SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Oct 22 2009 10:59 am

Quote:

Don’t know about you but I was excited to hear that Francis Ford Coppola thinks cinema is collapsing:

“The cinema as we know it is falling apart,” says Francis Ford Coppola.

“It’s a period of incredible change,” says the director of “The Godfather” and “Apocalypse Now.” “We used to think of six, seven big film companies. Every one of them is under great stress now. Probably two or three will go out of business and the others will just make certain kind of films like ‘Harry Potter’ — basically trying to make ‘Star Wars’ over and over again, because it’s a business.”

Coppola, 70, sporting a dark suit, is being interviewed in the Lebanese capital Beirut, where his latest movie “Tetro” opened the Beirut Film Festival after premiering at the Cannes Film Festival this year.

“Cinema is losing the public’s interest,” says Coppola, “because there is so much it has to compete with to get people’s time.”

The profusion of leisure activities; the availability of movies on copied DVD and on the Internet; and news becoming entertainment are reshaping the industry, he says. Companies have combined businesses as customers turn to cheap downloads rather than visit shops or movie theaters.

“I think the cinema is going to live off into something more related to a live performance in which the filmmaker is there, like the conductor of an opera used to be,” Coppola says. “Cinema can be interactive, every night it can be a little different.”

Course we should pay attention when Coppola speaks on the future of cinema.

His prediction of ‘electronic cinema’ was absurdly prescient and his early-80’s insight while shooting ‘One From the Heart’ of what would happen when box office totals started appearing in newspapers, i.e. “this would turn the movies into sports” was so spot on that it chills me now to think of it, (how else to explain the championing of crap, of films like G.I. Joe and Transformers unless you look at them through the lens of sports – to fanboys these films are their teams, so of course they have to be defended and praised in the face of what I guess we used to call ‘good taste’).

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/10/21/francis-ford-coppola-cinema-future-crisis/

Posted: Oct 22 2009 11:31 am

The notion of the filmmaker actually being there I think is a little ridiculous. It's supposed to be a business, like he said, and that goes completely against the notion of making money: you would no longer be able to sell a film reel to tons of theaters everywhere, you could have only one showing at a time, and only as often as the filmmaker can or will do it. Maybe he predicted a couple things accurately, but how many incorrect predictions did he make?

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

Part of the problem with films today, is they seem to be pushed out at a faster rate. I remember when I was a kid, it wasn't uncommon for a movie to be in theaters for 6 months, nowadays you're lucky if it's there for 2 months.

Posted: Oct 22 2009 11:55 am

Agreed, Dodd. One of the big issues is you can't really have a sleeper hit anymore. There's no chance of a movie doing poorly for a couple weeks and then becoming hugely popular by word of mouth, as happened many times in the past. If it does poorly for a couple weeks, it's gone.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

I find that in the off season there are bad movies that linger. During the summer though, movies don't stay in the theater very long.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

That's why you always see a bunch of crap movies at the beginning of the year, because they cannot compete with the better movies of the summer. Look at that 10,000 BC movie, I remember them expressing delight that it was the "top grossing movie of the year.....so far". Of course it is, the new year JUST fucking started.

Posted: Oct 22 2009 12:55 pm

Doddsino wrote:

That's why you always see a bunch of crap movies at the beginning of the year, because they cannot compete with the better movies of the summer. Look at that 10,000 BC movie, I remember them expressing delight that it was the "top grossing movie of the year.....so far". Of course it is, the new year JUST fucking started.

Yeah, there's a cycle. The beginning of the year is all the crap movies they put out as filler, then there are the summer blockbusters, then winter brings us all the movies that are just as crappy as the ones from the beginning of the year, but these ones masquerade as "art" and are created for the sole purpose of winning awards.

Joined: Feb 16 2008 Posts: 832

Also we keep reimagining the same things over and over again, giving our culture it's own oroboros effect. I'm sure when he dies we'll be remaking all of his films.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

Well they're already making like the 600th Christmas Carol movie...how many times can they remake that? I know it's a classic, but they've had like 5 adaptations in the last 3 years. Nothing beats Scrooged anyways.

Posted: Oct 22 2009 03:31 pm

It's basically going through the same thing music went through. The platform is changing. The companies are going have to do something if they want to stay afloat. Invest in some small movies or production companies. Do something that keeps the audiances eye. Make movies that are limited release, so that "word of mouth" now will get people interested in seeing it.

