# Is Hollywood running out of ideas?



## Hunter56 (Mar 5, 2013)

Over the last few years the number of remakes, reboots, sequels, and spinoffs has been overwhelming. There are still a handful of good, creative movies that come out (the last ones imo being Django Unchained and Wreck-It Ralph -- I haven't seen Life of Pi but heard that was good) but they seem to be few and far between nowadays and many more "remakes" are on the way.  

So what do you think is happening in Hollywood? Is the movie industry just in a slump or is the creative tank really running dry?


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 5, 2013)

"Life of Pi," was originally a book that came out in 2001.  It wasn't made into a movie until recently because many movie makers were quoted as saying that the technology wasn't good enough yet to give it the attention it deserved.  

I think the problem with Hollywood is the same as any other industry, it's a hard business for new people to get into.  So many of the writers, directors, and other movie higher ups are all the same, and don't have that new infusion of outside ideas from fresh people.


----------



## Travers (Mar 5, 2013)

There have been more remakes, sequels, etc recently, but I wouldn't say there has been a slump at all. There have been plenty of great films released in the last year or so.

There has always been a high ratio of chaff to wheat in my opinion, sequels and remakes just allow them to churn them out at an alarming rate seemingly without effort.


----------



## Nee (Mar 6, 2013)

There are plenty of great stories that have been written over the last 20 years; the problem is that Hollywood is run by money men, not writers or directors. So the way money men look at a thing is whether they'll make money--quickly--on it or not. So, they say, gee...the Wizard of Oz has made a lot of money...why don't we make a new one, and we can make a lot of money!


----------



## Angelwing (Mar 6, 2013)

It would seem that they have. Who knows, maybe they really do have some different ideas, but after one or two in the industry decided to go for the remake, and it caught on, the rest thought it'd be a good money maker. 

Argo wasn't a remake or anything, I believe. Sure it was based on actual events, though-maybe this was still the type of movie involved in the original post. Same goes for Lincoln.


----------



## Cheid (Mar 6, 2013)

part of the problem imo is that we are in the middle of a generational gap.  All the kids who are growing up and starting to go to the movies weren't around when all the movies they're remaking came out.  The studios, who are money driven, are looking at two films and deciding which one to make.  One is a remake of a blockbuster movie that has a proven track record of success and the other is an untested new film that has a great plot and strong characters but no precedent.  which one do you think they're going to chose.  in a few years all the kids will know about all the films we loved growing up and the studios will start looking at those other films, but in the interim they will remake all the classics.


----------



## KarinaRetzov (Mar 6, 2013)

I think maybe the technology is bottoming out - honestly, there have been a few creative movies in the last few years, but they still follow storylines we've seen before.  Maybe the tech needs to bump up another notch to make old ideas pop?  Interesting question - thanks for bringing it up!


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 6, 2013)

Basically what Cheid wrote.  People know what to expect with a rehashed movie, and is an easier guaranteed sell; just like people buy King even though he hasn't produced anything better then Mills & Boon in a long time.  Brand name sells.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 6, 2013)

Since Thomas Edison started making movies, the vast majority have been bad to mediocre. We're only watching or talking about the tiny fraction of movies made over the years that are any good. And Hollywood used put out a lot more movies a year than they do now. That only a handful made a year are "good" or "creative" is nothing new -- and neither are remakes or spin-offs etc. I'm betting people have been saying Hollywood is running out of ideas since the silent era.


----------



## Dave Watson (Mar 6, 2013)

Looks like they've passed the phase of rehashing 80's movies and making films from computer games and have now turned to fairy tales for "ideas". _Jack the Giant Slayer, Hansel and Gretel, Snow White and the Huntsman_ etc. 

I've got loads of ideas for films! Where's my multi milion dollar screenwriters contract?!


----------



## JosephB (Mar 6, 2013)

Sure -- it's another phase. At one time Hollywood put out scores of westerns a year -- most of them derivative and forgettable. Again, there are only a handful of classic westerns that have held up. Same as it ever was.


----------



## Ariel (Mar 6, 2013)

How many times has "King Kong" been remade?  How many sequels have been made to "Silence of the Lambs"?  Sequels, prequels, and remakes are a staple of Hollywood.


----------



## CroZ (Mar 6, 2013)

They aren't running out of ideas. It's just new ideas can't get in the door because there's so much over saturated genre fiction about - mystery, romance, vampires even Tolkien fan fiction, aka the entire fantasy genre. Movie ideas come from writers but the writers are being blocked by over zealous agents eager to appeal to the lowest common denominator to make a quick buck. Indy publishing will change all that and make the current archaic system completely irrelevant. Death to agents.


----------



## Hunter56 (Mar 6, 2013)

Dave Watson said:


> Looks like they've passed the phase of rehashing 80's movies and making films from computer games and have now turned to fairy tales for "ideas". _Jack the Giant Slayer, Hansel and Gretel, Snow White and the Huntsman_ etc.
> 
> I've got loads of ideas for films! Where's my multi milion dollar screenwriters contract?!



I have noticed that they are making a lot of "retold fairy tales" lately, I saw both Snow White and Hansel & Gretel; they both were pretty average.

I heard somewhere that it was because those stories are public domain so they don't have to pay anyone for the rights to use them, which makes sense I guess...


----------



## js1268 (Mar 7, 2013)

thing is, they don't have to run out of ideas... they just have to think outside the cube


----------



## Man From Mars (Mar 7, 2013)

Personally, I don't think Django Unchained was that original either.

I think the reason that Hollywood puts out more sequels and revamps than any new material is because it's safe. It's easy money. There is plenty of new intellectual property out there but it's too risky.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 7, 2013)

They wouldn't put out rehashed junk if people didn't pay to see rehashed junk.


----------



## Nee (Mar 7, 2013)

Terry D said:


> They wouldn't put out rehashed junk if people didn't pay to see rehashed junk.




People need entertainment. Many people, when they want to see a movie, will pick what's available at that moment (whether it's at the theater or in the video store) if all there is to choose from is what Hollywood has given them to watch, then that is what they'll watch.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 7, 2013)

Nee said:


> People need entertainment. Many people, when they want to see a movie, will pick what's available at that moment (whether it's at the theater or in the video store) if all there is to choose from is what Hollywood has given them to watch, then that is what they'll watch.



People _choose_ to go to movies.  It's not forced on anyone.  It's not a _need_.  If they are willing to spend their money on a bad remake of a bad movie (Red Dawn) it's no different that choosing to by any other inferior product.  There are many other forms of entertainment available.


----------



## Man From Mars (Mar 7, 2013)

Yeah, I'm torn between the question: does Hollywood make shallow, mediocre movies because we consumers are mediocre and shallow, or does Hollywood make shallow, mediocre movies because they _think we _consumers are mediocre and shallow?


----------



## Nee (Mar 7, 2013)

Man From Mars said:


> Yeah, I'm torn between the question: does Hollywood make shallow, mediocre movies because we consumers are mediocre and shallow, or does Hollywood make shallow, mediocre movies because they _think we _consumers are mediocre and shallow?



The people who decide what movies get made are rich very non-creative people who actually pay other (not so rich) non-creative people to tell them what movie ideas will attract the most investors. 

I know three people who have sold the option to their work only to have the time run out because the people who bought the contract couldn't get the funding together to make the movie. 

One has been bought 6 years in a row--it would make a great movie. There are plenty of good ideas out there.

There are however, even more greedy idiots out there.


----------



## Hunter56 (Mar 7, 2013)

Man From Mars said:


> Personally, I don't think Django Unchained was that original either.
> 
> I think the reason that Hollywood puts out more sequels and revamps than any new material is because it's safe. It's easy money. There is plenty of new intellectual property out there but it's too risky.



I could tell that Django did get some inspiration from the TV show The Boondocks (especially Samuel L. Jackson's character being similar to Uncle Ruckus) but was creative in its own ways -- it definitely gained a lot of controversy lol.


----------



## Hunter56 (May 25, 2013)

Just found out that they're remaking The Gremlins. You know, the one with Gizmo the Mogwai or however you spell it. If there's a movie that _doesn't _need to be remade I think it's that one...


----------



## FleshEater (May 25, 2013)

No, Hollywood is not out of ideas. The major production companies probably receive 500 screen plays a month. What Hollywood, i.e. big production companies do, is make sound, safe investments. 

I personally don't care about Hollywood. If you want good films then start digging into the underground film scene. For instance, _Safety Not Guaranteed _is a great independent film that just recently hit DVD. I don't need the films I like to hit theaters, have millions spent in advertising, etc. to feel satisfied with the film industry. 

Also, the foreign film scene has been blowing up for the past 5-10 years. And, more times than not, they offer twice the story of a Hollywood film. 

All of this especially applies to the horror genre. Hollywood horror, exploitation, etc. SUCKS anymore. They had their best run in the thirties and fifties and have never really gotten back to that point.


----------



## JosephB (May 25, 2013)

Yes, Hollywood is running out of ideas. At last count, there were only 27 left in the secret vault, where they're kept along with Walt Disney's cryogenically preserved body.


----------



## J Anfinson (May 25, 2013)

This is precisely why I don't bother going to the theatre much anymore. I've got better things to do than pay 10 bucks (or more) to see something like Titanic 2.


----------



## JosephB (May 25, 2013)

Come on, where else can you get a bucket of popcorn for ten dollars??


----------



## Hunter56 (May 25, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Yes, Hollywood is running out of ideas. At last count, there were only 27 left in the secret vault, where they're kept along with Walt Disney's cryogenically preserved body.



I thought his body was under the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disneyland?


----------



## FleshEater (May 25, 2013)

Also, I wanted to say that there isn't one Tarantino film that's original. But that doesn't matter, because his style is unmatched.


----------



## Houston (May 27, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> No, Hollywood is not out of ideas. The major production companies probably receive 500 screen plays a month. What Hollywood, i.e. big production companies do, is make sound, safe investments.
> 
> I personally don't care about Hollywood. If you want good films then start digging into the underground film scene. For instance, _Safety Not Guaranteed _is a great independent film that just recently hit DVD. I don't need the films I like to hit theaters, have millions spent in advertising, etc. to feel satisfied with the film industry.
> 
> ...






FleshEater said:


> Also, I wanted to say that there isn't one Tarantino film that's original. But that doesn't matter, because his style is unmatched.



This guy gets it...

Safety Not Guaranteed was one of the best films of last year(the same director is doing the next Jurrasic Park by the way). Hollywood has been out of ideas for awhile now, but why care? In this digital age there's no reason to ever complain about something like that, too easy to find quality stuff. Yeah Justin Beiber and Lady Gaga suck, but a few minutes online and you can easily find some great underground music. Same exact thing applies for movies.


----------



## philistine (May 27, 2013)

Man From Mars said:


> Yeah, I'm torn between the question: does Hollywood make shallow, mediocre movies because we consumers are mediocre and shallow, *or does Hollywood make shallow, mediocre movies because they think we consumers are mediocre and shallow?*



Bingo. _Vox populi, vox dei_.

I remember when _The Artist_ came out, there was a furore when people realised it was a silent, and were hell-bent on defaming it before they'd even seen it. A few of my friends wanted to go and see it, and when I informed them that it was indeed a silent, their face dropped, and they no longer wanted to go. 

I don't even want to count how many people have said to me that 'they don't like black and white/old movies'. When questioned, their reasoning seems to be a 'just because' bundle of nonsense. If the industry returned to placing more importance on acting than it currently does of garnishing with CGI and other effects, then we'd see a lot more people disinterested in going to the movies at all. Hollywood makes their garbage, and people eat it up. Of course, and as someone has already pointed out- there was always a large proportion of bad movies to good movies, and that hasn't changed. I wouldn't call myself an expert on the topic of film, though I'm certainly very informed; and it seems to me that the amount of good, quality films has declined over the years. Not by much, but it's definitely declined. 

