With digital services such as streaming and downloading becoming more popular, I've been thinking about what the future of film may be.
In the near future, theaters may be phased out in favor of streaming straight to a persons living room. We won't even need to leave our house to see the newest flick. It'll be right on our TV.
This would cause a massive change, of course. Theaters would become obsolete, and people would lose jobs, but it would be more convenient, and production studios may make more money as a result of people not needing to leave their homes to see their movies.
Just an interesting idea. There's also the notion of virtual reality, and the idea that we may one day be able to "enter" movies, but I foresee that being much further off than streaming.
Friday, May 3, 2013
The demand for sequels
Many films that hit theaters these days are sequels (or prequels, but same basic idea.). Plots building on existing stories, using established characters. Some view this as lazy and easy, while others seem to be chomping at the bit for new sequels.
I think, if warranted, sequels are fine. I do, however, also believe that many sequels are made simply to cash in on the popularity of films.
Take the movie Waiting, about a group of disgruntled restaurant workers. The film acquired a bit of a cult following, and a sequel was made, which had barely any of the original cast returning, and was quite a bit of a let down after the first. It fell short, because the creators were simply trying to make money from fans of a film.
That's the wrong approach. Make a sequel because it's needed, not because you want more money, or the fans may want a sequel. If a story is wrapped up, leave it wrapped up.
I think, if warranted, sequels are fine. I do, however, also believe that many sequels are made simply to cash in on the popularity of films.
Take the movie Waiting, about a group of disgruntled restaurant workers. The film acquired a bit of a cult following, and a sequel was made, which had barely any of the original cast returning, and was quite a bit of a let down after the first. It fell short, because the creators were simply trying to make money from fans of a film.
That's the wrong approach. Make a sequel because it's needed, not because you want more money, or the fans may want a sequel. If a story is wrapped up, leave it wrapped up.
Films: Who should get the credit?
When many of us consider the work that goes into movies, we generally stop at the actors involved. Upon thinking about, partly on my own, and partly due to another class, I don't think that's fair.
So much work goes into all movies. Sound, lighting, writing, directing, prop making, etc. So many of the people responsible for these things go completely unrecognized. When is the last time that you heard two people talking about their favorite sound engineers?
I think, when discussing movies, at least from an analytical standpoint, we really should take all aspects of the film into account. To overlook one part of what makes a film great is to minimize the over all work, I think.
So much work goes into all movies. Sound, lighting, writing, directing, prop making, etc. So many of the people responsible for these things go completely unrecognized. When is the last time that you heard two people talking about their favorite sound engineers?
I think, when discussing movies, at least from an analytical standpoint, we really should take all aspects of the film into account. To overlook one part of what makes a film great is to minimize the over all work, I think.
Movies based on true events
Oft times, movies based on true stories pop up. Generally, they appear somewhat close to the time that the even happened. The movie based on Seal Team 6, for instance, and now movies about Whitey Bulger are in the works. But, is that a good thing?
Many of these events that people would want to make movies about are somewhat sensitive issues. The Whitey Bulger case, for instance, carries a lot of weight for the families of his victims. Seeing a film about this may just upset them, especially so close to the time that he was captured.
Then, there are movies that may not be based on true events, but reference them, such as Remember Me. For 90% of the film, it's a normal romance movie. At the end, however, the main male character is killed in the 9/11 attacks. This could be even worse for people who had family and friends involved in the attacks, because they had no warning about it.
Ultimately, I think movie studios need to walk a fine line with this. There is obviously interest for films about real events, but they need to be handled carefully or else they may cause an upset with the people who were impacted by them.
Many of these events that people would want to make movies about are somewhat sensitive issues. The Whitey Bulger case, for instance, carries a lot of weight for the families of his victims. Seeing a film about this may just upset them, especially so close to the time that he was captured.
Then, there are movies that may not be based on true events, but reference them, such as Remember Me. For 90% of the film, it's a normal romance movie. At the end, however, the main male character is killed in the 9/11 attacks. This could be even worse for people who had family and friends involved in the attacks, because they had no warning about it.
Ultimately, I think movie studios need to walk a fine line with this. There is obviously interest for films about real events, but they need to be handled carefully or else they may cause an upset with the people who were impacted by them.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
The Superhero Movie craze
I just saw Iron Man 3, and feel that it was a pretty phenomenal movie. The craze behind Superhero movies in the last few years is really interesting, to me.
