 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Movies that COULD NOT be made today?...... posted by Mrs. Piggy on November 09, 2002 at 08:36:19:
I'm thinking less PC and more economics 101, plus the general dumbing down of...everything.Now that bean counters control studios, I think most of the breakthrough films of the 70's would never be made today - too risky. Unless a film opens big, studios don't want the "product" - what an awful word to desscribe a work of art, but Hollywood films aren't generally about ideas or passion for the medium, they're about the bottom line. Focus groups. Tie-ins. What's that you say - independent film? The major studios either own or disribute 90% of the independent, art and foreign films in USA.
I doubt Taxi Driver, Nashville, et al would get greenlit today.
Follow Ups:
They are spending more than ever on major studio films today, and studios have always strove to meet the desires of a mass audience to see their returns...
Have you seen the party recently...I doubt any but the most adventuresome risk taking indie producer/director would touch that film with a ten foot pole!
Gone with the Wind would be a completely different film if made today (maybe it would be more interesting!). Mildred Pierce probably would not be made today....hmm it might be a combination of factors but PC is definately one of them.mc
......a remake of "Gone With The Wind"?"Frankly my dear, I don't give a fuck!"
Best Regards,
Chris Redmond.
.
.
that is exactly why they are in the business....they don't do it because they have some sort of moral obligation to fund artistic endevours! That really hasn't changed much. Do you think Goldwyn or Metro cared about artistic creativity? They had movie making machines. What I posed was films that would cause a furvor today because of our new PC constraints. Also another problem is historic inaccuracies because of the same problem.Another example, shirly Temple movies, much loved and revered, would never be made today.
mp
A very interesting read that documents the classic era of American filmmaking that spanned the late '60's through the late '70's. Many great stories and insights on the rise (and fall) of the industry and the people who worked within it.
Bryan K.,
Music Lover & President-elect of C.C.A.C. (Concerned Citizens Against Cilantro)
...the old studio heads did have a passion for making movies, and they cared about quality. Even within limitations, there were some very heavy hitting artists at work within the old studio systems, and some of the intent got through to the screen.
educated. They assumed the audience would want to see a higher quality picture. They assumed the audience would want to see what they would want to see. And subsequently the world recieved a much higher quality of product in the past, generally speaking. The difference today is the overuse and abuse of the science of focus groups. Now studio heads rely on focus groups to determine if pictures should get made, and how they should be made.The studio exects are JUST as interested in money today as they were yesterday. I still claim that hasn't changed much. Many women actors claim that Goldwyn set them up with doctors who prescribed them amph. to lose weight? He didn't care about their health. They also bought and sold their contracts like cattle. They were money making machines, NOT patrons of the art.
Youy wanna real cause for the demise of the quality studio picture?
Your answer: FOCUS GROUPSmp
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
