http://gamingtrend.com
November 22, 2014, 02:42:19 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 6 Things Hollywood needs to stop doing  (Read 1102 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« on: December 13, 2009, 01:34:48 AM »

I agree with most of these, only the CGI one a little less.  what think you?
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Wargus
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 895



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2009, 01:52:50 AM »

I agree with all of them. 

And as far as CGI, some directors have gotten so enamored with it that they've forgotten to put a plot in the movie (Transformers 2).  Any movie that uses a mix of miniatures, live action, and CGI will look better (assuming the director has any skill). 

Look at the making of the new Star Trek movie - I was very impressed at how little CGI it was (relatively speaking). They made very specific decisions on why to film the way they did and I think the quality of filmography shows it (whether you actually like the plot, casting and other decisions or not).
Logged
rshetts2
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2420



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2009, 04:59:28 AM »

For the most part I agree with these but there are some exceptions to these things.  For one I felt the reboot of Star Trek was a good idea and the only real hope of reviving the franchise.  So reboots can be OK... sometimes.   Regarding CGI, I think Avatar is going to make us rethink that concept as well.  Unfortunately if its a rousing success, it will certainly spawn a rash of CGI from hell and then that one will apply more than ever.  The rest, yeah  they got those dead on.  I mean really? a film based on Monopoly?  Maybe it will be a comedy and then it can be really annoying!   
Logged

Can you see the real me? Can ya, CAN YA?
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3199



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2009, 05:05:28 AM »

I'd have to qualify the CGI one with "stop using bad CGI." By that I'm not referring to the realism factor so much as I am the cheap tactic of using it in extremely fast action sequences so as to cover up any flaws in the CGI itself. Transformers is a prime example of a movie that is just a headache for me to watch. It's really hard to appreciate the special effects when they're so fast and blurry your brain can barely register them.



 
Logged
Qantaga
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1473


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2009, 05:39:00 AM »

These are all pretty good, but I would add a seventh:
   
7. Stop changing major plot points in book adaptions for no other reason than your hack screenwriter just wants to put their grubby fingerprints on perfectly good source material.
   
I know there can be time considerations and production issues that necessitate some changes, but there are way too movies (and even tv shows) adapted from books that have major plot changes made for no good reason other than screenwriter, director, or producer ego.
Logged

Xbox Live: Sukaro
PSN: Suroka
  
Until I die I'll sing these songs on the shores of Babylon
Still looking for a home in a world where I belong

~Switchfoot
Chaz
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5212



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2009, 06:16:05 AM »

I don't think I agree with the one about planning trilogies.  I personally prefer planned trilogies where there's a narrative flow all the way through than trilogies that are intended as one-offs and then forced into being a series. 

A perfect example of the forced trilogy is the Pirates of the Caribbean series.  The first one stood completely on its own, and was excellent.  Then it was a huge success, and its two sequels became bloated, tedious things that forgot what made the first one good.  Bad trilogy.  Then there's the Lord of the Rings or the first three Star Wars movies.  Those were planned and one movie flowed into the next.  Good trilogy (of course, LotR cheated by being a book first).

Maybe the lesson is to only plan a trilogy if you have the funding to complete it, and then do so.  Maybe that means working with a smaller budget in the first movie so there's money left over.  If completing the second and third depends on the first being a runaway smash, then maybe you shouldn't depend on the second and third getting made.
Logged

Caine
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10450


My cocaine


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2009, 06:19:37 AM »

Quote from: Qantaga on December 13, 2009, 05:39:00 AM

These are all pretty good, but I would add a seventh:
   
7. Stop changing major plot points in book adaptions for no other reason than your hack screenwriter just wants to put their grubby fingerprints on perfectly good source material.
   
I know there can be time considerations and production issues that necessitate some changes, but there are way too movies (and even tv shows) adapted from books that have major plot changes made for no good reason other than screenwriter, director, or producer ego.