Movies had been made based on a number of superheroes before, Batman and Superman mainly. In the last few years, however, many more heroes have seen the big screen. It probably began with Spiderman, and the popularity of that movie catapulted other adaptations.
When done well, these movies can be real works of art. Take the recent Marvel films. All of them tie into each other, and create and overarching story. They are masterfully done, and are clearly created by people who care about the franchises.
I think this is actually a pretty good trend. Maybe when people see these movies being made, it will spur on more well done adaptations.
Movies had been made based on a number of superheroes before, Batman and Superman mainly. In the last few years, however, many more heroes have seen the big screen. It probably began with Spiderman, and the popularity of that movie catapulted other adaptations.
When done well, these movies can be real works of art. Take the recent Marvel films. All of them tie into each other, and create and overarching story. They are masterfully done, and are clearly created by people who care about the franchises.
I think this is actually a pretty good trend. Maybe when people see these movies being made, it will spur on more well done adaptations.
Adaptations, good or bad?
In this day and age, it's common for movies to be created based on a number of things. TV shows, books, video games, etc...
Oft times, these adaptations stray from the source material. Sometimes, they do this out of necessity, and it works (Lord of the Rings, for instance.). Other times, however, it simply doesn't work out too well (Doom, based on the game of the same name.).
I don't really see film adaptations ending any time soon. The ideas are already there, and many people will go to see adaptations of other media regardless of if they are good or not. I think they can work out if the director is fan of the source material, but I believe that sometimes they are made simply to cash in on an existing fandom.
Oft times, these adaptations stray from the source material. Sometimes, they do this out of necessity, and it works (Lord of the Rings, for instance.). Other times, however, it simply doesn't work out too well (Doom, based on the game of the same name.).
I don't really see film adaptations ending any time soon. The ideas are already there, and many people will go to see adaptations of other media regardless of if they are good or not. I think they can work out if the director is fan of the source material, but I believe that sometimes they are made simply to cash in on an existing fandom.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Building suspense
Recently, I've been thinking a lot about suspenseful situations in movies and other media. I feel that many movies and films go for a suspenseful angle, but fall a bit short.
Movies like the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm St. films, which are intended to instill horror, fall somewhat short on the suspense scale. They reveal their villains/monsters somewhat early on, which removes some of the mystery.
When left up to their own imaginations, people will fill in the blanks themselves. Almost without fail, this will illicit more of a reaction than what Hollywood could do.
The movie Cloverfield, for example, does a great job of building suspense. The viewer sees nothing of the monster for 95% of the film, which allows them to build it up in their mind. When the creature is finally seen, it has a greater impact.
I feel that more movies should adapt that style. One may have created a truly terrifying monster, but why not amp up the effect by letting it stew in mystery for a while?
Movies like the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm St. films, which are intended to instill horror, fall somewhat short on the suspense scale. They reveal their villains/monsters somewhat early on, which removes some of the mystery.
When left up to their own imaginations, people will fill in the blanks themselves. Almost without fail, this will illicit more of a reaction than what Hollywood could do.
The movie Cloverfield, for example, does a great job of building suspense. The viewer sees nothing of the monster for 95% of the film, which allows them to build it up in their mind. When the creature is finally seen, it has a greater impact.
I feel that more movies should adapt that style. One may have created a truly terrifying monster, but why not amp up the effect by letting it stew in mystery for a while?
Friday, April 12, 2013
Remakes: Good or bad
Some friends and I recently went to see the remake of Evil Dead. The original film has attained cult status for being a ridiculously campy, bad movie. Even the crew behind the film realized this, and turned the series into a comedy with Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness.
The remake, on the other hand, is actually a pretty creepy movie, and actually fits the horror genre that it was trying for. This got me thinking about the recent rise in popularity of remakes. I used to just write off all remakes as Hollywood being out of ideas, but in this particular case, the writer was actually able to achieve with this remake what he could not with the original, and there is a certain merit to that.
Don't get me wrong. I still do feel that many remakes are cashing in on nostalgia, but if a creator feels that they can actually improve upon the story they tried to tell, or execute it better, then I say more power to them. Evil Dead in my opinion, is an example of a remake done right. Total Recall, on the other hand...not so much.
