Effects of movies on society vs. society on movies

[TheRuleofThirds]

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of what it takes to make a "blockbuster" couldn't be streamlined. I see a lot of fluff being kicked up by something like Spiderman.

Money's not really the driving force. I see it kinda like blood. You need it to keep the system circulating, but you don't need to horde it and be greedy over it.

At this point in the game, I'm just wanting to make good stories and maybe reverse some of the media's negative effects on society. If I take that dream a step further, then it'll spread out into a media empire that does quality stuff, improves the lives of Americans, and, if sent overseas, it'll maybe stop their cultural degradation and preserve it (even though the only way to do that is non-interference). But ya know...somebody's probably going to put this lame horse outta his misery sooner or later. But the dream is a good one, no doubt about it.

[TheRuleofThirds]

I hate writing full stop. Became a first time Author in 2003 and still can't get a grip of the thing.:Shrug:

So why keep doing it? Sounds like you've got better talents going to waste in some form or another.

[Enigma]

Money's not really the driving force.

Might I suggest you switch to smoking cigarettes with brand names on 'em? http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif

[JustinoXXV]

"I'm just wanting to make good stories and maybe reverse some of the media's negative effects on society."

If you get too goody shoes and preachy about the stuff you make, no one will want to see it. There's a market for actions movies that whole families can see (Spider Man).

The market for stuff like the godfather, gangsta rap, etc is huge, because people like to see violence and hear bad words in their entertainment. Otherwise, they wouldn't spend so much money on it.

People like to see fabulously beautiful stars.

The media is the way it is because the ultimate voters are the consumers, who vote with their dollars.

As for so called cultural degradation, culture always changes worldwide. If people overseas love American movies and buy them, that means that American studios are giving them what they want.

You sound like someone who would try to make movies where the movie itself preaches to people how to live a perfect life. But isn't that what we have parents, schools, and churches for?

[Joe Calabrese]

This is a great moral and philosophical subject better suited for another thread, so I split it into new thread. Debate away...

[nganok]

Stories have always reflected the society that they are born to. If society is entertained by sexual freedom and violence then Hollywood will produce it. For example there was an explosion of sex on screen in the late eighties and nineties. This reflected societies sexual tolerance at the time.(that and half of hollywood probably had a coke problem). The big genre now is Superheroes and fantasy stuff reflecting our supreme isolation from one another and people's subsequent need for more in life. That, and the fact that producers can pull in a bigger audience if parents and children can both go and enjoy a movie. We are at war now so...let me guess we will start seeing war oriented movies come out pretty soon. I understand your want to change this and share it in many ways but it's simply not going to happen. Not at our level. Even people who control the magic greenlight have little control. Control is still in the people's hands who stand in line every weekend to see the next so called blockbuster. Sometimes you have to mask your preaching in the theme of the story. Think how many underlying themes George Lucas put into the first Star Wars. Kids didn't care about good vs evil at the time but you put a bunch of aliens fighting in spacehips together and you could preach all you want on that high of a soap box.

[TheRuleofThirds]

"I'm just wanting to make good stories and maybe reverse some of the media's negative effects on society."

If you get too goody shoes and preachy about the stuff you make, no one will want to see it. There's a market for actions movies that whole families can see (Spider Man).

The market for stuff like the godfather, gangsta rap, etc is huge, because people like to see violence and hear bad words in their entertainment. Otherwise, they wouldn't spend so much money on it.

I don't really want to make squeaky clean movies. I will sometimes, but I want to do my part to get movies out that are good. Pulp Fiction, Straight Story, Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan, any Peter Weir film, The Majestic, Harvey, The Searchers, Unforgiven. Of course, fun movies too.

The idea really isn't to get preachy. Sure, a few movies might be fable-esque, but the idea would be to make movies with brains, not checkbooks.

People like to see fabulously beautiful stars.

The media is the way it is because the ultimate voters are the consumers, who vote with their dollars.

Ever watch IFC or Sundance? Those movies are full of well-known and well-liked stars. A lot of actors really don't mind doing indies that are done outside of Hollywood. They appreciate exploring roles that don't typecast them. Typically, indies do that.

Another thing I want to do when movies are released is make a spectacle of the premiere. Like if I've got a family movie I'm releasing, the first day it opens to theaters, I want people to see a three-ring circus before the movie. It won't be like that in every town. Just a few small towns in Middle America. That way, going to the movies would be like going to the fair. Clowns, popcorns, magicians, cotton candy, the works! I know I'm dreaming, but in case it comes true, at least I didn't let reality hold me back from dreaming big.

As for so called cultural degradation, culture always changes worldwide. If people overseas love American movies and buy them, that means that American studios are giving them what they want.

