So...sell me on all the anti-Hollywood stuff

[AUSTIN316426808]

nevermind

[nebae]

Yeah, there's also alot of indie companies out there just trying to make a quick buck by jumping on the bandwagon of some other already succesful ones.

i.e straight to video stuff.

Like you said, if it's a crap film it's a crap film - whatever the budget.

[The STE]

Originally posted by Yellow Jacket
It's not that I hate Hollywood completely, it's just that they're making WAY too many remakes now. Take a god damn break for once and come up with something new. There are thousands of fresh scripts out there just waiting to be made into a movie. Now, I do love Hollywood for one reason: The Devil's Rejects! Talk about a straight-up homage to teh horror movies of the '70's. But, that's a whole other story.

An average of 5 a year is not a lot. It's just that the remakes are noticed more.

[PR3SSUR3]

A failure is a failure, does it really matter if it cost 5 million or 5 grand? Point is it sucked, if a movie with the guy down the street is bad and a movie with Tom Cruise is bad, then they're both bad,doesn't matter why.

Of course it matters, for the reasons already offered.

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Of course it matters, for the reasons already offered.

Bad is bad. I wouldn't want to watch a bad Hollywood movie any more than a bad indie movie, and vice versa.

[AUSTIN316426808]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Of course it matters, for the reasons already offered.

So you're saying every indie film would be good if it had sufficent resources? I think you're giving them a bit too much credit.

[Elvis_Christ]

I think you're injecting negativity.

Not that I don't but.....

I dunno I got a soft spot for the fringe underdog artists without the big money backing.

Yo Return:

THE IDIOTS:

vs


Peace out and merry Xmas brothas

[PR3SSUR3]

No, Austin - I don't know where you're getting that from.

When an independent movie is rubbish, the makers have failed to use their limited resources wisely and effectively. Back to the drawing board, and try to be more creative next time and you may get a more appreciative audience with maybe even a cult following.

When a Hollywood blockbuster is rubbish, the makers have spent maybe fifty thousand times the budget to make rubbish. Their rubbish may still sell however, due to familiarity, expensive stars and hype.

This is the argument for a negative view of Hollywood, as they are greedy wasters who play it safe to lure the masses with the same old empty gloss time and time again.

It surprises me some are still unable to distinguish between these two artistic failings, but there you go.

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
This is the argument for a negative view of Hollywood, as they are greedy wasters who play it safe to lure the masses with the same old empty gloss time and time again.

Again, the blame in that situation can be placed directly on the heads of the masses. If people didn't go to see the same old crap every time, then they'd stop putting it out. I don't think doing something to make money is a bad thing. If they weren't also putting out some good movies, like The Ice Harvest (which, btw, is doing crap at the box office), I would completely agree, as it would be a fantastic argument. But they're putting out good movies in addition to cookie cutter movies made almost exclusively to make money (although SOME of the 'cookie cutter' type movies are pretty good).


BTW, Elvis, The Celebration > The Idiots

[MisterSadistro]

I blame the parents :D
CK