Cuz I'll be damned if me/my parents spend $10k+ on Film school and people aren't interested in seeing them. (but at the same time, it's up to the filmmaker to make that happend, make that movie, that'll make people say "I wanna Fuckin' see that.")

Posted: Oct 22 2009 03:45 pm

In the future, all movies will be on Youtube. No movie will be longer than three minutes, because that is all our attention spans will allow. You will sit in a room where three of the walls are each giant flatscreen TVs, and you will watch three movies at once. There will be thirty seconds of advertising in between each minute of programming.

Posted: Oct 22 2009 03:57 pm

Posted: Oct 23 2009 09:22 am

This thread depresses me. Crying

Posted: Oct 23 2009 10:34 am

Tebor wrote:

This thread depresses me. Crying

Honestly, I don't think it will happen.

We need cinema. Movies are a big budget production. It costs money for sets, money for costumes, money for actors, money for a score, money for special effects, money for everything. Unless a big return can be guaranteed, movies like the ones we grew up loving wouldn't exist. There would be no Ghostbusters, no Terminator 2, hell, even no Copland.

Cinema allows for the big return needed. It allows the film to be distributed to millions of paying costumers quickly and easily. So do OnDemand and Netflix, but cinema has added advantages. You can't pirate a movie reel, and you can't go over your friend's house and watch his copy. The "every customer needs a ticket" dynamic simply can't be applied in the home market. Furthermore, there is NOTHING like seeing a movie on a big screen, especially an IMAX screen. There will likely never be TV screens even half as big as movie screens, and few of us will ever own homes big enough to house them. As long as my generation is around, cinema will endure. If cinema ever does fail, it will be because lesser, crasser, younger, dumber generations have abandoned it. And it will be an unmistakable sign that American has entered an unstoppable Romanesque decline.

Posted: Oct 23 2009 10:58 am

It's one thing for filmmakers to be jaded, but it's another when audiences become so.

Then again, "Transformers 2" was dismissed by critics and "fans" alike and that still became the highest grossing movie of the year. If anything, "Revenge of the Fallen" is the shining example why the cinema system still works and why an overhaul or change is not needed.

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

I somewhat agree with Coppola in that our new era has presented cheaper and quicker forms of entertainment, ie the internet. I've always said that the internet has crippled other medias of entertainment because really, it can't be beat. It's fast, it simple to use and it's guaranteed to have something out there for everyone.

I hadn't really looked at the quality of movies in the sense that hollywood is as desperate as Coppola says, oh i and many of us have joked about that idea in jest or anger but now that you think about it, Transformers 2 was the safest movie hollywood could produce this year and it payed off for them. There really isn't many 'Dark Knights' or 'District 9' movies that try to take risks. Hollywood simply can't afford risks anymore, that's why we are in this horse shit remake era. Grant it, some things can translate well in this era but many of the things from the 80s work back then because the 80s era was more lighthearted and was willing to take risks, there was a certain fun and spirit during that time. The remakes carry the name and look of the old school movies and franchises but it's beyond impossible to recapture that raw feel from the 80s because the era is long since dead and we simply live in a different time.

I get america is a capitalistic economy and it does work but their are limitations and the quality of cinema today is a prime example why 'money for the sake of money' can't always be a good incentive. We won't see much that tries to capture any spirit because their isn't room for taking risks.

Posted: Oct 24 2009 12:06 pm

It shouldn't be bussiness. It shpould be art. Art as a way of expressing yourself. A movie is not made to earn some cash. It should be made to create a feeling in the viewer. To take you to a different life and a differend world. A movie is to make you feel happy, or sad, or exited. A movie that doesn't make you feel anything just sucks. INB4 rage, that doesn't make a film good Confused

Joined: Aug 26 2007 Posts: 2752

Miguelius wrote:

It shouldn't be bussiness. It shpould be art. Art as a way of expressing yourself. A movie is not made to earn some cash. It should be made to create a feeling in the viewer. To take you to a different life and a differend world. A movie is to make you feel happy, or sad, or exited. A movie that doesn't make you feel anything just sucks. INB4 rage, that doesn't make a film good Confused

INB4? I agree with you completely.