I'm also quite disappointed at the olio of awful remakes in recent years. I'll frequently see films whilst browsing through the television channels, and feel excitement when I see things like _Notorious, White Heat_ and _The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3_ advertised- only to find they are in fact all remakes. There are few examples of where a remake has successfully overtaken the original. 

My two cents.



FleshEater said:


> Also, I wanted to say that there isn't one Tarantino film that's original. But that doesn't matter, because his style is unmatched.



I'm not the biggest fan of his, though I do enjoy a few of his films. If you've ever seen anything by Japanese filmmaker Seijun Suzuki, you'll know he's robbed him of pretty much everything.


----------



## Houston (May 27, 2013)

philistine said:


> I'm also quite disappointed at the olio of awful remakes in recent years. I'll frequently see films whilst browsing through the television channels, and feel excitement when I see things like _Notorious, White Heat_ and _The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3_ advertised- only to find they are in fact all remakes. There are few examples of where a remake has successfully overtaken the original.



I actually just watched White Heat for the first time last night, but I had no idea Notorious(my favorite Hitchcock) was ever remade. Yikes.


----------



## FleshEater (May 27, 2013)

Philistine: Another issue is subtitles...movie-goers HATE subtitles.

Tarantino has also ripped off every blacksploitation, exploitation--whatever--anything that's played a grind house theater in New York, but I still love him. He brings a certain charm, in a way of paying respect to his favorite directors, to the celluloid that can't be matched. The guy loves movies, and it shows.


----------



## philistine (May 27, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Philistine: Another issue is subtitles...movie-goers HATE subtitles.



Ain't that the truth. I honestly believe most people don't watch them simply because they can't read the text in good time.


----------



## Hunter56 (May 29, 2013)

Speaking of Hollywood, what does everyone think of the upcoming World War Z adaption? I couldn't even get into the book and the movie doesn't look that great. I mean a zombie movie being PG-13? Besides that Warm Bodies movie (which was more of a romantic-comedy which makes it understandable) I don't think I've ever seen a zombie movie that's not rated R. Not saying that's a good reason to judge a movie, but still...


----------



## beanlord56 (May 29, 2013)

Hunter56 said:


> Speaking of Hollywood, what does everyone think of the upcoming World War Z adaption? I couldn't even get into the book and the movie doesn't look that great. I mean a zombie movie being PG-13? Besides that Warm Bodies movie (which was more of a romantic-comedy which makes it understandable) I don't think I've ever seen a zombie movie that's not rated R. Not saying that's a good reason to judge a movie, but still...



Some of my friends who have read the book say that what's been shown of the movie is nothing like the book.


----------



## Kyle R (May 29, 2013)

Being a screenwriter in Hollywood sure seems a tough way to make a living. Mostly, you have to write a film that you can convince to producers will be profitable. Whether or not that film is arguably "good" or "bad" isn't really part of the discussion, at least not in the terms we usually think of them.

If it'll make money, the film is good. If it won't, the film is bad. All other considerations that we tend to talk about, (like plot, characters, pacing, originality, et cetera) seem to be kind of irrelevant as far as deciding what films get made and what films get passed on.

Writer/Producer/Directoer Jefferey Schechter put it rather bluntly:
Let me give it to you straight: There are two kinds of screenplays in the world, the screenplay that gets _bought _and the screenplay that gets _made_. 

The screenplay that gets _made _is the one people see in theaters. Between the time when you deliver your first, perfect draft and the time it unspools in theater number 19 at the Megaplex, producers, directors, other writers, actors, editors, and famously even the occasional hairdresser will all have had a hand in shaping and sculpting it. By the time your story makes it in front of an audience, you’d be lucky if it resembled anything you handed in.

The screenplay that gets _bought _is yours. It’s the one you have control over, the _only _one. Your goal — your only goal — is to write a screenplay that someone wants to buy...


----------



## spider8 (May 29, 2013)

I have read that most top films in the box office since the turn of the century are franchise films, or the beginning of a series. I see this as a kind of fashion-thing that's here to stay because of the money. People want more of a good thing.

 I loved Life of Pi the book which, incidentally, was an idea  stolen by Yann Martell off a Brazillian book called Max and the Cats (the cat in _that_ lifeboat was a black panther). The film of Life of Pi was quite lightweight of course in order to get more money (parts of the book were horriffic and would have upped the certificate). After watching the film I re-read the book. Like I said - people do want more of a good thing.


----------



## Dave Watson (May 29, 2013)

Hunter56 said:


> Speaking of Hollywood, what does everyone think of the upcoming World War Z adaption? I couldn't even get into the book and the movie doesn't look that great. I mean a zombie movie being PG-13? Besides that Warm Bodies movie (which was more of a romantic-comedy which makes it understandable) I don't think I've ever seen a zombie movie that's not rated R. Not saying that's a good reason to judge a movie, but still...



Loved the book and managed to get a few days work as an extra when they were shooting scenes for the movie in Glasgow.  I heard though that several scenes have been cut. There goes my big screen debut!


----------



## FleshEater (May 29, 2013)

Hunter56 said:


> Speaking of Hollywood, what does everyone think of the upcoming World War Z adaption? I couldn't even get into the book and the movie doesn't look that great. I mean a zombie movie being PG-13? Besides that Warm Bodies movie (which was more of a romantic-comedy which makes it understandable) I don't think I've ever seen a zombie movie that's not rated R. Not saying that's a good reason to judge a movie, but still...



It looks so awful I'd rather eat my own vomit.

Hollywood should NOT touch zombie films. It's bad enough that George Romero turned into a turd after moving to Canada.

The best zombie film in the past ten or fifteen years, and I'm talking serious zombie film, was The Dead. And you've probably never heard of it.

Again, I don't even acknowledge Hollywood. The wife and I drove by the drive-in and she said, "They're showing Evil Dead." I jumped in my seat and said, "What?!" completely forgetting that they destroyed the original with a remake. For a split second, I thought the drive-in was cool enough to snag a 35mm of the original Evil Dead...what was I thinking? I hate Hollywood.


----------



## Rustgold (May 29, 2013)

Modern movies/TV is like when you play with somebody's photo in Photo Shop to make their face all nice and soft.  All that you end up with is a featureless form with half the nose blended into nothingness.  And listen to the voices (which often contains a soft background hissing sound), they make a photoshopped face appear natural.


----------



## Hunter56 (May 29, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> It looks so awful I'd rather eat my own vomit.
> 
> Hollywood should NOT touch zombie films. It's bad enough that George Romero turned into a turd after moving to Canada.
> 
> ...



Agree with you about Romero. I watched one of his latest ones awhile ago called like -- Island of the Dead or something like that, it wasn't very good. Ironically I heard that the Evil Dead remake was actually pretty good. 

Dave Watson: That's awesome if you made it into the movie. Hopefully they didn't cut you out!


----------



## FleshEater (May 29, 2013)

Hunter56 said:


> Agree with you about Romero. I watched one of his latest ones awhile ago called like -- Island of the Dead or something like that, it wasn't very good. Ironically I heard that the Evil Dead remake was actually pretty good.
> 
> Dave Watson: That's awesome if you made it into the movie. Hopefully they didn't cut you out!



On another thread I made it publicly known that I refuse to watch remakes. And, I heard it was gory, but the characters were flat as silhouette targets.


----------



## Tettsuo (May 29, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> On another thread I made it publicly known that I refuse to watch remakes. And, I heard it was gory, but the characters were flat as silhouette targets.


Absolutely true.  The characters are terribly weak... but by God is the film fun!


----------



## Purpleomen (May 29, 2013)

The thought that they have simply ran out of ideas doesn't tick well in my head. I am sure there are plenty of original ideas in Hollywood. But I would say the problem is in the profitability of those ideas and how much can be milked off them. The umpteenth sequel or reboot of Spiderman, Batman and (Insert Animal Here)Man sure don't sound original, but these titles guarantee moderate to high box office revenues, and that's all that matters nowadays unfortunately. Original content can of course come out of some small studio or independent film maker but chances are we will never hear of it.


----------



## philistine (May 29, 2013)

Purpleomen said:


> The thought that they have simply ran out of ideas doesn't tick well in my head. I am sure there are plenty of original ideas in Hollywood. But I would say the problem is in the profitability of those ideas and how much can be milked off them. The umpteenth sequel or reboot of Spiderman, Batman and (Insert Animal Here)Man sure don't sound original, but these titles guarantee moderate to high box office revenues, and that's all that matters nowadays unfortunately. Original content can of course come out of some small studio or independent film maker but chances are we will never hear of it.



The original material not getting produced due to low profit forecast is much the same as it not existing at all. Either way, there's still a lot to watch in eras gone by, so it's not a massive issue. Like in many facets of art, one must look to the past to find something great.


----------



## JosephB (May 29, 2013)

And there are lots of good independent and foreign films. We have a group of friends with similar tastes and recommend movies to each other -- that's how I find out about a lot of good flicks. My wife and I also belong to a little film club and we get together approx. once a month to eat and watch movies and then talk about them -- it's not nearly as nerdy as it sounds. If you limit your choices to what they show at the multiplex, you're going to be disappointed.


----------



## Lewdog (May 29, 2013)

I used to talk to a location scouter and he said it is extremely difficult to get a major film production company to pick up a script from anyone other than someone who is already well known.  That begs the question on how someone becomes well known, and quite frankly I was told a person has to work their way up through producing shorts for small time film festivals, through film schools, or from knowing the right people.


----------



## Houston (May 29, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> The best zombie film in the past ten or fifteen years, and I'm talking serious zombie film, was The Dead. And you've probably never heard of it.



Wrong, it was 28 Days Later.


----------



## Lewdog (May 29, 2013)

Houston said:


> Wrong, it was 28 Days Later.



I didn't care for _28 Days Later_, mostly because of the way the soldiers acted towards the end.  A lot of sites list _Shaun of the Dead_ one of the top 100 movies of all time.  I'm not sure if _I am Legend_ counts, or if _World War Z_ will be considered a zombie film, but those would have to be high up there.


----------



## Robert_S (May 29, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Philistine: Another issue is subtitles...movie-goers HATE subtitles.



That's an unfortunate thing. One of the best movies I've seen in the last 10 years was entirely subtitled: Pan's Labyrinth.  Such a wonderful and sad at once movie.A

And the movie I'm writing up is going to be largely subtitled because it's alien and they have their own language far longer than modern English has been spoken.


----------



## Robert_S (May 29, 2013)

Purpleomen said:


> The thought that they have simply ran out of ideas doesn't tick well in my head. I am sure there are plenty of original ideas in Hollywood.



Probably not in Hollywood. I think you have to look outside Hollywood to see new, fresh ideas.


----------



## Houston (May 29, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> I didn't care for _28 Days Later_, mostly because of the way the soldiers acted towards the end.



A little over the top maybe, but still realistic. 

Also I forgot about Zombieland, another great zombie movie that Hollywood produced.


----------



## Robert_S (May 29, 2013)

Hunter56 said:


> Speaking of Hollywood, what does everyone think of the upcoming World War Z adaption? I couldn't even get into the book and the movie doesn't look that great. I mean a zombie movie being PG-13? Besides that Warm Bodies movie (which was more of a romantic-comedy which makes it understandable) I don't think I've ever seen a zombie movie that's not rated R. Not saying that's a good reason to judge a movie, but still...



I loved the book and just looking at the commercial, it doesn't look anything like the book. Brookes made his zombies old school: rotting flesh, slow moving, highly unintelligent, etc. Hollywood got its slimy hands on it and now they move fast, are smart like ants, etc.


----------



## philistine (May 29, 2013)

Robert_S said:


> That's an unfortunate thing. One of the best movies I've seen in the last 10 years was entirely subtitled: Pan's Labyrinth.  Such a wonderful and sad at once movie.A
> 
> And the movie I'm writing up is going to be largely subtitled because it's alien and they have their own language far longer than modern English has been spoken.



And how about Captain Vidal? Definitely one of the most brutal characters I've seen in recent cinema.


----------



## Robert_S (May 29, 2013)

philistine said:


> And how about Captain Vidal? Definitely one of the most brutal characters I've seen in recent cinema.



