The Big Picture: Hollywood History 101: Part 3
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think I'd sacrifice the Godfather Part II if it meant the end of inevitable sequels, but I guess Star Wars would have brought that about anyway.
"...and that's almost the big picture."
Yep, biggest yet. Good work.
Now when you say it's going to get ugly, urg... can I assume it's going to point out popular franchise and movies only made for the money?
Yep, biggest yet. Good work.
Now when you say it's going to get ugly, urg... can I assume it's going to point out popular franchise and movies only made for the money?
Oh I can't wait for next week these are really good and informative, would be nice to have them as one big video too
sequels can be a good thing but too many movies get them when they really don't need them and it just ruins the first film
sequels can be a good thing but too many movies get them when they really don't need them and it just ruins the first film
This has been great Bob. Seriously, the best line of videos I think I've watched so far on the Escapist. Informative, thought-provoking, and interesting. I can't wait until next week.
Awesome as always, Bob.
Another part of this puzzle was the change in film distribution. Before, a distributor would ask the studio for a couple dozen prints of the film, and the film would open slowly across the country in one or two cities at a time as the prints made their way through theatres across the continent.
With Jaws, the distributor took the unprecedented step of ordering hundreds of prints and opening the film all over the country on the same night. That's what started the Hollywood blockbuster/summer tentpole film that we're so used to today.
Another part of this puzzle was the change in film distribution. Before, a distributor would ask the studio for a couple dozen prints of the film, and the film would open slowly across the country in one or two cities at a time as the prints made their way through theatres across the continent.
With Jaws, the distributor took the unprecedented step of ordering hundreds of prints and opening the film all over the country on the same night. That's what started the Hollywood blockbuster/summer tentpole film that we're so used to today.
Being born in 74 and growing up during some unusual BBC filler movies, I've seen SO many of the movies mentioned in this season. I find it a little sad that the only reason I saw so many of these was because there were summer holidays, there was no Disney or Nickelodeon and our three channels (at the time) bought B&W movies 'cos they were cheap. Some of the visual imagery and concepts of those really early movies were tremendous and have earned them stern certification in more recent releases.
What is it about modern audiences that are SO turned off by old movies and subtitles? For my own personal tastes, the eighties had it's moments but went down the gore-fest too hard and too fast. We had the video nasty backlash in the UK (and I believe the US too?) yet mostly it was derivative and poorly executed. As seen last decade, there is SO much cashing in on one good idea that it is inevitably watered down by the three or four "homages" or blatant rip-offs. Certainly last decade, more than any other, has shown me how much of Hollywood is just pure commercialism. You can almost hear the bleating as waves of audiences go to the latest disaster movie to watch New York being destroyed again.
Still, I like movies because of the journey they can take me through and the emotions I can enjoy watching them. My sister likes them to be as non-challenging as possible because she doesn't want to think during a movie, just sit back and let the entertainment wash over her. I guess it all depends on how important movies are to you?
What is it about modern audiences that are SO turned off by old movies and subtitles? For my own personal tastes, the eighties had it's moments but went down the gore-fest too hard and too fast. We had the video nasty backlash in the UK (and I believe the US too?) yet mostly it was derivative and poorly executed. As seen last decade, there is SO much cashing in on one good idea that it is inevitably watered down by the three or four "homages" or blatant rip-offs. Certainly last decade, more than any other, has shown me how much of Hollywood is just pure commercialism. You can almost hear the bleating as waves of audiences go to the latest disaster movie to watch New York being destroyed again.
Still, I like movies because of the journey they can take me through and the emotions I can enjoy watching them. My sister likes them to be as non-challenging as possible because she doesn't want to think during a movie, just sit back and let the entertainment wash over her. I guess it all depends on how important movies are to you?
It was my understanding that Lucas' dream was in fact to do a remake of Flash Gordon, but he couldn't because Dino de Laurentiis had already got his hands on the film rights. Also, after having read some of the early drafts of Star Wars, I can actually understand why Lucas' colleagues had some misgivings as to whether or not the film would work. Heck, Fox were having so much trouble getting Star Wars in cinemas that they initially had to resort to block booking (which had been illegal for nearly 30 years) to get it on screens. When you add to that the budget blowouts (a rather large chunk of change was spent on SFX shots that Lucas ended up discarding), and it's kind of a wonder that Star Wars was the big hit that it turned out to be.
Bob's alluding to "really ugly stuff" has piqued my interest. I wonder if he's referring to (among other things) the MPAA's failed attempt to have VCRs outlawed.
Bob's alluding to "really ugly stuff" has piqued my interest. I wonder if he's referring to (among other things) the MPAA's failed attempt to have VCRs outlawed.