The remake, on the other hand, is actually a pretty creepy movie, and actually fits the horror genre that it was trying for. This got me thinking about the recent rise in popularity of remakes. I used to just write off all remakes as Hollywood being out of ideas, but in this particular case, the writer was actually able to achieve with this remake what he could not with the original, and there is a certain merit to that.
Don't get me wrong. I still do feel that many remakes are cashing in on nostalgia, but if a creator feels that they can actually improve upon the story they tried to tell, or execute it better, then I say more power to them. Evil Dead in my opinion, is an example of a remake done right. Total Recall, on the other hand...not so much.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Collaborations: Worth the risk?
One of the latest chapters in the book talked about collaborations on movies, specifically international collaborations. These types of set ups can be incredibly beneficial. It offers the potential to tap into the existing fans of another companies work, and lets each side more easily attract attention in their partners home land.
However, on the flip side, if the movie is a bomb, it can have devastating effects. Losing potential viewers in the other country because they get a bad first impression of you, hurting your own fans opinions of you if the movie is bad, even if its because your partner didn't pull their weight, etc... One needs to have a lot of faith to pull off a partnership like that.
Ultimately, it comes down to whether each side believe that the risks are worth the outcome. If they are, and the potential for a great film that benefits both sides is there, then it should be done. Otherwise, it may just be better to not go through with the whole thing.
However, on the flip side, if the movie is a bomb, it can have devastating effects. Losing potential viewers in the other country because they get a bad first impression of you, hurting your own fans opinions of you if the movie is bad, even if its because your partner didn't pull their weight, etc... One needs to have a lot of faith to pull off a partnership like that.
Ultimately, it comes down to whether each side believe that the risks are worth the outcome. If they are, and the potential for a great film that benefits both sides is there, then it should be done. Otherwise, it may just be better to not go through with the whole thing.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Different cultures and film
After reading the chapters in the book these last few weeks, it's amazing to consider how differently movies work in different cultures. Films became huge here, due to the boom of Hollywood, and even achieved success in other countries. However, when other countries tried to get into the film making business, they were not met with the same kind of success that America had.
I just found it fascinating that, even though countries were making films themselves, people were more readily watching American movies. Possibly because we had the head start, and the best technology, know how, etc... Whatever the reason, other countries did manage to get in on the film business, and we now have people from all over the world who are critically acclaimed for their film work.
I just found it fascinating that, even though countries were making films themselves, people were more readily watching American movies. Possibly because we had the head start, and the best technology, know how, etc... Whatever the reason, other countries did manage to get in on the film business, and we now have people from all over the world who are critically acclaimed for their film work.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Movies and their influence on society
I find that seeing a movie is something akin to being let in on some big secret. Once you've seen a film, you can instantly have something to talk about with people, whether they be old friends or complete strangers.
I find this phenomenon interesting. People, who under most circumstances may have nothing in common, may be able to bond over a film they both saw. Additionally, both can appreciate parodies of the instances within said film, allowing for the same kind of interaction.
People who have not seen certain films may receive odd looks, as well. I hadn't seen any of the Star Wars movies until about a year ago, which many people found strange. I've only seen the first Indiana Jones, never seen any of the Lord of the Rings movies, etc... Many of those are considered to be staples of the movie world, and people are surprised when I stat I haven't seen them.
Just a thought that crossed my mind. I find it interesting that people can easily accept people if they have both seen a movie, and give others strange looks if they have not.
I find this phenomenon interesting. People, who under most circumstances may have nothing in common, may be able to bond over a film they both saw. Additionally, both can appreciate parodies of the instances within said film, allowing for the same kind of interaction.
People who have not seen certain films may receive odd looks, as well. I hadn't seen any of the Star Wars movies until about a year ago, which many people found strange. I've only seen the first Indiana Jones, never seen any of the Lord of the Rings movies, etc... Many of those are considered to be staples of the movie world, and people are surprised when I stat I haven't seen them.
Just a thought that crossed my mind. I find it interesting that people can easily accept people if they have both seen a movie, and give others strange looks if they have not.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Cultures converging through film
It's interesting to note how much the film industry boomed all around the world at about the same time, and how much of an impact all of the different countries had, and still have, on each other's film ideas.
