The Soulless 'Blockbusters'

[LegacyCosts]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

If I didn't have MoviePass, I wouldn't bother with much of the multiplex fare out there.

Moviepass eh? What does that entail

[cinemaphile]

Originally Posted by LegacyCosts

Moviepass eh? What does that entail

like $30-$40 per month (plus a $25 membership fee) to see all the movies you want (1 per day).

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by LegacyCosts

However, I am so bored of superhero films at this point, I'll probably stop seeing them after x-men. I didn't bother with superman, looked like balls.

I'm not bored with superhero movies if they're done RIGHT--
The problem is, Warner never does do them "right": At the back of its mind lie fears installed by their own Cartoon Network school-bullying of 70's Superfriends, and now they start to get stage fright and cold feet at the very mention of Green Lantern or Aquaman.
(Although they did actually manage to reconcile themselves with a print-comic friendly version of the Wonder Twins, in one episode of Smallville....And even then, they were portrayed as comic annoyances.)

So, Superman and Batman must be "Re-interpreted", to try and raise their own bars set by Tim Burton, Richard Donner and The Highbrow Guy Who Hates Comics, and each incarnation of DC must be more "unique" than the last....Or, maybe they've just told us the Krypton and Gotham origins too many danged times.
OTOH, we know absolutely nothing about Thor or Captain America's origins, so (even if Thor 2 has almost nothing new to say) Disney/Marvel can go in, keep themselves reasonably sacred to canon, and approximate the same appeal the characters had for comic readers...Unless, of course, they try to "deconstruct" the hero like they did with IM3.

But it was not so much Man of Steel that taught us this year's lesson about summer blockbusters, as The Lone Ranger:
Shaddup and tell the story WE know, nobody's interested in your being a danged showoff.

[duggie walker]

The decline in quality of these films is because they've become part of the studios economic "tentpole" strategies. Because they're so expensive, and so much rides on them, the studios micro-manage the product and become very risk-averse in terms of content.

There's really one key to a good blockbuster and that's a good screenplay. Hire a good writer and give them some creative freedom. Studios now tend to pick "bankable" screenwriters ie screenwriters who've written films that have made money which is no guarantee of quality. They value a screenwriter who is malleable and will hit deadlines more than one with exceptional ability. Once they have the screenplay, they ( and not only th eproducers; the director and oftentimes the "star") begin to mess around with it, sometimes to the good, often to the bad. The best blockbusters of recent times, I think you'll find, will be the ones where they've allowed the writer a reasonable degree of creative freedom (or the director has protected the screenplay from interference, often because they've co-written them).

The solution is simple: Trust the primary creatives and get out of the way. It won't always lead to a great movie but it will up the chances considerably.

[toddly6666]

Rush is an example of an old school 80s or 90s soulful blockbuster - had it been released then, it would have made tons more money. It's such a shame that this film is not as big as it could have been.

[chris_sc77]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Rush is an example of an old school 80s or 90s soulful blockbuster - had it been released then, it would have made tons more money. It's such a shame that this film is not as big as it could have been.

It did not help that it had an awful cast.
Only someone like Leonardo DiCaprio orBrad Pitt could have opened that movie.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

It did not help that it had an awful cast.
Only someone like Leonardo DiCaprio orBrad Pitt could have opened that movie.

awful or do you mean not as well-known? The acting was excellent.

[chris_sc77]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

awful or do you mean not as well-known? The acting was excellent.

I am sure the acting was good but no one is going to pay to see those actors they cast. They are not draws.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

I am sure the acting was good but no one is going to pay to see those actors they cast. They are not draws.

well yeah, that's true. I love chris Hemsworth and think he's one of the most charasmatic, larger-than-life young stars, but im just afraid he wont become a huge star outside of Thor.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by EricJ

The problem is, Warner never does do them "right":...

I can't keep up with all the revisions to history. Is our current story now that we hated Batman Begins all along?

Cause I think I missed that memo. Or mail. Oh, wait, was it a tweet? That would explain it, actually.

I did the get the one about us changing our minds and deciding we actually hated The Dark Knight all along. I laughed and then ignored it but at least I received it.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Again, he was using a Dark Knight quote in a thread about "What went wrong with Man of Steel?", and the answer should have been self-evident from that:

Although I shouldn't indulge your lengthy blather that often misses the point...

I included the aforementioned quote from The Dark Knight because it was the first quip that came to mind after writing how I'd like to (figuratively) watch the Hollywood studios go down in flames. In short, it was a joke that had no hidden meaning or ulterior motive.

Originally Posted by octagon

I can't keep up with all the revisions to history. Is our current story now that we hated Batman Begins all along?

Cause I think I missed that memo. Or mail. Oh, wait, was it a tweet? That would explain it, actually.

I did the get the one about us changing our minds and deciding we actually hated The Dark Knight all along. I laughed and then ignored it but at least I received it.

My thoughts exactly.