I hated and feared him and the fact he had zero tolerance for the mistakes children make just made me hate him all that much more.


----------



## Lewdog (May 29, 2013)

I can't really say that there have been any characters in movies I really hated, other than when I was watching _The Losers_ the other day, and the main bad guy Max, was just so mean he came across as fake.


----------



## Houston (May 29, 2013)

Lil' Dice from City of God made Captain Vidal look like a boy scout.


----------



## Travers (May 29, 2013)

Robert_S said:


> That's an unfortunate thing. One of the best movies I've seen in the last 10 years was entirely subtitled: Pan's Labyrinth.  Such a wonderful and sad at once movie.A
> 
> And the movie I'm writing up is going to be largely subtitled because it's alien and they have their own language far longer than modern English has been spoken.



Absolutely love that film! That thin guy with his eyes in his hands is just about the creepiest movie monster ever.

People who can't handle subtitles have missed some of the best cinema of the last 20-30 years. My life would be poorer without Amilie (or anything by Jean Pierre Jeunet) or Oldboy in it.


----------



## FleshEater (May 29, 2013)

Houston said:


> Wrong, it was 28 Days Later.



Those weren't zombies. They were more like infected people turned mad.

If you don't love The Beyond, The Gates of Hell, Zombie, Let Sleeping Corpses Lie, Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things, Dawn of the Dead (1987), Day of the Dead (1985), Blue Sunshine, Messiah of Evil, etc. then I can see why you'd pick 28 Days Later. Sure, it was an okay film. I watched it in 2003 I believe, bought it for $5, and have NEVER watched it again. The Dead however, had me reliving all of those great zombie films, because it captured what they were all about.

EDIT: Shaun of the Dead was a good fun black comedy of zombies, but not worthy of greatest zombie film. And Zombieland...I could have lived without seeing Mickey Knox's attempted reincarnation turn soft sissy.


----------



## FleshEater (May 29, 2013)

Robert_S said:


> That's an unfortunate thing. One of the best movies I've seen in the last 10 years was entirely subtitled: Pan's Labyrinth.  Such a wonderful and sad at once movie.A
> 
> And the movie I'm writing up is going to be largely subtitled because it's alien and they have their own language far longer than modern English has been spoken.




Del Toro deserves more funding in America. I LOVED Pan's Labyrinth. I want to see him make At the Mountains of Madness.


----------



## Lewdog (May 29, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Those weren't zombies. They were more like infected people turned mad.
> 
> If you don't love The Beyond, The Gates of Hell, Zombie, Let Sleeping Corpses Lie, Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things, Dawn of the Dead (1987), Day of the Dead (1985), Blue Sunshine, Messiah of Evil, etc. then I can see why you'd pick 28 Days Later. Sure, it was an okay film. I watched it in 2003 I believe, bought it for $5, and have NEVER watched it again. The Dead however, had me reliving all of those great zombie films, because it captured what they were all about.



The idea of what a zombie is, has changed quite a bit.  Zombies are supposed to be re-animated corpses from witchcraft like voodoo, but nowadays zombies can be from chemical warfare, alien things like a passing comet, or all kinds of other stuff.


----------



## FleshEater (May 29, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> The idea of what a zombie is, has changed quite a bit.  Zombies are supposed to be re-animated corpses from witchcraft like voodoo, but nowadays zombies can be from chemical warfare, alien things like a passing comet, or all kinds of other stuff.



I'm well aware of this, but 28 Days Later just created killing machines. They weren't smelling out human flesh. What they did was far from new; I just don't call them zombies. Just like I don't call Lenzi's Nightmare City a zombie film.


----------



## Travers (May 29, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> I'm well aware of this, but 28 Days Later just created killing machines. They weren't smelling out human flesh. What they did was far from new; I just don't call them zombies. Just like I don't call Lenzi's Nightmare City a zombie film.



28 Days Later never mentions that they are zombies anyway. They are The Infected. I love that film too!

Also, if you're talking about great modern zombie movies, look no further than Dead Alive a.k.a Brain Dead.


----------



## Lewdog (May 29, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> I'm well aware of this, but 28 Days Later just created killing machines. They weren't smelling out human flesh. What they did was far from new; I just don't call them zombies. Just like I don't call Lenzi's Nightmare City a zombie film.



No, I wasn't saying you didn't know, I'm just saying that Hollywood has decided to create their own idea of what a zombie is.


----------



## FleshEater (May 29, 2013)

My second top zombie film in the last ten years is Michele Soavi's Dellamorte Dellamora a.k.a. Cemetery Man (for those of you without region free players)


----------



## Houston (May 29, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> EDIT: Shaun of the Dead was a good fun black comedy of zombies, but not worthy of greatest zombie film.



No it's not, but it's better than "The Dead". Along with 28 Days Later and ZombieLand.


----------



## FleshEater (May 29, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> No, I wasn't saying you didn't know, I'm just saying that Hollywood has decided to create their own idea of what a zombie is.



Again, Hollywood didn't start this trend...it happened in the late seventies and eighties.


----------



## FleshEater (May 29, 2013)

Houston said:


> No it's not, but it's better than "The Dead". Along with 28 Days Later and ZombieLand.



I hold zombies very close to my heart. My first love was Night of the Living Dead (1968 ) and then Dawn of the Dead (1978 ), which I purchased both on VHS when I was about eleven years old with allowance. The current molestation of the dead, I cannot get behind, and will never support it. So, for me, The Dead is the epitome of a more current zombie film.


----------



## Lewdog (May 29, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> I hold zombies very close to my heart. My first love was Night of the Living Dead (1968 ) and then Dawn of the Dead (1978 ), which I purchased both on VHS when I was about eleven years old with allowance. The current molestation of the dead, I cannot get behind, and will never support it. So, for me, The Dead is the epitome of a more current zombie film.



I can't find it anywhere, but I was always told that the film school at the Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio where I used to live did all the makeup on _Evil Dead_.  With you being so well versed on zombie movies maybe you can tell me if it is true or not.


----------



## Houston (May 29, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> I hold zombies very close to my heart. My first love was Night of the Living Dead (1968 ) and then Dawn of the Dead (1978 ), which I purchased both on VHS when I was about eleven years old with allowance. The current molestation of the dead, I cannot get behind, and will never support it. So, for me, The Dead is the epitome of a more current zombie film.



Ha, this is rich. 

Here we are in a "Hollywood running out of ideas" thread. I name two fresh innovative movies in 28 Days Later and Shaun of the Dead and he refers to them as "molestations". All the while praising movies that remind him of the ones that came out 40 years ago. Can't make this up.


----------



## Travers (May 29, 2013)

Houston said:


> Ha, this is rich.
> 
> Here we are in a "Hollywood running out of ideas" thread. I name two fresh innovative movies in 28 Days Later and Shaun of the Dead and he refers to them as "molestations". All the while praising movies that remind him of the ones that came out 40 years ago. Can't make this up.



Just to mix it up even more, neither of those films are Hollywood.


----------



## Rustgold (May 30, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> The idea of what a zombie is, has changed quite a bit. Zombies are supposed to be re-animated corpses from witchcraft like voodoo, but nowadays zombies can be from chemical warfare, alien things like a passing comet, or all kinds of other stuff.


Well actually they were brain-damaged non-dead voodoo & witchcraft victims (you can see where the brain eating comes from); the ritual included life burials.  The victims were supposedly created for farm 'zombie labour'.  This is going back to the 19th century of course.



FleshEater said:


> Again, Hollywood didn't start this trend...it happened in the late seventies and eighties.


Oh, I thought Hollywood predated the 1970's.


----------



## Leyline (May 30, 2013)

'Hollywood' (a nebulous concept that doesn't actually exist) can't have ideas, really. They buy freelance scripts. So, the better way to say this is 'Has Hollywood stopped buying scripts with good ideas?' which, actually doesn't make any sense. It's on the order of 'Has the gas-retailer industry stopped buying good petroleum distillates?'


----------



## FleshEater (May 30, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> I can't find it anywhere, but I was always told that the film school at the Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio where I used to live did all the makeup on _Evil Dead_.  With you being so well versed on zombie movies maybe you can tell me if it is true or not.



I'm not sure, but I don't think so. I just watched something with Tom Sullivan but can't remember.



Houston said:


> Ha, this is rich.
> 
> Here we are in a "Hollywood running out of ideas" thread. I name two fresh innovative movies in 28 Days Later and Shaun of the Dead and he refers to them as "molestations". All the while praising movies that remind him of the ones that came out 40 years ago. Can't make this up.



Dude, you're mentioning 28 Days Later and Shaun is laughable too...they were both English films! The only Hollywood zombie film you've mentioned was Zombieland...the thread got into this by me saying Hollywood shouldn't touch zombie films because Hollywood sucks at them. And again, neither of them are fresh nor innovative. 28 Days Later is just a calmer Nightmare City using a virus instead of radiation, and Shaun is a modern Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things, adding only a little more comedy...and again, still not Hollywood productions. But, like I said, unless you love and appreciate older cinema, everything seems new and innovative, and it ain't.



Rustgold said:


> Oh, I thought Hollywood predated the 1970's.



It does, but we were discussing zombie films. And before the Dawn of the Dead remake in 2004, I can't think of a time when a major motion picture company picked up a zombie script. White Zombie I don't think was even done in Hollywood.


----------



## FleshEater (May 30, 2013)

Travers said:


> 28 Days Later never mentions that they are zombies anyway. They are The Infected. I love that film too!
> 
> Also, if you're talking about great modern zombie movies, look no further than Dead Alive a.k.a Brain Dead.



I forgot about Peter Jackson's grand zombie film, but was thinking more current. Brain Dead is 21 years old, ha-ha!

But, he should ditch the money making train ad start making good films again, like Bad Taste, Brain Dead, and The Frightners.


----------



## Hunter56 (May 30, 2013)

I wasn't crazy about 28 Days Later, but I'll give it some credit. It was the first zombie film that -- at least to my knowledge -- had the now-famous 'running zombies' in it. I believe the trend got popular though when the Dawn of the Dead remake had them soon after.


----------



## Houston (May 30, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> But, like I said, unless you love and appreciate older cinema, everything seems new and innovative, and it ain't.



I do love and appreciate older cinema. I just don't pay attention to awful looking B zombie movies. Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things?....Nightmare City?....no thanks I'd rather watch Zombieland anyday.


----------



## Rustgold (May 30, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> It does, but we were discussing zombie films. And before the Dawn of the Dead remake in 2004, I can't think of a time when a major motion picture company picked up a zombie script. White Zombie I don't think was even done in Hollywood.


The original movie to I Am Legend was 1960s (the book was a borefest btw), made by a company which at that point had made it to 'major' company status (they even owned a television network at one time).


----------



## FleshEater (May 30, 2013)

Hunter56 said:


> I wasn't crazy about 28 Days Later, but I'll give it some credit. It was the first zombie film that -- at least to my knowledge -- had the now-famous 'running zombies' in it. I believe the trend got popular though when the Dawn of the Dead remake had them soon after.



Again, to my knowledge, Nightmare City was the first zombie film to have violent, running, zombie-like monsters. And that was 1980. Leave it to the Italians. I would post a trailer here, but it's a violent gore fest with very inappropriate scenes of female violation.



Rustgold said:


> The original movie to I Am Legend was 1960s (the book was a borefest btw), made by a company which at that point had made it to 'major' company status (they even owned a television network at one time).



I can't find that film anywhere. Was it a different title?


----------



## Robert_S (May 30, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Del Toro deserves more funding in America. I LOVED Pan's Labyrinth. I want to see him make At the Mountains of Madness.



I would love to see a more faithful rendering of "Call of Cthulhu." There was one that approached appropriate, but it was s silent and black and white and in my personal opinion, it deserves to be an in color talkie, but it should remain in the same era.


----------



## Leyline (May 30, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> I can't find that film anywhere. Was it a different title?



Yeah, it was _The Last Man On Earth_ and starred Vincent Price.