Posted: Oct 24 2009 03:09 pm

Miguelius wrote:

It shouldn't be bussiness. It shpould be art. Art as a way of expressing yourself. A movie is not made to earn some cash. It should be made to create a feeling in the viewer. To take you to a different life and a differend world. A movie is to make you feel happy, or sad, or exited. A movie that doesn't make you feel anything just sucks. INB4 rage, that doesn't make a film good Confused

As I already pointed out, movies cost money to make. And it has to net a profit; even artists need to eat. And those couple hundred names you ignore as they scroll by? Those people all need to get paid.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

Whil I do agree that movies are a business first and an art second, I think that most film makers nowadays really don't care about making art, as soon as they're done with one movie, they cast it off, wait for the payout, all the while focusing on the next hunk of crap they're making. Look at the sheer amount of "cheaply" made movies using the same formula that these companies put out.

I'll also say this, I don't know how ANYONE can be a fan of horror genre anymore, it seemed dead 15 years ago until Scream revitalized things, and even then we're now going back to the 80's format of killing everyone outside of 1 or 2 characters that have a paper thin backstory and don't give me a reason to even care about them. The Elm Street reboot looks like it's going to suck ass too, considering part of the reason Krueger was so damn popular wasn't because he was scary, but more because he has wit and anecdotes to go along with what he did, so when people went to see the damn sequels, they didn't care HOW Fred got stopped, all they wanted to see was what he was going to do next. In fact, the 90's ushered in all sorts of "witty killers" such as the Leprechaun. Now with the Elm Street reboot, it looks like they took away the reason why anyone would even care for Krueger and tried to make him "legit scary". And like every other horror reboot, it's not going to work, so I don't even know why they bother. Oh I know why! $$$$$$$

And that's another thing, I know the production of movies are expensive, but the sheer amount that gets burned through is staggering, in fact if it wasn't for the inflation that happens with every movie that comes out, most movies would usually make enough to cover production costs and make a tidy profit, but like everything else...overblown costs and salaries lead to the downfall of the movie.

Posted: Oct 24 2009 11:11 pm

Doddsino wrote:

The Elm Street reboot looks like it's going to suck ass too, considering part of the reason Krueger was so damn popular wasn't because he was scary, but more because he has wit and anecdotes to go along with what he did, so when people went to see the damn sequels, they didn't care HOW Fred got stopped, all they wanted to see was what he was going to do next. In fact, the 90's ushered in all sorts of "witty killers" such as the Leprechaun. Now with the Elm Street reboot, it looks like they took away the reason why anyone would even care for Krueger and tried to make him "legit scary".

They already tried that once. It was called "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" and it flopped, making a staggering $18,090,181.

So, they went back to witty Kruger with "Freddy's Dead" and it made double the last film.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

Knyte wrote:

They already tried that once. It was called "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" and it flopped, making a staggering $18,090,181.

So, they went back to witty Kruger with "Freddy's Dead" and it made double the last film.

That's why I question WHY they're trying again? I'm trying to scratch my head for horror movies that haven't been remade yet, that whole genre has been fucked for quite some time, unless you're into snuff like Hostel.

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

Knyte wrote:

Doddsino wrote:

The Elm Street reboot looks like it's going to suck ass too, considering part of the reason Krueger was so damn popular wasn't because he was scary, but more because he has wit and anecdotes to go along with what he did, so when people went to see the damn sequels, they didn't care HOW Fred got stopped, all they wanted to see was what he was going to do next. In fact, the 90's ushered in all sorts of "witty killers" such as the Leprechaun. Now with the Elm Street reboot, it looks like they took away the reason why anyone would even care for Krueger and tried to make him "legit scary".

They already tried that once. It was called "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" and it flopped, making a staggering $18,090,181.

So, they went back to witty Kruger with "Freddy's Dead" and it made double the last film.

new nightmare is easily the best though

Posted: Oct 25 2009 05:32 am

Um..... no. Freddy's Dead was NOES6 and was supposed to be the last NOES. Afterwards poor fan reaction to the movie, which was deemed too silly, they let Wes Craven do New Nightmare, which was a stand-alone movie, but is often considered NOES7. New Nightmare may not have been as commercially successful as Freddy's Dead, but critics and serious fans much prefer it to Freddy's Dead. In fact, New Nightmare was the best-reviewed movie in the series.

Posted: Oct 25 2009 07:24 am

You're right, I got them backwards.

But still.

New Nightmare was a well written and thought out horror film. It just wasn't a Freddy film, and the audience made them pay.

I see the same thing happening again.

But, by going back to the core Freddy in "Freddy vs Jason", it made almost 6x what New Nightmare did.