NOLD 90 Movie Mistake

**darth los** · 11-Jun-2009

Originally Posted by bassman

Before I say this....let me just say that I agree with you guys on the short attention span thing.

But there is also a place for some more straight-forward action films. I love to think during movies, but I sometimes also enjoy an action flick where I can slow down the ol' noggin and enjoy the visuals. And these kinds of flicks aren't anything new if you think about it....

There's a place for everything and everything in it's place.

But nowdays it seems like EVERY movie is the sort where people say, "Well if you just turn your brain off you'll enjoy it." Fuck That. I need more from my movies.

Great, Legendary directors Like Kubrick and Ridley Scott wouldn't last 5 minutes as directors today using the same style that made them legends. That's the sad part.

I guess GAr falls into that catagory as well.

**bassman** · 11-Jun-2009

Originally Posted by darth los

Great, Legendary directors Like Kubrick and Ridley Scott wouldn't last 5 minutes as directors today using the same style that made them legends. That's the sad part.

Well obviously Kubrick is dead, but Ridley Scott is still making good films and lasting just fine. There are plenty "thinking" directors out there, if you ask me. But unfortunately you're right....they do seem to make fewer films while McG, Ratner, Boll and the like are churning them out every month or so...

**Trin** · 11-Jun-2009

Technology has been an enabler of the plot-less wonderland. It's easy to make high-budget special effects blockbusters now. Moreso than ever. And with the returns on investment it's alluring too. Who wants to take a chance on a plot driven character movie that *might* resonate with viewers when a special-effects blockbuster will make a fortune even if it gets bad reviews?

I see both sides. Yes, action-oriented flicks have their place. No, that place is not dominating a large (and ever growing) percent of the market.

GAR is his own unique kind of problem. I believe that many moviegoers were hungry for a change back to plot and character driven storylines when Land came out and they looked to GAR and Land to show the movie industry what a master can do. I fully believe that GAR is capable of blending the storytelling of old with some touches of new technology to come up with something truly staggering. I think he just missed the mark with Land... errr... and Diary.

**darth los** · 17-Jun-2009

Originally Posted by Trin

Technology has been an enabler of the plot-less wonderland. It's easy to make high-budget special effects blockbusters now. Moreso than ever. And with the returns on investment it's alluring too. Who wants to take a chance on a plot driven character movie that *might* resonate with viewers when a special-effects blockbuster will make a fortune even if it gets bad reviews?

I see both sides. Yes, action-oriented flicks have their place. No, that place is not dominating a large (and ever growing) percent of the market.

GAR is his own unique kind of problem. I believe that many moviegoers were hungry for a change back to plot and character driven storylines when Land came out and they looked to GAR and Land to show the movie industry what a master can do. I fully believe that GAR is capable of blending the storytelling of old with some touches of new technology to come up with something truly staggering. I think he just missed the mark with Land... errr... and Diary.

Well, it's been my experience in life that people will work only as hard as they have to. The saying "nescesity is the mother of invention" is probably the truest statement ever uttered.

So when a movie practically makes itself movie makers don't feel the need to think much and it shows in their product.

**shootemindehead** · 17-Jun-2009

Originally Posted by darth los

Great, Legendary directors Like Kubrick and Ridley Scott wouldn't last 5 minutes as directors today using the same style that made them legends. That's the sad part.

Very true. Can you imagine 'Alien' being made today? Not a chance.

**darth los** · 19-Jun-2009

Originally Posted by shootemindehead

Very true. Can you imagine 'Alien' being made today? Not a chance.

That was my point earlier that I think Bassman took a little differently. I'm sure Scott is involved with plenty of projects but can ya name any? Me neither.

**Trin** · 22-Jun-2009

Originally Posted by darth los

Well, it's been my experience in life that people will work only as hard as they have to.

I think this is true for anyone looking to earn a paycheck. For someone looking to express themselves and take pride in their work I think people will work pretty darned hard. Those people may not have the same opportunities today as they did 40 years ago. And there may not be as many of those people around either since breaking into movie making is so hard now.

Movie making is an industry now, scaled for profit. You can't just make a movie and take a risk and hope people will like it. You have to make movies that have guaranteed return on investment. If you find a formula that works you crank them out in droves.

The harsh reality is that 10 movies of satisfactory enjoyment will net more money than 1 really outstanding movie.

**darth los** · 22-Jun-2009

Originally Posted by Trin

I think this is true for anyone looking to earn a paycheck. For someone looking to express themselves and take pride in their work I think people will work pretty darned hard. Those people may not have the same opportunities today as they did 40 years ago. And there may not be as many of those people around either since breaking into movie making is so hard now.

Movie making is an industry now, scaled for profit. You can't just make a movie and take a risk and hope people will like it. You have to make movies that have guaranteed return on investment. If you find a formula that works you crank them out in droves.

The harsh reality is that 10 movies of satisfactory enjoyment will net more money than 1 really outstanding movie.

Well said friend. There's nothing much I can add to that.

Sadly though. It's too true.

**bassman** · 24-Jun-2009

Originally Posted by Trin

The harsh reality is that 10 movies of satisfactory enjoyment will net more money than 1 really outstanding movie.

Too true. But at least now with DVD being such a big market, sometimes the great films that didn't do too well in theater get good word of mouth and sale well on DVD....

**darth los** · 24-Jun-2009

Originally Posted by bassman

Too true. But at least now with DVD being such a big market, sometimes the great films that didn't do too well in theater get good word of mouth and sale well on DVD....

So I guess there are pros and cons to everything. But it seems as if most straight to dvd offerings are far from classic. And the fact that they are low budget "labors of love" is not reflected in terms of the quality of these releases.

**bassman** · 24-Jun-2009

I'm back tracking a bit here, but you asked if anyone could name any good *new* Ridley Scott films. American Gangster was Great, imo.

Black Hawk Down and Gladiator weren't too shabby, either...

**darth los** · 24-Jun-2009

Originally Posted by bassman

I'm back tracking a bit here, but you asked if anyone could name any good *new* Ridley Scott films. American Gangster was Great, imo.

Black Hawk Down and Gladiator weren't too shabby, either...

I didn't know about Black Hawk down but the other 2 are a couple of my favs.

**EvilNed** · 01-Jul-2009

I hated American Gangster, but loved Gladiator. But Ridley Scott IS kinda of a hit-and-miss guy. Sometimes he just makes bland, boring films. Sometimes he makes masterpieces.

**darth los** · 01-Jul-2009

Originally Posted by EvilNed

I hated American Gangster, but loved Gladiator. But Ridley Scott IS kinda of a hit-and-miss guy. Sometimes he just makes bland, boring films. Sometimes he makes masterpieces.

I think the same can be said for every film maker. What is GAr's hit/miss ratio again?

Exactly.