----------



## philistine (May 30, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Del Toro deserves more funding in America. I LOVED Pan's Labyrinth. I want to see him make At the Mountains of Madness.



It's a great film, to be sure, along with Cronos. Julia's Eyes, however, was... well, I'm certainly not going to say anything nice about it.


----------



## FleshEater (May 30, 2013)

Leyline said:


> Yeah, it was _The Last Man On Earth_ and starred Vincent Price.



Ah, I have that but haven't watched it yet. Roger Corman?


----------



## Leyline (May 30, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Ah, I have that but haven't watched it yet. Roger Corman?



No, it was distributed by AIP, but developed by Hammer. Directed by Sidney Salkow and Ubaldo Ragona.


----------



## patskywriter (May 31, 2013)

On one of my shows, my guest answered the question, "Why do they keep making Spiderman and Superman movies over and over?" with this: "Every few years or so, Hollywood wants to introduce the next generation to the Spiderman/Superman stories. They feel that the kids can't relate to stories that are 'dated.'"

That's nuts. I was born in the 1950s and we didn't feel that the old Flash Gordon, Charlie Chan, and Fred & Ginger movies from the '20s, '30s, and '40s were too dated to watch. While today's producers are continuously retelling the same stories, maybe they should also come out with black, Hispanic, and Asian versions of everything, too, like with the multiethnic Barbie dolls. That way, every audience can relate at every level possible. … Hey, wait, that could actually be kinda cool.  :friendly_wink:


----------



## Lewdog (May 31, 2013)

patskywriter said:


> On one of my shows, my guest answered the question, "Why do they keep making Spiderman and Superman movies over and over?" with this: "Every few years or so, Hollywood wants to introduce the next generation to the Spiderman/Superman stories. They feel that the kids can't relate to stories that are 'dated.'"
> 
> That's nuts. I was born in the 1950s and we didn't feel that the old Flash Gordon, Charlie Chan, and Fred & Ginger movies from the '20s, '30s, and '40s were too dated to watch. While today's producers are continuously retelling the same stories, maybe they should also come out with black, Hispanic, and Asian versions of everything, too, like with the multiethnic Barbie dolls. That way, every audience can relate at every level possible. … Hey, wait, that could actually be kinda cool.  :friendly_wink:



Except that all the multi-ethnic Barbie Dolls have been put under fire for being racially insensitive.  These days you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.


----------



## patskywriter (May 31, 2013)

Not all. Although some folks were wondering about the black Hispanic Barbie. She had a suspiciously close resemblance to Cuban singer Celia Cruz.


----------



## Dave Watson (May 31, 2013)

Leyline said:


> Yeah, it was _The Last Man On Earth_ and starred Vincent Price.



I always thought _The Omega Man_ with Charllton Heston was based on _I am Legend_?

The Omega Man (1971) - IMDb


----------



## Kevin (May 31, 2013)

It was...
It's a wonder that the film makers weren't sued by C. Manson for their use of the name 'The Family" and their description of them as "a homicidal cult of nocturnal albinos(loose in L.A.)"  If you guys had been around back then (the 70s) you would have seen these films televised on a regular basis ...(poor, deprived, kids)


----------



## FleshEater (May 31, 2013)

Kevin said:


> It was...
> It's a wonder that the film makers weren't sued by C. Manson for their use of the name 'The Family" and their description of them as "a homicidal cult of nocturnal albinos(loose in L.A.)"  If you guys had been around back then (the 70s) you would have seen these films televised on a regular basis ...(poor, deprived, kids)



Yeah, like Bad Ronald, Don't be Afraid of the Dark, Trilogy of Terror, Woman in Black, etc.


----------



## Rustgold (May 31, 2013)

patskywriter said:


> On one of my shows, my guest answered the question, "Why do they keep making Spiderman and Superman movies over and over?" with this: "Every few years or so, Hollywood wants to introduce the next generation to the Spiderman/Superman stories. They feel that the kids can't relate to stories that are 'dated.'"
> 
> That's nuts. I was born in the 1950s and we didn't feel that the old Flash Gordon, Charlie Chan, and Fred & Ginger movies from the '20s, '30s, and '40s were too dated to watch. While today's producers are continuously retelling the same stories, maybe they should also come out with black, Hispanic, and Asian versions of everything, too, like with the multiethnic Barbie dolls. That way, every audience can relate at every level possible. … Hey, wait, that could actually be kinda cool.  :friendly_wink:



Actually it's just so they can squeeze a few more dollars out of everybody.  How many people went to the cinemas for Titanic, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Dark Knight, or The Lion King?  Put the same movie back into the cinema, and you simply wouldn't get the audience, because everybody's seen it.  It's got nothing to do with the movies being 'dated', it's just about ranking in the next bucketload of easy money.

And on Barbie dolls, wouldn't a one white stripe, one black stripe, one yellow stripe, one brown striped Barbie be funny.  And think about the hair; what possibilities.


----------



## patskywriter (May 31, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> Actually it's just so they can squeeze a few more dollars out of everybody.  How many people went to the cinemas for Titanic, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Dark Knight, or The Lion King?  Put the same movie back into the cinema, and you simply wouldn't get the audience, because everybody's seen it.  It's got nothing to do with the movies being 'dated', it's just about ranking in the next bucketload of easy money. …



I disagree, although I don't have anything concrete to say why. It just seems that if you grow up hearing about The Lion King or any of those other movies, you'd want to see it. And wouldn't parents want to take their kids to see Star Wars in glorious supercolor and whizbang sound (or whatever they're called these days)? People will rush to see just about anything if it's marketed right, and it seems to me that movie companies are missing an opportunity to make money by re-releasing movies instead of remaking them over and over _and over_ again. 

I think that's the reasoning behind the fact that Disney makes its films "unavailable" for a decade or so. (Or at least that's what they used to do.)

And one more thing. I don't care how many times they remake the Emily Brontë classic Wuthering Heights. No remake has _ever_ come close to the original 1939 version (with Lawrence Olivier). :wink:


----------



## iMagine Creativity (Jun 1, 2013)

I think they are just realizing how good some movies could be based on a book or other sources. I personally do not like remake-type movies such as 'The amazing spiderman.' although i agree, original ideas are all ways better.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 1, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Yeah, like Bad Ronald, Don't be Afraid of the Dark, Trilogy of Terror, Woman in Black, etc.


 Trilogy of terror- I re-watched it and I think the "Chucky" movies sort of played it out. An indestructable doll that comes to life had been done before, but like zombies that run fast, the _Tot_  doll caused quite a stir in the teen/pre-teen world when it first aired. 

Don't be afraid of the dark- Little shrivel heads dragging Kim darby into the brick fireplace- I was afraid of our home's exterior chimney cleanout space for years. The metal door was open and inside were a rubber ducky and a soccer-ball. I wouldn't go near. 

Night Gallery (series)- "the Doll" - Yes, I was afraid. I couldn't help but watch anyway, everytime, and everytime it freaked me out...
They had an episode about a boxer- _The Ring with the Red Velvet Ropes-- _I really liked the premise.

The two "Kolshak" movies for T.V. were also favorites. A vampire attempting to summon/create a demon using blood infused clay sculpture- (sounds not that exciting now) and 'Underground Seattle' (which exists, sort of...)


----------



## Robert_S (Jun 1, 2013)

Kevin said:


> Night Gallery (series)- "the Doll" - Yes, I was afraid. I couldn't help but watch anyway, everytime, and everytime it freaked me out...
> They had an episode about a boxer- _The Ring with the Red Velvet Ropes-- _I really liked the premise.



There was two episode of that series I remember. 

1. Roddy McDowell plays a spoiled adult child living in his father's house that is attended by a black butler McDowell would call "porter boy." The father dies (I think McDowell's character killed him), McDowell fires the butler. One night, McDowell looks at a painting that focuses on his fathers grave in the family plot outside the house. It progresses as the painting shows the father crawling out of the grave and approaches the house.
2. An art teacher/professor shows a painting of a house at night that has a monster standing at the side of the house. A student, perhaps an crush type relationship, goes to his house at night, which is the house in the painting. The teacher is yelling for her to leave. That it's not safe.  The monster turns out to be real.

_Night Gallery_ wasn't bad, but it wasn't phenomenal like _The Twilight Zone_.


----------



## Hunter56 (Jun 28, 2013)

Ugh, guess which one they're remaking now... Jacob's Ladder. _Why_ do they need to remake that movie?


----------



## Robert_S (Jun 28, 2013)

Hunter56 said:


> Ugh, guess which one they're remaking now... Jacob's Ladder. _Why_ do they need to remake that movie?



The only thing they show when they remake those classics is how little directors today know about making a movie.


----------



## Hunter56 (Jun 28, 2013)

Robert_S said:


> The only thing they show when they remake those classics is how little director's today know about making a movie.



Yeah, they don't even have a director for it yet. The writer for it apparently has only done one movie which was terrible before he went on board with this one. 

You just know this is gonna be disaster.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 28, 2013)

Why? Why would anyone remake Jacob's Ladder?

This is the end. My only friend, the end.

No seriously...it is. It has to be.


----------



## Hunter56 (Jun 28, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Why? Why would anyone remake Jacob's Ladder?
> 
> This is the end. My only friend, the end.
> 
> No seriously...it is. It has to be.



Well there is a small chance that they might actually make it good.

Yeah... probably not.


----------



## Robert_S (Jun 28, 2013)

Hunter56 said:


> Yeah, they don't even have a director for it yet. The writer for it apparently has only done one movie which was terrible before he went on board with this one.
> 
> You just know this is gonna be disaster.



I'm shaking my head right now. The business model hollywood has adopted is terrible.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 28, 2013)

Hunter56 said:


> Well there is a small chance that they might actually make it good.
> 
> Yeah... probably not.



Not possible.


----------



## Houston (Jun 29, 2013)

Warm Bodies was a pretty good zombie film.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 29, 2013)

Friendly zombies are as bad as friendly vampires and werewolves.


----------



## SarahStrange (Jun 29, 2013)

Warm Bodies was Romeo and Juliet with the undead.... And it didn't even make sense. 

Love?! Love is what cures zombies?! Well at least we all know now that if there is a zombie apocalypse we just have to find a hot girl and a mildly attractive guy/zombie, get them to want to do the horizontal mambo, add in a grumpy father for flavor and the world is saved.


----------



## Houston (Jun 29, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Friendly zombies are as bad as friendly vampires and werewolves.





SarahStrange said:


> Warm Bodies was Romeo and Juliet with the undead.... And it didn't even make sense.
> 
> Love?! Love is what cures zombies?! Well at least we all know now that if there is a zombie apocalypse we just have to find a hot girl and a mildly attractive guy/zombie, get them to want to do the horizontal mambo, add in a grumpy father for flavor and the world is saved.



Stabbing at the wrong thing. 

[video=youtube;cfTxHwWYOpM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfTxHwWYOpM[/video]

The narrative, point of view, existentialist themes, and beautiful juxtaposition made it a really good and unique movie.


----------



## SarahStrange (Jun 29, 2013)

> The narrative, point of view, existentialist themes, and beautiful juxtaposition made it a really good and unique movie.



I'm sorry, I just can't get past the teenage angst and bad zombie acting. I'm _trying_, but it seems a little impossible for me. When I do think about the "existentialist themes" I get the impression that they were an accident, a by product of trying to attract young female girls sweating for a zombie boyfriend who over comes everything *_swoon_* just for her. And isn't he just _so conflicted _about it all...

I guess I just want _everything_ in a movie to be well done. If it's not, I have trouble seeing its value i.e. warm bodies. But ya know, that's probably my biased opinion. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong Houston, I just can't understand it. 

Personally, I think that the only two movies I have ever seen that are good adaptations of novels are _The Color Purple_ and _The LIfe of Pie_. Both are just phenomenal.