Back when film was just becoming a medium for people to express themselves, it was more difficult for countries to share ideas. Once it evolved as a media, countries began sharing movies rapidly, and people who started in one country began working with people from other countries.
Hitchcock became big in the US as well as Britain, where he was born, for example. American actors starred in his films, some of which were set in US locations. He didn't present himself as a British filmmaker, just as a filmmaker.
Nowadays, it's unthinkable to envision a movie being made by people from just one culture. Behind the scenes and in the scenes, there are people from all nationalities taking part. Not to mention all of the remakes and adaptations of movies and television shows from other countries being made. The world, I think, has become a more united place because of films, and I think that's pretty interesting.
Back when film was just becoming a medium for people to express themselves, it was more difficult for countries to share ideas. Once it evolved as a media, countries began sharing movies rapidly, and people who started in one country began working with people from other countries.
Hitchcock became big in the US as well as Britain, where he was born, for example. American actors starred in his films, some of which were set in US locations. He didn't present himself as a British filmmaker, just as a filmmaker.
Nowadays, it's unthinkable to envision a movie being made by people from just one culture. Behind the scenes and in the scenes, there are people from all nationalities taking part. Not to mention all of the remakes and adaptations of movies and television shows from other countries being made. The world, I think, has become a more united place because of films, and I think that's pretty interesting.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Depictions of madness in film
For one of my other classes, I needed to write a paper on a shot within a movie. For the assignment, I chose the movie Se7en, a dark thriller about a serial killer who's murders are based on the seven deadly sins. While working on the assignment, I got thinking about the depictions of madness that Hollywood portrays.
Se7en does a fantastic job of showing off how mad someone can be. John Doe, the killer, is a full blown psychopath. He kills people in horrific ways, going to great lengths to get the message he wishes to share across to the general public, and the entire time, he believes that he is in the right in doing so. He even defends his convictions to the two detectives that he has turned himself in to during the car trip to the location of his final victim, going into an enraged state as Mills taunts him and tries to reveal that he is insane.
Doe's madness, I feel, is amplifies by how calm his demeanor is most of the time. In some movies, insanity is shown by people going on massive killing sprees. In this movie, there are only 6 victims, but the impact of each death carries a lot of weight. The impact of Doe's actions would have been reduced if he had killed more people, and was not as exact in his actions.
The human mind does a good job of creating fear when there are holes that can be filled in. The fact that Doe was almost impossible to read the first time watching the movie made him that much scarier, and I think Hollywood would do well to follow that kind of formula instead of using bloodbath films to depict madness.
Se7en does a fantastic job of showing off how mad someone can be. John Doe, the killer, is a full blown psychopath. He kills people in horrific ways, going to great lengths to get the message he wishes to share across to the general public, and the entire time, he believes that he is in the right in doing so. He even defends his convictions to the two detectives that he has turned himself in to during the car trip to the location of his final victim, going into an enraged state as Mills taunts him and tries to reveal that he is insane.
Doe's madness, I feel, is amplifies by how calm his demeanor is most of the time. In some movies, insanity is shown by people going on massive killing sprees. In this movie, there are only 6 victims, but the impact of each death carries a lot of weight. The impact of Doe's actions would have been reduced if he had killed more people, and was not as exact in his actions.
The human mind does a good job of creating fear when there are holes that can be filled in. The fact that Doe was almost impossible to read the first time watching the movie made him that much scarier, and I think Hollywood would do well to follow that kind of formula instead of using bloodbath films to depict madness.
Monday, February 18, 2013
A Good Day to Die Hard
Some friends and I decided to see the newest Die Hard film last night, and I decided I would post my thoughts on the film here. Obviously, there are gonna be spoilers here.
First, and foremost, I'll mention that I've never sat through any of the previous installments in this series. I've meant to, and had ample opportunity to, but just...never quite made it. That being said, I have seen my fair share of action movies, and more than a few Bruce Willis flicks in my time, so it's not like I'm unaware of what to expect.
That being said, this movie struck me as...okay. It wasn't anything spectacular as far as plot goes, and actually seems pretty rushed.
In the film John McClane (Willis) apparently calls in a favor to get info on his estranged son, Jack, who is being held prisoner in Russia for a number of things, the latest of which is shooting a man in a club. McClane heads to Russia to find out directly from his son what's been going on. Upon arrival, he discovers that the whole "incarceration" thing is a plot, and Jack is working for the CIA to get a file from a powerful politician. The whole mission is screwed up by John showing up, so he is pulled into the whole thing to try and make things right.
Which, you know, is all standard action movie stuff. The issue, in my opinion, is that the whole plot seems kind of rushed and cluttered. Jack holds an incredible amount of contempt for his father throughout the film, which while almost understandable is definitely blown out of proportion. This leads to awkward interactions between the two, and a lot of the humor in the movie comes from the pair making jokes about the fact that they are father and son, and incredibly alike. This is chuckle worthy the first time, but after about 20 jokes of this nature, it starts to wear thin.
Also, the main plot suffers from trying to hard to be edge of your seat exciting. The main antagonist changes about three times throughout the film, with the initial one dying after being on screen for, maybe, five minutes total. Pair that with the fact that the other antagonists are a bit...off with their interactions, and it makes for a pretty underwhelming experience.
The action in the movie is well done, which is good since it's the main drawing point. It begins with a massive car chase scene, in which at least fifty cars are totaled. There are also plenty of shoot outs, leaping off buildings, and explosions. Of course, the good guys walk out of 90% of these scenarios with barely a scratch, which detracts from the reality of the film, but that's more or less to be expected.
Ultimately, the movie wraps up with the antagonists being killed in pretty lackluster ways (one actually kills herself, as an act of revenge, I guess?) and more father-son jokes which left my friends and I shaking our heads.
Ultimately, like I said, the movie was okay. Not great, but not terrible. I am more interested now in going back and watching the older Die Hard films to see how this one really stacks up against them. I'd say if you're a fan of the series you'd probably have a slightly better experience, because this installment is ripe with references to the older films, so that may boost it's score for you, but I'd have to give it a 6.5/10.
First, and foremost, I'll mention that I've never sat through any of the previous installments in this series. I've meant to, and had ample opportunity to, but just...never quite made it. That being said, I have seen my fair share of action movies, and more than a few Bruce Willis flicks in my time, so it's not like I'm unaware of what to expect.
That being said, this movie struck me as...okay. It wasn't anything spectacular as far as plot goes, and actually seems pretty rushed.
In the film John McClane (Willis) apparently calls in a favor to get info on his estranged son, Jack, who is being held prisoner in Russia for a number of things, the latest of which is shooting a man in a club. McClane heads to Russia to find out directly from his son what's been going on. Upon arrival, he discovers that the whole "incarceration" thing is a plot, and Jack is working for the CIA to get a file from a powerful politician. The whole mission is screwed up by John showing up, so he is pulled into the whole thing to try and make things right.
Which, you know, is all standard action movie stuff. The issue, in my opinion, is that the whole plot seems kind of rushed and cluttered. Jack holds an incredible amount of contempt for his father throughout the film, which while almost understandable is definitely blown out of proportion. This leads to awkward interactions between the two, and a lot of the humor in the movie comes from the pair making jokes about the fact that they are father and son, and incredibly alike. This is chuckle worthy the first time, but after about 20 jokes of this nature, it starts to wear thin.
Also, the main plot suffers from trying to hard to be edge of your seat exciting. The main antagonist changes about three times throughout the film, with the initial one dying after being on screen for, maybe, five minutes total. Pair that with the fact that the other antagonists are a bit...off with their interactions, and it makes for a pretty underwhelming experience.
The action in the movie is well done, which is good since it's the main drawing point. It begins with a massive car chase scene, in which at least fifty cars are totaled. There are also plenty of shoot outs, leaping off buildings, and explosions. Of course, the good guys walk out of 90% of these scenarios with barely a scratch, which detracts from the reality of the film, but that's more or less to be expected.
Ultimately, the movie wraps up with the antagonists being killed in pretty lackluster ways (one actually kills herself, as an act of revenge, I guess?) and more father-son jokes which left my friends and I shaking our heads.
Ultimately, like I said, the movie was okay. Not great, but not terrible. I am more interested now in going back and watching the older Die Hard films to see how this one really stacks up against them. I'd say if you're a fan of the series you'd probably have a slightly better experience, because this installment is ripe with references to the older films, so that may boost it's score for you, but I'd have to give it a 6.5/10.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)