Cap'n Jack
Premium
- 10,145
- South of the South
- GoldMineGutted
I want to watch something more exciting than "The Rollercoaster Tycoon Movie".
Evidence that Hollywood has gone insane
- Thread starter FoolKiller
- 56 comments
- 4,056 views
- 144
- Amurica!
- wyvern_89
I want to watch something more exciting than "The Rollercoaster Tycoon Movie".
Zoo Tycoon!
- 326
- Buttcrack, CT
- CaptainAlbator
That's exactly how I feel. They're rebooting a movie that's barely ten years old. Does Marc Webb (director) believe we've already forgotten Tobey Maguire? And they are indeed doing the origin story again, only this time Peter Parker is a hoodie wearing, skateboard riding "hipster", who has as director Marc Webb has described, a "DIY punk rock attitude". The whole film from what I've read will be set during Peter's high school years.
The only reason they are making a new Spider-Man is to keep Disney from getting the rights. Check out the photos here. The guy playing Peter Parker this time is actor Andrew Garfield (The Social Network). Are they making Spider-Man or Doctor Who?? The overall look of the film is trying really hard to emulate Twilight. If this tanks, which I think it will, then look for what's left of Columbia Pictures to be sold off.
- 23,800
- Philippines
The Spiderman reboot is a horrible idea. Batman was a series that was floundering due to misguided stewardship, especially in the post-Burton years. Superman was a dead franchise. Spiderman had just come off of two-and-a-half excellent movies and was good for possibly one or two more.
Toy lines. Nobody gives a blue baboon about how bad the film was, as long as it allows them to sell more movie-related G.I. Joe merchandise. And maybe even non-movie related stuff. If the movie makes just enough to break even (after factoring in marketing, the cuts of the theaters and distributors and etcetera), then it's more than worth it due to the massive rise in toy sales for all G.I. Joe properties (toys, home videos (including cartoons, and assorted) after the movie comes out.
Like that wasn't apparent with the horrible insertion of CGI into the original Star Wars trilogy.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull wasn't bad as far as Indy films go... but that was part-Spielberg, wasn't it?
-
3D is just too niche at the moment. And I fear that it may all backfire horribly when people finally get sick of looking at eye-strainingly poor 3D implementation in thrillers and animated movies. We haven't seen a 3D movie at the theaters, in fact, for over a year. Just not worth the money.
Toy lines. Nobody gives a blue baboon about how bad the film was, as long as it allows them to sell more movie-related G.I. Joe merchandise. And maybe even non-movie related stuff. If the movie makes just enough to break even (after factoring in marketing, the cuts of the theaters and distributors and etcetera), then it's more than worth it due to the massive rise in toy sales for all G.I. Joe properties (toys, home videos (including cartoons, and assorted) after the movie comes out.
Like that wasn't apparent with the horrible insertion of CGI into the original Star Wars trilogy.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull wasn't bad as far as Indy films go... but that was part-Spielberg, wasn't it?
-
3D is just too niche at the moment. And I fear that it may all backfire horribly when people finally get sick of looking at eye-strainingly poor 3D implementation in thrillers and animated movies. We haven't seen a 3D movie at the theaters, in fact, for over a year. Just not worth the money.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
It wasn't? I was already iffy when Shia"whoa whoa whoa whoa" LeBouf was cast. Then I watched Indy jump in a fridge and I knew it was going to be bad. I am pretty sure South Park summed it up nicely in one episode.niky
But, I am happy to discover that this is not just me. The world isn't going crazy.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...t-16year-low-in-2011-20111229,0,4893859.story
I can't say I'm surprised. Ten years ago I saw a movie nearly every week. This year I saw 5, and two of those were paid for by someone else, and one was taking my wife out to her choice after a year and a half of refusing to leave our daughter with anyone but me for more than 30 minutes. At first I blamed it on now being a father, but I realize I had no desire to see anything other than the two I wanted to go see. I can buy DVDs for the price of a theater ticket, and Blu-Ray isn't much more when it's on sale. Plus, Netflix or one of the many digital rental services available on my game consoles adds value and convenience to waiting for home video. I even save gas money.
At this point Hollywood has to make the movie something we want to see right now and are excited about to get me in a theater. Instead it feels like they have taken the TV route and shoot for the lowest common denominator. Crappy reality TV works because people don't want to get up and leave and the voyeur aspect opens the world in their home. But if you expect people to leave their house to see something it better be worth their time. As it is, it panders solely to the boobs and bombs crowd.
- 326
- Buttcrack, CT
- CaptainAlbator
I'm surprised that nobody (either the so-called "experts", or anyone here) has mentioned the rapid turn over from the theater to DVD. It used to be that if you missed a film in the theater you'd have to wait six months to nearly a year for it to surface on video. Now it's something like six weeks to three months. About three weeks after I had seen The Muppets (which I LOVED by the way), I had already gotten a pre-order notice from Amazon for the DVD/Blu Ray. There's way more options now to see a movie with On Demand services, Netflix, and home video.
Another thing worth noting, movies have been supplanted by video games as a major cultural force. The same with music. Movies used to be an event. When I was a kid everyone was talking about seeing Jaws, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones. These days it's like you can take it or leave it. I don't know if it's a matter of attention spans in younger people, or that the quality has dropped off significantly, but the closest thing we've seen in recent years to a movie being a major cultural event, Harry Potter aside, was The Dark Knight. So much so now that every studio feels they need to make films "dark and edgey" to get those huge Dark Knight numbers.
Schwartz
Premium
- 4,315
- Bellingham, WA
- Schwartz38
NegrumirRoller Coaster Tycoon some kind of Saw or Final Destination hybrid would be worth a watch at least.
Yea that makes sense... I remember I used to modify rollercoasters so the cars flew off the rails, crashed in to the water and blew up. Everyone dies and the rest of the people in the park leave.
Then I would build up one square of land to 10 stories and drop a person on top so he would stay there forever. Or I would block the exit so people are forced to stay in my park. I would also drop people in the water and when they are about to drownd I would pick them up for a few seconds and drop them back in. Or I would charge $25 to use the bathrooms.
Last edited:
- 736
- Negrumir
Yea that makes sense... I remember I used to modify rollercoasters so the cars flew off the rails, crashed in to the water and blew up. Everyone dies and the rest of the people in the park leave.
Then I would build up one square of land to 10 stories and drop a person on top so he would stay there forever. Or I would block the exit so people are forced to stay in my park. I would also drop people in the water and when they are about to drownd I would pick them up for a few seconds and drop them back in. Or I would charge $25 to use the bathrooms.
I only played the game a little, that's exactly what I did too.
Sim City was more my style. But it has already been translated to a movie in a way I would appreciate. Ever heard of 2012? lol
- 2,583
- Kelowna, Canada
- Antonisbob
- No...
"Evidence that Hollywood has gone insane"
I new that since they started re-making every movie possible. But seriously? How can you even make a movie out of this?
When has a video game movie ever been good in your eyes? I heard the DOOM films sucked.
I new that since they started re-making every movie possible.
But seriously? How can you even make a movie out of this?When has a video game movie ever been good in your eyes? I heard the DOOM films sucked.
- 736
- Negrumir
The Final Fantasy Movies were good in my opinion.
Resident Evil: Degeneration wasn't bad either.
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,323
- United States
- 21,193
- United States
- nk4e
CG films have to do with years after the Raccoon City Incident. While live action films are during the Racoon City incident and the world turning into dust..
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,323
- United States
SuperShouden
(Banned)
- 7,542
- SuperShouden
How is Michelle Rodriguez's character still alive? Alice put a bullet in her head in the first movie...and there can't really be a prequel.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
You would think though that at least the theater experience should be unaffected. There is no theater or concert equivalent for a video game.
I also blame part of the downfall of the movie and music industries (print in part as well) is that they are dinosaurs of media refusing to adapt to the technological changes. Music and movie industries were trying to demonize digital media while video games were using the Internet to let us play with friends all over the world.
Back then we didn't have multiplexes. Your movie had to be extraordinary because it had to compete for screen space in every city. And if everyone were going to see a movie that weekend they had a couple to choose from. Now that money is divided among 3-10 movies a week. It is similar to what happened to TV. Shows from the 70s and 80s that lasted 10 years or more wouldn't make it two seasons today because we have more than three or four choices. It is why there is so much low quality, maximum profit, crap reality TV out there. The kind of people we used to only watch on Geraldo, Springer, and Maury all now have their own shows at 8:00 or 9:00 on major television networks.
So, to a degree you have two things happening. First any crappy, low-budget, formulaic film can be pumped out and turn a profit. It is how Adam Sandler keeps all his friends employed. Then you have the films that are designed to stand out from the crowd. Occasionally, you get a The Dark Knight, which makes everyone say, "That was different. I like it." Of course, when you push the issue most people like the dark and gritty Batman, and most can't break down the movie elements that really make it good. Unfortunately though, we more often get a standout like Avatar, which only stands out because it had a technological jump. At its base it was just crap in 3D.
They are never good because Hollywood takes them and does what Hollywood does, goes nuts. The original story idea for Uncharted was so bad that fan backlash had the script and all working on the movie scrapped. Metal Gear Solid had rumors of major story changes that left fans upset and David Hayter (voice of Solid Snake, and script writer for the first two X-Men films) even pushing his fans to start an email campaign to get the studio to at least read his script. God forbid we let the guy that has been Solid Snake for over a decade be involved. And the Halo movie has been started and stopped so much that even Peter Jackson gave it up. They have a story but since video game writers aren't always part of the precious guild they start over with just a name and a concept. It's the same thing they do when they adapt novels to the screen. If you have ever read the Bourne books and seen the movie you can see how this has happened. Or better yet, compare most comic book films to the comic books. Comics limit the film industry a bit more as their primary audience will be the people that will be upset with too much change. A video game movie though is assumed to attract more people than there are video gamers, a fallacy brought on by the still popular notion that video gamers are just a small group of nerds. Oh, and Uwe Boll somehow gets the rights to many of them.
As for Doom: It has The Rock in it. How bad can it be? (OK, I saw it...it is horrible).
Best guess: At some point we discovered they were doing cloning experiments, to the point that there were hundreds of Alices. If I recall, her character worked for umbrella, so it may be possible they have her DNA.
That or some form of flashback sequence.
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,323
- United States
I just saw this, so I'll take a crack at it.
Max Payne?
Not sure how close it is to the video game story, but I quite enjoyed it.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Max who? Max what? Not particularly high cinema. Doesn't help that the original videogame story was so self-consciously set as a parody of film noir cliches that anyone familiar with the genre would burst out laughing at some of the outlandishly bad monologues.
-
DOOM... oh joy... that was so bad and made so little sense that by the time they set up that ten minute long commercial for the videogame at the end (the first-person combat sequence), you're thankful for it, even though there are player-created videos of actual gameplay that are better choreographed...
See, I've never seen Indy as high cinema... more like classic campy adventure cinema... (seriously... flip a motorbike with a wooden pole? Knock a plane out of the sky with a flock of birds? Rip a man's beating heart out of his chest with your bare hands?)... so part of the schlock was acceptable, though surviving a nuclear blast in a refrigerator was waaaaaay beyond stretching the bounds of reality.
I think familiarity was a big problem with the movie. Watch it with no expectations and not expecting anything more than Indiana Jones, and you'll be happy. Watch it expecting something special, dazzling and... well... new, and it'll leave you cold.
-
The problem with rebooting too many franchises is that there are only so many ways you can cut it. Once you've done it the right way, then anything after that will be seen as a colossal failure... whether or not it actually has merit on its own.
Not particularly high cinema. Doesn't help that the original videogame story was so self-consciously set as a parody of film noir cliches that anyone familiar with the genre would burst out laughing at some of the outlandishly bad monologues.-
DOOM... oh joy... that was so bad and made so little sense that by the time they set up that ten minute long commercial for the videogame at the end (the first-person combat sequence), you're thankful for it, even though there are player-created videos of actual gameplay that are better choreographed...
See, I've never seen Indy as high cinema... more like classic campy adventure cinema... (seriously... flip a motorbike with a wooden pole? Knock a plane out of the sky with a flock of birds? Rip a man's beating heart out of his chest with your bare hands?)... so part of the schlock was acceptable, though surviving a nuclear blast in a refrigerator was waaaaaay beyond stretching the bounds of reality.
I think familiarity was a big problem with the movie. Watch it with no expectations and not expecting anything more than Indiana Jones, and you'll be happy. Watch it expecting something special, dazzling and... well... new, and it'll leave you cold.
-
The problem with rebooting too many franchises is that there are only so many ways you can cut it. Once you've done it the right way, then anything after that will be seen as a colossal failure... whether or not it actually has merit on its own.
- 21,193
- United States
- nk4e
They have strayed off from the original story....long time ago..IMO, the first film is the best.
SuperShouden
(Banned)
- 7,542
- SuperShouden
I liked Silent Hill. Hitman wasn't too awful. But Resident Evil is still the best video game movie ever. And the sequels aren't too bad. Yeah, they're getting worse with each one, but I think Milla is naked in every one...and they're still better than 90% of the other video game movies.
The worst of the bunch is Alone in the Dark, which has nothing to do with the video games whatsoever and was just a really bad movie.
But, a worst genre is starting: Board-game movies. I mean...Battleship, Candy Land, Shoots and Ladders? WTF? Movies can make good board games, but I don't think it works the other way around. The idea of these movies makes me want to throw up. I think this is the best evidence that Hollywood has completely run out of ideas.
The worst of the bunch is Alone in the Dark, which has nothing to do with the video games whatsoever and was just a really bad movie.
But, a worst genre is starting: Board-game movies. I mean...Battleship, Candy Land, Shoots and Ladders? WTF? Movies can make good board games, but I don't think it works the other way around. The idea of these movies makes me want to throw up. I think this is the best evidence that Hollywood has completely run out of ideas.
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,323
- United States
Max who? Max what?
Well I haven't played any of the games. But I would say that as a movie on it's own, it's one I can actually sit through and enjoy. To each their own.
- 326
- Buttcrack, CT
- CaptainAlbator
I just want to address a couple of points. In my area at least, you did have the beginnings of "multiplexes". Granted they were still relatively small by today's standards. I think the one in Orange, CT originally had 8 theaters, maybe six at the time, and that was as far back as 1977. But you are right, the multiplex was not as common as it was today.
As far as adapting to digital technology, I'm not sure there's much the movie industry can do as far as watching a movie goes. There's digital projection which makes the viewing experience nicer, but you still have the theater full of patrons watching the film as they have for nearly what, the last 80 years? It's the way you get movies at home that have changed. I can go on and on about the ills of the music industry, but that's a discussion for another day.
The other thing about reality based television is that it's cheap to produce. There's no writers, no real actors to pay, and very little in terms of production costs. So it makes a ton of money in that case. And of course with that model, the networks have beat it to death!
I agree with you on the Adam Sandler part. This is actually an interesting discussion we're having.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
But in this day most movies make the majority of their money on home release. The theater experience is just an old novelty left to struggle because it is an experience. The movie industry does use the falling theater ticket sales as an excuse to complain about piracy and support things like SOPA (I'll leave that for its appropriate thread), but the truth is the home experience is booming now with HD and multiple ways to watch film. But, like the music industry, they attacked the more consumer friendly methods of seeing movies for those that don't want to go out and buy DVDs. Even where they have given into digital distribution they have it so heavily DRM'd that it actually lacks the versatility of physical media. Netflix has made huge steps in breaking those kinds of barriers by allowing Netflix access on pretty much any digital device you can think of, but the movie studios fight them every step of the way.
Part of me strongly believes that it we didn't have 900+ channels reality TV wouldn't be as wide spread as it has become. I mean, when we are watching guys pick through junk sheds for antiques or pull logs out of swamps I have to wonder where the audience is for that. Then I remember that 30 years ago a 20% ratings share was not very great, but today a cable network is hoping for 3% ratings share. Just bored flipping through the channels will get you that much.
- 326
- Buttcrack, CT
- CaptainAlbator
But in this day most movies make the majority of their money on home release. The theater experience is just an old novelty left to struggle because it is an experience. The movie industry does use the falling theater ticket sales as an excuse to complain about piracy and support things like SOPA (I'll leave that for its appropriate thread), but the truth is the home experience is booming now with HD and multiple ways to watch film. But, like the music industry, they attacked the more consumer friendly methods of seeing movies for those that don't want to go out and buy DVDs. Even where they have given into digital distribution they have it so heavily DRM'd that it actually lacks the versatility of physical media. Netflix has made huge steps in breaking those kinds of barriers by allowing Netflix access on pretty much any digital device you can think of, but the movie studios fight them every step of the way.
Part of me strongly believes that it we didn't have 900+ channels reality TV wouldn't be as wide spread as it has become. I mean, when we are watching guys pick through junk sheds for antiques or pull logs out of swamps I have to wonder where the audience is for that. Then I remember that 30 years ago a 20% ratings share was not very great, but today a cable network is hoping for 3% ratings share. Just bored flipping through the channels will get you that much.
I was talking about this with a friend last night. I don't think that the theater is a "novelty". Maybe it is to the younger generation, but there's still something to be said for the immersion element that you get in the theater, that you don't get at home. We both agreed to an extent that part of the problem is A) Attention spans are much shorter with the younger generation. Perhaps it's too much to ask of the younger generation to get up and actually leave the house, and dedicate two hours of their undivided attention in the 21st century. And maybe it's too much for them to see something that doesn't start Adam Sandler or Seth Rogen. Many younger people are becoming accustomed to a more socially removed and reclusive lifestyle, and they don't see the value of having something as a "shared experience". The second part B) is that convenience of getting the films at home is the trade off for actually going to the theater. The side effect of that is, much like music, it has cheapened the movie viewing experience, and we are now seeing it as a commodity that many are not willing to pay for. Personally I feel that someone should be paid for their work. However, I do feel that I should be given something worth paying for. The thing that so many have proven time and time again, if you give someone a rope, they'll want to be a cowboy. Meaning that if you had DRM free movies, and music, it will inevitably end up on a file sharing site anyway.
The theaters and DVD represent a "double dip" for studios. If you look at box office, they still make an ENORMOUS amount of money on ticket sales. Granted you have to adjust for inflation, however digital distribution at this point in time simply can not generate that kind of money. I've often said that this time, the United States has internet connections behind Romania and Bulgaria. Many of you may say "so what? What does it matter if the US has bad internet connections". Like it or not, the USA is still the largest movie market in the world. You simply can not have a product that is inaccessible to your largest marketbase. The infrastructure simply isn't there yet to really capitalize on digital distribution in the U.S. It's going to take time for that to change. Maybe in ten to fifteen years we'll be getting streaming movies into our houses for a subscription the day they are released in the theaters. However it looks like the old ways are going to be with us for a while yet.
On the music industry, I've said for a long time (as a musician I have very strong feelings about this), that downloading isn't killing the industry. CRAP is killing the industry. Again, that's a topic for another time.
Last edited:
Similar threads