So? Just because it feels good doesn't mean it's good for you. I don't really think people understands the moral responsibility that goes along with broadcasting and distributing. Partially, I think it's because the media are still new. It's like the early days of flight. At first, an airplane was just an engine that could get off the ground and come back down. Film is kind of at the same point in its evolution. It hasn't been developed to the point where it can go supersonic, do aerobatics, or go to the Moon and beyond. But...I guess someone has to keep innovating it and refining it, right?

You sound like someone who would try to make movies where the movie itself preaches to people how to live a perfect life. But isn't that what we have parents, schools, and churches for?

Yeah, we've got parents and schools and churches, but look at how much crap still goes on in the world. And another thing...how many average Joes out there would rather sit for two hours in front their parents, in school, or in church than go see a movie? I would venture to say that Blockbuster Video and AMC Cinemas see more customers than the United Methodist Church. Heck...I skipped church to see Star Trek Generations and school to see Phantom Menace. I couldn't tell you how many times I skipped class in college to finish watching movies I was really enjoying. Like I said...it's not all about preaching, but just quality storytelling. With that usually comes food for thought. Plus, I think if people are exposed to more positive images, they'll find life really is a little more positive than they might've thought. What they see in the movies is what they think the world is like. The rest of the world thinks that's what America's like.

But...ya know...condemn me and my ideals if you wish. I'll take my optimistic vision for the future over your pessimism anyday! :ROFL:

[TheRuleofThirds]

We are at war now so...let me guess we will start seeing war oriented movies come out pretty soon. I understand your want to change this and share it in many ways but it's simply not going to happen.

Actually, I probably wouldn't mind making war movies. I'd like to make as many of them as I can. Well...maybe not that many (not much variety there). It's just I don't want to see war movies that have wooden dialogue or that don't make you think or that have forks tapping cookie pans for their scores. War's either an adventure or it's Hell.

Gosh...you guys must think I'm some kinda bumpkin to have not figured any of this stuff out already. People don't like preaching. But they like good movies. And a lot of them like movies that make you think. If you preach, you lay it all out and there's nothing really to think about or unravel. It's pretty simple and primitive.

[Joe Calabrese]

Oddly enough, the new Iraq war or even the war on terrorism hasn't prodded a lot in the way of films on the subject.

During and after WW1 we had many air and land films, including the oscar winning Wings. The same will WW2 and Korea. The 40's and 50's had more War films than you could shake a rifle at. John Wayne was our true blue soldier for decades.

Then came Vietnam. A war that was unpopular and very few films were made until many years later and usualy a protest of sorts "Born on the Forth, Plattoon, Deer Hunter, etc...)

The first Iraq war had a few films with Blackhawk down and Three Kings, but not many more than that. Probably because it was too short and didn't involve and affect all Americans as did the WW's and the other conflicts/wars.

Now in Iraq again, a war that is unwarranted (don't shoot the messenger, I'm going by popular consensus) and unpopular, there hasn't been one film. Hmmm. I guess the consumer is sick of it or the news has beaten that horse to death.

Even terrorism isn't getting the hollywood push. Besides the fact that there hasn't been a terrorism film of note lately, the Tom Clancy film, The Sum of All Fears, with Ben Afleck, the producers changed the terrorists from Middle Eastern/Islamic to neo Nazis because they didn't think Islamic terrorist were threatening enough and thus unbelievable and unrealistic. Boy were they wrong.

[TheRuleofThirds]

You forgot Apocalypse Now, Joe. Not to mention Hot Shots Part Deux. :-D

Actually, there's quite a few Vietnam movies, thanks to Sly and Chuck Norris and Gene Hackman. Definitely not as many as the WWII movies, but quite a few.

(By far, though, the best WWI movie, I'd say, is Gallipoli.)

At first, I was going to write a script that spanned WWII and Korea, but decided just to start after WWII, then go to Korea.

I think the only IWII movie I've heard about is one with Harrison Ford playing an Army colonel or something.

A few minutes ago, I just got done reading an article at Fox News.com talking about how Spielberg's tried to follow tradition with the War of the Worlds radio program and 1953 film, by playing on the fears of the nation at that time. In '39, attack from the skies was the threat. In '53, Communism was the threat. In '05, now, terrorism is the threat.

[JustinoXXV]

"So? Just because it feels good doesn't mean it's good for you. I don't really think people understands the moral responsibility that goes along with broadcasting and distributing. Partially, I think it's because the media are still new. It's like the early days of flight. At first, an airplane was just an engine that could get off the ground and come back down. Film is kind of at the same point in its evolution. It hasn't been developed to the point where it can go supersonic, do aerobatics, or go to the Moon and beyond. But...I guess someone has to keep innovating it and refining it, right?"

But who are you to tell the audiences what is and isn't good for them? If they ignore their parents, teachers, and church leaders, what makes you think they'll listen to you too?

Show business, like any other business, is about the money, and making a profit.

Of course you should tell the stories you want to tell. No matter how much money you make off it, you won't eliminate the things you despise in Hollywood because there are plenty of people who like that and are willing to pay for it.

