What went wrong?

Seanachai

I went to see 'Terminator Genisys' the other night and while I wasn't getting my hopes up too much based on the look of the trailer, I have to say I was really disappointed. I have been disappointed with sci-fi\action films in general for a while. I like the franchise and the story-line and T2 is one of my favourite films, opinion on the film is divided on the Genisys thread so I'm not alone in feeling let down by the way these films are being made lately.

I did some film studies in college and I'm a bit of a movie buff but I don't know enough about the industry to know what is going on with the studios. It seems like the magic and charm of the movies that existed up to the 90's has just disappeared. I have a friend who has done some film acting and is also disillusioned with film in the past ten years or so.

Maybe there's a new set of people after moving into movie production that just want to churn out films with the same lame looking cgi effects and dodgy scripts like a conveyor belt?. Maybe somebody on here who has some insight into the industry can explain it?.

BoJack Horseman

The bar is just much lower.

The world is richer than it was a generation ago.
Cinema goers can afford more frequent visits.

Studios don't have to be excellent to be financially successful.

ricero

My take of it is that the big Hollywood film studies are afraid to be adventurous as they all fear losing money. Also audiences in general I feel have become easier to please.

Tefral

Seanachai wrote: »

I went to see 'Terminator Genisys' the other night and while I wasn't getting my hopes up too much based on the look of the trailer, I have to say I was really disappointed. I have been disappointed with sci-fi\action films in general for a while. I like the franchise and the story-line and T2 is one of my favourite films, opinion on the film is divided on the Genisys thread so I'm not alone in feeling let down by the way these films are being made lately.

I did some film studies in college and I'm a bit of a movie buff but I don't know enough about the industry to know what is going on with the studios. It seems like the magic and charm of the movies that existed up to the 90's has just disappeared. I have a friend who has done some film acting and is also disillusioned with film in the past ten years or so.

Maybe there's a new set of people after moving into movie production that just want to churn out films with the same lame looking cgi effects and dodgy scripts like a conveyor belt?. Maybe somebody on here who has some insight into the industry can explain it?.

There seems to be an inverse relationship between the quality of TV Series and the quality of Movies. You see big name actors now in TV series and they are brilliant.

The problem I think is they cant write any original stories anymore, its all generic to appeal to the masses. Everything is PG-13 or max 15's to allow as many bums on seats as possible.

One of my favorite films over the last few years was Dredd. A violent 18s movie, yet it bombed at the box office due to crap marketing etc.

Id say risk assessments are done on films and unless the studios can make multiples of their money back it wont get greenlit, so they try mitigate the risk by appealing to as many people as possible. Which ultimately pleases no-one.

johnny_ultimate

Hollywood is an industry. They are churning out products for mass market consumption. Occasionally some cheeky art slips in there, but it's purely accidental. The market has shown it doesn't care.

But film is alive and kicking, as much or more so than it ever was. If one is fed up with the Hollywood product, here's the simple solution: dig deeper. Modern cinema is an incredibly diverse, exciting scene. One doesn't need to even look that far. Filmmakers like Wes Anderson, Spike Jonze, Steve McQueen, Alfonso Cauron, Richard Linklater, PT Anderson, Sofia Coppolla, David Fincher, Kathryn Bieglow etc... are working in the suburbs of the mainstream. Dive into the indie and world scenes and the list of wonderful filmmakers explodes exponentially. While they don't always make the multiplexes, digital means you can set your own watchlist.

Be an active viewer. Don't let Hollywood dictate the rules or what you watch. The cinema scene is alive with invention, talent and ambition.

Seanachai

cronin_j wrote: »

There seems to be an inverse relationship between the quality of TV Series and the quality of Movies. You see big name actors now in TV series and they are brilliant.

The problem I think is they cant write any original stories anymore, its all generic to appeal to the masses. Everything is PG-13 or max 15's to allow as many bums on seats as possible.

One of my favorite films over the last few years was Dredd. A violent 18s movie, yet it bombed at the box office due to crap marketing etc.

Id say risk assessments are done on films and unless the studios can make multiples of their money back it wont get greenlit, so they try mitigate the risk by appealing to as many people as possible. Which ultimately pleases no-one.

It's a great loss because while there has been some great TV lately it doesn't compare to that magic of seeing a good movie on the big screen. I think you're right in saying that they are appealing to too broad of an audience and unfortunately a lot of these people were raised on social media and have awful attention spans. It would certainly explain the rapid, flashy pace of a lot of what's out there.

Seanachai

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Hollywood is an industry. They are churning out products for mass market consumption. Occasionally some cheeky art slips in there, but it's purely accidental. The market has shown it doesn't care.

