It seems to me that the video game industry is facing the same problem. It's all producer driven. If you read any article about what it's like to be a game designer they all mention that they have very minimal input on what game is being made if any. That is why we are seeing nothing but "hardcore" games like safe FPS games, squeals, and sequels of safe fps games. These are the games the producers know will make money not the games that the designers wanted to make. Maybe with game design being taught in college now we will get our own version of "Auteur Theory" and designers who embrace it outside of indie development.
The Bland Side
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Or alternatively, because they're just a fucking idiot. It happens. Occam's Razor still applies.theultimateend said:
How about this:
Could it be time to move away from directors, even, into the next era of film-making; that is, creator-controlled? Films directed by their screenwriters? Writers developing enough nuance as media-age Renaissance-men to make the medium their own? Are we already DOING this?
See:
Clint Eastwood
Wes Anderson
Charlie Kaufman
Spike Jonz
Spike LEE
TARANTINO
M. Night Shyma--hangonItakethatback
George Lu...hmm...
The Wachowski Br...oh...wait...
I'll admit I'm not sure about the legs on this idea, but I'd be interested to hear your two cents.
Could it be time to move away from directors, even, into the next era of film-making; that is, creator-controlled? Films directed by their screenwriters? Writers developing enough nuance as media-age Renaissance-men to make the medium their own? Are we already DOING this?
See:
Clint Eastwood
Wes Anderson
Charlie Kaufman
Spike Jonz
Spike LEE
TARANTINO
M. Night Shyma--hangonItakethatback
George Lu...hmm...
The Wachowski Br...oh...wait...
I'll admit I'm not sure about the legs on this idea, but I'd be interested to hear your two cents.
I'll toss this out there. They actually declared "This will be a great star-vehicle for Julia Roberts!" who in turn then told them "No, it fucking won't." And then they said "I wonder if Sandra Bullock is too old to be in movies..."MovieBob said:
Great article, Moviebob!
God, I suck at this racism-detection thing cause it wasn't till you pointed it out that I noticed how BAD the racism was. Now, looking at it again...ew.
God, I suck at this racism-detection thing cause it wasn't till you pointed it out that I noticed how BAD the racism was. Now, looking at it again...ew.
As long as you are using it correctly. Most people use Occam's Razor incorrectly. It is kind of like the word Irony. Gets abused so much it loses its original meaning.Arcane Azmadi said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_State_%28film%29MovieBob said:In no particular order:
NopeNimbus said:Doesn't happen. Only time it gets close is when the writer has some sort of personal "in" with the director or producer; or when the writer is ALSO the director. "Auteur Theory" was 'invented' in the mid-50s by French film buffs running a news magazine called "Cahiers Du Cinema," and their intent was grounded in the belief that for film to be taken seriously as an art form someone needed to assign a single ultimate author to a film (in the same way that a painting only has one painter, a sculpture has one sculptor, etc.) But it took hold and managed to stick-around because it's essentially true: Most of the time, the vast majority of what "happens" in a film is the on-set decision of a director.
The fact of the matter is, the screenplay is basically the larval state of the movie - even if they don't change a THING in the script, stuff is going to change either while shooting it because "shit happens" or editing it because something doesn't "work" at the end. Perfect example: Steven Spielberg (as producer) optioned Alan Ball's script for American Beauty and famously said "don't change a thing." But once they'd shot the movie, the director (Sam Mendes) later realized that HUGE part of that script - a "framing" story about two characters being framed for murder that took up the original beginning and ending of the movie - just didn't "work." So he cut it all out.
Written, directed, and starred by 1 person.
Like I said, when the writer is ALSO the director is one of the times when it comes closewarbaloon said:
Incidentally, I wanted to jump back in here while this is still an active thread and mention that people should consider going to see "Everybody's Fine." The awful trailers have helped it BOMB in 10th place, but it's a great family drama - exactly the kind of heartwarming, family-is-important tearjerker (certain parts of it DESTROYED me, I'll admit it) that "Blind Side" WANTS to be but fumbles.
Over all the B-side was based in reality. And they try and keep as much of it real (I guess). But because many things in reality are boring, (that is our life) Why should we care about someone else REAL life if it is just as boring. Yes i would think it would be nice if we all were homeless and some how end up become football players and make lots of money for just running over people. Still people go to movies to escape reality. Not get it drummed over there heads.
Learning is good. Well at least for me. As GLaDOS says "Thank of all the things we learned, for the people who are still alive."ben---neb said:
For all the tools who say moviebob is a yahtzee rip-off, I'd refer you to this article, but you'll never read it because it lacks a clever video and/or excessive swearing.