As for opening up a three day circus in small towns, hey, go for it. I'm not discouraging you from anything.

[Joe Calabrese]

How could I forget Francis...

What I was refering to were movies made during or shortly after the war in question. So, WW2 films made during WW2, Korean during or shortly after that one, Vietnam, etc...

[TheRuleofThirds]

But who are you to tell the audiences what is and isn't good for them? If they ignore their parents, teachers, and church leaders, what makes you think they'll listen to you too?

Very rarely do people use discretion when they go to the movies or go to Blockbuster. "Who's Alfonso Cuaron? Or Spike Jonze? Or Michel Londry? Uwe Boll? Never heard of him." Directors aren't celebrities. Even really good ones. Case in point, Peter Weir. So when they go to the movies, they're there for the movie or, like you said, the stars. Not the director. I'd be the unknown teacher.

Show business, like any other business, is about the money, and making a profit.

Of course. Money=blood. You can't live without blood, but you can't live with too much of it, either.

Of course you should tell the stories you want to tell. No matter how much money you make off it, you won't eliminate the things you despise in Hollywood because there are plenty of people who like that and are willing to pay for it.

I'm pretty aware of that, because I'm not really taking an offensive. I guess I just want to offer an alternative, possibly turning it into a haven for Hollywood's rejects. Stuff that was good enough to be made, but just not good enough for Hollywood.

[Joe Calabrese]

Of course. Money=blood. You can't live without blood, but you can't live with too much of it, either.

So I assume that the makers of Big Fat Greek Wedding or Blair Witch should have given the bulk of thier huge unexpected profits to charity, or better yet, us fledgling screenwriters?

Money is nothing like blood. You can only hold so much fluid in your body, whereas a bank account is limitless.

But if someday you do make more than you expected, wanted or needed, I'll be knocking on your door. I'll have this post printed out as a reminder.

[WritingFool]

I happen to think its simply a lack of quality scripts that pertain to war, or terrorism.
The bars been set too high. Been there, done that. No ones getting inventive.
No one has written that one high concept film on war, thats marketable, since saving private ryan. And did anyone read that script?
wow, talk about an actor really changing it up. Tom Hanks really brought some life into that. The first draft was alittle too much for me, alittle too macho for its own good. No more Rambo's and Commandos. even tears of the sun, which I think is one of the best military technical films made to date, didnt do that great, because how realistic is it now days, for that too happen.
And, look what happened to the punisher.

Writers and producers are just gunna have to step it up a notch now.

[Joe Calabrese]

Please keep the threads on topic. I had to split it again.

Anyway. True that there may be a lack of good scripts or original concepts, but that's never stopped Hollywood. Been there done that doesn't apply in Hollywood. Look at what's in the theatres this week.

Bewitched
Star Wars
War of the Worlds
Batman

All sequels and/or remakes, all franchises with an established fan base and a nearly guarenteed box office. Two of the four scripts sucked and the other two although written well, are not spectacular and ground breaking as you would hope. I can safely say that just about every film out this year has many elements of the "Been there done that" scenario, however the reason they got made is that they had enough "fresh" added to the "familier" to make it marketable and appealing to those who greenlit them.

With respect for War films, I don't think anyone would want to make them today because of box office trends, not because of material.

[TheRuleofThirds]

Maybe that's because people keep trying to mine the 18-34 crowd? When was the last time you saw a movie appealing to baby boomers or the 70+ crowd? Not saying it should necessarily be attempted or that it could be done successfully, but it'd be a change of pace to pay a little attention to them. It'd certainly have to result in better storytelling if people know who they're talking to. I can't see old-timers going for a Connie Stevens version of "Honey" or "Crossroads." What'd be really nice if that happened, would be if Generation X and Y started liking that, rather than their own stuff. All I gotta say to Jerry Bruckheimer is "Give us us free!"

(Though I await John Wayne's "That'll be the day," from The Searchers).

[JustinoXXV]

Fried Green Tomatoes was aimed at an older crowd (Kathy Bates). So was Steel Magnolia's I believe. First Wives Club was also aimed at an older crowd. Diary of A Mad Black Woman was aimed an an older black crowd too. Ray also got a lot of older viewers.

I do agree that in general movies are aimed at the 18-34 crowd, but that's because this crowd is the range that tends to spend the most money on movies.

[Fin!]

What is this thread about? Do you believe that cinema has yet to fully evoke a maximum amount of thought and emotion out of a viewer? Are you not familiar with the works of Bergman, Ozu, or Bresson?

I'm trying to understand what TheRuleofThirds is trying to get at. What exactly is the media doing that is wrong? I would like to hear more but this thread has been pulled in so many different directions.

First, believe it or not people do know who directs movies. Hence why pretty much every trailer ends with "A (insert name here) Film" And if people don't know who directs films, well Hollywood tries hard to educate them.

And by the way, Black Hawk Down wasn't about the Desert Storm war. :)