Matrix Revolutions

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2003 9:28 pm Post subject: Re: Matrix Revolutions

Thats right, it's all about money nowadays. They make one innovative movie that sells, so they just can't stop. They hire a bunch of b-actors and computer nerds to make stunning visual effects and some really cool trailers (with music from other movies of course Rolling Eyes

). Think about this next time you give away your 5 bucks to see two hours of computer generated effects! It's not like it used to be in the old days when the directors came up with an idea, wrote most of the script themselves and had to put their money into the production. In my opinion, that is the only good guaranty for quality. Wink

Another thing I dont like but notice more and more, is movie remakes. Titanic, Robin Hood, Charlies Angels (Can you believe they had to make TWO new crappy movies?), Ocean's Eleven, Miracle On 34th Street, LOTR, Hamlet, Chicago etc..... Most people I know suddenly have a new favourite movie every time there is a new big release. There's alot of unseen movies out there folks, I suggest you go explore. Wink

_________________
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my disk?

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 3:37 am Post subject: Re: Matrix Revolutions

This never was the norm. The producer would come up with an idea, hire a writer to put it on paper, then hire a director to translate it to film.

The only person from the golden age widely known for putting up his "own" money was Sam Goldwyn. And even he hired a writer and director.

Yes there are exceptions, but they're just that. Exceptions.

As for remakes, even one of your favorite films of all time, Sensei, "A Fistful of Dollars" is a remake of the Akira Kurosawa film "Yojimbo".

To say it "all about the money" is to miss what's really going on.

The root of the problem is not being "all about the money" it's about "playing it safe". As film budgets contnue to rise, execs are becoming more and more cautious (and nervous) about what they're buying. A flop can cost an exec his job, not to mention his company hundreds of millions of dollars (which in turn can costs hundreds of other people their job).

A lot of execs want to "stick with what works". It feels safe. If a film makes a lot of money, make another one! If it flops, you have an excuse, "Hey the first one worked!" It makes sense, but unfortunately sometimes the artists and execs aren't up to the task of making the sequel/remake good. (Although sometimes they are, like X2.) The execs are trying to guarrantee more X2's these days by thinking ahead and contracting actors up front to possible sequels (like Hugh Jackman who was contracted from the start to play Wolverine in the first film, as well as one sequel).

You're right though, money is a large part of it, but it always has been. Entertainment is a business just as much as an art. And businesses are for making profit. Execs, Artists, even the Studios want to make a good product. A good product means everyone's happy!

The problem is, to quote the #1 motto in Hollywood, "Nobody knows nothing."

...and that can scare people.

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 5:22 pm Post subject:

You probably know more about american film than I do, but in many countries in europe it was not uncommon that a production company was established for every movie or for every director. According to my mediaknowledge-book from last year the reason for this was that the already established production companies did not dare to put money into those who were experimenting with filmmaking. So it seems they have always wanted to "stick with what works". Just to make my point in american film, lets use Unforgiven, Space Cowboys, The Bridges of Madison County, Heartbreak Ridge and Absolute Power as examples. In some way or another Clint Eastwood has participated in both the production, direction and musical composition in addition to playing a leading role in the movies. Not one of these movies disappointed me when I first saw them. This is the reason I'm watching Mystic River and not Matrix Revolutions this weekend.

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2003 5:28 pm Post subject:

When it comes to film & television there are two kinds of artists who consider it "JUST AN ART!"

Those who starve to death.

And those who make it their "gimmick".

Hence the battle cry of all low-budget filmmakers, "We're not like those other guys! We're all about the art, man!"

They could practically put it on their poster.

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2003 9:56 pm Post subject:

Are you saying low-budget movies can't be of high quality? I'd rather say it's the other way around; The more money spent on a project the more and better effects, sets, costumes, makeup etc are available which again is used to compensate for poor acting performance and a lousy scipt. E.g. The Blair Witch Project. Low budget, very little effects. Still managed to scare the living shit out of most people. (Dont get me wrong now. I'm not saying this is a high quality movie, just pointing out that a good idea for a movie is more valuable than all the effects in the world)

Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2003 7:46 am Post subject:

It's hard to argue with someone who keeps missing my point.

This argument is about your inaccurate statement that movies are bad because "it's all about money."

Since I've already made my detailed debate earlier in this thread, I'll try to be blunt.