----------



## moderan (Jun 29, 2013)

You haven't seen that many adaptations then. Here's a few, off the top of my head, that are uniformly excellent:
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Charly
The Big Sleep (Bogie or Mitchum)
The Maltese Falcon (equal time for Hammett)
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
MASH
The Godfather
Black Sunday (Harris, with Bruce Dern)
Altered States
Jaws
The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms
Moby Dick (script by R. Bradbury)
A Boy and His Dog
et al


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 29, 2013)

Fight Club, Choke, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Carrie, Cujo, The Green Mile, Salem's Lot, Christine, The Shining, Pet Sematary, Requiem for a Dream, A Scanner Darkly, Rambo First Blood, etc. 

There are a lot of good adaptations.


----------



## Lewdog (Jun 29, 2013)

I've been forgetting to watch it, but has anyone watched _Beowulf_?  Is it worth watching, and I don't mean just because Angelina Jolie is in it?


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 29, 2013)

She'd be one reason NOT to watch it.


----------



## Houston (Jun 29, 2013)

The Shawshank Redemption, anyone?


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 30, 2013)

I forgot that on my list.


----------



## moderan (Jun 30, 2013)

I can't stand most of the movies on your list. Or the books they were made from. First Blood and Christine are two of the most awful movies ever made. Cujo is worse. But different strokes I guess. A Scanner Darkly is a decent book-awful movie.


----------



## Lewdog (Jun 30, 2013)

Wow I can't believe you guys didn't say _Dune_!


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 30, 2013)

moderan said:


> I can't stand most of the movies on your list. Or the books they were made from. First Blood and Christine are two of the most awful movies ever made. Cujo is worse. But different strokes I guess. A Scanner Darkly is a decent book-awful movie.



I grew up on these films, so it's nostalgic love I have for them. Plus, I think John Carpenter is one the greatest horror directors of all time, so Christine is definitely on the list.

Also, stating them as the most awful movies ever made seems a bit, extreme. If those fall into your category of most awful then I'd imagine 95% of most horror and action cinema does as well.


----------



## moderan (Jun 30, 2013)

Terrible adaptation. Children of Dune is much better.
More:

The Phantom Tollbooth
The Man with the Golden Arm
The Asphalt Jungle
Serpico
The Serpent and the Rainbow (wait-zombis?)
Sybil (either one)
Hellraiser (one and two-forget the rest)
The Fog (original only)
Willard (Ratman's notebooks-also Ben and the remake with Crispin Glover)
A Clockwork Orange
Fail-Safe
The Towering Inferno (The Tower/the Glass Inferno)
The Other


----------



## moderan (Jun 30, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> I grew up on these films, so it's nostalgic love I have for them. Plus, I think John Carpenter is one the greatest horror directors of all time, so Christine is definitely on the list.
> 
> Also, stating them as the most awful movies ever made seems a bit, extreme. If those fall into your category of most awful then I'd imagine 95% of most horror and action cinema does as well.


Nah. First Blood is a right-wing polemic. Christine and Cujo are subpar offerings made into laughably bad films suitable for MST3K. Action cinema can be entertaining from a spectacle pov but rarely offers narrative pleasures. What modern audiences call "horror" falls into the same category. I like Carpenter. I like Kubrick too but I'm never gonna watch Barry Lyndon again.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 30, 2013)

moderan said:


> Nah. First Blood is a right-wing polemic. Christine and Cujo are subpar offerings made into laughably bad films suitable for MST3K. Action cinema can be entertaining from a spectacle pov but rarely offers narrative pleasures. What modern audiences call "horror" falls into the same category. I like Carpenter. I like Kubrick too but I'm never gonna watch Barry Lyndon again.



Fair enough. 

I've been meaning to try and watch The Serpent and the Rainbow again but can't do it. I didn't know it was an adaptation. It put me to sleep the first time. If I reach for a Craven film it's either Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes, or A Nightmare on Elm Street...he became a disappointment after those.


----------



## Lewdog (Jun 30, 2013)

_The Towering Inferno_ was so good it started a whole new genre of film called "the disaster film," which was the top genre of the 1970's.  It was just jam packed with stars.  _The Poseidon Adventure_, _The China Syndrome_, and _Airport 1975_ with Charlton Heston were all also great films..  There was a volcano based one I liked, but I can't remember the name of it.


----------



## moderan (Jun 30, 2013)

Y'see...I think those films all suck. Serpent and the Rainbow is adapted from a book by Wes Davis. Good source of actual voudoun lore, as opposed to the sparkly-vampire brand of zombie as pioneered by Romero. Henry S Whitehead used to write real-zombie pieces in the early 1900s. You should look him up. Great stuff.
I heard about Craven when he was in Wheaton College. Yeah, Billy Graham University. That's where he honed his craft. He knows his history-I like his interviews much better than his work.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 30, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> _The Towering Inferno_ was so good it started a whole new genre of film called "the disaster film," which was the top genre of the 1970's.  It was just jam packed with stars.  _The Poseidon Adventure_, _The China Syndrome_, and _Airport 1975_ with Charlton Heston were all also great films..  There was a volcano based one I liked, but I can't remember the name of it.



I've never seen The Towering Inferno, but after watching the trailer it looks like something that would excite Michael Bay. What with all of those explosions and fire. Ha-ha!


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 30, 2013)

moderan said:


> Y'see...I think those films all suck. Serpent and the Rainbow is adapted from a book by Wes Davis. Good source of actual voudoun lore, as opposed to the sparkly-vampire brand of zombie as pioneered by Romero. Henry S Whitehead used to write real-zombie pieces in the early 1900s. You should look him up. Great stuff.
> I heard about Craven when he was in Wheaton College. Yeah, Billy Graham University. That's where he honed his craft. He knows his history-I like his interviews much better than his work.



Sparkly-vampire zombies? Okay...

I can't stand reading any old works of fiction, and I really don't find the voodoo zombie to be very interesting at all. Especially not after it's been broken down scientifically, theorized to be nothing more than a state of being induced by poison.


----------



## moderan (Jun 30, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> _The Towering Inferno_ was so good it started a whole new genre of film called "the disaster film," which was the top genre of the 1970's.  It was just jam packed with stars.  _The Poseidon Adventure_, _The China Syndrome_, and _Airport 1975_ with Charlton Heston were all also great films..  There was a volcano based one I liked, but I can't remember the name of it.



Umm, Volcano (with Tommy Lee Jones and Anne Heche)? Irwin Allen was behind the disaster genre-he had previously done such things as Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.
The China Syndrome is the godfather of the ecosaster film, a current fave of audiences everywhere, though these days it means zombies.


----------



## Lewdog (Jun 30, 2013)

moderan said:


> Umm, Volcano (with Tommy Lee Jones and Anne Heche)? Irwin Allen was behind the disaster genre-he had previously done such things as Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.
> The China Syndrome is the godfather of the ecosaster film, a current fave of audiences everywhere, though these days it means zombies.



No it was a Volcano film from the 70's.  I think it was set in Hawaii and most of the film was about tourist trying to escape a vacation retreat with the lava flow coming down the mountain.


----------



## moderan (Jun 30, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Sparkly-vampire zombies? Okay...
> 
> I can't stand reading any old works of fiction, and I really don't find the voodoo zombie to be very interesting at all. Especially not after it's been broken down scientifically, theorized to be nothing more than a state of being induced by poison.



Then you're missing the best that literature has to offer, and will never understand the perspective of those who have been exposed to such. The spritual/philosophical background of voudoun is to me far more interesting than anyone's dramatic rendering of brain-eating dork zombies...filmic undead are tending to a state of universal sameness. Vampires, zombies, lycanthropes, they're all treated the same, and without the lore of a thousand centuries behind them to inform the narrative, they're poor pinch-hitters sent up to the plate in lieu of the real thing, and in a vacuum to boot.



Lewdog said:


> No it was a Volcano film from the 70's.  I think  it was set in Hawaii and most of the film was about tourist trying to  escape a vacation retreat with the lava flow coming down the  mountain.



Check your chronology again...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_film


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jun 30, 2013)

_Hellraiser_ is underrated, I think. John Carpenter probably could have done something interesting with it -- the scene in the pet shop reminded me of him -- but Barker did a fine job. Love it.


----------



## Lewdog (Jun 30, 2013)

I found it, it came out in 1980.  It's called _When Time Ran Out..._, and starred several good actors including Paul Newman, Ernest Borgnine, Jacqueline Bisset, and others.

[video=youtube;ef9XyGAsl_o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef9XyGAsl_o[/video]


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 30, 2013)

moderan said:


> Then you're missing the best that literature has to offer, and will never understand the perspective of those who have been exposed to such. The spritual/philosophical background of voudoun is to me far more interesting than anyone's dramatic rendering of brain-eating dork zombies...filmic undead are tending to a state of universal sameness. Vampires, zombies, lycanthropes, they're all treated the same, and without the lore of a thousand centuries behind them to inform the narrative, they're poor pinch-hitters sent up to the plate in lieu of the real thing, and in a vacuum to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> Check your chronology again...Disaster film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That's a subjective opinion, and really, you'll never understand the perspective of people like me that don't find early literature worth anythng either. I mean, I'm sure you have your speculations, but it's probably nothing positive.


----------



## Robert_S (Jun 30, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> _Hellraiser_ is underrated, I think. John Carpenter probably could have done something interesting with it -- the scene in the pet shop reminded me of him -- but Barker did a fine job. Love it.



Hellraiser is very underrated. I think the whole concept of other dimension/world demons was awesome.  The mood was always dark, as it should have been. It came across as an HP Lovecraft creation with humanoid monsters as opposed to tentacle faced mountains.

PS: Vampire and zombie movies all try to rationalize their creation with science. Hellraiser didn't bother to explain it, just presented it.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 30, 2013)

Hellraiser isn't underrated. It's regarded amongst horror fans as one of the greatest pieces of celluloid. That is all that is needed in the realm of horror.


----------



## moderan (Jun 30, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> That's a subjective opinion, and really, you'll never understand the perspective of people like me that don't find early literature worth anythng either. I mean, I'm sure you have your speculations, but it's probably nothing positive.



No, it isn't subjective. I've heard your perspective ad infinitum. It's along the lines of "history has nothing to teach me" and it's presented by young people who don't think they'll repeat any of the previous mistakes because they are "infallible" or whatever. You can rationalize it all you want, but it's just plain ignorance, and willful ignorance at that.
Early literature to you is stuff printed before 2000? Please. Early literature in The Epic of Gilgamesh, which has plenty to teach anyone, or the Books of the Dead or Thoth, things like that.
Go ahead and assume I have negative opinions of the ignorant. Stupidity is incurable...ignorance isn't. But please feel free to varnish yours and present it as informed opinion.
In the meantime, I have cave-paintings of dinosaurs to do.


----------



## Robert_S (Jun 30, 2013)

moderan said:


> It's along the lines of "history has nothing to teach me" and it's presented by young people who don't think they'll repeat any of the previous mistakes because they are "infallible" or whatever.



Yeah, one thing that world history and politics has taught me, we humans make the same mistakes, over and over and over. You can see at the individual level as well, people will go up and pet the panda and get mauled and have the nerve to wonder what went wrong.

My belief is that the new generation didn't live the old generation's lives, walk in their shoes, make their mistakes, but they still make those mistakes, just in a new era.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 30, 2013)

moderan said:


> No, it isn't subjective. I've heard your perspective ad infinitum. It's along the lines of "history has nothing to teach me" and it's presented by young people who don't think they'll repeat any of the previous mistakes because they are "infallible" or whatever. You can rationalize it all you want, but it's just plain ignorance, and willful ignorance at that.
> Early literature to you is stuff printed before 2000? Please. Early literature in The Epic of Gilgamesh, which has plenty to teach anyone, or the Books of the Dead or Thoth, things like that.
> Go ahead and assume I have negative opinions of the ignorant. Stupidity is incurable...ignorance isn't. But please feel free to varnish yours and present it as informed opinion.
> In the meantime, I have cave-paintings of dinosaurs to do.



That isn't at all what I think about any of this. I hate "Great Literature." I've tried to read it and find it long winded and down right boring...so what? That doesn't mean I ignore or forget history.

