|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 11, 2015 14:38:22 GMT
"Arthouse" films.... Can we get them separated from normal films in some way?... There are a dedicated many people who will never ever step through the doors of a theater if they know that its going to be "One of those" films. I have never had anything good to say about any one of those films..... So for me, being forced to take notice of any upcoming ones is a waste of my time, as I cannot be expected to enjoy one. However.... Knowing which ones to avoid is necessary. So a separate group status is required so I take enough notice of the title to mentally mark it into the "IGNORE" bin.... This is the same way with Animation and Kids films, Adults who have no kids are not likely to be interested. Critics, we expect much more from them. Why?... Because we need to know what the film is going to be so we can pick the ones we want to watch. The critics are useless if the blast all Animation as "For kids", and be derigitory about that because they themselves are not a kid. I will side with any critics who describe Frozen as "Aimed at juvenile girls", thus putting it on my ignore list, but of they then went on to blast it as a waste of time, they are out in the cold, as obviously its quite popular. So how should critics work?... As part of a team. Its a TEAM effort. You go see the ones YOU like, or the ones you are led to believe you like, and let the other members of the team handle the ones they like, so you need someone who enjoys hard hitting fast action modern warfare, you need someone who enjoys stunning scenery and wildlife, you need someone with children's interests of Disney, someone with Rom-Com interest, someone with "Weepie" hide behind a hanky interest, and someone with Horror interest, plus probably a few more I have forgotten here... Get a Horror fan to go see Four Weddings and expect a decent review?... you wont get one. Even though the film is a horror of what can go wrong in a film anyway.... So one single seasoned critic giving it "I can handle this" is, well, a very hard job?... If that is how Ironhold is working, I have utmost respect, I can not do that, as I think I may have thrown up several times whilst trying to sit through the sugary sweet overkill of Frozen. (I even hate with a passion the song from the film...) We have one local paper that not so widely distributed that I have to go looking for, who will say at the start of the review something like "We sent Clair to see this one as thats her particular corner of the market", you get a decent review from someone who is interested in the film and would go see it anyway even if they were not paid to be there. Plus you also get a deeper incite to the duds if someone who was supposed to be in the audience the film was aimed at, can point out exactly why it failed for them..... Again, if Clair has young girls, and they hated frozen, it has to be bad?... On the other side of the coin, I know one famous critic who will rail-gun high explosive dissensions at certain films..... And if he does that, I know I will enjoy going to see them. He HATED Monty python, and aimed Life of Brian at the remainder bin before it was even released.... Now you know why I look for his comments.... Back to arthouse. To have to miss half the film because you need to watch the bottom of the screen for the translations.... Can someone please get a hold of those twits and get them to do an "Overdub" for foreign markets?... "I have my bicycle outside, it is time to twiddle the badgers, you need to go over the mountain to pick tulips" is not much of a script is it?... Hand up here who is a dedicated Opera fan.... To the extent that its the ONLY type of theater they will watch. Ok, get that as a simple if its on they will be there, but they will watch other things inbetween?... No one.?.. maybe one out of our usual band of suspects?... I would have expected one person.... Right. Hand up here who has ever seen an Opera, either in whole of in part, and has done so out of interest to see if its worth a watch.... That would be most people. So its not for everyones taste is it?.... Opera: a foreign art play with subtitles. Opera: a musical for bombastic people. pick your description. I have seen a subtitled opera, and I have seen an opera in english. well, the one in english I think only just barely qualifies as opera. why? because it is enjoyable. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mikadoreally, it comes down to a question of whether you watch to be impressed by the abilities of the performers, or do you watch to be entertained by the abilities of the writer. no, they are not always exclusive of each other, but if you know what you are looking for, and the reviewer knows how to communicate his impressions clearly, then the review is a useful tool. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 11, 2015 14:40:22 GMT
Consider yourself lucky. The chart show on BBC Radio 1 introduced a new presenter the week that song was released, and naturally it was in the top 40. When she left two years and one week later not only was it still in the top 40, but had been there every single week. Meaning that she'd ended up having to play it over a hundred times...It got to the point where she started wondering if people were buying the song simply so she had to play it. I recall rumors back in the 80s that a particular manufactured boy band had included people paid to request their song be played on the radio - to the point that it is alleged to have been in the top 40 before anyone in the general public had ever heard it played. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 11, 2015 15:15:56 GMT
In the UK the top 40 only included record sales up until the late 2000's. So unless things work(ed) very differently in the US getting played on the radio wouldn't get you into the top 40 until the single was released for sale. Even today tracks are not eligible for inclusion into the top 40 until they have been put on sale.
