You know, I've often heard this "Hollywood is evil" thing and that it's really more business than art. People often complain about all the crappy films that are released and stuff, and it just really got me thinking about the subject. Also, after being falsely blamed for the crap-trend in theaters by someone, I felt like having a discussion about it and getting everyone's opinions on the subject.

It's true, there are A LOT of crappy studio films released to theaters every year. So who's to blame for this? Is it money-hungry executives who heartlessly rip apart the art created by saint-like directors who obviously don't care about money at all? Or is it simply that Hollywood writers have lost there way and have no original ideas anymore?

I'd say all of that is absolute BS. It's frankly the fault of the movie-goer. In class today, our "roll question" today was "what's your favorite sequel" and I swear, this girl claimed that "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" was her favorite sequel. Now, I'm not pretentious about film at all. Enjoy whatever the heck you want, I don't give a crap. But seriously? Your favorite?

So who can blame executives for investing their money in what's successful? That's there job. The most well-intentioned executives with the most creative ambitions ever still has investors that they are accountable to.

That said, would filmmakers truly be better off without those executives over their head? I'd say no. Every famous disillusioned director who hates Hollywood generally follows the same trend.

George Lucas: Star Wars: A New Hope was great and was created under studio influence. Empire Strikes back was even better and was still created under studio influence, only with a little bit more of an investment because the first had been successful. By the time he made Return of the Jedi, George Lucas had huge amount of control and it was arguably the worst of the series. Then, by the time he made the prequel trilogy, he had complete control, funded the films himself, and created it all in-house with zero studio influence. They all sucked.

Peter Jackson: The Lord of the Rings was his first big studio film, and they were all great. Obviously, not everyone enjoys that type of film, but the majority opinion is that they were great. His next film, King Kong, he had established his own huge production facility and had $200 million dollars to work with and very little studio interference. It was alright, but it was bloated and self-indulgent. The Lovely Bones was created with complete creative freedom and it sucked butt.

Francis Ford Coppola: Nearly everything he's made outside of The Godfather and other studio-based films has been self-indulgent bullcrap that hardly anyone enjoys.

The examples could go on-and-on, but I think I've made my point.

The reality is that while yes, there are a lot of sucky studio films, there are also hundreds of equally terrible independent films.

Compared to the thousands of stage plays written throughout history, there's only a short list that any of us actually remember or care to read or see performed. I have a feeling that film will be exactly the same.

A great film is a rare piece of magic that's only found a few times in a decade. Indie or studio, only a couple stand out.

So to the pretentious buttholes who take themselves far too seriously and enjoy anything and everything that looks "indie" for the sake of being indie, get over yourselves. And for the near-illiterate idiots with no taste that enjoy anything and everything that blows up? Read a book.

Just my opinion.

I have lost interest in film since the overuse of CGI. I can no longer connect with the films. They all feel so false and unbelievable. That's one reason I prefer indie films which normally can't afford the ridiculous CGI that you see in big studio films.

I watched Inception not long ago and I felt all the VFX was from some commercial. They all use the same software. I hated it. Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky, but I seem to slowly shift my interest to books.  

Quoted from pia I have lost interest in film since the overuse of CGI. I can no longer connect with the films. They all feel so false and unbelievable. That's one reason I prefer indie films which normally can't afford the ridiculous CGI that you see in big studio films.

My thoughts and sentiments exactly to the T.

I agree. And Elmer, that's a convincing post. Hollywood is guilty of giving us what we seem to want: shallow movies with plenty of CGI effects.

I think people actually like the well made movies, but they're more likely to just watch them over and over on TV, which is not what Hollywood needs. They need a$$es in the seats.

Plus, if you're gonna plop down $10 for a flick, one thing that seems to be true is that you can't trust the big movie reviewers to give it straight.