Also, I don't have to rationalize anything. Arguing with you about anything leads down the same path every time, and I really don't care to do it again. It's pointless.


----------



## squidtender (Jun 30, 2013)

*Hey! Don't make me pull this car over! Calm er' down, or I'm sending everyone to their rooms with a copy of Twilight*


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 30, 2013)

Randy, your Hell is way worse than Palahniuks!


----------



## Robert_S (Jun 30, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> That isn't at all what I think about any of this. I hate "Great Literature." I've tried to read it and find it long winded and down right boring...so what? That doesn't mean I ignore or forget history.



Really? One of the best books I've ever read was "Moby Dick." While the dialog was difficult to follow, the narration was awesomely lyrical.


----------



## philistine (Jun 30, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> That isn't at all what I think about any of this. I hate "Great Literature." I've tried to read it and find it long winded and down right boring...so what? That doesn't mean I ignore or forget history.



I know this is your opinion, and that you don't have to justify yourself to me or anyone else on this forum... but I must say, I find that very odd indeed. What do you mean by boring? Also, what are you defining as 'great literature'? Do you just mean old books, or ones which have been elevated to classic- both modern and otherwise- novel status? 

I'm quite the opposite, in that I find a lot of modern literature quite terrible- at least in comparison their older counterparts. Nine-tenths of my reading takes the form of works written before 1950 or so, all the way back to ancient stuff. I find modern works to merely scrape the surface, rarely delving deeper into the variety of issues that make a good book just that- a good book. However, I try not to discriminate and will read most things once.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 30, 2013)

I tried reading Faulkner. I can't keep from falling asleep. I can't read Lovecraft, Machen, or any of those old horror writers anymore. They're boring. The stories are good, but it takes pages and pages to get there. I like straight to the point, tight, concise writing. I like minimalism. Most of what was written and has since become a classic is not written in an interesting way. Too many adverbs, adjectives, and fancy writing that doesn't impress me. 

I want to read something that tells the story, not something that flashes vocabulary and prose.

I started out reading all the old classics. However my tastes have drastically changed and I can no longer stomach "The Classics."


----------



## philistine (Jun 30, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> I tried reading Faulkner. I can't keep from falling asleep. I can't read Lovecraft, Machen, or any of those old horror writers anymore. They're boring. The stories are good, but it takes pages and pages to get there. I like straight to the point, tight, concise writing. I like minimalism. Most of what was written and has since become a classic is not written in an interesting way. Too many adverbs, adjectives, and fancy writing that doesn't impress me.
> 
> I want to read something that tells the story, not something that flashes vocabulary and prose.
> 
> I started out reading all the old classics. However my tastes have drastically changed and I can no longer stomach "The Classics."



I guess you're the kind of person, for which there are many, who prefer to take in the story straight away, with as little fuss as possible. Conversely, I'm not alone in saying that I enjoy the language, literary devices and whatever else have you that makes up a novel- just as much as the story itself. I've been taken aback more times than I care to remember just from the way an author has chosen to phrase certain things. Fitzgerald, most recently.


----------



## Jon M (Jun 30, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> I tried reading Faulkner. I can't keep from falling asleep. I can't read Lovecraft, Machen, or any of those old horror writers anymore. They're boring. The stories are good, but it takes pages and pages to get there. I like straight to the point, tight, concise writing. I like minimalism. Most of what was written and has since become a classic is not written in an interesting way. Too many adverbs, adjectives, and fancy writing that doesn't impress me.
> 
> I want to read something that tells the story, not something that flashes vocabulary and prose.
> 
> I started out reading all the old classics. However my tastes have drastically changed and I can no longer stomach "The Classics."


Made me chuckle, especially the bit about finding Lovecraft unreadable, because I totally remember the early days.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 30, 2013)

philistine said:


> I guess you're the kind of person, for which there are many, who prefer to take in the story straight away, with as little fuss as possible. Conversely, I'm not alone in saying that I enjoy the language, literary devices and whatever else have you that makes up a novel- just as much as the story itself. I've been taken aback more times than I care to remember just from the way an author has chosen to phrase certain things. Fitzgerald, most recently.



My desire for a more readable story progressed as my writing progressed. And, I have found it's far more difficult to tell a story in as few words as possible than it is to tell it as beautifully or intricately as possible. 

Yes JonM, the influence of Lovecraft plays in the back of my mind like a nightmare now a day . Oh how I loved my prose, adverbs, and adjectives.


----------



## Houston (Jun 30, 2013)

SarahStrange said:


> I'm sorry, I just can't get past the teenage angst and bad zombie acting. I'm _trying_, but it seems a little impossible for me. When I do think about the "existentialist themes" I get the impression that they were an accident, a by product of trying to attract young female girls sweating for a zombie boyfriend who over comes everything *_swoon_* just for her. And isn't he just _so conflicted _about it all...



*sigh* You don't get it...

The guy was isolated, lonely, and his life had no real purpose. He spent everyday walking around and going through the motions just because. 

_"A wonderful fact to reflect upon, that every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other-Charles Dickens
_
He had no idea what was going on in the minds of the other zombies. Did they think like him? Did they seek any other purpose? Were they also lonely and a bit depressed? There was no way of knowing because he couldn't communicate with any of the people that surrounded him all day long. I assure you these themes and motifs were no accident. 

If you wanna chalk it all up as him being just some emo heartthrob then you really missed it. 
_


_


----------



## Kevin (Jun 30, 2013)

Never trust a book over thirty.


----------



## Lewdog (Jun 30, 2013)

What's funny about all this, is today so much of a big deal is made of books that come across as sexually explicit, a'la _50 Shades of Grey,_​ but some of the 'Classics' writers were just as, if not more perverted.  Have you ever really slowed down and read Shakespeare?  There were many others like him.


----------



## philistine (Jul 1, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> What's funny about all this, is today so much of a big deal is made of books that come across as sexually explicit, a'la _50 Shades of Grey,_​ but some of the 'Classics' writers were just as, if not more perverted.  Have you ever really slowed down and read Shakespeare?  There were many others like him.



I'll step in here, as erotic literature from all periods is something of an expert topic with me. I probably have fifty volumes or more, from several different countries, of both deliberately pornographic, erotic, or just slightly bawdy literature. There was one difference in every single example (*of what I've read): they were written with the same eloquence, care and consideration that any other subject would have been treated with. They just didn't beat around the bush when it came to sex. 

Fifty Shades of Grey, Wetlands et al were, in almost anyone's opinion, horribly poor books. They weren't so much written as they were aborted with a coat hanger from the womb of creative endeavour. I haven't read it myself, but weren't there reported spelling errors all over FSOG?

And yes, the stuff I've heard Alfred de Musset come out with would make anyone reel back in both shock and laughter.


----------



## Sam (Jul 1, 2013)

philistine said:


> I guess you're the kind of person, for which there are many, who prefer to take in the story straight away, with as little fuss as possible. Conversely, I'm not alone in saying that I enjoy the language, literary devices and whatever else have you that makes up a novel- just as much as the story itself. I've been taken aback more times than I care to remember just from the way an author has chosen to phrase certain things. Fitzgerald, most recently.



I like to get my stories started straight away, with minimum introspection and/or exposition, but I'm an avid reader of 'classic' literature. That is, classic literature that appeals to me. I have no time for Joyce or Faulkner. I find much of their work tediously boring and self-serving. I roll my eyes when professors swoon over Joycean literature as though nothing else comes close. Proust was miles better. So, too, was Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Beckett wipes the floor with him as Ireland's greatest writer. I think it's telling that Joyce never won the Nobel prize. Beckett did. Yeats did. Even Shaw did, and Joyce considered him a joke. 

So I understand where FleshEater's coming from. It can be hard to read classical literature because most of it is designed to reflect the time period. The Industrial Revolution, the advent of the First World War, the rise of Freud and psychoanalysis. Those topics don't make for entertaining reading unless you're a history buff.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 1, 2013)

Sam said:


> I like to get my stories started straight away, with minimum introspection and/or exposition, but I'm an avid reader of 'classic' literature. That is, classic literature that appeals to me. I have no time for Joyce or Faulkner. I find much of their work tediously boring and self-serving. I roll my eyes when professors swoon over Joycean literature as though nothing else comes close. Proust was miles better. So, too, was Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Beckett wipes the floor with him as Ireland's greatest writer. I think it's telling that Joyce never won the Nobel prize. Beckett did. Yeats did. Even Shaw did, and Joyce considered him a joke.
> 
> So I understand where FleshEater's coming from. It can be hard to read classical literature because most of it is designed to reflect the time period. The Industrial Revolution, the advent of the First World War, the rise of Freud and psychoanalysis. Those topics don't make for entertaining reading unless you're a history buff.



Well so much of it is about the stratification of classes and the huge divide between them.  To me, it is also very telling of how cruel society really was, and in fact still is today, though a lot less wide spread.  Child labor in those days was so widely used, especially in tasks like chimney sweeps, and other very dangerous activities.  It's my opinion that, that's what makes these works so important is, would you rather read a history book, or read a book with a story that also teaches you about the time period from a person actually living it?  Look at Upton Sinclair's _The Jungle_, by itself do you think a book about the meat packing industry would be all that entertaining other than the shock factor of how dirty and heartless it was if it didn't actually have a story behind it?


----------



## Sam (Jul 1, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Well so much of it is about the stratification of classes and the huge divide between them.  To me, it is also very telling of how cruel society really was, and in fact still is today, though a lot less wide spread.  Child labor in those days was so widely used, especially in tasks like chimney sweeps, and other very dangerous activities.  It's my opinion that, that's what makes these works so important is, would you rather read a history book, or read a book with a story that also teaches you about the time period from a person actually living it?  Look at Upton Sinclair's _The Jungle_, by itself do you think a book about the meat packing industry would be all that entertaining other than the shock factor of how dirty and heartless it was if it didn't actually have a story behind it?



I'll argue that those things are as prevalent now as they were then, only more esoteric in their application. Evil acts aren't restricted to an era or century. As technology evolves, they evolve to become the new _cause celebre _of the day. By the very structure upon which they're built, societal-based hierarchies are and will forever be inherently cruel. Our primal instinct is 'survival of the fittest', but since we've come away from the hunter/gatherer societies of our forefathers, survival of the fittest must manifest itself in a different way. Contemporary Darwinian theory would suggest that that way is money, power, and prestige. If you study any societal-based hierarchy, from a factory floor all the way to a school, you will find Darwin's most famous maxim hard at work. And in that hierarchy you will observe the cruelty of society – past or present.  

To answer your question: I would rather read the story, of course, but that story isn't limited to the past. Rather, it is indicative of the protean versatility of evil.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 1, 2013)

Sam said:


> I'll argue that those things are as prevalent now as they were then, only more esoteric in their application. Evil acts aren't restricted to an era or century. As technology evolves, they evolve to become the new _cause celebre _of the day. By the very structure upon which they're built, societal-based hierarchies are and will forever be inherently cruel. Our primal instinct is 'survival of the fittest', but since we've come away from the hunter/gatherer societies of our forefathers, survival of the fittest must manifest itself in a different way. Contemporary Darwinian theory would suggest that that way is money, power, and prestige. If you study any societal-based hierarchy, from a factory floor all the way to a school, you will find Darwin's most famous maxim hard at work. And in that hierarchy you will observe the cruelty of society – past or present.
> 
> To answer your question: I would rather read the story, of course, but that story isn't limited to the past. Rather, it is indicative of the protean versatility of evil.



I agree with some of things you are saying, but what better way to try and change our society for the better than to educate the younger generation through creative ways?  If you can use a universal medium like literature, art, movies, or anything along those lines, to teach youth the failures of the past, while also opening their eyes to educational priorities like reading and writing, why not do it?  It doesn't have to be up to date for them to relate to it, because as you said, even what they learn is wrong in the present, will eventually evolve into a new depth of evil.


