Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:09:59 AM
713386 Posts in 53058 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Good Movies  |  Ebert on Hollywood « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Ebert on Hollywood  (Read 5016 times)
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 3100
Posts: 26772


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« on: April 28, 2010, 01:04:50 PM »

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.
Logged

I'll take you places the hand of man has not yet set foot...
Torgo
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 537
Posts: 5278



« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2010, 02:09:38 PM »

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.

Logged

"There is no way out of here. It'll be dark soon. There is no way out of here."
Mr. DS
Master Of Cinematic Bowel Movements
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1869
Posts: 15511


Get this thread cleaned up or YOU'RE FIRED!!!


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2010, 11:19:47 AM »

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. 
« Last Edit: April 29, 2010, 11:21:27 AM by The DarkSider » Logged

DarkSider's Realm
http://darksidersrealm.blogspot.com/

"You think the honey badger cares?  It doesn't give a sh*t."  Randall
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2010, 12:13:15 PM »

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

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
oxode
Dedicated Viewer
**

Karma: -5
Posts: 85


« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2010, 02:14:30 PM »


It has essentially abandoned films about plausible human beings.


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 . . .
Logged
rebel_1812
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 22
Posts: 427



« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2010, 06:58:39 AM »

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.
Logged

*********************
Doggett
Bustin' makes me feel good !
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 979
Posts: 8413


I've seen things you people couldn't imagine...


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2010, 11:18:18 AM »

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...



Logged

                                             

If God exists, why did he make me an atheist? Thats His first mistake.
BoyScoutKevin
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 277
Posts: 5030


« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2010, 06:25:46 PM »

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.
Logged
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 3100
Posts: 26772


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2010, 07:46:54 PM »

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. 
Logged

I'll take you places the hand of man has not yet set foot...
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 3100
Posts: 26772


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2010, 07:49:57 PM »

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. 

I personally would count PRINCE OF PERSIA, JOHN CARTER and THE MUPPETS as franchise films, because they are based off existing properties with existing fan bases, not new ideas.
Logged

I'll take you places the hand of man has not yet set foot...
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2010, 10:06:40 AM »

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. 

I personally would count PRINCE OF PERSIA, JOHN CARTER and THE MUPPETS as franchise films, because they are based off existing properties with existing fan bases, not new ideas.

That's why you're the man.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
The Gravekeeper
addicted to the macabre
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 85
Posts: 759



« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2010, 12:35:29 PM »

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.
Logged
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 3100
Posts: 26772


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2010, 02:29:23 PM »

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. 

I personally would count PRINCE OF PERSIA, JOHN CARTER and THE MUPPETS as franchise films, because they are based off existing properties with existing fan bases, not new ideas.

That's why you're the man.

Why?  Because I totally screwed up the quote function?  BounceGiggle
Logged

I'll take you places the hand of man has not yet set foot...
BoyScoutKevin
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 277
Posts: 5030


« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2010, 03:33:49 PM »

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?
Logged
Jim H
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 314
Posts: 3669



« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2010, 04:35:19 PM »

Quote
I personally would count PRINCE OF PERSIA, JOHN CARTER and THE MUPPETS as franchise films, because they are based off existing properties with existing fan bases, not new ideas.

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. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Good Movies  |  Ebert on Hollywood « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.