Currently the UK's top 40 includes physical sales, downloads and streaming - but in all cases tracks are only included after they are available to buy. (It is possible for a track to get into the charts before it is physically available to buy, as long as you can buy it online)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 11, 2015 15:51:37 GMT
In the UK the top 40 only included record sales up until the late 2000's. So unless things work(ed) very differently in the US getting played on the radio wouldn't get you into the top 40 until the single was released for sale. Even today tracks are not eligible for inclusion into the top 40 until they have been put on sale. Currently the UK's top 40 includes physical sales, downloads and streaming - but in all cases tracks are only included after they are available to buy. (It is possible for a track to get into the charts before it is physically available to buy, as long as you can buy it online) here, it was essentially based on royalties paid - a combination of sales and radio airplay. I THINK the rumors were just rumors - but the particular boy band WAS the subject of a huge promotional blitz, in which the average person heard and saw advertizing for the band WAY before they ever heard their music. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Mar 11, 2015 17:45:48 GMT
Here's how it all started.
Delivering newspapers was supposed to be my college job. Then the recession hit, and all of the "pending upon graduation" job offers I had vanished. By the time everything was said and done, I'm an MBA with a paper route because most of the good white-collar jobs have retreated beyond the travel radius of my car (and what's left are being hotly fought over).
Well, in October of 2013 the senior editor of the newspaper vacates his position. The sports writer gets the nod from corporate to take over, and so first thing Monday morning he begins calling everyone in one-by-one to personally meet with them. As part of it, he asks us if we have any ideas for how we can improve the newspaper.
I note that one of our sister publications (the Harker Heights Evening Star) has a movie reviewer, and suggest that perhaps we could carry his column as well.
I get handed a stack of movie passes and asked if I could do it myself.
And so I start as a reviewer.
One month later, the guy announces that he wants all of the staff writers together for a workshop since he's changing a few things (including adopting the use of Google Drive as a collective drop box). Well, I'm now considered a staff writer, and so I'm invited. As part of it, he announces that he'll audition submissions if any of us want to do our own weekly opinion column (since he and one of the reporters are already doing that).
Well, due to how things went down with the previous editor, I had an unholy amount of time on my hands to daydream while at work since my tasks were so menial. In the process, I had a few ideas for bits I could write in the hopes that I could make it as a writer... not because I wanted to write per se, but because I hoped for syndication so I could afford to get out of there.
I put together three column ideas (out of the dozen or so I'd been toying with) and submit them for audition.
Next thing I know, the new guy is calling me up so that they can do an official photo of me to go with my column. Hence the birth of what would eventually become my edutainment bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 11, 2015 18:02:08 GMT
Here's how it all started. Delivering newspapers was supposed to be my college job. Then the recession hit, and all of the "pending upon graduation" job offers I had vanished. By the time everything was said and done, I'm an MBA with a paper route because most of the good white-collar jobs have retreated beyond the travel radius of my car (and what's left are being hotly fought over). Well, in October of 2013 the senior editor of the newspaper vacates his position. The sports writer gets the nod from corporate to take over, and so first thing Monday morning he begins calling everyone in one-by-one to personally meet with them. As part of it, he asks us if we have any ideas for how we can improve the newspaper. I note that one of our sister publications (the Harker Heights Evening Star) has a movie reviewer, and suggest that perhaps we could carry his column as well. I get handed a stack of movie passes and asked if I could do it myself. And so I start as a reviewer. One month later, the guy announces that he wants all of the staff writers together for a workshop since he's changing a few things (including adopting the use of Google Drive as a collective drop box). Well, I'm now considered a staff writer, and so I'm invited. As part of it, he announces that he'll audition submissions if any of us want to do our own weekly opinion column (since he and one of the reporters are already doing that). Well, due to how things went down with the previous editor, I had an unholy amount of time on my hands to daydream while at work since my tasks were so menial. In the process, I had a few ideas for bits I could write in the hopes that I could make it as a writer... not because I wanted to write per se, but because I hoped for syndication so I could afford to get out of there. I put together three column ideas (out of the dozen or so I'd been toying with) and submit them for audition. Next thing I know, the new guy is calling me up so that they can do an official photo of me to go with my column. Hence the birth of what would eventually become my edutainment bit. 20 or 30 years ago, the local newspaper asked my mother if she was interested in writing a few columns about gardening. now I think she runs reruns 2/3 of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 12, 2015 8:56:29 GMT
I hope what we are doing here is helping with that, and bloody good luck with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Mar 12, 2015 17:11:31 GMT
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 12, 2015 19:18:29 GMT
Just saw "Jupiter Ascending'.
I so wanted to like the film, but what I saw was such a letdown.
Incoherent script, often incomprehensible dialogue, poorly choreographed action sequences--this can't be saved with a massive budget and a decent cast.
I like Sean Bean as an actor but his accent was so thick you could cut with a knife in some scenes--I couldn't tell if he was speaking English or alien jargon in some parts.
Why, oh why, do so many action filmmakers believe that throwing a ton of CGI crud at a screen and shaking the camera is "exciting"? You have to let your audience understand some physical relationships between things on screen--they just can't leap out of nowhere at 300 mph at random. Otherwise, you sacrifice all suspense and just go for the equivalent of shouting "BOO" at the viewer.
Shouting "BOO" works once; after several minutes of it, you're just annoying.
There appeared to be an intricate history and backstory to much of the characters and society. Too bad what we saw was too little, too late. Again, how can you build suspense if you don't know motivations, threats, and goals? Learning with the main character can be done, but if you want us to worry about her, how about showing us why?
I shouldn't be surprised. The Warchowski's Matrix movies were terrible after the first. I did like "Cloud Atlas", but this seemed to be an attempt to file the serial numbers off "Hunger Games" and prepare us for the sequels that would appeal to the same crowd.
I give them credit for some nice images, but pretty pictures don't make a good movie. It ended up being an updated "Flash Gordon" without the humor the DeLaurentis version had.
Nice to see Terry Gilliam in a bit part. I knew he looked familiar...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 12, 2015 20:46:25 GMT
Blame Star Wars, Terminator 2, The Matrix, Inception and Avatar...
Every few years a film comes out with truly impressive effects that makes a shed-load of money. Everyone wants a slice of that money so they try to work out what elements lead to that success, which is the point things tend to fall down.
The truth is that while all of the films I just listed are known for their effects, even if they have dated in some cases, there is or was more to the films than those effects. But studio executives, producers, directors and even writers (especially if the writers are doing one or two of the former) just don't understand this. Nor do they understand that many of the films known for effects actually used them sparingly - sometimes with films like The Dark Knight this is by choice. With older films, such as the original Star War's and Star Trek films, it was actually a result of what the technology was capable of. With newer films (say Pacific Rim) it is usually because those films didn't have large budgets*.
(*Off the top of my head Pacific Rim had a budget of around $80 million. The starting cost of a basic blockbuster these days is usually $120 million and often raises to $150+ million; This is without marketing costs being added on)
There is also a question of timing. Star Wars became the original blockbuster more due to the cinematic landscape it was released into; The mid to late 70's was the era of the large disaster movie; Towering Inferno (1974) The Poseidon Adventure (1972) (the sequel was released in 1979 and flopped)) and the 'dirty/gritty' films like Death Race (1975) Dirty Harry (1971/73/76 for the first three films) And Death Wish (1974).
Good films in their own right, but not exactly light hearted adventure films you came out of the cinema buzzing about, or would/could take the kiddies to. The original trilogy (and it could be argued Lucas's other franchise, Indianan Jones) were even at their darkest rip-roaring adventures with a somewhat light and positive tone (even Empire Strikes back and Temple of Doom).
No one can really do anything about timing, audiences are fickle and predicting what they will actually like at any given moment is difficult at best*...without having to try and look two years ahead. So they concentrate on those aspects they can control, the most obvious of which is of course special effects.
(* As evidenced by the film American Sniper, which has made something like $500 million on a mid January release. Compare that to Captain America; The first Avenger ($370 Million) or Iron Man ($585 Million) and you get the idea as to quite how successful the film has turned out to be.)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 12, 2015 20:56:53 GMT
Star Wars hit the golden sweet spot of being groundbreaking special effects (for its time) and a masterful execution of rehashing classic hero mythology. (this is not an accusation - Lucas himself says he just built the story around the theme) I think of it as the first modern science fiction movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Mar 12, 2015 21:16:55 GMT
Or just look at this year. According to Box Office Mojo, both "50 Shades" and "Spongebob" have breached the $100m mark, with "Kingsmen" being a mere $302k away from doing the same. "50 Shades" is proof that controversy can sell. "Spongebob" is a kids' epic. "Kingsmen" is a lighthearted action film that plays with the conventions of the spy genre. Now look where everything else is in comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 13, 2015 1:15:44 GMT
Speaking about formulaic films, has anyone else heard of the late Blake Snyder's " Save the Cat"? A professional and successful screenwriter, Snyder wrote a book showing how to write a blockbuster, and demonstrated the technique by showing that most blockbusters followed a "beat sheet". So many minutes into the film, x must happen, then so many minutes further, y must happen. He also showed how most popular films in each genre follow the same format. I haven't read the book yet, but it is taken seriously by many screenwriters and development executives, to the point that a cottage industry has formed providing tools and lessons around the ideas. Of course, there are those that say this proves the death of genuine creativity in Hollywood. But, truth to tell, when you're betting upwards of $120M on a film, you want to take as few chances as necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Apr 4, 2015 3:45:19 GMT
Not only are "Blackhat" and "Mortdecai" roadkill, someone just backed the same vehicle over them. www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2015&p=.htmYes folks, small, independent Christian film "Do You Believe?" has officially bested both at the domestic box office, and has a good chance of besting "The Gunman" as well. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 4, 2015 11:59:36 GMT
Not only are "Blackhat" and "Mortdecai" roadkill, someone just backed the same vehicle over them. www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2015&p=.htmYes folks, small, independent Christian film "Do You Believe?" has officially bested both at the domestic box office, and has a good chance of besting "The Gunman" as well. It is bad that a twilight fanfic has the top spot, so far. It is sad so may women don't comprehend there is nothing romantic about an opportunistic abuser. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Apr 4, 2015 12:00:44 GMT
There is also a question of timing. Star Wars became the original blockbuster more due to the cinematic landscape it was released into; The mid to late 70's was the era of the large disaster movie; Towering Inferno (1974) The Poseidon Adventure (1972) (the sequel was released in 1979 and flopped)) and the 'dirty/gritty' films like Death Race (1975) Dirty Harry (1971/73/76 for the first three films) And Death Wish (1974). Good films in their own right, but not exactly light hearted adventure films you came out of the cinema buzzing about, or would/could take the kiddies to. The original trilogy (and it could be argued Lucas's other franchise, Indianan Jones) were even at their darkest rip-roaring adventures with a somewhat light and positive tone (even Empire Strikes back and Temple of Doom). There is another element to SW's success as well. Sci-fi films of the 70's were typically post apocalyptic, heavy films usually with a heavy handed dose of "message." Films like Silent Running ('72), Planet of the Apes Series ('68-79), Soylent Green ('73), Logan's Run ('76). Or they are warning films about technology run amok like Westworld ('73) or Colossus The Corbin Project ('70). Even films that are not directly in those categories were heavy ones like A Clockwork Orange ('71) or Deathrace 2000 ('75). Sci-fi was just depressing at the time. YOu can look at it in the light of how many episodes of MST3K the 70's produced materiel for. Star Wars was almost a polar opposite to everything that had been coming out for years. It was fun, lighthearted, and colorful. No underlying message other than the basic good vs. evil. It was a movie you could feel good about after years of being brow-beaten at the theater. Just sit back, relax and enjoy the ride. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 4, 2015 13:13:38 GMT
There is also a question of timing. Star Wars became the original blockbuster more due to the cinematic landscape it was released into; The mid to late 70's was the era of the large disaster movie; Towering Inferno (1974) The Poseidon Adventure (1972) (the sequel was released in 1979 and flopped)) and the 'dirty/gritty' films like Death Race (1975) Dirty Harry (1971/73/76 for the first three films) And Death Wish (1974). Good films in their own right, but not exactly light hearted adventure films you came out of the cinema buzzing about, or would/could take the kiddies to. The original trilogy (and it could be argued Lucas's other franchise, Indianan Jones) were even at their darkest rip-roaring adventures with a somewhat light and positive tone (even Empire Strikes back and Temple of Doom). There is another element to SW's success as well. Sci-fi films of the 70's were typically post apocalyptic, heavy films usually with a heavy handed dose of "message." Films like Silent Running ('72), Planet of the Apes Series ('68-79), Soylent Green ('73), Logan's Run ('76). Or they are warning films about technology run amok like Westworld ('73) or Colossus The Corbin Project ('70). Even films that are not directly in those categories were heavy ones like A Clockwork Orange ('71) or Deathrace 2000 ('75). Sci-fi was just depressing at the time. YOu can look at it in the light of how many episodes of MST3K the 70's produced materiel for. Star Wars was almost a polar opposite to everything that had been coming out for years. It was fun, lighthearted, and colorful. No underlying message other than the basic good vs. evil. It was a movie you could feel good about after years of being brow-beaten at the theater. Just sit back, relax and enjoy the ride. I go to church for preaching and to movies for entertainment. addendum: another factor is the difference in approach to science fiction: a lot of sci-fi of the era was science fiction driven, whereas Star Wars was an epic story that happened to be set in space. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 4, 2015 13:31:44 GMT
In terms of Sci-Fi it was a catch 22 situation with a dash of limited effects technology.
Studios simply didn't think there was a market for Sci-Fi, which was seen as being for what today we would call Geeks and Nerds, so they were unwilling to finance big budget sci-fi films. They were to some degree justified in doing this, as the executives either didn't read or understand the genre and those who did were thinking in terms of older sci-fi (which is often very dry and not really suitable for adaption to film anyway) for a lot of the stuff that was being churned out in the 70's which (like a lot of other genres) tended to be somewhat dark and depressing. Sci-Fi was seen as 'serious', even though Star Trek and Doctor Who had to some degree shown otherwise they were TV shows and hence ignored.
There were of course some exceptions, Planet of the Apes being the most notable (and well funded) one. But it is interesting to note that such films while sci-fi didn't actually use that many effects shots. And those they did use were practical effects set on a story that you could actually have set elsewhere. (The one exception to the effects aspect was Forbidden Planet, which is actually a futuristic version of Shakespeare's The Tempest; And well worth watching if anyone hasn't seen it)
Beyond the tepid reaction from most studio executives (the exec who pushed for Star Wars to be made and supported Lucas ended up loosing his job) the effects technology was limited. Another catch 22 really, as no one was really developing effects techniques for sci-fi because few such films were being made, and few such films were being made because the effects were not developed or cheap enough. This wasn't helped by screen writers of the time apparently being ignorant about the limitations and costs; As the story goes one writer wrote a draft for a film with an opening sequence that would today fit in perfectly with the Jurassic Park films. But at the time such a sequence would have blown the entire budget.
In this regards Star Wars, and more specifically George Lucas, brought about massive changes to the industry. Lucas created ILM, which developed most of the effects used in the first film from scratch. Some aspects of effects technology, such as CGI, had been used before (Westworld was, I think, the first film to use CGI for the robots point of view) but Lucas developed techniques that didn't break the bank and which were much more impressive and practical for the big screen. This in turn opened the door to the idea of making big budget Sci-fi films...which of course every studio promptly attempted to make with little success. The only Franchise to be really effective (Other than Star Wars) was Star Trek, which only saw success with its second film onwards.
The next leap forward didn't occur until the early 1990's, when Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 brought big budget CGI effects to the screen. (Neither was the first to do this, The Last Star Fighter in 1984 used CGI for the ships and Tron (82) also used some CGI - not as much as people think as many of the effects simply involved coloring each plate by hand.)
A more telling change in CGI was brought around not from the big screen but from the small. The TV series Babylon 5 was the first sci-fi show to exclusively use CGI for practically all of their effects, which ended up being copied by Star Trek (who even ended up using the same company) and then by a large number of other shows that appeared around the same time (Stargate being the longest running of the shows originating from this period at ten seasons).
This had two effects. The first was in showing that high quality effects could be produced for sci-fi without costing a fortune. The second was in raising the quality and awareness of sci-fi where it became less 'geeky' or 'camp'. This in turn bled over to the bog screen, as the studios started to realize that sci-fi films didn't have to have 'star' in their title to make money.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 4, 2015 13:45:02 GMT
In terms of Sci-Fi it was a catch 22 situation with a dash of limited effects technology. Studios simply didn't think there was a market for Sci-Fi, which was seen as being for what today we would call Geeks and Nerds, so they were unwilling to finance big budget sci-fi films. They were to some degree justified in doing this, as the executives either didn't read or understand the genre and those who did were thinking in terms of older sci-fi (which is often very dry and not really suitable for adaption to film anyway) for a lot of the stuff that was being churned out in the 70's which (like a lot of other genres) tended to be somewhat dark and depressing. Sci-Fi was seen as 'serious', even though Star Trek and Doctor Who had to some degree shown otherwise they were TV shows and hence ignored. There were of course some exceptions, Planet of the Apes being the most notable (and well funded) one. But it is interesting to note that such films while sci-fi didn't actually use that many effects shots. And those they did use were practical effects set on a story that you could actually have set elsewhere. (The one exception to the effects aspect was Forbidden Planet, which is actually a futuristic version of Shakespeare's The Tempest; And well worth watching if anyone hasn't seen it) Beyond the tepid reaction from most studio executives (the exec who pushed for Star Wars to be made and supported Lucas ended up loosing his job) the effects technology was limited. Another catch 22 really, as no one was really developing effects techniques for sci-fi because few such films were being made, and few such films were being made because the effects were not developed or cheap enough. This wasn't helped by screen writers of the time apparently being ignorant about the limitations and costs; As the story goes one writer wrote a draft for a film with an opening sequence that would today fit in perfectly with the Jurassic Park films. But at the time such a sequence would have blown the entire budget. In this regards Star Wars, and more specifically George Lucas, brought about massive changes to the industry. Lucas created ILM, which developed most of the effects used in the first film from scratch. Some aspects of effects technology, such as CGI, had been used before (Westworld was, I think, the first film to use CGI for the robots point of view) but Lucas developed techniques that didn't break the bank and which were much more impressive and practical for the big screen. This in turn opened the door to the idea of making big budget Sci-fi films...which of course every studio promptly attempted to make with little success. The only Franchise to be really effective (Other than Star Wars) was Star Trek, which only saw success with its second film onwards. The next leap forward didn't occur until the early 1990's, when Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 brought big budget CGI effects to the screen. (Neither was the first to do this, The Last Star Fighter in 1984 used CGI for the ships and Tron (82) also used some CGI - not as much as people think as many of the effects simply involved coloring each plate by hand.) A more telling change in CGI was brought around not from the big screen but from the small. The TV series Babylon 5 was the first sci-fi show to exclusively use CGI for practically all of their effects, which ended up being copied by Star Trek (who even ended up using the same company) and then by a large number of other shows that appeared around the same time (Stargate being the longest running of the shows originating from this period at ten seasons). This had two effects. The first was in showing that high quality effects could be produced for sci-fi without costing a fortune. The second was in raising the quality and awareness of sci-fi where it became less 'geeky' or 'camp'. This in turn bled over to the bog screen, as the studios started to realize that sci-fi films didn't have to have 'star' in their title to make money. I recently rewatched The Last Starfighter. I was amazed by how primitive the CGI now looks in it. we get spoiled. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Apr 4, 2015 15:39:53 GMT
Don't forget the film the Spielberg and Lucas both considered a major influence on their careers. 2001: A Space Odyssey was made in 1968 and showed the world what good effects could do. Costing $10 million and making $15 million domestically during its initial release made it profitable but not a blockbuster. Even its critics granted the technical brilliance of the effects (for the most part). Lucas and Spielberg saw Trumbull's effects and realized what could be done with a lighter, more accessible script. It's no surprise that Spielberg hired Trumbull to do Close Encounters of the Third Kind, while Lucas got Dykstra (whose work with Trumbull on Silent Running led to a recommendation by Trumbull) for ILM. As for the dystopian views in films--yes and no. There was positive sci-fi being made at the time; Star Trek comes to mind. It projected a positive view of the future of humanity, a welcome change from Logan's Run, Soylent Green, and other darker fare. Time has made Star Trek into a massively successful franchise, while the others are footnotes. And yes, the only reason we got the Star Trek movies was because of Star Wars. After the success of Star Wars, the other studios wanted to cash in as well, leading to Paramount dusting off the Star Trek property and throwing way too much money at Roddenberry. His second series was scrapped in favor of ST:TMP, and a poor script. It's lucky ST:TWOK was primarily Nicolas Meyer's work; I don't think it could have survived another flop. Of course, the reason ST became popular could also be attributed to the cheap afternoon syndication packages available that were a cash cow for Paramount. Best summation of ST's life cycle: "It's the TV show that died and went to heaven".  Scifi goes in and out of style. To this day, Georges Melies's "A Trip To The Moon" is still shown and studied today. Side note: Ever see the Logan's Run TV show? Or the Planet of the Apes ones (including the Saturday morning cartoon)? Yes, they made them. |
|
