The Budget/Story Paradox - Blu-ray Forum

uziel5000 · 11-26-2009, 03:24 AM

Based on a very common theme that seems to run through many threads here...

You know, I think there is a common misconception running around that loud, spectacular(from a production point of view) films can't be intelligent or have cohesive, sound stories or even interesting characters. It's either the big, loud (but obnoxious) film that's "a fun ride" or the quiet, introspective, low-budget film with the greatest story since the Bible and characters so real you can touch them. Can't there be a film that can have both?

Now don't get me wrong. I don't watch The Shawshank Redemption and then complain about the lack of explosions or watch Transformers and expect story and dialogue to be on par with Shakepeare. It's just that we discuss films here and this is the common exchange:

X: "Saw 2012. AWSOME!"
Y: "Really? I thought it sucked. The plot was laughable."
X: "Well, you don't go watch films like this expecting high art."

What are we really saying here? Are we justifying the fact that we indulge in "fun thrill rides" that allows us to shut our brains off for a while? Are we failing to admit that deep down we enjoy these films despite the gaping holes? Or do we simply want more than what Hollywood is throwing us more often than not? Should we expect more?

It is a rare thing indeed but films like Terminator 2 and The Dark Knight or The Lord of the Rings Trilogy prove we can have our cake and eat it too. They have extremely high production values, good acting, solid story and great characters. Plus, they have all been extremely successful. So why are they so rare?

Rblu-Dblu · 11-26-2009, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uziel5000

So why are they so rare?

Because if everyone could make them, it wouldn't be so special.

uziel5000 · 11-26-2009, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rblu-Dblu

Because if everyone could make them, it wouldn't be so special.

LOL. I was expecting that. It only took one post.

ZedsDead · 11-26-2009, 03:55 AM

I don't think movies are any different than anything else in life. There are always going to be tastes and expectations ranging from connoisseur to novice. Take the wine industry. Some people can drink a bland white wine and be happy, others will only be satisfied with a more robust and refined red. Also in big part it really boils down to the economics of it all. If the vast majority of people stopped spending money to see an all style and no substance movie like 2012 seems to be (I haven't seen it yet), then those movies would vanish from the marketplace. I know it would be nice to think that the people responsible for bringing films to our home and local theaters are doing it for the betterment of the art, but I'm afraid the bottom line is almost always the bottom line (yes, I know there are cases where this doesn't apply, but they are more like exceptions that prove the rule.) I do my best to appreciate a movie for what it is, and if I don't like it, I don't watch it.

UFAlien · 11-26-2009, 04:05 AM

This is one of the reasons I love Deep Impact so much. I feel like it strikes a really good balance between story, drama, and action. I just wish that Elijah Wood and Lelee Sobieski's characters were more fleshed out.

assydingo · 11-26-2009, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZedsDead

I do my best to appreciate a movie for what it is, and if I don't like it, I don't watch it.

Same.

People can be too critical. Transformers might not have Tarantino dialogue but I wouldn't go as far as saying it's badly written either. As far as the comic relief bits comedy is and always will be subjective.

Duffy12 · 11-26-2009, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uziel5000

So why are they so rare?

Well if James Cameron hadn't taken a twelve year sabbatical, we would have had a few more of these beauties to watch. So hopefully he can get this type of movie jump started again and maybe Michael Bay can learn a thing or two from him.

.

jadedeath · 11-26-2009, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZedsDead

I know it would be nice to think that the people responsible for bringing films to our home and local theaters are doing it for the betterment of the art, but I'm afraid the bottom line is almost always the bottom line (yes, I know there are cases where this doesn't apply, but they are more like exceptions that prove the rule.)

That's exactly it, if Hollywood weren't a business, then they wouldn't have focus groups and pre-screenings for critics and etc. etc. etc.

Logan

jadedeath · 11-26-2009, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Well if James Cameron hadn't taken a twelve year sabbatical, we would have had a few more of these beauties to watch. So hopefully he can get this type of movie jump started again and maybe Michael Bay can learn a thing or two from him.

.

You're not betting all your money on Avatar are you?

Logan

J. J. Hunsecker · 11-26-2009, 05:32 AM

Part of the problem stems from the industry getting more creatively conservative and frightened of risks. Spectacle will always seem like a safe bet under these conditions. Too many producers and executives are involved in the story phase, writing copious notes for script rewrites. A movie like the live action Flintstones (1994) had almost an army of screenwriters working on it, yet the final results are anything but a solid story. Heck, there weren't even funny gags, which you'd think would be basic for a live action cartoon. The old saying is true: "Too many cooks spoil the broth."

This fear and reliance on spectacle happened in the 50's, with all those biblical epics. (It was the spectacle that was advertised, not the story: "With a cast of thousands!") Science Fiction also came into vogue in this era, as there were many films about alien invasions -- offering more opportunities for special effects. Maybe it was the waning audience attendance due to television, but many gimmicks were created in the 50's, too -- 3-D, Cinemascope, etc. Many films were also aimed at teens than adults during this era. Teens prefer spectacle, and are more forgiving of plot holes and contrivances.