It is idiotic to say films are bad because "it's all about money." Why the hell would a studio think they could make a better profit by making expensive bad films?

The issue is much more complicated than some soundbite like "it's all about money".

The problem is a fear of loss, not greed for profit. Sure, part of the problem is "all about money". But not in the way you're thinking. As an executive it's also a lot about job security for yourself as well as the several hundred who will lose their jobs if you screw up and make a flop.

The problem with argumnets like this is there's always someone who brings up indenpendent films.

Like I said before, "Apples and Oranges."

Maybe you don't know what that means.

It means they're in two different universes.

Independent films play by a whole different set of rules. People outside of making films tend not to realize this.

They're made in completely different ways... both financially and artistically.

The key words being "budget" and "risk".

Even a large scale indendendent film is still made usually for less than a piddily 20 million (yes piddily). The less money you spend, the less risk you have.

The less money you spend, the less tickets you need to sell to break even, which means the less your movie needs to apppeal to a mass adience, which means the more chances you can safely take.

Is any of this sinking in?

Comparing Commercial and Independent films is like comparing 18-Wheel Trucks with Motorcycles.

...With that said, I personally like you asking if I think low-budget movies can't be of high quality.

Well hmm, let's see.... since my own current project is a large scale independent, I suppose that would mean I was saying my own movie sucks, now wouldn't it?

Nowhere did I say independents are by definition bad. Stop inferring things I never said.

...On another note, I think you're in need of a five minute film school lesson.

First off, it's dumb of you to roll your eyes at films using music from different films in their trailers.

This is not out of necessity, not by choice. Trailers are often released before the film have even completed shooting, let alone had it's score composed.

The reason the trailer for Gladiator, used the score from Conan is because Gladiator's score didn't exist yet. This has already been discussed on this forum, and you should know better.

Second, you need to stop using the word "remake" when you mean "adaptation".

Robin Hood, Titanic, LOTR, Hamlet, Charlie's Angels & Chicago are all adaptations of a Legend, Book, Play, Television Show or Historical event.

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves was not based on Errol Flynn's earlier film. They were both based on the original legend and are both adaptations.

Ocean's 11, Miracle and 34'th Street, A Fistful of Dollars or say... Psycho are remakes because they are based entirely on a pre-existing film.

Finally, I'd like to remind you that I have already said that there are "exceptions" to every rule, so you can spare the "But what about this guy!?" types of responses.

As for European films, yes, it is more common for one person to act as producer, director, writer, editor, star in, and even fund. These films, as with A LOT of European films, are Independent, which as we already established are entirely different from commercial films.

By the way, in Europe, this type person who does everything is called an "Auteur"... (Want the Hollywood term? "Hyphenate")

Anyways, I get the feeling you miswrote your opening argument in this thread (which started this whole mess) so I'll try to redo it for you.

Tell me if I'm close. Wink

"The problem with studio films like "Matrix: Revolutions" is there's so much risk involved that the creativity is stifled and we end up with a substandard product. I recommend instead seeing films that are made by an auteur... that is, one person who wrote, directed, produced, composed, acted and perhaps even PAID for the film. Personally I think this is the only way to guarantee good quality."

Is that what you were trying to say? If, so here's my response:

Your statement is jacked from the start because "Matrix: Revolutions" itself was made by an auteur. While they might have let their helpers take credit for a lot of things, the Warchowski Brothers had an unprecedented amount of control on the film. They had final say on everything. Even their bosses had to curtail to them.

So according to your statement, the two matrix sequels should be excellent films, and not the one with all the studio intervention that we saw in the first one.

Accoring to your statement, "Titanic", should also be a great film.

Want another? How about two? "Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones". (Unlike the original three which had plenty of involvement by the studio and other creative personel.)

Want another film like "The Matrix" where where the first one, under tight studio control, was better than the sequel where the director was allowed to do whatever he wanted? "Batman" & "Batman Returns".

I know you're a huge fan of Eastwood, but even some of his recent films have widely been considered doozeys too.

Having films made by Auteurs hardly guarrantees quality. If a film sucked it's not because of "the money" it's because of the people who made it.

Independent, Commercial, Auteur or a room full of suits, regardless of how a film gets made it's always a gamble whether or not it will be and good and only one thing can guarantee it:

That they're made well and tell a great story.

Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2003 3:58 pm Post subject: