Blockbuster cinema is constantly changing - do you agree? Read more at Den of Geek!
1. Inaudible dialogue
Let’s start with something that puts an immediate firewall between the audience and what’s happening on the screen: the fact that the plague of inaudible dialogue is refusing to go away. Too often, thanks to the loudness of explosions all around, bad sound mixing, or a refusal to re-record dialogue in the case of certain directors, it’s impossible to hear what characters are saying on the screen.
Sometimes, this doesn’t matter. A line thrown away in the middle of an action sequence is rarely pivotal. However, at times, a lost line really, really does make a difference. In some cases, an entire character’s performance, though, can be hard to decipher.
2. The multiplex
Mark Kermode managed a whole book on the problem with modern movies, in which he devotes a hefty page count to multiplex cinemas, and the deterioration of the art of projection.
He’s bang on the money with some of his points about the multiplex, too. The multiplex is reflective of the state of modern day television, in that there are hundreds of channels that still offer surprisingly little to watch. The whole idea, in an ideal world, of one building having 10, 20 or even 30 screens devoted to film is that it can host a broad selection of programming.
3. The slow decline of mid-budget movies
As we talked about here, Paramount Pictures made quite a living for itself in the 1990s by actively targeting the mid-priced thriller. While other studios were kickstarting the rush to make $100m+ blockbusters - a movement that Paramount is inevitably now a paid up member to - the studio was content to find thrillers costing $30-40m, knowing that it wouldn't get a gigantic box office take out of them, but would bring home a good profit.
Those days are all but gone. It was while on the press tour for The Lone Ranger (budget
: $200m+) that director Gore Verbinski lamented the fact that the current Hollywood system supports small movies (courtesy of studios' marquee labels, such as Sony Classics) and massive blockbusters.
4. Intolerance of the different
A real problem, this. The common complaint that generally follows any list of upcoming big movies is that they're all the same, or they're all sequels, or they're all franchises. Where are the original films, or the standalone big movies? The answer: they're there, but without massive marketing budgets behind them, how many people are actively seeking them out?
5. Trailers
The depressing thing about complaining about trailers is that we've all been doing it for years, and the problem gets worse. Once upon a time, we were grumbling about a single trailer for a film, that happened to spoil too much of it (prime offender: comedies). Now? Why spoil a film with one trailer, when you can do it with lots.
6. Special effects for the sake of special effects
We found plenty of things to admire in Man Of Steel, but like many critics and cinemagoers, we found ourselves slightly exhausted by its protracted scenes of city-wide destruction. It's a recent example of a film where its technical brilliance outstrips its restraint - a film that never settled for one scene of a collapsing skyscraper when it could easily afford to put in five.
7. An unwillingness to end a story
It was Kevin Smith's interview with Bruce Willis on the Die Hard 4.0 DVD (they're not such good pals now, we understand) that cemented this. Because until you get to the final chapter of a franchise, you're continually dealing with mid-story, as Smith quizzed Willis about. That in itself isn't a problem, but it does mean that there's a reluctance to damage characters, or to close off avenues, for fear of restricting future business possibilities. And yet endings are good: just look at the clamour building up to the Breaking Bad ending on television, knowing that a rich and wonderful story is heading to a final moment
8. Editing isn't ruthless enough
Digital filmmaking has brought in many tangible advantages. It's brought down the barriers for new filmmakers in particular, as you don't need to max out every credit card going or pretend you like film school just to get anywhere near the equipment and people you need to get a film together. Furthermore, directors can check a shot on the spot, thanks to a bank of monitors that adorn any half decent film set. There's no waiting to check the right piece of 35mm footage: it's all instant.
Focus groups, expensive bits of research and a general paranoia amongst aforementioned posh people in Hollywood inevitably fosters a feeling of staying close to things that have worked before. In extreme cases, that's why you get films that aren't even remakes weaving themselves as closely as possible to films in a franchise that have worked before (Star Trek Into Darkness again being a prime example there).
10. The audience
Even though audiences can be shaped via good marketing, and restriction of choice, ultimately the films that end up in big cinemas are the ones that people are more likely to see. Thus, the reason why a big new Transformers sequel is made, and a potentially more interesting original film isn’t, is that more of us are likely to see the former. More than that, more of us are likely to pick up the DVDs, buy the merchandise, and, ultimately, buy a ticket at the cinema.
