most people regard as the last modern “golden age” of cinema (myself included, to some degree), very few of what we consider the best movies of that era were especially profitable. Bonnie and Clyde tanked on its initial release, and had to be handheld into the black on a re-release. 2001 underwhelmed monetarily despite its counterculture cachet. Network coined a popular phrase, but didn’t get a lot of repeat viewing. To my knowledge, the only towering examples of cinema to come from that period that also set the box office on fire were The Godfather and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

But hey, don’t let me stop you. Let the bashing continue…

Are you kidding, there weren’t nearly enough Police Academy movies!

Just think of all the places those wacky cops haven’t been to yet! Outer Space! The Age of Dinosaurs! The Lost City of Atlantis.

It’s just too bad Tackleberry died, Police Academy isn’t Police Academy without that lovable sociopath pointing a really big gun at someone for no discernable reason.

Hey wait, I’ve got it! In the next movie the go to Transylvania and Mahoney returns (I’m sure that at this point, Steve Guttenberg wouldn’t turn down any paycheck coming his way.) and gets possessed by the ghost of Tackleberry and points a really big gun at Count Dracula and shouts, “Freeze, sucker!”

Holy shit, that’s pure gold! I’d better call my agent!

Oh yeah, because Tim Burton’s last couple of films were so amazing . . . :rolleyes:

Cervaise, I’m with you. Yes, Hollywood puts out a lot of utter crap; this is not news. However, all the money that Hollywood has put into creating a huge and mostly efficient distribution system for its films actually lets smaller, art-house or foreign films piggyback through the system that was put in place for the Pearl Harbors of the world.

“Amelie” didn’t play here for very long, but I doubt it would have played Memphis at all if the filmmakers had had to finance its promotion/distribution themselves.

(By the way, most of what I’ve said here was stated better than I have by stolichnaya in a previous thread on the topic.)

Why didn’t those actuarial-style tables, tracking surveys, and analysis tools tell them that making an I Spy movie was a bad idea from the get-go? Maybe it’ll make money on video, cable, broadcast, and overseas (although I’ve read most America comedies don’t do well overseas). Do they bother to consider that Eddie Murphy may be reaching the point of diminishing returns as a star?

Animation doesn’t have to be exclusively for kids, with comic relief and a Phil Collins written soundtrack. Your half-hearted attempts to make animation that can appeal to adults as well - like Titan A.E. (which I liked) or Treasure Planet - fail because they don’t do a good enough job of satisfying either audience. Yes, Lowest Common Denominator Rules, but you cast the net too wide with these attempts. Why not try financing straight-to-video animation features aimed at adults, if you are afraid to try a theatrical release? The audience for anime is growing, and loyal.

Freddie Prize Jr. !?! Does any flick with him as the name star (not Scooby Doo, SMG, the cartoon’s name and the CGI dog were the draw) make money?

“Confessions of a Dangerous Mind” comes to mind as an example of how Hollywood can screw up. I can just imagine the conversation:
Executive #1: Ernest, I’ve come up with a great idea.
Executive #2: What is it, Robert?
#1: We’ll do a film version of the book “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind”.
#2: Who wrote that?
#1: A has-been TV producer.
#2: What’s it about?
#1: The producer’s obviously false claims* (* As proven by Cecil Adams/Ed Zotti?/David Feldman?/William Poundstone?) that he was a CIA agent.
#2: Is it a well-known book?
#1: Ah, no, virtually all of the run ended up in the author’s basement.
#2: Who will direct?
#1: A man who who has never directed before, who we think will bring box office because he stared on a TV show years ago.
#2: Who will star?
#1: A character actor that has never been a leading man.
#2: Isn’t this one of those “marginal Hollywood figure” movies that never seem to do well at the box office?
#1: Yes, but it might do better this time.
#2: What will the tone be?
#1: We take a tongue-in-cheek novel and make it serious.
#2: How much will it cost?
#1: $25 million.
#2: It’s a deal.

As a result of this, George Clooney got to prove he can be a bad director, the production firm will almost certainly lose money (unless this is popular abroad, which isn’t likely), and Chuck Barris received a couple million dollars (which, since he sold his production company for $100 million in the mid-1980’s, is just chump change for him).

Governor Quinn, I must disagree with you about just about everything you said about Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, which I thought was a great movie. Perhaps you were thinking of Pluto Nash?