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 1, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Well so much of it is about the stratification of classes and the huge divide between them.  To me, it is also very telling of how cruel society really was, and in fact still is today, though a lot less wide spread.  Child labor in those days was so widely used, especially in tasks like chimney sweeps, and other very dangerous activities.  It's my opinion that, that's what makes these works so important is, would you rather read a history book, or read a book with a story that also teaches you about the time period from a person actually living it?  Look at Upton Sinclair's _The Jungle_, by itself do you think a book about the meat packing industry would be all that entertaining other than the shock factor of how dirty and heartless it was if it didn't actually have a story behind it?



If I'm reading about history, I prefer it be in the form of a textbook. They're usually pretty straightforward in their delivery of the material.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 1, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> If I'm reading about history, I prefer it be in the form of a textbook. There usually pretty straightforward in their delivery of the material.



But there is only so much you can learn from studying dates, locations, and numbers.  A story that involves a historical occurrence delves into a much deeper and important subject.  You can't really judge how an event effected society without having the emotions and thoughts of the people who lived through it.  That's what makes literature, especially the classics so important.  Do you think Tolstoy's _War and Peace_, would be so good if it wasn't written by Tolstoy and contained his social commentary if he had not been able to talk to the people of Russia that LIVED through the Napoleonic Era?  Do you think Hunter S. Thompson's novels would have been so good and worthwhile if he was a recluse that lived in his parent's basement instead of a free spirit that was willing to travel and take risks?  These are just a couple examples of how classic books, and when I say classics I mean extremely popular not necessarily ones from the 16th Century, are classics because they were written by authors that lived the experiences.


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 1, 2013)

That's why there is also non-fiction literature. For those that wish to get the information you're discussing. 

I like my history served cold. It isn't difficult to imagine what effects The Revolutionary War, Slavery, World War II, The Vietnam War, the racial issues in America, etc. had on society.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 1, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> That's why there is also non-fiction literature. For those that wish to get the information you're discussing.
> 
> I like my history served cold. *It isn't difficult to imagine what effects The Revolutionary War, Slavery, World War II, The Vietnam War, the racial issues in America, etc. had on society.*



I think that is a lot easier said than done.  There are happenings that may, or may not occur in your life that no matter if you have planned for it or not, you really don't know how you will react until it happens.  That's why some people are leaders, some people are followers.  Some people are writers, some people are short order cooks.  You can't tell me you know what is going through a man's mind when he's standing on a battle field staring across a grassy open field and sees his brother fighting for the enemy with a gun pointed in your direction, or the feelings that man may have felt when after the battle he found his brother lying in the field about ready to die and what was going through his head.  It's just not that simple.


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 1, 2013)

After seeing Saving Private Ryan, WWII in HD, Vietnam in HD, Philosophy of a Knife, Men Behind the Sun, Black Sun: The Nanking Massacre, Hamburger Hill, Platoon, and a slew of other war films, I'd say I have a good idea.

Documentaries like WWII in HD and Vietnam in HD deliver emotional impact like no other. 

There are also shockumentaries like Africa: Blood and Guts. There are more entertaining and straightforward ways to learn history besides reading fictional literature. I prefer those routes. My reading is for pure entertainment, and also a study for writing. Therefore I steer clear of most writing that encompass what it is you're arguing.

But remember, this is all just my opinion.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 1, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> After seeing Saving Private Ryan, WWII in HD, Vietnam in HD, Philosophy of a Knife, Men Behind the Sun, Black Sun: The Nanking Massacre, Hamburger Hill, Platoon, and a slew of other war films, I'd say I have a good idea.
> 
> Documentaries like WWII in HD and Vietnam in HD deliver emotional impact like no other.
> 
> There are also shockumentaries like Africa: Blood and Guts. There are more entertaining and straightforward ways to learn history besides reading fictional literature. I prefer those routes.




Well everyone has their likes and dislikes, but the point is still there, the classics are just that, classics for a reason.  They are a great tool in not only teaching history, giving a glance into the life of the times and society, but for entertainment purposes.  I'm sorry you don't like them, maybe you just haven't found the right one yet.  

I don't drink coffee, but I'm not going to say it's something bad or criticize those who drink it...it just doesn't taste good to *me*.


----------



## Myers (Jul 1, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> After seeing Saving Private Ryan, WWII in HD, Vietnam in HD, Philosophy of a Knife, Men Behind the Sun, Black Sun: The Nanking Massacre, Hamburger Hill, Platoon, and a slew of other war films, I'd say I have a good idea.
> 
> Documentaries like WWII in HD and Vietnam in HD deliver emotional impact like no other.
> 
> ...



I share that opinion. If I’m interested in a particular event, historical figure or era, I’ll watch a documentary about it. If it’s about something recent, you can see actual footage, but more importantly you can see eye-witness accounts and interviews with people who were actually there or even had a hand in shaping events. All those can deliver plenty of emotional impact and do it far more efficiently than historical fiction. And while all documentaries are biased to an extent, you don’t have to be as concerned with determining what is fact is and where the author has taken liberties for the purpose telling a good story. So I agree, give me my history straight up, no chaser. As for putting yourself there and empathizing with people affected by events, I can use my own imagination to do that. I don’t need an author to do it for me.


----------



## popsprocket (Jul 1, 2013)

*cough cough*

I don't know that it's fair to say that Hollywood has run out of ideas. All stories have been told before, or so we think. I'm sure there's any number of scripts begging to be bought with different ideas, but the fact is that Hollywood makes what sells.

If you want some originality in your film you need to look a little harder. Try some films that aren't from America. Or even ones that are from America, but are made by smaller production companies with smaller budgets. I've poked around the movie releases for the last few years, and only a few of the blockbusters have performed "well", while in comparison there have been a good number of <$20m movies that have made back several times their budget.

It's a matter of letting those smaller movies seep into the general interest so that there can be some change in what Hollywood puts out.


----------



## Myers (Jul 1, 2013)

You should take something for that cough, popsrocket.


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 1, 2013)

popsprocket said:


> *cough cough*
> 
> I don't know that it's fair to say that Hollywood has run out of ideas. All stories have been told before, or so we think. I'm sure there's any number of scripts begging to be bought with different ideas, but the fact is that Hollywood makes what sells.
> 
> ...



But when you think about it, do we really want or need Hollywood to produce better movies? I mean, like you said, they're already out there, they just take a little more looking. Also, if the hidden gems in the film industry were produced by a big Hollywood production company, could it really keep its charm? I don't know about anyone else on here, but I LOVE finding a gem. When I saw the preview for a recent film called Safety Not Guaranteed I knew I had to see it. And afterwards, I was glad I purchased it because it was a gem, a new favorite film, and unique because it's virtually unheard of.

Anyways...

I was watching a Chuck Palahniuk interview and the interviewer asked him about the success of David Fincher's Fight Club. He had to remind her that the film wasn't iconic when it was first released, and in fact it was a total failure. However, it has since become an iconic film. Fight Club, and I'm guessing Fincher's other adaptation--The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo--are prime examples of why Hollywood, i.e. big production companies, don't want to produce films that are in depth, and what some would call "excellent" films. They don't return the investment immediately. 

It's been said one hundred times in this thread, big production companies want to see their return, they want that big payoff. It doesn't matter that the audience forgets about the film as soon as they walk out of the theater. All that matters is the money. Which, is kind of stupid, since I'm pretty sure a lot of revenue comes from later sales of DVD's as well. Going back to Fight Club, like Palahniuk said, the novel has been in print in hardback for almost twenty years. The film will most likely ALWAYS be in print. Sounds like a secure long term investment to me, but what do I know? It's like those people that sell their gas rights to a big company for 1 million dollars thinking they won, only to find out later that over the course of 25 years the big company collected ten times that amount.


----------



## popsprocket (Jul 1, 2013)

I'm in a little bit of both camps regarding bringing indie to mainstream.

One the one hand, those films deserve greater attention, but on the other you'd have the mainstream polluting the things that make the indie stuff good.

I guess what I really  meant was that some of the things you see in smaller budget films - like better script writing and more interesting cinematography - would be good to see in Hollywood films. If the movie goers funding the industry could move a little further away from the low-brow end of the spectrum, it'd open up a whole new world as to what can make money on the silver screen.


----------



## philistine (Jul 1, 2013)

popsprocket said:


> I'm in a little bit of both camps regarding bringing indie to mainstream.
> 
> One the one hand, those films deserve greater attention, but on the other you'd have the mainstream polluting the things that make the indie stuff good.
> 
> I guess what I really  meant was that some of the things you see in smaller budget films - like better script writing and more interesting cinematography - would be good to see in Hollywood films. If the movie goers funding the industry could move a little further away from the low-brow end of the spectrum, it'd open up a whole new world as to what can make money on the silver screen.



As would I, though it'd be supremely optimistic to think that was ever going to happen. In almost all likelihood, they're merely going to concentrate their business plan over the years, i.e: produce more avarice-inspired fluff for the beer and popcorn crowd.


----------



## moderan (Jul 1, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> That isn't at all what I think about any of this. I hate "Great Literature." I've tried to read it and find it long winded and down right boring...so what? That doesn't mean I ignore or forget history.
> 
> Also, I don't have to rationalize anything. Arguing with you about anything leads down the same path every time, and I really don't care to do it again. It's pointless.



Son, you got a lot of growing to do. Thick between the horns, my pops would say.
Not everything is film or Pahlahniuk. Looking for a swiftly-told story, terse, concise, is just fine. But saying that you don't find that in older forms is a crock and betrays that aforementioned ignorance. If you don't want to wear that label, stop waving the flag. Go back and look at who started jumping to conclusions and being insulting.
People who didn't spend their time on tv and video games had longer attention spans and liked their stories to unfold slower at times.
There are plenty of purple prose purveyors in this day and age. 
You want terse? Get some Jim Thompson, or Fredric Brown. But don't hand me this malarkey.
You know why you don't like these arguments? It's because you lose them before you even start.


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 1, 2013)

philistine said:


> As would I, though it'd be supremely optimistic to think that was ever going to happen. In almost all likelihood, they're merely going to concentrate their business plan over the years, i.e: produce more avarice-inspired fluff for the beer and popcorn crowd.



I have a feeling you're right.


----------



## Sam (Jul 1, 2013)

This thread has already had a warning inserted. There will not be another one. Drop the personal remarks and get back to the main topic.


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 1, 2013)

Sorry, Sam. 

I edited my post.


----------



## Hunter56 (Jul 1, 2013)

To get back on topic...

I seem to have bad luck finding the indy "gems" because most of the indy movies I see are awful... like REALLY awful. One of the only ones I remember that was actually good was Dog Soldiers. 

Can someone name me some good indies that have come out recently?

It's such a shame because Hollywood was an excellent source of entertainment. The days of taking chances are gone for them I guess... like how New Line Cinema took a chance on Lord of the Rings.


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 1, 2013)

I love Dog Soldiers. 

What are you into Hunter? Horror, suspense, action? 

If you're into horror, have you seen High Tension, Inside, Frontiers, Martyrs, 7 Days, Orphan, Livide, or any of the lesser known Del Toro titles? The Devil's Backbone, Cronos, Mimic, and Pan's Labyrinth are all great titles from Del Toro. Some of these aren't newer titles by any means, but I found enjoyment in them.


----------



## Hunter56 (Jul 1, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> I love Dog Soldiers.
> 
> What are you into Hunter? Horror, suspense, action?
> 
> If you're into horror, have you seen High Tension, Inside, Frontiers, Martyrs, 7 Days, Orphan, Livide, or any of the lesser known Del Toro titles? The Devil's Backbone, Cronos, Mimic, and Pan's Labyrinth are all great titles from Del Toro. Some of these aren't newer titles by any means, but I found enjoyment in them.



Mainly action and horror. Some comedy and drama. The only one I've seen from those is Pan's Labyrinth, I've heard of Mimic and Orphan but never bothered to watch them.

Just anything good really.