+ eleventy billion.  'i am legend' would have been a much better flick if they had kept the 'whole damn meaning of the title' correct instead of the dying hero bs we got.

i, robot gets into this category on the sheer awfulness of taking a bunch of related stories and making a movie with such a disjointed representation of their themes.

as for the trilogy issue, if the story natively has three major acts and can be adapted to film without scimping on the story, then go for it.  lotr did it successfully because they knew they had an established and popular book to go off of.  spiderwick, not so much.  same with golden compass.  narnia is close enough to almost make it, but don't blow your wad of cash too soon or you won't last out the slow stuff that kills your sales.
Logged

Big Jake
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1300


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2009, 06:53:15 PM »

Quote from: Chaz on December 13, 2009, 06:16:05 AM

Then there's the Lord of the Rings or the first three Star Wars movies.  Those were planned and one movie flowed into the next.

So the Luke kissing his sister in Star Wars was intentional? icon_lol

How about a better list for Hollywood:

1) Stop making movies.  Let the indies handle it for two years.  They'll all blend into the same thing soon enough anyways (every action movie will have an anti-hero, every drama will have quirky people, etc).  Then, see if you learned anything.  Probably not, but for at least a little while we can avoid pure shit like Sherlock Holmes starring Robert Downey jr.
Logged

The price of great bacon is eternal vigilance.
Rumpy
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1475



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2009, 11:38:10 PM »

I agree with all of them. Particularly the part about remakes into comedies. Ugh. It just cheapens the franchise that they're making a movie out of. The Dukes of Hazzard movies are a good example of this. An out of context movie with the material it was made from, with horrible casting choices and only Willie Nelson really looking the part. And then there was a prequel they turned into a teen movie complete with full frontal nudity. That would be like turning Star Wars into a teen comedy.  How the hell? Why can't we just have a serious take on a franchise? I mean is it really that hard to get a straight-forward adaptation?
Logged
WinoMcCougarstein
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2675



View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2009, 11:55:47 PM »

Quote from: Big Jake on December 13, 2009, 06:53:15 PM

Quote from: Chaz on December 13, 2009, 06:16:05 AM

Then there's the Lord of the Rings or the first three Star Wars movies.  Those were planned and one movie flowed into the next.

So the Luke kissing his sister in Star Wars was intentional? icon_lol

How about a better list for Hollywood:

1) Stop making movies.  Let the indies handle it for two years.  They'll all blend into the same thing soon enough anyways (every action movie will have an anti-hero, every drama will have quirky people, etc).  Then, see if you learned anything.  Probably not, but for at least a little while we can avoid pure shit like Sherlock Holmes starring Robert Downey jr.

You've seen this already?  What was so bad about it?
Logged

TK-421
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2504



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2009, 01:06:07 PM »

Quote from: Big Jake on December 13, 2009, 06:53:15 PM

Quote from: Chaz on December 13, 2009, 06:16:05 AM

Then there's the Lord of the Rings or the first three Star Wars movies.  Those were planned and one movie flowed into the next.

So the Luke kissing his sister in Star Wars was intentional? icon_lol

George had originally planned for the series to be nine movies long.  However, he had to get the first movie made and then hope that it would be a success in order to make more movies.

As for the kiss being planned, we all know that George works from a vague outline and then makes up the story as he goes.   Have you ever read an original draft of the first Star Wars movie?  Ugh!  What a convoluted pile of crap that was.  Good thing he had people around him to help him with rewrites, pacing, and dialog.

Too bad he didn't follow the same plan with Episodes I - III.
Logged

Open the blast doors!  Open the blast doors!
Eel Snave
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2792



View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2009, 02:25:35 PM »

Quote from: TK-421 on December 14, 2009, 01:06:07 PM

Quote from: Big Jake on December 13, 2009, 06:53:15 PM

Quote from: Chaz on December 13, 2009, 06:16:05 AM

Then there's the Lord of the Rings or the first three Star Wars movies.  Those were planned and one movie flowed into the next.

So the Luke kissing his sister in Star Wars was intentional? icon_lol

George had originally planned for the series to be nine movies long.  However, he had to get the first movie made and then hope that it would be a success in order to make more movies.

As for the kiss being planned, we all know that George works from a vague outline and then makes up the story as he goes.   Have you ever read an original draft of the first Star Wars movie?  Ugh!  What a convoluted pile of crap that was.  Good thing he had people around him to help him with rewrites, pacing, and dialog.

Too bad he didn't follow the same plan with Episodes I - III.