But film is alive and kicking, as much or more so that it ever was. If one is fed up with the Hollywood product, here's the simple solution: dig deeper. Modern cinema is an incredibly diverse, exciting scene. One doesn't need to even look that far. Filmmakers like Wes Anderson, Spike Jonze, PT Anderson, Sofia Coppolla, David Fincher, Kathryn Bieglow etc... are working in the suburbs of the mainstream. Dive into the indie and world scenes and the list of wonderful filmmakers explodes exponentially. While they don't always make the multiplexes, digital means you can set your own watchlist.

Be an active viewer. Don't let Hollywood dictate the rules or what you watch. The cinema scene is alive with invention, talent and ambition.

I was referring to mainstream action\scifi more so than the indie side of things but I get what you're saying, I like my sci-fi and would love to see a decent sequel to T2 with actors that have some grit, a decent script and restraint shown on the special effects. There is some great drama out there for sure if you dig a little deeper.

johnny_ultimate

Seanachai wrote: »

I get what you're saying but I like my sci-fi and would love to see a decent sequel to T2 with actors that have some grit, a decent script and restraint shown on the special effects. There is some great drama out there for sure if you dig a little deeper.

Plenty of great everything if you dig a little deeper, not just drama! In sci-fi terms alone, what of stuff like Ex Machina, Snowpiercer, Wall-E, Mad Max: Fury Road, Under the Skin, Primer, The Congress, Looper, Inception, Paprika, the Evangelion films, Dredd, Cloud Atlas, Hard to Be a God, District 9, Children of Men, Gravity, Moon, Sunshine, Attack the Block, The Host, Her etc... etc... Again, many of those were very high-profile releases.

I would confidently state there is an absolute abundance of material out there for almost every possible taste.

Seanachai

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Plenty of great everything if you dig a little deeper, not just drama! In sci-fi terms alone, what of stuff like Ex Machina, Snowpiercer, Wall-E, Mad Max: Fury Road, Under the Skin, Primer, The Congress, Looper, Inception, Paprika, the Evangelion films, Dredd, Cloud Atlas, Hard to Be a God, District 9, Children of Men, Gravity, Moon, Sunshine, Attack the Block, The Host, Her etc... etc... Again, many of those were very high-profile releases.

I would confidently state there is an absolute abundance of material out there for almost every possible taste.

I didn't like Mad Max Fury Road or Dredd tbh, Children Of Men was pretty good though, I know I sound like a complete contrarian but I think they've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. I miss the blockbusters that also had some depth to them, I still think mainstream sci-fi\action cinema has become really dumb and cheap. I'll have to check Snowpiercer out.

Fysh

Seanachai wrote: »

I didn't like Mad Max Fury Road or Dredd tbh, Children Of Men was pretty good though, I know I sound like a complete contrarian but I think they've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. I miss the blockbusters that also had some depth to them, I still think mainstream sci-fi\action cinema has become really dumb and cheap. I'll have to check Snowpiercer out.

I'm not convinced there was ever a time when sci-fi/action films as a rule weren't kind of dumb and a bit cheap - for every Alien or Aliens there are plenty of Starship Troopers, Dooms and so on.

Bacchus

Fysh wrote: »

I'm not convinced there was ever a time when sci-fi/action films as a rule weren't kind of dumb and a bit cheap - for every Alien or Aliens there are plenty of Starship Troopers, Dooms and so on.

Starship Troopers is neither dumb nor cheap. It's sequels may have been but the original was not.

Doom was so dumb though. So so dumb.

As for the OP's question, as has been alluded to already, it's just cheaper to slap movies together these days that have broad appeal to an audience that can afford to go to many movies over the course of the year. I think there is still plenty of good movies being made today but there has been an influx of sequels and reboots that are probably seen as "easy money" by Hollywood.

Mickeroo

I think nostalgia and rose tinted glasses has a lot to do with this kind of thing. There's definitely some truth to it but if you look at T2 for example, it is a lot less dark, more "fun" and was clearly made to have a broader appeal than the original movie too. The first film was low budget surprise hit that the studio didn't give a toss about initially, now the franchise is seen as a tentpole blockbuster, every film since the first has been modified to profit on that while trying to use its reputation to appeal to a wider audience including T2.

I'm not saying Genesys is good (ain't seen it yet) but you're not comparing like with like when it's compared to the original film.

johnny_ultimate

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think nostalgia and rose tinted glasses has a lot to do with this kind of thing. There's definitely some truth to it but if you look at T2 for example, it is a lot less dark, more "fun" and was clearly made to have a broader appeal than the original movie too. The first film was low budget surprise hit that the studio didn't give a toss about initially, now the franchise is seen as a tentpole blockbuster, every film since the first has been modified to profit on that while trying to use its reputation to appeal to a wider audience including T2.