I agree entirely with what you're saying, Bob, I was idly watching TV one day waiting for a TF2 game to load, and I heard that "The Blind Side is the height of Sandra Bullocks's Career" (or something like that) and I just was completely BAFFLED. SHE is the star? What about the guy that the damned story is supposed to be ABOUT? Oh well, at least I know that the movie isn't really worth seeing now, my mother kind of wanted to go see it with me, so I might end up going anyway.
The bottom line is the movie is satisfying. The characters aren't particularly deep, the plot is straight forward, lines are cheesy, conflict is somewhat predictable, but the overall effect is satisfying. Everything that you want to happen, happens. Obviously this isn't going for any pulitzer, but it's just satisfying.
The whole argument about the unnecessary fighting scene and the bad-ass mom that pwns the gangsters is invalid since that's probably what happened in real life. And for a movie that's not about depth at all, obviously if you're looking too deep into it, you're not going to find anything there. Instead of seeing the white vs black conflict, it's a story about a fortunate family helping an unfortunate man. And you can't use that "oh how cliche the whites are rich and the blacks are poor," since that's ACTUALLY what happened. They can't change that part, since that's actually true.
Overall, it's satisfying if you're not going in there looking for a lesson in filmography that tests film theories and color palettes. Go in there just to enjoy a sappy experience, and that's what you'll get.
The whole argument about the unnecessary fighting scene and the bad-ass mom that pwns the gangsters is invalid since that's probably what happened in real life. And for a movie that's not about depth at all, obviously if you're looking too deep into it, you're not going to find anything there. Instead of seeing the white vs black conflict, it's a story about a fortunate family helping an unfortunate man. And you can't use that "oh how cliche the whites are rich and the blacks are poor," since that's ACTUALLY what happened. They can't change that part, since that's actually true.
Overall, it's satisfying if you're not going in there looking for a lesson in filmography that tests film theories and color palettes. Go in there just to enjoy a sappy experience, and that's what you'll get.
The "it happened in real life" defense only holds if what we're watching is a documentary. This isn't - it's a dramatization, where the whole point is to take the general mundanity of "real" events and reshape them into something narrative. It ALSO doesn't defend the scenes in question against being awkward and poorly-performed, thats the fault of the director and actors.ThisNewGuy said:
I guess you have a point, but I gotta say, a movie that stays true to its original source shouldn't really be punished imo. And yes, the scenes were awkward and poorly performed. There are actually more scenes in the movie than the lines that you read that was so cheesy and awkward that it's almost embarrassing. I can't deny that.MovieBob said:
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. The only thing that I thought was SERIOUSLY wrong with transformers were the 3 or 4 immature jokes, such as the blender transformer with a gun protruding from his crotch or the infamous wrecking-ball "scrotum". But these things were so brief and they were far enough in-between that it didn't impact the movie for me at all.The Bandit said:
It seems that non-conformity is what is required these days. If something is a "blockbuster" or otherwise popular in any way, the only way to be "cool" is to hate it and call it trash (ironically, in the quest to be "nonconformist" they just end up conforming to "nonconformity", pause for shock).
I think a part of the problem is the hype. Movies, video games, whatever, they all suffer from "hype". Working for a video game retailer, I once had a customer come in to return Halo 3 the day after it launched saying "This game is shit, its just a copy of Halo 2." ......Duh. Something gets hyped up, or generally gets any sort of serious marketing campaign, the impressionable masses suddenly expect it to be world-shattering in its awesomeness. Transformers 2, as you say, is not an oscar-winner or worthy of any serious recognition as a unique film. What it is is enjoyable, nothing more or less. It isn't great, but it isn't shit, its a passable (albeit long) film.
I don't mean to sound as though Bob isn't entitled to his opinion of the film. I will say that his review of the movie was one of, if not the most down-to-earth reviews I read, and I don't even necessarily disagree with his complaints, but I still enjoy the movie immensely.
Anyway...rant over, now to something on topic.
I don't really mind Sandra Bullock at all. But I was certainly leery when all the ads and tv spots were hailing that the story of Michael Oher was the shining moment of Sandra Bullock's career. I haven't seen the movie and I seriously doubt I'll pay 10 bucks to see it in theaters, but I think that I may enjoy it.
The question of whether or not a film can be criticized when it stays close to its original source is debatable. Sure poor acting, cinematography, and such certainly CAN. But I also think that Bob hit the nail on the head when he said:
This is supposed to be entertainment, and as he also stated in "The Road" review, there are some things entertaining in a book, that don't work on camera. Sometimes the movie has to "spice up" real life in order to entertain an audience. Making a film based on other media is a tricky thing where you have to carefully balance what was interesting and memorable about the source while editing or cutting certain things that just don't look good in a film. If you change too much of the source, you risk alienating the primary audience. If you stick too close to it, however, you risk making a movie that doesn't work for one reason or another.
