The difference between Hollywood then and now, Part 1.

Rich wrote:
> Compare the grandeur that was "Die Hard"
> with "Flightplan." Hollywood movies have lost their
> majesty, power and scope.
> King Kong is coming. Will it equal Jurassic Park (early 1990s)
> for impressiveness? I doubt it. In fact, it will
> probably come off as quaint to the jaded video-game fed
> generation. They'll watch it, glancing at the text messages on their
> cell phones every 15 minutes, then they'll leave, without clapping
> or cheering. Hollywood's technology for making films has not
> kept up with the rest of the technological world. While other forms
> of entertainment have gotten more spectacular, Hollywood has
> languished.


Hollywood's technology has kept up with the rest of thetechnological
world. that's part of the problem. It leads to built in obsolescence.
I caught a few minutes of
Starship Troopers the other night and the effects work looked like
something you'd see on the Sci-Fi Channel. Now, that the movies have
caught up with the comic books and filmmakers can literally show any
spectcular thing they want, the audience has gotten jaded and they're
not impressed by special effects anymore.

Flightplan isn't being sold as a special effects film, it's being sold
as a Jodie Foster action thriller. The films that have gotten
Hollywood out of its slump as of late--The Wedding Crashers, 40-Year
Old Virgin, Exorcism of Emily Rose, and now Flight Plan aren't effects
films. It's not that audiences have become too sophisticated for
something like The Island or Stealth (which both would've been hits a
few years ago), it's that effects have gotten so good, that there's no
way you can impress an audience visually anymore. People won't go see
King Kong for the effects. They'll go see it because it was directed
by Peter Jackson or they'll go see it because they want to see if it
stacks up against the original or because the story is compelling
enough that even if you don't know anything about Jackson or the
original Kong you'll want to see it. And no matter how goo the effects
work is, in a few years it'll look like something the Sci-Fi Channel is
doing.
 >> Stay informed about: The difference between Hollywood then and now, Part 1. 

Rich wrote:

> Compare the grandeur that was "Die Hard"


Uh oh, somebody's been taking mescaline again.
 >> Stay informed about: The difference between Hollywood then and now, Part 1. 

On 27 Sep 2005 05:38:32 -0700, "Nick Macpherson" <NMacphe421 DeleteThis @AOL.com>
wrote:

>Rich wrote:
>> Compare the grandeur that was "Die Hard"
>> with "Flightplan." Hollywood movies have lost their
>> majesty, power and scope.
>> King Kong is coming. Will it equal Jurassic Park (early 1990s)
>> for impressiveness? I doubt it. In fact, it will
>> probably come off as quaint to the jaded video-game fed
>> generation. They'll watch it, glancing at the text messages on their
>> cell phones every 15 minutes, then they'll leave, without clapping
>> or cheering. Hollywood's technology for making films has not
>> kept up with the rest of the technological world. While other forms
>> of entertainment have gotten more spectacular, Hollywood has
>> languished.
>
>
>Hollywood's technology has kept up with the rest of thetechnological
>world. that's part of the problem. It leads to built in obsolescence.
> I caught a few minutes of
>Starship Troopers the other night and the effects work looked like
>something you'd see on the Sci-Fi Channel. Now, that the movies have
>caught up with the comic books and filmmakers can literally show any
>spectcular thing they want, the audience has gotten jaded and they're
>not impressed by special effects anymore.

Actually, Starship Troopers had some of the most detailed models ever
used in a Scifi. That's why it cost what it did. It certainly wasn't
salaries. IMO, FX have stagnated in terms of quality over the past
decade, with little or no improvement and I think the reason is that
the studios are spending less and less on them than before, in many
cases.
-Rich
 >> Stay informed about: The difference between Hollywood then and now, Part 1. 

"trotsky" <gmsingh.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote in message
news:PEa_e.166405$084.37442@attbi_s22...
> Rich wrote:
>
>> Compare the grandeur that was "Die Hard"
>
>
> Uh oh, somebody's been taking mescaline again.

Oh leave him alone, he's just found out that it's not just for pissing
through.
 >> Stay informed about: The difference between Hollywood then and now, Part 1.