[cinemaphile]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

well yeah, that's true. I love chris Hemsworth and think he's one of the most charasmatic, larger-than-life young stars, but im just afraid he wont become a huge star outside of Thor.

I actually think he is one of the current stars that IS going to break out big. If Spielberg ever gets Robopocalypse off the ground that will really help.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Pacific Rim is not soulless. It's a love note to Kaiju films and Kaiju fans couldn't be happier with the result...

[Buscemi]

The problem with Pacific Rim is that it's not any different that the 347 or so alien/monster movies that have come out since Transformers. What should have been a parody of the cliche military vs. aliens premise (preferably directed by Stephen Sommers) ended up being another retread of the premise.

[Nerdkiller likes BD]

Originally Posted by Buscemi

The problem with Pacific Rim is that it's not any different that the 347 or so alien/monster movies that have come out since Transformers. What should have been a parody of the cliche military vs. aliens premise (preferably directed by Stephen Sommers) ended up being another retread of the premise.

What's different about Pacific Rim and Transformers is that one was a movie in which the director wanted to see a vision realised. A vision that was inspired mainly by Japanese Kaiju films and partly by Power Rangers and other Japanese shows that involve mecha to duke it out with monsters. The other is basically lining the pockets for both Paramount and Hasbro by making a multi billion dollar blockbuster and used as a two and a half hour long toy commercial. It's about as souless as The Amazing Spiderman would be later on.

Yeah. I hated ASM. BRING IT AWWWWWN!

[Buscemi]

Originally Posted by Nerdkiller likes BD

What's different about Pacific Rim and Transformers is that one was a movie in which the director wanted to see a vision realised. A vision that was inspired mainly by Japanese Kaiju films and partly by Power Rangers and other Japanese shows that involve mecha to duke it out with monsters. The other is basically lining the pockets for both Paramount and Hasbro by making a multi billion dollar blockbuster and used as a two and a half hour long toy commercial. It's about as souless as The Amazing Spiderman would be later on.

Yeah. I hated ASM. BRING IT AWWWWWN!

But you could say the same about Battle: Los Angeles (which was also another cliche premise).

The thing with del Toro is that he promises a lot of better ideas (Hellboy III, At the Mountains of Madness, Pinocchio with Frankenweenie's animation team) and instead of doing the better ideas, he gives us an ultra-serious alien/monster movie that only appeals to a few people (and even though the film lost millions, he still expects to make a sequel) and turns out to be like the rest of the recent alien/monster movies.

In relation to the budget, why did this need to cost $190 million (plus another $100 million or so to market)? There's hardly a market for it outside of twelve year-old boys and the American otaku crowd and the movies that del Toro is doing a homage to didn't even cost a hundredth of that. Now, I know how people complained about how Grindhouse cost $65 million when it was a homage to cheap 1970's B-movies but that had five directors, lots of name actors and essentially two products to sell. This film was the product of one filmmaker, actors who are mostly based in television and close to three times the budget. So why did Rodriguez and Tarantino get so much blame but del Toro gets a free pass?

[Nerdkiller likes BD]

Originally Posted by Buscemi

But you could say the same about Battle: Los Angeles (which was also another cliche premise).

The thing with del Toro is that he promises a lot of better ideas (Hellboy III, At the Mountains of Madness, Pinocchio with Frankenweenie's animation team) and instead of doing the better ideas, he gives us an ultra-serious alien/monster movie that only appeals to a few people (and even though the film lost millions, he still expects to make a sequel) and turns out to be like the rest of the recent alien/monster movies.

In relation to the budget, why did this need to cost $190 million (plus another $100 million or so to market)? There's hardly a market for it outside of twelve year-old boys and the American otaku crowd and the movies that del Toro is doing a homage to didn't even cost a hundredth of that. Now, I know how people complained about how Grindhouse cost $65 million when it was a homage to cheap 1970's B-movies but that had five directors, lots of name actors and essentially two products to sell. This film was the product of one filmmaker, actors who are mostly based in television and close to three times the budget. So why did Rodriguez and Tarantino get so much blame but del Toro gets a free pass?

People were raggin' on Grindhouse? Admittedly, I haven't seen the movie, but this is the first I've heard of it.

Getting back to what you said, Del Toro is having difficulty financing Mountains of Madness as it is. From what I heard, Universal won't finance the $150 million it needs, because of his insistence of having an R rating instead of it being PG-13. He also said that since the release of Prometheus, the studios might not back it due to the similar premise it has with the recently released movie (although I don't think that's stopped other people before). And I'm certain that Pacific Rim was the stepping stone for him in the hopes of getting the movie the financing it deserves because of its easy to digest but straight from the heart premise (also, it should be known that people tend to make other movies while they're in the middle of another franchise. Nolan made Inception in between TDK and TDKR, and Michael Bay making Pain and Gain before starting TF4).

Regarding Hellboy III, neither movie was a huge hit with the box office, so it'll probably a big, long hurdle to jump before we get to see the movie. As for Pinocchio...I only heard of this just now, so it's new to me.