I'd argue the very same point about Aliens, TBH - bit of a trend with Cameron I certainly wouldn't consider either among the sphere of cinema's great deep, intellectually provocative science fiction classics - not that they don't have their own pleasures, of course.

Ash.J.Williams

terminator- rated 18s
terminator genisys - rated 12a


i would imagine that alone is a major reason for the decline in quality.

Over use of effects has sucked out the life from sci fi for me.....i was watching some 80's sci fi recently and felt more effort went into the effects and more work and it benefited the movie better than having every second in CGI.

Mickeroo

Terminator 2 took an age ratings drop too and more importantly a budget increase.

Tefral

Seanachai wrote: »

It's a great loss because while there has been some great TV lately it doesn't compare to that magic of seeing a good movie on the big screen. I think you're right in saying that they are appealing to too broad of an audience and unfortunately a lot of these people were raised on social media and have awful attention spans. It would certainly explain the rapid, flashy pace of a lot of what's out there.

True,

I have to say the last time I was blown away in the Cinema was when Avatar came out in 3d. Sure the story line was a bit ****, but my god, if there was ever a movie made for a Cinema Screen that was it.

Seanachai

Fysh wrote: »

I'm not convinced there was ever a time when sci-fi/action films as a rule weren't kind of dumb and a bit cheap - for every Alien or Aliens there are plenty of Starship Troopers, Dooms and so on.

There was some turkeys, although Starship Troopers is a great social satire, but why did they have to make such a b**ls of the latest Terminator and Mad Max?. Looking at the casting and the trailer for Star Wars also it's not looking good.

Agricola

Yeah, the PG-13 rating says it all. It's all about mining that lucrative teen audience nowadays. Plus that audience actually has cash on the hip now where in previous generations it never had. When I was a kid, cinema trips were a rare treat. Now the cinemas are packed with teenagers as there is a lot more disposable income floating around. The hollywood industry is forever trying to tap into that.

CGI has made studios and film makers lazy. They have seen with all these superhero films that if they throw money at CGI they get a return, so thats what they do. Strong narratives arent as important.

The parallels with the music industry are interesting. Where once original ideas were championed and backed by the money men, now they rely on a formula which in the case of music involves simple catchy tunes sung by photogenic popstars with the asistance of a gaggle of producers and in the case of films, mainly spandex and CGI!

Seanachai

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

terminator- rated 18s
terminator genisys - rated 12a


i would imagine that alone is a major reason for the decline in quality.

Over use of effects has sucked out the life from sci fi for me.....i was watching some 80's sci fi recently and felt more effort went into the effects and more work and it benefited the movie better than having every second in CGI.

100 % agree with you on the cgi, a lot of films are looking like the intros to computer games. It's not just a question of looking through rose tinted glasses, it's that the older effects just looked better imo, esp the animatronics.

Fysh

Bacchus wrote: »

Starship Troopers is neither dumb nor cheap. It's sequels may have been but the original was not.

Seanachai wrote: »

There was some turkeys, although Starship Troopers is a great social satire, but why did they have to make such a b**ls of the latest Terminator and Mad Max?. Looking at the casting and the trailer for Star Wars also it's not looking good.

Maybe not cheap, but having seen it twice Starship Troopers still scores as resolutely dumb for me. Dumb on purpose is still dumb, and for me the fascism allegory fell completely flat, with the visual references not being able to come close to pulling it back. I know there are a fair number of folks around here who see it differently, which is fair enough, but to lots of folks it's a high profile "Big and dumb" film whose superficial dumbness exemplifies what scifi/action is.

OTOH, I thought Fury Road was excellent, and exemplified as close to a sort of auteur blockbuster as I can imagine being possible. The last time I remember a cinema screening being such a viscerally great experience (and good enough for me to want to watch the film at the cinema again) was when I went to see The Raid.

johnny_ultimate

You're in a minority with Fury Road there - a quick look at the thread on it here or the professional reviews and there's little doubt it has been received as an uncommonly brave, bold and unhinged blockbuster.

Agricola

Seanachai wrote: »

100 % agree with you on the cgi, a lot of films are looking like the intros to computer games. It's not just a question of looking through rose tinted glasses, it's that the older effects just looked better imo, esp the animatronics.

Yeah Jurassic Park is a great example of that. The combined use of practical and CG effects made that film. Same with the Lord of The Rings trilogy. So much money was pumped into prosthetics, makeup, models of buildings/cities, it brought middle earth to life. By contrast, the Hobbit is just a CG explosion and it loses all sense of realism. You just know its actors in front of green screens.