Quoted from Elmer The examples could go on-and-on, but I think I've made my point. The reality is that while yes, there are a lot of sucky studio films, there are also hundreds of equally terrible independent films. Compared to the thousands of stage plays written throughout history, there's only a short list that any of us actually remember or care to read or see performed. I have a feeling that film will be exactly the same. A great film is a rare piece of magic that's only found a few times in a decade. Indie or studio, only a couple stand out. So to the pretentious buttholes who take themselves far too seriously and enjoy anything and everything that looks "indie" for the sake of being indie, get over yourselves. And for the near-illiterate idiots with no taste that enjoy anything and everything that blows up? Read a book. Just my opinion.

Well Rubix, at least you're good at examples. I'm not. Again we come around to the fact that what is "good" is also "subjective".

Myself, I don't believe that there are bad films. Only, I think that we all have unique tastes and that's a good thing. You know what? I love cooked spinach. Seriously, I used to eat canned spinach. I hardly even see it on the shelves anymore. I guess there wasn't enough demand. It just wasn't popular, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't/isn't good.

So yes, I do hear what you're saying. There may be some pretentious kinds of people out there. There always are. The important thing is to love/like a thing because you value it personally. It could be a fine satin ribbon, or a piece of garden twine-- doesn't matter. As long as it's valued by you.

It's good you have a strong opinion. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Sandra

If the product is poor, the entity which controls the manufacture of the product is to blame.  The studios control the manufacture of films and are therefore to blame for the poor quality.  If your GE remote dies two days after you buy it, you blame GE, not the store that sold it to you and not the other customers who buy it and products like it.

The "if people didn't buy tickets" argument is depressingly true but not particularly relevant in the context of placing blame.  It also becomes a completely circular argument -- if the studios didn't make bad films, people wouldn't buy tickets.  But this is not a chicken-and-egg situation; we know where films start.  

The blame is on the manufacturer.  The blame is on the studio.  It's true that the studios are encouraged towards inferior products because that appears to be what people want.  This is no excuse.  It starts with the studio and responsibility therefore falls to the studio.  The studios are responsible for taking pride in their work, which is (theoretically) supporting and guiding artists.  As with any job, significant profit should be secondary.  To say that fault rests with the audiences because they continue to pay the studios is to validate the greed of the studios, the investors, the executives, et al.  Greed is not valid.  Many will argue that such people can't afford to lose money on risky projects.  Take a tour of LA to a few houses owned by execs and investors and see how they're doing.  Look up the Weinsteins and find out if they're living in the poorhouse after a string of flops.  And if people really can't afford to lose money...fuck 'em.  Don't invest.  Less investments means less movies, and that's not a bad thing.

None of this is to say that studios are the end-all problem and that they should be wiped out.  Thinking just has to change.  There has to be some genuine passion about art.  That's all that really matters.  Good films will be made when passionate producers hire passionate film crews to work on something they can care about.

On a side note, Elmer, your list of evidence is extremely problematic.  Coppola made many films under Zoetrope/American Zoetrope, including The Conversation, The Outsiders, and the recent Tetro, which were extremely well-received (and are also good).  Lucas made THX-1138 and American Graffiti, the former completely independently and the latter primarily under Lucasfilm and Coppola Pictures but admittedly also with involvement from Universal, and both were excellent.  Peter Jackson had consistently made extremely strong and innovative films up until The Frighteners, including Dead Alive, Heavenly Creatures, and Forgotten Silver.  Furthermore, the list of apparently strong directors who have made bullshit once involved in the Hollywood big studio system is massive.  Roger Donaldson, Terry Gilliam, Guy Ritchie, Pitof, Timur Bekmambetov, and (for the action fans) Louis Leterrier, for example, come to mind.  

That said, I do think studio involvement is necessary to stop many directors from making films that are terrible.  Everyone needs a helping hand.  Except Kubrick.

Quoted from leitskev Plus, if you're gonna plop down $10 for a flick, one thing that seems to be true is that you can't trust the big movie reviewers to give it straight

Primarily due to the fact that said reviewers are owned -- either figuratively or literally -- by the studios.