As for the whole budget thing, no one batted an eye when Avengers was $220 million. No one batted an eye when Spiderman 3 was $250 million. No one batted an eye when the last Transformers was roughly $200 million. The idea that you would shove in a movie designed as a matinee type that was funded by a B-studio while you say that Pacific Rim got a free pass because it appealed mainly to a mindset that was just as small as Grindhouse's (which is just laughable, since PR was not just meant for them. If that was the case, wouldn't we lump in comic book movies being not able to appeal to the masses because the general audience are a bunch of speculators, trying to sell off their foil covered one shot that a million people already bought, thinking the same thing?) is laughable, when that was funded by the big leagues of Hollywood.

[StevenHarvey1990]

My problem with the budget of Pacific Rim is pure and simple. It's a bad movie.

No one batted an eye-lid at Avengers, for example, because it was

a) Good
b) Used efficiently
c) Deserved the budget because it came off the back of several franchised movies.

That size of budget AIDED Avengers etc. The majority of the budget for Pacific Rim was spent solely on CGI which wasn't great IMO.

Look at King Kong (2005) and how it did 'big'. That movie was shot for only $18m more and spent a lot better, had a much better cast, director and an extra 70 mins of run time (extended edition).

Point is, one spent the budget really well and the other didn't. We have a movie in King Kong (2005) that is well written, well acted, soulful, emotional and looks stunning. Then we have a movie in Pacific Rim that was sooo badly written, acted, devoid of heart and actually looks cheap (considering the budget). Worst part was it talked down to the audience, which is laughable because the movie was idiotic. "We are cancelling the apocalypse!" HAHA seriously who wrote that?


PS. Just used King Kong as one of many possible examples that make the same point... Avengers, Jurassic Park etc

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by octagon

I can't keep up with all the revisions to history. Is our current story now that we hated Batman Begins all along?

No, we liked Batman Begins, because that had some actual focus, and fixed some problems with the series. (Considering that we didn't think it would ever get off the ground again after Schumacher.)
We just didn't think it would ever go.....as far as it DID. And neither did Nolan, one would likely suspect. (Who had just been hired to put some psychological "edge" on one pop-cultural reboot, not singlehandedly be handed the keys to the Warner/DC studio, and told to be the new official Chief Executive Franchise Savior.)
Not so much a case of "Look, we didn't like it that freakin' MUCH, okay??", so much as "BB was the one that actually looked like a comic book movie. Which Rises, frankly, did not."

Originally Posted by duggie walker

The decline in quality of these films is because they've become part of the studios economic "tentpole" strategies. Because they're so expensive, and so much rides on them, the studios micro-manage the product and become very risk-averse in terms of content.

They're also afraid of the audience--They don't understand them.

They're isolated in their little city, and don't go to real theaters, and have to rely on statisticians and analysts, like court wizards, to determine "why" audiences went to one film and not another.
When something becomes a hit, it's treated with superstition and reverence, and they try to use this strange magic device to fix all their other films, until it mysteriously doesn't work anymore:

Lone Ranger? It's got Depp in it, so get the Pirates writer/director and turn it into Pirates!
Battleship? It's Hasbro, and they made the Transformers movies, so put alien robots into it!
Man of Steel? If Chris Nolan can fix one DC hero, he can fix 'em all!
RIPD? It's wacky, just like Men in Black!

(And it never quite occurs to them that if we wanted to see the other previous film, we'd RENT the other previous film. We've got Netflix, after all.)

Originally Posted by Buscemi

The thing with del Toro is that he promises a lot of better ideas (Hellboy III, At the Mountains of Madness, Pinocchio with Frankenweenie's animation team) and instead of doing the better ideas, he gives us an ultra-serious alien/monster movie that only appeals to a few people

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

Pacific Rim is not soulless. It's a love note to Kaiju films and Kaiju fans couldn't be happier with the result...

The only problem was, there weren't enough of them.
No, not "There aren't any"...I meant, there weren't ENOUGH of them to justify a mainstream $100 SFX budget, for a film that gloriously freak-flagged a niche fandom.
(And it didn't help that the trailers, what we got of them, didn't give the non-kaiju fans the faintest clue of what the movie was about...)
This is one of the big, big, big, and more accurately, BIG caveats to justify giving huge budgets to speculate on whatever Guillermo del Toro's quote-unquote "genius" will make the mistake of being way too close to his own material on--Considering that this may probably be the only one that he's actually finished, so far.

And the irony was, that made it probably the only competently watchable "blockbuster" last summer, apart from the dueling CGI family films.

[bluearth]

For every person who says theres too much CGI in films today theres 10 who say there isnt enough, and who refuse to watch any animated film thats not CGI etc etc

Also there is alot of 'soul' in some of today's blockbusters, Im just guessing many are too overwhelmed by the CGI to notice it.

Star Trek Into Darkness, Oblivion, Man of Steel, Iron Man 3, all had soul, and thats just off the top of my head. So I dont see an issue.