Yes!  The treatment for Star Wars is hilarious, and the name "Starkiller" was a little on the nose.
Logged
Caine
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10450


My cocaine


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 14, 2009, 05:38:10 PM »

Quote from: Eel Snave on December 14, 2009, 02:25:35 PM

Quote from: TK-421 on December 14, 2009, 01:06:07 PM

Quote from: Big Jake on December 13, 2009, 06:53:15 PM

Quote from: Chaz on December 13, 2009, 06:16:05 AM

Then there's the Lord of the Rings or the first three Star Wars movies.  Those were planned and one movie flowed into the next.

So the Luke kissing his sister in Star Wars was intentional? icon_lol

George had originally planned for the series to be nine movies long.  However, he had to get the first movie made and then hope that it would be a success in order to make more movies.

As for the kiss being planned, we all know that George works from a vague outline and then makes up the story as he goes.   Have you ever read an original draft of the first Star Wars movie?  Ugh!  What a convoluted pile of crap that was.  Good thing he had people around him to help him with rewrites, pacing, and dialog.

Too bad he didn't follow the same plan with Episodes I - III.


Yes!  The treatment for Star Wars is hilarious, and the name "Starkiller" was a little on the nose.

on the nose, or more to the side, on the cheeks?
Logged

Blackjack
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10893



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2009, 06:34:03 PM »

I agree on the CGI, but even though I've refused to see either Tranformers flick in theaters, they've both been licenses to print money. So you can hardly blame Hollywood for thinking that's exactly what we want (wall-to-wall CGI, wafer thin characters, Megan Fox in as little clothing as possible saying the worst dialogue possible, screenplays written by chimps etc.). Since Transformers' screenwriters have been and are the Star Trek movie writers now, I guess I should take the "chimps" comment back, right?  icon_razz

OTOH, Terminator: Salvation flopped so badly (probably the Speed Racer of this year in terms of poor return on the fortune spent to make it), that I don't know what lesson Hollywood will draw from that. I would also add "McG" to that item about "stop giving these directors money." But he's probably still living off Charlie's Angels' residuals.

I might've squeezed in something there about "stop making movies 'inspired' by TV shows that weren't any good to begin with." Something like say, The Fugitive, had very little to do with the TV source material but at least the inspiration was a solid TV show.

Land of the Lost? Really? Give me a break, Hollywood.  disgust

Lastly, Will Farrell? God love him, and SNL misses him, but he is NOT a movie star. Stop trying, Hollywood.  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 06:39:08 PM by Blackjack » Logged

Playing
PC
-Wasteland 2 (post-apoc, turn-based squad strategy/RPG )
-Grim Dawn
-Gauntlet (4 player co-op dungeon arcade brawling)
Big Jake
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1300


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2009, 12:24:34 AM »

Quote from: WinoMcCougarstein on December 13, 2009, 11:55:47 PM

Quote from: Big Jake on December 13, 2009, 06:53:15 PM

Quote from: Chaz on December 13, 2009, 06:16:05 AM

Then there's the Lord of the Rings or the first three Star Wars movies.  Those were planned and one movie flowed into the next.

So the Luke kissing his sister in Star Wars was intentional? icon_lol

How about a better list for Hollywood:

1) Stop making movies.  Let the indies handle it for two years.  They'll all blend into the same thing soon enough anyways (every action movie will have an anti-hero, every drama will have quirky people, etc).  Then, see if you learned anything.  Probably not, but for at least a little while we can avoid pure shit like Sherlock Holmes starring Robert Downey jr.

You've seen this already?  What was so bad about it?

Do you need to put your hand in fire to know it's hot?  smile  I don't need to see the next Michael Bay film to know it will be loud and stupid.  I don't need to see the next Wachowski brothers film to know it will be designed to make 15 year old boys say 'Cooool!!!'.  I don't need to see the next Paul Anderson film to know it will have all the depth of cardboard.  (Actually, it will star Milla Jovovich, so it's going to be a double whammy.)  I understand being realistic isn't for everybody.  Some people actually believe Uwe Boll will do a passable film someday.  retard
Logged

The price of great bacon is eternal vigilance.
Chaz
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5212



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2009, 12:35:09 AM »

I'm still confused about why the new Sherlock Holmes is going to be bad.  They're finally doing a Holmes that's closer to the books, and using good actors to do it.  That's bad now?  Educate me, I haven't really been following this too closely beyond the trailers (which I liked) and a bit of internet chatter.
Logged

Big Jake
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1300


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2009, 12:41:06 AM »

ps- most of my previous post was meant in good humor.

