Badmovies.org Forum

I don't always agree with Roger Ebert on specific movies, but I agree with his overall philosophy on movies.  Reading his recent review of MOTHER, he writes:

"A bright 10-year-old can understand most Hollywood films. Disney recently announced it will make only 3-D 'event' movies, comic hero stories and franchises like 'Pirates of the Caribbean.' It has essentially abandoned films about plausible human beings. It isn't a luxury to see indie or alternative films. It's a necessity."

Preach on, old dude.

I couldn't agree with him more.

Most of the crap churned out of Hollywood is just that, crap. Studios are only concerned with "franchises" anymore and not with trying to nurture original concepts and stories that people truly give a damn about.

In all fairness, you have to admire the fact Disney has managed to recycle the same old crap and still make a buck.  Not just movies mind you, watch any of their teen based television programs and they're all the same.  They've churned out "entertainment", slapped a label on it and people oddly keep buying into it.  I guess if anything, we can't blame them for society's lack of standards when it comes to entertainment.  I personally choose not to partake in any franchises and remakes if possible. 

Good for you, Darksider. Exercise that free will, brother.

Was mainstream Hollywood ever different? Did Harry Carey or Tom Mix ever play a genuine normal human? Holly wood is not like candyfloss - it is candyfloss.
And there are times You need candyfloss . . . and times You just wonder . . .

Most people want to see those movies.  Its kind of sad those are the movies most people want to see.  Just as it is sad what kind of music is popular today...  We should really be blaming mainstream society.

Phew...

Well, that's none of us here !
 :teddyr:

Lets blame the normal people !  :wink:

I blame telly for not showing low budget, indepandant, and sometimes just plain weird films anymore.
The public just isn't being exposed to them.

Cinema chains should also show indie flicks, you shouldn't have to look for some bizzare cinema in some back alley that no-one's heard of. I love seeing a film with actors I don't recognise ! I have no expectations of them, I just accept them for the character they're playing.

Unlike Cruise in War of the Worlds. When I just kept thinking... 'It's Tom Cruise ! Nuthin' bad's gonna happen cos it's Tom-freakin'-Cruise !'
Anyway, I seem to be going off topic...

Okay, he's got a little list. And yes, he has a list for almost everything. Ebert says that Disney is only going to make films about comic book heroes, 3-D event movies, and franchise films. So, let's see how correct Ebert is in his prediction as we look at the films Disney has coming out for the remainder of this year and in 2011 and 2012, And while any of these films can morph into a franchise film, we'll only count a film as a franchise film if it's a sequel.

2010
May
Prince of Persia
Based on the video game, so is Ebert correct? No.

June
Toy Story 3
A sequel, so we'll call it a franchise film. So is Ebert correct? Yes.

July
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
A live action film based loosely on "Fantasia," which was loosedly based on the classical music by Paul Dukas. So, is Ebert correct? No.

August
Step Up 3D
A sequel to the previous two films and in 3D. So, is Ebert correct? Yes.

September
You Again
A man's sister and fiancee come in conflict over the fact tha one bullied the other, when they were both in high school. So, is Ebert correct? No.

October
Secretariat
A film about the Triple Crown Winner and its female owner. So, is Ebert correct? No.

November
Tangled
Was originally called "Rapunzel" ans is a modern take on the old fairy tale. So, is Ebert correct? No.

December
Tron 2
After kicking the idea around for at least a decade, we get a sequel to the original film. So, is Ebert correct? Yes

2011
The Muppets
The first theatrical film starring the Muppets since "Muppets in in Space." So, is Ebert correct? No, as I count each Muppet film being a separate film, but with the same Muppets.

2012
John Carter from Mars
Another idea that has been kicking around for at least a decade. Based upon the novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs. So, is Ebert correct? No

Prom
The title says it all. So, is Ebert correct? No.

And two coming from Pixar in 2012.
"Brave," which I have no idea what's it about, and "Monsters, inc. II," which is a sequel to the original. So, is Ebert correct? Probably no and yes.

So Ebert is correct 5 times, including "Pirates of the Caribbean 4," and wrong 9 times for a correct percentage of 35%. Yes, sounds about right for Ebert.

That is not to say that he'll be wrong in the future, as we don't know yet what films will be in 3-D, and what films will become franchises, but his statement is premature at this time.

And note that I didn't talk about plausible film characters, as I don't think two people, expecially myself and Ebert, can agree what is and is not a plausible film character.

Nice research, BSK, but Ebert did say Disney "recently announced" that those were the only types of movies they would do.  I can't find the announcement, but it's possible that all those movies were already in production before Disney's announcement and thus weren't covered by it.  Or maybe he's exaggerating or has his facts wrong, or maybe Disney is saying one thing but doing another, I don't know. 

That's why you're the man.

I keep hoping that this is a phase Hollywood is going through, but every year I'm proven wrong. Maybe they'll eventually start making intelligent films that aren't political thrillers or assume that the audience is made up of geniuses/pHd holders for a variety of subjects. It's more than possible to make an intelligent comedy or sci-fi flick, after all.

On the other hand, I do sometimes like having a brainless but fun movie playing in the background while I'm working on artwork. Sometimes such a movie just matches the mood of whatever I'm working on.

Why?  Because I totally screwed up the quote function?  :bouncegiggle:

All the reasons you give Rev. Powell are plausible reasons for what Ebert said, but I just noted something after I posted my reponse to your post. What he is saying, in so many words, is that franchise films, 3-D event movies, and comic hero stories cannot have plausible characters. Now, of course, many of us know that is wrong. So, can we trust his opinion when it comes to these type of films?

Extrapolating off that, you'd agree Hollywood has mostly been producing franchise films for the past 80 years, right?  As one example, the year the Godfather won Best Picture (1973 Academy awards), ALL of the nominees for Best Picture are based on novels.  That's certainly an existing property with existing fan bases.  I'm not aware of an actual statistical analysis, but I think a large majority of Hollywood films have always been franchise films based off that definition. 

You make a good point there. 

You make a good point as well.  However, I think it's safe to say that these types films are less likely to have well-developed, original characters rather than just stock characters.  I think his point is that all those types of movies tend to play it safe and conservative and not take chances or explore uncomfortable realities.

That's what David Lynch does.

Eh, I'm kind of a two-face when it comes to Hollywood.  I do bash their lack of wit, but at the same time I watch Hollywood movies.  I'm equal opportunity to film.  Just because it's Hollywood doesn't mean I'll avoid it.  Although I have been staying clear of remakes lately....

That being said, I carry the opinion on watching movies that I also carry with books, video games, and music.  Don't watch because you feel you have to, or because some pretentious ass tells you it's an important film, or because everyone else is.  Watch what appeals to you.  A guy I knew who used to work in showbiz (worked with Patty Duke, no less) once said this to me.  I pondered it then, and agree with it now.