TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- What the crap Hollywood?!!
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Xenocreator_PG_ That would mean that Lucas would be nearly 80 years old when they get made. It would turn into Star Bores: the Return of the Grumpy Old Jedi.

...so?

quote:

Originally posted by idoru Movies this year have sucked so far. The only good ones were Batman and, that's really the only one I can think of.

Sin City was good and I actually enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven. I think Kingdom of Heaven is very underrated. I think most people were watching it as an epic movie, and on that account it didn't deliver. However, watching it as a factual and historical account is pretty amazing. I watched the DVD version of it with "The Pilgrim's Guide" on and pops up information about everything. It's pretty cool. Also I don't think Orland Bloom has the caliber of a leading-role yet. He just can't hold a movie together on his own.

Oh yeah and in response to the original post, you have to understand that Hollywood is a business first and foremost. It's job to entertain comes second. That's why the success of blockbusters in the 1980s led to epic blockbuster moviemaking still seen today.

In that sense, Hollywood realized that remakes of movies are potential profit earners. That's why we've been saturated with remakes anc re-issues. Because of all the remakes that are being released, at least one will make a profitable return on investment, and that's all Hollywood needs is just one move to make their money back.

Also great movies have come out this year, you guys just have to look beyond Hollywood. It's unfortunate in the US that hollywood controls the distribution of movies. Some great gems from other countries are only limitidly released through independent Distributors such as Miramax, Sony Pictures Classics or Lion's Gate Films. The think is, is that even these independent distributors have to pay hollywood to get these films released b/c Hollywood controls 90% of the market.

It's unfortunate because it forces you to go out and find these great films on your own. Hollywood has a great system right now. Advertise on TV and you go and watch the film in theaters. Not all theaters will show foreign or independent films. You will only get these in urbanized ares and metropolitan cities. Therefore it falls to you to venture out and find these films.


Like I said before, it;s all business and HOllywood has the money and the muscle to advertise heavily. Sometimes good independent and foreign films will make it through this process and be shown on the silver screen in the US with backup advertising, but it's few and far between.

quote:

Originally posted by Mebot Sin City was good and I actually enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven. I think Kingdom of Heaven is very underrated. I think most people were watching it as an epic movie, and on that account it didn't deliver. However, watching it as a factual and historical account is pretty amazing. I watched the DVD version of it with "The Pilgrim's Guide" on and pops up information about everything. It's pretty cool. Also I don't think Orland Bloom has the caliber of a leading-role yet. He just can't hold a movie together on his own.

Hahahaha. A guy I went to high school would love to talk to you. That movie was so historically inaccurate, it's not even funny. They comibned details from several different conflicts and made stuff up as they saw fit. It was a shameful display of artistic license, all in the name of making a buck, though you just made an excellent point on the purpose of hollywood films.

quote:

Originally posted by Mebot Sin City was good

Aah, for some reason I was thinking it was last year. Good flick.

quote:

Originally posted by tribu Hahahaha. A guy I went to high school would love to talk to you. That movie was so historically inaccurate, it's not even funny. They comibned details from several different conflicts and made stuff up as they saw fit. It was a shameful display of artistic license, all in the name of making a buck, though you just made an excellent point on the purpose of hollywood films.

Even if it was innaccurate, I wouldn't know. I don't anything about the Crusades, other than general knowledge that I'm sure every other lay person has.

Point is, yeah i'm sure your friend is part of the select few that actuall know inaccuracies when they see it. I enjoyed watching the DVD with the pilgrims guide option on because it had so much information to correlate with the movie. Now, if that information is false and your friend is right, then I don't think it's the filmmaker's fault, but rather the copywriters and historians who compiled the "facts" for the movie.

quote:

Originally posted by Xenocreator_PG_ I'd like to see a Robotech / Macross movie.

+1.
+1 to a warhammer 40k movie too.

lucas said return of the sith was his last star wars movie. when is saw 3 coming out?

quote:

Originally posted by Mebot Even if it was innaccurate, I wouldn't know. I don't anything about the Crusades, other than general knowledge that I'm sure every other lay person has. Point is, yeah i'm sure your friend is part of the select few that actuall know inaccuracies when they see it. I enjoyed watching the DVD with the pilgrims guide option on because it had so much information to correlate with the movie. Now, if that information is false and your friend is right, then I don't think it's the filmmaker's fault, but rather the copywriters and historians who compiled the "facts" for the movie.