----------



## Hunter56 (Jul 7, 2013)

That Lone Ranger movie with Johnny Depp bombed pretty bad at the box office this weekend. Apparently it cost 250 million dollars to make and only raked in 29.4 million.

I didn't even know til recently that movies cost that much to make. Holy crap. I'm also pretty sure triple A video games cost around that much also.

Oh, and of course, it was a _remake_


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 7, 2013)

That movie looked terrible from the preview I saw. Who would cast Depp as a Native American?


----------



## Hunter56 (Jul 7, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> That movie looked terrible from the preview I saw. Who would cast Depp as a Native American?



That's what many, many others have said. I guess they needed to cast him to try and sell it to the PotC fans.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jul 8, 2013)

_GTA IV_ cost 100 million USD to make; that's the most expensive videogame I know of. _Assassin's Creed 2_ -- undoubtedly a triple-A title -- cost about 24 million USD to make. That's _nothing_. 

Very few videogames go over the hundred mill mark in terms of development costs. Marketing, on the other hand. . . I dread to think.


----------



## Robert_S (Jul 8, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> _GTA IV_ cost 100 million USD to make; that's the most expensive videogame I know of.



Experts say Star Wars: The Old Republic is somewhere between $150M - $200M, but EA isn't talking about it. It may also qualify as the most expensive flop, with respect to its cost.


----------



## movieman (Jul 8, 2013)

Hunter56 said:


> I didn't even know til recently that movies cost that much to make. Holy crap. I'm also pretty sure triple A video games cost around that much also.



Of course most big movies only cost that much because they pay eight-figure sums to the actors and other 'names' in the hope that those names on the poster will bring in more than that at the box office. Same with video games: they pay a ton of money for famous voice actors, then I turn on subtitles and skip through the voice acting because I want to be playing the game, not watching a cut-scene that's written like a bad SyFy B-movie.

As for the original topic, didn't Hollywood run out of ideas around 1910? Most movies since have been the same old stories and genres.


----------



## Houston (Jul 13, 2013)

philistine said:


> I'm not the biggest fan of his, though I do enjoy a few of his films. If you've ever seen anything by Japanese filmmaker Seijun Suzuki, you'll know he's robbed him of pretty much everything.








Man, you weren't lying. Just got done watching Tokyo Drifter, the last 30 mins of Kill Bill come straight from this film. The lighting, club, music, dancing, the final duel in the snow. Everything.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 13, 2013)

I have this idea for a movie where a hurricane spawns water spouts that pick up hundreds of man eating sharks and drop them over a huge city like, say...Los Angeles.  It sounds cheesy but I bet it will be a hit!


----------



## SarahStrange (Jul 13, 2013)

Just saw _The Host_....... I'm pretty sure most of my brains cells died from the pain of watching such a ridiculous excuse for a movie. It was so melodramatic that I felt my soul being sucked out of my body and into the TV. The aggressive, angsty, teenage snogging made me nauseous. Hands down, one of the worst films I've ever seen. 

Hollywood has a plethora of books to choose from to make movies. If only they would pick some good ones, or even improve upon the crappy books like The Host instead of making them even worse. That'd be great.


----------



## Brock (Jul 13, 2013)

Is Hollywood running out of ideas?






Yes.  Yes, they are.


----------



## Robert_S (Jul 13, 2013)

Brock said:


> Is Hollywood running out of ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A couple points to be made.

1. It's intended to be ridiculous and cheesy. Though I can't enjoy it in the spirit it was intended, I can't slight it because it accomplished what it set out to do.
2. It's SyFy. SyFy doesn't give two craps about its movies.  They seem to put more into their series than their movies.


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 14, 2013)

Well considering Olympus has Fallen and White House Down were basically the same thing, yes they are.


----------



## Hunter56 (Jul 14, 2013)

bookmasta said:


> Well considering Olympus has Fallen and White House Down were basically the same thing, yes they are.



I noticed that too. When I saw the trailers for White House Down I was like, "What the? Didn't this movie come out a couple months ago?"


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 14, 2013)

I thought they were the same film.


----------



## patskywriter (Jul 14, 2013)

That makes me wonder if a film was ever snatched back, tweaked, and then re-released under a new name … ? For all the money they spend making these things, why wouldn't they rework a film instead of giving up so easily? I'm always surprised when I read or hear that a movie is declared a loss after the first week.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 14, 2013)

patskywriter said:


> That makes me wonder if a film was ever snatched back, tweaked, and then re-released under a new name … ? For all the money they spend making these things, why wouldn't they rework a film instead of giving up so easily? I'm always surprised when I read or hear that a movie is declared a loss after the first week.



I know exactly what you mean.  _The Lone Ranger_ was declared a huge flop just based off of foreign markets before it even opened up in the U.S.!


----------



## Brock (Jul 14, 2013)

Robert_S said:


> A couple points to be made.
> 
> 1. It's intended to be ridiculous and cheesy. Though I can't enjoy it in the spirit it was intended, I can't slight it because it accomplished what it set out to do.
> 2. It's SyFy. SyFy doesn't give two craps about its movies.  They seem to put more into their series than their movies.




Yes, I realize the point and target audience of this movie -- same as Eight-Legged Freaks and... what was that Mars movie awhile back with the little aliens?  I was just joining the conversation.  
I'm surprised they decided to dust Tara Reid off instead of filling the role with some hot B-actress.


----------



## Hunter56 (Jul 21, 2013)

Man, poor Ryan Reynolds... He had two movies released this weekend (R.I.P.D and Turbo) and they both flopped pretty bad. There's actually been quite a lot of flopping lately. Red 2 also flopped this weekend and Lone Ranger and Pacific Rim just the week(s) before.

What do you all think Hollywood will do in response to all these commercial failures?


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 21, 2013)

Hunter56 said:


> Man, poor Ryan Reynolds... He had two movies released this weekend (R.I.P.D and Turbo) and they both flopped pretty bad. There's actually been quite a lot of flopping lately. Red 2 also flopped this weekend and Lone Ranger and Pacific Rim just the week(s) before.
> 
> What do you all think Hollywood will do in response to all these commercial failures?



Every movie is going to have The Rock in it for the next four years.


----------



## popsprocket (Jul 21, 2013)

Hunter56 said:


> What do you all think Hollywood will do in response to all these commercial failures?



They're going to have to relearn how to do low-budget stuff. It's just that the market has trained them so well that hundred million dollar projects  put the most teenage bums in seats, but the truth of that is already beginning to wear off.

Take a movie like Chronicle. Plenty of appeal to a wide age bracket. Critical reception was good. Budget 12m. Box office? 120m.

It doesn't take huge budgets to make a good film. And it obviously doesn't take huge budgets to draw in crowds.


----------



## Hunter56 (Jul 21, 2013)

popsprocket said:


> They're going to have to relearn how to do low-budget stuff. It's just that the market has trained them so well that hundred million dollar projects  put the most teenage bums in seats, but the truth of that is already beginning to wear off.
> 
> Take a movie like Chronicle. Plenty of appeal to a wide age bracket. Critical reception was good. Budget 12m. Box office? 120m.
> 
> It doesn't take huge budgets to make a good film. And it obviously doesn't take huge budgets to draw in crowds.



That's actually what I was thinking especially with The Conjuring taking  the box office this week. They'll probably take more chances on  low-budget productions. Such a shame to think what they could truly do  with both a huge budget _and_ an amazing script.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 21, 2013)

Poor Disney has just been taking it on the chin lately with movies that aren't animation.  Other than the Pirates of the Caribbean series, almost every other movie has been a failure, not coming anywhere near expectations.


----------



## Hunter56 (Jul 21, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Poor Disney has just been taking it on the chin lately with movies that aren't animation.  Other than the Pirates of the Caribbean series, almost every other movie has been a failure, not coming anywhere near expectations.



True, they're probably gonna try to pump out as many PotC movies as they can before trying again.


----------



## popsprocket (Jul 22, 2013)

Hunter56 said:


> True, they're probably gonna try to pump out as many PotC movies as they can before trying again.




STAHP

You'll make me cry.

Too many potc movies already.

It's saddening.


----------



## Lewdog (Jul 22, 2013)

popsprocket said:


> STAHP
> 
> You'll make me cry.
> 
> ...



They are supposed to stop at 6...supposed...


----------



## Hunter56 (Mar 30, 2014)

Just started thinking about this again... In my opinion Hollywood has been better lately especially late last year with Frozen, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, 12 Years a Slave, Catching Fire, Saving Mr. Banks and American Hustle among others. One thing that is kinda annoying though is their relentless pursuit of trying to find the next Twilight/Hunger Games. Beautiful Creatures, Vampire Academy, and Mortal Instruments all flopped from what I remember but Divergent is apparently doing pretty good.


----------



## xolarflare (Apr 4, 2014)

I enjoy the darker remakes of happy kids fairytales


----------



## Hunter56 (Apr 6, 2014)

xolarflare said:


> I enjoy the darker remakes of happy kids fairytales



It looks like the new Maleficent movie is gonna have a bit of a darker take to Sleeping Beauty. The only other ones I saw like that was Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters and Snow White and the Huntsman which were both just "Ok" to me.


----------



## xolarflare (Apr 6, 2014)

I was talking more alice in wonderland and charlie in the chocolate factory. All the others beside their mediocrity were still interesting


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Apr 6, 2014)

Gosh, those movies were terrible though. Overacted and sickeningly gaudy. I'd have done _Alice In Wonderland_ as dark as you can imagine -- you don't wanna _know_ how twisted .

Also, I think _Sleeping Beauty_ is plenty dark on its own. _Maleficent_ seems really goofy; the character just looks like Carmen Miranda in mourning without the hand-drawn style.


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Apr 6, 2014)

It seems all there is anymore are book remakes and sequels. Which isn't all bad because you get things like Cloud Atlas that are amazing (I haven't read the book though so idk). I just wish there was a little more original writing out there.


----------



## Hunter56 (Apr 6, 2014)

Bruno Spatola said:


> Gosh, those movies were terrible though. Overacted and sickeningly gaudy. *I'd have done Alice In Wonderland as dark as you can imagine -- you don't wanna know how twisted .
> *
> Also, I think _Sleeping Beauty_ is plenty dark on its own. _Maleficent_ seems really goofy; the character just looks like Carmen Miranda in mourning without the hand-drawn style.



Have you heard of American McGee's Alice?


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Apr 6, 2014)

Hunter56 said:


> Have you heard of American McGee's Alice?



I adore that game, yes. Liked _Madness Returns_ also.

My vision of _Alice in Wonderland_ is several levels further down the circles of hell than that, but I'm not into writing fan fic.


----------



## Hunter56 (Apr 6, 2014)

Bruno Spatola said:


> I adore that game, yes. Liked _Madness Returns_ also.
> 
> My vision of _Alice in Wonderland_ is several levels further down the circles of hell than that, but I'm not into writing fan fic.



Geez, not sure what to think if it's more twisted than that. I'm guessing it'd be similar to Dante's Inferno. 

Speaking of American McGee's Alice, wasn't that supposed to be turned into a film for like ten years but never happened?


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Apr 6, 2014)

Like _Dante's Inferno_ in the sense that it just gets worse as you read on, I guess so. It's horrifying -- I mean _seriously_ messed up -- and it lives in my head. Maybe I should write it, I don't know. 

Yeah, there was a film in the works. The script was thrown around all over the place, but it never actually went anywhere. McGee bought back the rights I think; he's doing some animated _Alice_ shorts, out this year or next.


----------



## Hunter56 (Apr 6, 2014)

Bruno Spatola said:


> Like _Dante's Inferno_ in the sense that it just gets worse as you read on, I guess so. It's horrifying -- I mean _seriously_ messed up -- and it lives in my head. Maybe I should write it, I don't know.
> 
> Yeah, there was a film in the works. The script was thrown around all over the place, but it never actually went anywhere. McGee bought back the rights I think; he's doing some animated _Alice_ shorts, out this year or next.



Well just know that if you do decide to write it I'd be willing to beta read it to see if it's too disturbing for the public. :icon_shaking2:


----------