This also happened during the 80's. It was also a more conservative time (creatively speaking), and many producers tried to imitate the summer event films of Spielberg and Lucas, only they didn't do it as well. Many of those derivative films were intellectually lazy, emotional dishonest, and pandered to audiences. This problem has been with us for over 20 years now, and it seems to get worse. Some of those dumb 80's action flicks and schlock sci-fi films still benefitted from a residual 70's style of filmmaking, and the stories at least made some sense. Nowadays, plot and character motivation doesn't seem to matter. Maybe audiences were dumbed down a little too much by Hollywood?

11-26-2009, 03:24 AM	#1
uziel5000 Expert Member Member since:Jan 2009 Location:Vega Alta, Puerto Rico Blu-ray collection:103	The Budget/Story Paradox Based on a very common theme that seems to run through many threads here... You know, I think there is a common misconception running around that loud, spectacular(from a production point of view) films can't be intelligent or have cohesive, sound stories or even interesting characters. It's either the big, loud (but obnoxious) film that's "a fun ride" or the quiet, introspective, low-budget film with the greatest story since the Bible and characters so real you can touch them. Can't there be a film that can have both? Now don't get me wrong. I don't watch The Shawshank Redemption and then complain about the lack of explosions or watch Transformers and expect story and dialogue to be on par with Shakepeare. It's just that we discuss films here and this is the common exchange: X: "Saw 2012. AWSOME!" Y: "Really? I thought it sucked. The plot was laughable." X: "Well, you don't go watch films like this expecting high art." What are we really saying here? Are we justifying the fact that we indulge in "fun thrill rides" that allows us to shut our brains off for a while? Are we failing to admit that deep down we enjoy these films despite the gaping holes? Or do we simply want more than what Hollywood is throwing us more often than not? Should we expect more? It is a rare thing indeed but films like Terminator 2 and The Dark Knight or The Lord of the Rings Trilogy prove we can have our cake and eat it too. They have extremely high production values, good acting, solid story and great characters. Plus, they have all been extremely successful. So why are they so rare?

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
VHS vs. DVD Paradox	Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology	darkblueme	43	11-27-2010 10:33 AM
Toy Story/Toy Story 2 Blu-ray trailers	Wish Lists	bigpatky	8	12-03-2009 05:52 PM
TimesOnline(UK): Sony faces a paradox	Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology	Ispoke	20	01-12-2008 04:01 PM

11-26-2009, 03:55 AM	#4
ZedsDead Senior Member Member since:Jul 2009 Home Theater Gallery:28 Blu-ray collection:94	I don't think movies are any different than anything else in life. There are always going to be tastes and expectations ranging from connoisseur to novice. Take the wine industry. Some people can drink a bland white wine and be happy, others will only be satisfied with a more robust and refined red. Also in big part it really boils down to the economics of it all. If the vast majority of people stopped spending money to see an all style and no substance movie like 2012 seems to be (I haven't seen it yet), then those movies would vanish from the marketplace. I know it would be nice to think that the people responsible for bringing films to our home and local theaters are doing it for the betterment of the art, but I'm afraid the bottom line is almost always the bottom line (yes, I know there are cases where this doesn't apply, but they are more like exceptions that prove the rule.) I do my best to appreciate a movie for what it is, and if I don't like it, I don't watch it.

11-26-2009, 04:05 AM	#5
UFAlien Blu-ray Guru Top contributor Member since:Oct 2008 4K collection:128 Blu-ray collection:475 Blu-ray reviews: 14 Trading Score:29	This is one of the reasons I love Deep Impact so much. I feel like it strikes a really good balance between story, drama, and action. I just wish that Elijah Wood and Lelee Sobieski's characters were more fleshed out.

11-26-2009, 05:32 AM	#10
J. J. Hunsecker Special Member Member since:Dec 2008 Blu-ray collection:460 DVD collection:270	Part of the problem stems from the industry getting more creatively conservative and frightened of risks. Spectacle will always seem like a safe bet under these conditions. Too many producers and executives are involved in the story phase, writing copious notes for script rewrites. A movie like the live action Flintstones (1994) had almost an army of screenwriters working on it, yet the final results are anything but a solid story. Heck, there weren't even funny gags, which you'd think would be basic for a live action cartoon. The old saying is true: "Too many cooks spoil the broth." This fear and reliance on spectacle happened in the 50's, with all those biblical epics. (It was the spectacle that was advertised, not the story: "With a cast of thousands!") Science Fiction also came into vogue in this era, as there were many films about alien invasions -- offering more opportunities for special effects. Maybe it was the waning audience attendance due to television, but many gimmicks were created in the 50's, too -- 3-D, Cinemascope, etc. Many films were also aimed at teens than adults during this era. Teens prefer spectacle, and are more forgiving of plot holes and contrivances. This also happened during the 80's. It was also a more conservative time (creatively speaking), and many producers tried to imitate the summer event films of Spielberg and Lucas, only they didn't do it as well. Many of those derivative films were intellectually lazy, emotional dishonest, and pandered to audiences. This problem has been with us for over 20 years now, and it seems to get worse. Some of those dumb 80's action flicks and schlock sci-fi films still benefitted from a residual 70's style of filmmaking, and the stories at least made some sense. Nowadays, plot and character motivation doesn't seem to matter. Maybe audiences were dumbed down a little too much by Hollywood?

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals