kelly
Herr Babelfish der Übersetzer, he wore a whipped-cream-covered tutu for this title.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2002
- Posts
- 5,435
- Likes
- 12
This forum talks about movies a lot -- which, as some of you know, is actually a bigger hobby overall for me than music is. If you're looking for something about headphones, skip this thread. If you want some bizarre twists of logic on my taste in film (or if you just want to argue it), read on.
The first principle of movies is the basic argument that: "There are only five basic plots that cover every given story ever written." From this, you may derrive the cliche, "There are no original ideas under the sun." By and large, if you want originality, film is the wrong place to look for it. What I'm looking for isn't an original plot, I'm just looking for a good execution. Follow that philosophy and you'll be a happier movie goer--at least some of the time.
So what's a good execution?
I'm glad you asked.
I believe in all sincerity that movies were better a long time ago than they are today. This isn't nostalgia talking here. For me, a lot of what I'm referring to are films that came out before I was even born.
Why? Well, think about this. What are the elements of a modern film? Plot, dialog, the appropriate amount of sex and/or violence and special effects. You could almost boil it down to ratin those criteria alone. Travel back in time a little and you notice that... there's less sex and/or violence and hardly any special effects. Frankly, the plot and dialog had to be good because well, that's all they had. (Note: I also apply this theory to 2D video games with poor graphics. Disagree all you want, but I don't see anyone wanting to go back and play Tomb Raider again... and Pac-Man's on almost every console.)
So... There are tons of those classic films. How do you sort them out? You see, today, in today's age of film making, the talent (the actor, what have you) means very little. That is to say, you can easily get a $20 million actor in a BAD movie. A movie you'd never want to watch a second time. How does this happen? Again, the actor is just one element. Today we have to ask what ten companies did the special effects, who's directing, who's producing, who's doing cinematography. The answers would sometimes surprise you. You see, a lot of the people who get their opportunities in Hollywood get them from relatives, from friends, associates, people they sell drugs and women to... Let's just say... there are an awful lot of writers out there and the writers aren't always picked based on what they've written.
Back to the talent. Back then, the talent mattered. You were going to make five films in three weeks time and you had an awesome actress that everyone loves. What do you do? Simple, you give her the best lines. You get a good script. Writers were a commodity back then, not some bigshot son of someone famous. Good scripts migrated to the top talents. Surfing the classics is almost just that easy. (Oh and by the way, check the other people on the top movies--those directors and cinematographers I almost dismissed. You see, the good ones followed the big movies back then too. Now the good ones can't even get funding because they're pushed out by the Hollywood's people).
So I'm saying only old movies are good? No, not at all. I'm just saying the likelyhood is greater and they're easier to pick out. Today, it's not so easy. I'll have some theories on that later. Let's see if anyone bites on these presumptions first. Any takers? Am I full of it or do I make some good points?
The first principle of movies is the basic argument that: "There are only five basic plots that cover every given story ever written." From this, you may derrive the cliche, "There are no original ideas under the sun." By and large, if you want originality, film is the wrong place to look for it. What I'm looking for isn't an original plot, I'm just looking for a good execution. Follow that philosophy and you'll be a happier movie goer--at least some of the time.
So what's a good execution?
I'm glad you asked.
I believe in all sincerity that movies were better a long time ago than they are today. This isn't nostalgia talking here. For me, a lot of what I'm referring to are films that came out before I was even born.
Why? Well, think about this. What are the elements of a modern film? Plot, dialog, the appropriate amount of sex and/or violence and special effects. You could almost boil it down to ratin those criteria alone. Travel back in time a little and you notice that... there's less sex and/or violence and hardly any special effects. Frankly, the plot and dialog had to be good because well, that's all they had. (Note: I also apply this theory to 2D video games with poor graphics. Disagree all you want, but I don't see anyone wanting to go back and play Tomb Raider again... and Pac-Man's on almost every console.)
So... There are tons of those classic films. How do you sort them out? You see, today, in today's age of film making, the talent (the actor, what have you) means very little. That is to say, you can easily get a $20 million actor in a BAD movie. A movie you'd never want to watch a second time. How does this happen? Again, the actor is just one element. Today we have to ask what ten companies did the special effects, who's directing, who's producing, who's doing cinematography. The answers would sometimes surprise you. You see, a lot of the people who get their opportunities in Hollywood get them from relatives, from friends, associates, people they sell drugs and women to... Let's just say... there are an awful lot of writers out there and the writers aren't always picked based on what they've written.
Back to the talent. Back then, the talent mattered. You were going to make five films in three weeks time and you had an awesome actress that everyone loves. What do you do? Simple, you give her the best lines. You get a good script. Writers were a commodity back then, not some bigshot son of someone famous. Good scripts migrated to the top talents. Surfing the classics is almost just that easy. (Oh and by the way, check the other people on the top movies--those directors and cinematographers I almost dismissed. You see, the good ones followed the big movies back then too. Now the good ones can't even get funding because they're pushed out by the Hollywood's people).
So I'm saying only old movies are good? No, not at all. I'm just saying the likelyhood is greater and they're easier to pick out. Today, it's not so easy. I'll have some theories on that later. Let's see if anyone bites on these presumptions first. Any takers? Am I full of it or do I make some good points?