Actually let me rephrase this post:

When I watch a DVD for extra features, I expect to get more information about the film I'm watching. This includes biographies, deleted scenes, making-of features, or trivia nformation.

Watching kingdom of heaven by itself, I saw it as another blockbuster almost-epic movie. But watching it with the features on explaining everything going on in the movie, includng information about history, objects, people and places was a lot more stimulating to me.

Even if the movie was incorrect (in whatever way it was) i think the Pilgrims Guide feature more than makes up for it. I'm not a history major by any means, but I would like to believe that the information in the Special Features is somewhat true. I advise your friend to watch the special features Pilgrim Guide and ask if that information is still false?

haha i find it kind of funny that I'm arguing for a movie that I really didn't care about, it wasn't that good, yet I still got a kick out of the special feature Pilgrims Guide on the DVD

I may just go and buy Kingdom of Heaven just for the Pilgrims Guide

quote:

Originally posted by Mebot Actually let me rephrase this post: When I watch a DVD for extra features, I expect to get more information about the film I'm watching. This includes biographies, deleted scenes, making-of features, or trivia nformation. Watching kingdom of heaven by itself, I saw it as another blockbuster almost-epic movie. But watching it with the features on explaining everything going on in the movie, includng information about history, objects, people and places was a lot more stimulating to me. Even if the movie was incorrect (in whatever way it was) i think the Pilgrims Guide feature more than makes up for it. I'm not a history major by any means, but I would like to believe that the information in the Special Features is somewhat true. I advise your friend to watch the special features Pilgrim Guide and ask if that information is still false?

My friend is a history major and has had 2 papers published on the topic. It's not that the movie was itself not factual but that the plot was a mish-mash of factual and fabricated information. Facts from the 4th crusdae were set along facts of the first and non-crusade war tales and myths were all implanted into one story. They skewed the timeline, switched alliegances of people and things, and basically warped things to bump the drama and celebration of the Crusades. When he comes online, Ill link you to an online resource he has created about this.

deft a new recreation i would like to see is 'world of warcraft' ... also an 'age of empires' movie wouldn't be that bad ..

i think ' the adventures of orly & ' would be a classic if done right ..

quote:

Originally posted by tribu My friend is a history major and has had 2 papers published on the topic. It's not that the movie was itself not factual but that the plot was a mish-mash of factual and fabricated information. Facts from the 4th crusdae were set along facts of the first and non-crusade war tales and myths were all implanted into one story. They skewed the timeline, switched alliegances of people and things, and basically warped things to bump the drama and celebration of the Crusades. When he comes online, Ill link you to an online resource he has created about this.

Plot-schmot. We all know Hollywod skews facts and figures to adjust to whatever course of action they're taking.
I believe your friend knows what he/she is talking about. Like I said i'm not a History major so it's all greek to me.

As a matter of fact, I do think that the Pilgrim's Guide actually points out incongruities about the film itself. it gives select dates and information and says that the film makes it out differently.

So, in conclusion, we both win!

quote:

Originally posted by DjConfessions lucas said return of the sith was his last star wars movie. when is saw 3 coming out?

I can't wait for the remake of gigli 2006

quote:

Originally posted by Mebot Oh yeah and in response to the original post, you have to understand that Hollywood is a business first and foremost. It's job to entertain comes second. That's why the success of blockbusters in the 1980s led to epic blockbuster moviemaking still seen today. In that sense, Hollywood realized that remakes of movies are potential profit earners. That's why we've been saturated with remakes anc re-issues. Because of all the remakes that are being released, at least one will make a profitable return on investment, and that's all Hollywood needs is just one move to make their money back.