Let’s start with something that puts an immediate firewall between the audience and what’s happening on the screen: the fact that the plague of inaudible dialogue is refusing to go away. Too often, thanks to the loudness of explosions all around, bad sound mixing, or a refusal to re-record dialogue in the case of certain directors, it’s impossible to hear what characters are saying on the screen.
Sometimes, this doesn’t matter. A line thrown away in the middle of an action sequence is rarely pivotal. However, at times, a lost line really, really does make a difference. In some cases, an entire character’s performance, though, can be hard to decipher.
2. The multiplex
Mark Kermode managed a whole book on the problem with modern movies, in which he devotes a hefty page count to multiplex cinemas, and the deterioration of the art of projection.
He’s bang on the money with some of his points about the multiplex, too. The multiplex is reflective of the state of modern day television, in that there are hundreds of channels that still offer surprisingly little to watch. The whole idea, in an ideal world, of one building having 10, 20 or even 30 screens devoted to film is that it can host a broad selection of programming.
3. The slow decline of mid-budget movies
As we talked about here, Paramount Pictures made quite a living for itself in the 1990s by actively targeting the mid-priced thriller. While other studios were kickstarting the rush to make $100m+ blockbusters - a movement that Paramount is inevitably now a paid up member to - the studio was content to find thrillers costing $30-40m, knowing that it wouldn't get a gigantic box office take out of them, but would bring home a good profit.
Those days are all but gone. It was while on the press tour for The Lone Ranger (budget
: $200m+) that director Gore Verbinski lamented the fact that the current Hollywood system supports small movies (courtesy of studios' marquee labels, such as Sony Classics) and massive blockbusters. 4. Intolerance of the different
A real problem, this. The common complaint that generally follows any list of upcoming big movies is that they're all the same, or they're all sequels, or they're all franchises. Where are the original films, or the standalone big movies? The answer: they're there, but without massive marketing budgets behind them, how many people are actively seeking them out?
5. Trailers
The depressing thing about complaining about trailers is that we've all been doing it for years, and the problem gets worse. Once upon a time, we were grumbling about a single trailer for a film, that happened to spoil too much of it (prime offender: comedies). Now? Why spoil a film with one trailer, when you can do it with lots.
6. Special effects for the sake of special effects
We found plenty of things to admire in Man Of Steel, but like many critics and cinemagoers, we found ourselves slightly exhausted by its protracted scenes of city-wide destruction. It's a recent example of a film where its technical brilliance outstrips its restraint - a film that never settled for one scene of a collapsing skyscraper when it could easily afford to put in five.
7. An unwillingness to end a story
It was Kevin Smith's interview with Bruce Willis on the Die Hard 4.0 DVD (they're not such good pals now, we understand) that cemented this. Because until you get to the final chapter of a franchise, you're continually dealing with mid-story, as Smith quizzed Willis about. That in itself isn't a problem, but it does mean that there's a reluctance to damage characters, or to close off avenues, for fear of restricting future business possibilities. And yet endings are good: just look at the clamour building up to the Breaking Bad ending on television, knowing that a rich and wonderful story is heading to a final moment
8. Editing isn't ruthless enough
Digital filmmaking has brought in many tangible advantages. It's brought down the barriers for new filmmakers in particular, as you don't need to max out every credit card going or pretend you like film school just to get anywhere near the equipment and people you need to get a film together. Furthermore, directors can check a shot on the spot, thanks to a bank of monitors that adorn any half decent film set. There's no waiting to check the right piece of 35mm footage: it's all instant.
9. Too much reverence
Focus groups, expensive bits of research and a general paranoia amongst aforementioned posh people in Hollywood inevitably fosters a feeling of staying close to things that have worked before. In extreme cases, that's why you get films that aren't even remakes weaving themselves as closely as possible to films in a franchise that have worked before (Star Trek Into Darkness again being a prime example there).
10. The audience
Even though audiences can be shaped via good marketing, and restriction of choice, ultimately the films that end up in big cinemas are the ones that people are more likely to see. Thus, the reason why a big new Transformers sequel is made, and a potentially more interesting original film isn’t, is that more of us are likely to see the former. More than that, more of us are likely to pick up the DVDs, buy the merchandise, and, ultimately, buy a ticket at the cinema.
Read the complete article: http://www.denofgeek.com
No comments:
Post a Comment