Chaz - did you see the same trailers I did?  I saw a master of deductive logic (in the books) altered to martial arts guy (did you see the lameness with the dual nightsticks?) jumping out of multi story windows, etc.  Die Hard 5 is not what I recall about Sherlock Holmes.  Maybe my memory is fuzzy.
Logged

The price of great bacon is eternal vigilance.
Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5108



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2009, 12:45:09 AM »

Quote from: Big Jake on December 15, 2009, 12:24:34 AM

Do you need to put your hand in fire to know it's hot?  smile  I don't need to see the next Michael Bay film to know it will be loud and stupid.  I don't need to see the next Wachowski brothers film to know it will be designed to make 15 year old boys say 'Cooool!!!'.  I don't need to see the next Paul Anderson film to know it will have all the depth of cardboard.  (Actually, it will star Milla Jovovich, so it's going to be a double whammy.)  I understand being realistic isn't for everybody.  Some people actually believe Uwe Boll will do a passable film someday.  retard

Is this a slam on Guy Ritchie or Robert Downey Jr.? I actually like almost every movie RDJr has done with classics like "Chaplin", "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", "A Scanner Darkly", "Tropic Thunder" as example standout performances. And Guy Ritchie movies are generally entertaining fun.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
WinoMcCougarstein
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2675



View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 15, 2009, 02:24:56 AM »

Quote from: Big Jake on December 15, 2009, 12:24:34 AM

Quote from: WinoMcCougarstein on December 13, 2009, 11:55:47 PM

Quote from: Big Jake on December 13, 2009, 06:53:15 PM

Quote from: Chaz on December 13, 2009, 06:16:05 AM

Then there's the Lord of the Rings or the first three Star Wars movies.  Those were planned and one movie flowed into the next.

So the Luke kissing his sister in Star Wars was intentional? icon_lol

How about a better list for Hollywood:

1) Stop making movies.  Let the indies handle it for two years.  They'll all blend into the same thing soon enough anyways (every action movie will have an anti-hero, every drama will have quirky people, etc).  Then, see if you learned anything.  Probably not, but for at least a little while we can avoid pure shit like Sherlock Holmes starring Robert Downey jr.

You've seen this already?  What was so bad about it?

Do you need to put your hand in fire to know it's hot?  smile  I don't need to see the next Michael Bay film to know it will be loud and stupid.  I don't need to see the next Wachowski brothers film to know it will be designed to make 15 year old boys say 'Cooool!!!'.  I don't need to see the next Paul Anderson film to know it will have all the depth of cardboard.  (Actually, it will star Milla Jovovich, so it's going to be a double whammy.)  I understand being realistic isn't for everybody.  Some people actually believe Uwe Boll will do a passable film someday.  retard

Oh, I thought maybe you saw a pre-screening of it and didn't like it.  Didn't know you were basing your opinion off previous works.
Logged

Chaz
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5212



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: December 15, 2009, 02:39:03 AM »

(Not having read the books) I thought that the literary Holmes was actually kind of a drug-addled fighting badass.  Was I misled in that?
Logged

EngineNo9
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11244


I said good day, sir!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 15, 2009, 02:49:38 AM »

Quote from: Chaz on December 15, 2009, 02:39:03 AM

(Not having read the books) I thought that the literary Holmes was actually kind of a drug-addled fighting badass.  Was I misled in that?

While Holmes did inject cocaine and on occasion morphine is his off time, and had been known as a good bare knuckle boxer, those were more like lesser quirks to his character than his defining characteristics. 
Logged

Sandwiches do fix everything.
Chaz
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5212



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: December 15, 2009, 03:01:26 AM »

Okay, fair enough.  It's also quite possible that the actiony stuff isn't the main point of the movie either.  Trailers show two minutes of the movie.  If you were cutting together a trailer to get people (especially people who liked Downy in Iron Man) into Holmes, would you show him carefully deducing, or punching shit?

Obviously, punching shit and jumping out windows plays a lot better in a trailer than character, mystery, and plot.  I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that the trailer may not be entirely representative of the full film.  It wouldn't be the first time.  Then again, maybe it is and I'm totally wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time for that either.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.175 seconds with 67 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.046s, 2q)