Mickeroo

Agricola wrote: »

The parallels with the music industry are interesting. Where once original ideas were championed and backed by the money men, now they rely on a formula which in the case of music involves simple catchy tunes sung by photogenic popstars with the asistance of a gaggle of producers and in the case of films, mainly spandex and CGI!

That's a complete myth both for film and music, that's always been the case with the mainstream in both mediums. Terminator and Mad Max were never backed by the money men until their sequels due to them being surprise hits. Chart music has always been dominated by manufactured popstars singing catchy tunes. Westerns and War Movies were churned out endlessly when they were popular too.

Harry Palmr

China and Russia are the culprits! These are markets which only troop out to see Hollywood product if its easy to understand - ie lots of explosions and car chases. The squeezed middle is a phrase that can be applied to the film industry. Once the studios mainly made films that could be classed as medium sized, over the last 20 years they have gradually been removed from the production slate in favour of all or nothing productions. Of course it hard to be medium anything if your stars won't sign on for less than 20m dollars.

Ash.J.Williams

Seanachai wrote: »

100 % agree with you on the cgi, a lot of films are looking like the intros to computer games. It's not just a question of looking through rose tinted glasses, it's that the older effects just looked better imo, esp the animatronics.

bring back harryhausen!!

Agricola

Mickeroo wrote: »

That's a complete myth both for film and music, that's always been the case with the mainstream in both mediums. Terminator and Mad Max were never backed by the money men until their sequels due to them being surprise hits. Chart music has always been dominated by manufactured popstars singing catchy tunes. Westerns and War Movies were churned out endlessly when they were popular too.

Well by virtue of the fact someone had to hand James Cameron a few million dollars to make the film and it made it to cinemas worldwide, I would class that as backing it.
As Johnny mentioned there, people who are now looking for new ideas are having to explore online and dig into the indie scene. These films arent making the cineplexes anymore as they are drowned out with endless superhero dirge.

Similarly in music, record labels used to actually invest in bands once upon a time who would often go on to become huge in the charts. Now its wall to wall manufactured rubbish and people with zero artistic merit. Pop was always Pop, but it wasnt always shít.

Ash.J.Williams

Mickeroo wrote: »

That's a complete myth both for film and music, that's always been the case with the mainstream in both mediums. Terminator and Mad Max were never backed by the money men until their sequels due to them being surprise hits. Chart music has always been dominated by manufactured popstars singing catchy tunes. Westerns and War Movies were churned out endlessly when they were popular too.

No i do think the music end of things has gotten worse, but i do agree with you...just look back at music shows from the 70's (ie whole shows not just the best bits) and there was an awful lot of crap!!

Mickeroo

Agricola wrote: »

Well by virtue of the fact someone had to hand James Cameron a few million dollars to make the film and it made it to cinemas worldwide, I would class that as backing it.
As Johnny mentioned there, people who are now looking for new ideas are having to explore online and dig into the indie scene. These films arent making the cineplexes anymore as they are drowned out with endless superhero dirge.

Similarly in music, record labels used to actually invest in bands once upon a time who would often go on to become huge in the charts. Now its wall to wall manufactured rubbish and people with zero artistic merit. Pop was always Pop, but it wasnt always shít.

Record labels have always only invested in what's popular at the time(grunge, techno, hair metal, classic rock, disco etc) and we remember the bands or musicians from that group that happened to be good, and folks who are older than the target audience have always thought it was mostly crap at any given time too. Someone will be making the same arguments as you in 20 years time lamenting how good music was back in 2015.

The Terminator was essentially an indie movie by the way.

Seanachai

Harry Palmr wrote: »

China and Russia are the culprits! These are markets which only troop out to see Hollywood product if its easy to understand - ie lots of explosions and car chases. The squeezed middle is a phrase that can be applied to the film industry. Once the studios mainly made films that could be classed as medium sized, over the last 20 years they have gradually been removed from the production slate in favour of all or nothing productions. Of course it hard to be medium anything if your stars won't sign on for less than 20m dollars.

So they're using up all the chocolate AND ruining the quality of films, the noodle-munching blaggards!

Mickeroo

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

No i do think the music end of things has gotten worse, but i do agree with you...just look back at music shows from the 70's (ie whole shows not just the best bits) and there was an awful lot of crap!!

Don't get me wrong, i think most of the stuff in the charts today is crap too

syklops

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

terminator- rated 18s
terminator genisys - rated 12a


i would imagine that alone is a major reason for the decline in quality.

I came to this thread to post exactly this.