It is quite obvious why they create re-makes & why they franchise successful movies & then churn out a load of sequels. It is all about profits. A movie can be made for $100 million & then gross $200 million at the box office. Another movie can be made for 2 million dollars & make 60 million at the box office. The executives in Hollywood are currently leaning towards investing in the cheap $2 million budget movies over the $100 million movies. What they are doing now is putting unrealistic deadlines on movies & rushing production. This is what they seem to be doing more often & it is becoming very apparent by the audiences going to the cinema. Now there have been some very successful 'cheapy' movies like Saw & Sin City (though some may argue that Sin City $40 million budget is large) but it is only a handful of movies to the heap being churned out. Movies that could have been brilliant turn out being very average & flat. Customers realize the 'Hollywood-hype' is pseudo & expect to be disappointed at the cinema. The result will be a decrease in profits as people are less interested to see Hollywood movies. They may create two or so mega budget movies a year if we are lucky, though they try to keep cost down in those too. Like in War of the Worlds; the unrealistic deadline in that movie caused a heap of mistakes & inconsistencies....

hehe, im a customer, i dont need to understand the business side. If the product is crap then I just won't buy it. To be honest, this thread was just a quick rant about the possible remake of Robocop It is a rumour & may not even happen.

quote:

Originally posted by tribu My friend is a history major and has had 2 papers published on the topic. It's not that the movie was itself not factual but that the plot was a mish-mash of factual and fabricated information. Facts from the 4th crusdae were set along facts of the first and non-crusade war tales and myths were all implanted into one story. They skewed the timeline, switched alliegances of people and things, and basically warped things to bump the drama and celebration of the Crusades. When he comes online, Ill link you to an online resource he has created about this.

Dude have you even SEEN the DVD? The feature he's talking about is basically a closed caption thing along the bottom of the screen where at relevant scenes they give the relevant historical information. So you DO get the 411 on the what really happened and what didn't.

Next time know what you are talking about before you start talking shit.

It's wierd what they want to do with this so called Terminator series, There calling it the Sarah Connor Chronicles, The series would take place between T2 and T3. But Sarah Connor supposely had died from some disease that was mentioned in T3.

quote:

Originally posted by tribu I would ban the release of both a Dark Tower movie or series of movies and the upcoming Chronicles of narnia series. Im ceratinly hoping Lewis' books can be made into good movies, but ihave less than 1% faith in hollywood.

I'm with you there, brotha.

Re: Re: What the crap Hollywood?!!

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Star Wars 7,8 and 9 based on Timothy Zahns Empire trilogy

true, but there is a big time gap between that and the original trilogy

There is a big time gap between eps 3 and 4 Besides it would mean that one could cast the original cast again Exept for Leia of course, Carrie Fischer looks too old

However something could be done to bridge the gap between eps 6 and 7. How about a series based on the x-wing novels. Taking of Coruscant, and the fall of Ysane Issard and warlord Zsiny (cant remember their names correctly).

quote:

Originally posted by TigerClaw It's wierd what they want to do with this so called Terminator series, There calling it the Sarah Connor Chronicles, The series would take place between T2 and T3. But Sarah Connor supposely had died from some disease that was mentioned in T3.

But the question remains about how the Terminator in 'Terminator 3' knew where Sarah Connor was buried? Anold takes John to her burial site & the coffin is full of weapons! Then Anold explains that Sarah body was cremated. Now, If John knew Sarah had died from some disease then why did he not know she had been cremated & that there were guns in the coffin???

quote:

Originally posted by Xenocreator_PG_ But the question remains about how the Terminator in 'Terminator 3' knew where Sarah Connor was buried? Anold takes John to her burial site & the coffin is full of weapons! Then Anold explains that Sarah body was cremated. Now, If John knew Sarah had died from some disease then why did he not know she had been cremated & that there were guns in the coffin???

I have the same questions about Jumanji, except I want to know how they were able to go back in time without offestting anything at the end of the film.

quote:

Originally posted by Mebot I have the same questions about Jumanji, except I want to know how they were able to go back in time without offestting anything at the end of the film.

damn straight, it is the same with that movie Alice in Wonderland. At the start of the movie the house got ruined by a tornado & Alice was thrown into wonderland. At the end of the movie she taps her shoes & wakes up back in the house & it has had no apparent damage done to it!!! I want to know what drugs she was on? It's the biggest druggy movie of all time & no one can tell me what she was snorting!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.