OT: Star Wars, George Lucas, and the end of filmmaking

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Talent Wasted at a Desk

Well Episode One belongs on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Episode Two was much better. I give it a 6.5. I give Empire an 8.5.

I agree about Episode I. That was one of the worst movies I've ever seen -- an incredible disappointment given how much time Lucas had had since the original trilogy.

As for the original trilogy, which I saw in its first run, I'd give Star Wars (IV) an 8, Empire a 9, and Jedi a 7. Parts of the original Star Wars were dramatically clunky, partly due to writing and direction, and partly due to bad acting (primarily by Mark Hamill). But you have to admire the incredibly well realized future vision of the movie, along with great action scenes, and delightful acting by Harrison Ford and Alec Guinness. Empire has the best script and best direction of the trilogy, along with all the strengths of the original. Jedi was a bit disappointing, mainly because of an episodic script that lacked dramatic unity, and also because of a nauseous ending.

The original trilogy damaged American filmmaking tremendously. It was not alone in doing so -- it had help from Jaws, Close Encounters and E.T., to name a few. These blockbuster films turned American filmmaking away from "director's films" (films that rely on powerful scripts, acting and a unique director's vision) and toward "studio films" whose direction was driven by a Hollywood marketing engine. Studio films are much less concerned with scripts and acting and more concerned with big box-office payoffs. Once movies became principally driven by commercial interests, filmmaking retreated to safe formulas -- forumulaic scripts, big special effects, big stars.

Ironically, some of the biggest blockbusters that started this trend weren't necessarily bad films. The first two Star Wars films, Jaws, Close Encounters and E.T. are all outstanding films. But they shifted the locus of power in Hollywood from directors to studios (and also the distribution networks). While commercial interests obviously have always been a big part of Hollywood, they never had the stranglehold that they have had in the last 20 years. It is virtually impossible for script-driven movies to be made now, unless they are attached to a major Hollywood star, a big director, or have the potential to be an FX extravaganza. (Yes, there's a small cult of indie filmmakers and the Sundance festival crowd, but I'm talking about the mid-market of films that achieve broad distribution based on their artistic merit -- films like Coppola and Scorsese made before they became Hollywood "names". Those types of films are virtually impossible to make and get distributed today, without the benefit of a big name actor or director.)

I've always had an ambivalent feeling about George Lucas, partly because of the negative effects of his movies and partly because I think he's seriously flawed and overrated. I think he's a talented man of exceptional technical vision, but there's something seriously wrong with him. To be blunt, I think he hates real people. This shows up in his work through heavily symbolic plot (based on fantasy and recycled archetypes and myths), an inability to develop compelling scripts based on believable emotions and dialogue, strikingly weak direction of actors, and an Ahab-like obsession with replacing the entire medium of film (in which a camera records some kind of actual reality on celluloid) with a wholly digital environment in which the ultimate goal is the total replacement of reality (people, objects, the environment, and action) with a computer-generated fantasy.

I'm sure there are millions of George Lucas types masturbating in their basement, downloading porn, reading Tek Wars, and plying their talents at 3D simulations, programming and other technical arts. These folks are an important part of society -- we need them. It's just unfortunate that one little masturbator has managed to have so much effect on Hollywood's priorities, and the worst damage is yet to come.

The little wanker's biggest vision is end-to-end digital filmmaking, in which films are produced digitally, distributed to multiplexes digitally, and projected using expensive digital projectors. This vision requires massive investment on the part of both studios (film production and postproduction equipment) and distributors (multiplexes have to install $100K digital projectors). Vaseline George is using the massive promotional vehicles of his films to drag Hollywood studios and the distribution system into this fully digital system.

You'll hear lots of PR buffoonery about the advantages of this digital system -- cheaper distribution in the longterm, faster distribution (no need to print so many reels of film), multiplex film quality 100% equal to the original (instead of celluloid that might get degraded or be projected in poor-quality theaters), and the opportunity for "little" films to get distribution because of lowered costs.

This is mostly a load of crap. No digital technology today has the realism of film *in capturing reality*. Where digital technology has advantages is in producing fantasy -- computer-generated reality. So the best-looking films in the new distribution system will be films like Star Wars II -- fantasy wankfests depending heavily on computer-generated effects and less and less on acting, good scripts, and a vision of actual reality captured with a camera.

Even worse, once theaters shift fully to digital projection systems, great films shot on celluloid won't be able to be seen broadly on film. They will have to be digitized to squeeze through the same distribution system. And they won't have a chance to achieve the truly awesome cinematic experiences of the great "old" Hollywood films.

Say good-bye to Lawrence of Arabia, Taxi Driver, The Godfather -- films whose writing, acting, direction and sheer visual cinema reach into your soul and deliver the best vision of human experience ever achieved.

Say hello to a thousand lubed Georges in their basement, spanking their monkeys and playing all night on their computers. In the future, our greatest popular art will be drawn from the tiny boundaries of their humanity.

[Burgold]

Wow, do I disagree with this. There have always been formulaic films desired to appeal to the mass audience and primarily designed to sell tickets. See the Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, and Keystone Cop movies throughout history, not to mention the Bing Crosby/Bob Hope travel flicks. The first three Star Wars movie were largely popular because of their storytelling and script twined with the new special effects. As for being archetypal, almost all literature that is considered great resonates from the base archetypes. Haven't seen the new one yet and I do feel that Phantom was not in the class of the others, but those movies did not initiate a lack of detail in movie making. Did they give birth to movie making as marketing. Again no, go to a good collectable shop and you can find sales items from the 1939 wizard of Oz. My sister had a Dumbo doll she loved growing up. It did take it to a new level, I'll give you that. Like Michael Jordan took sports merchandizing to a new level or at least Nike et al. did.

Finally, I don't know who you watch these films, but where you find all the masturbatory images or enticements of Star Wars is bewildering. If you want to see a masturbatory film, I went to the New Bethesda Theatre last weekend. They are supposed to show primarily the artsy highbrow foreign films. I went to see a film that was lauded by the critics for its ingenious story. It was a Mexican Picture called, Y Tu Mama Tambien. It was the most thinly disguised could have been rated X picture I've seen in a while or maybe it's just that it's been a long time that I've been to a rated X flick.

The reason Godfather, Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, etc. stand out is because they were the rare films. Those special intricate and unique films are and never will be the norm, but they are still made. Are they distributed mass market? Sometimes, but usually only if they've been a big enough hit on the small market.

I do think that Lucas is far too infatuated with the special effect as moviemaking. I find it odd, that this rancor wasn't attributed to Spider-Man which is the same issue. But formulaic movies, movies that are designed to generate mass appeal and mass money are as old as the 1930's and the phenomenon itself is easily as old as the Roman Colleseum if not older.

[The Sisko]

I think it all depends on what you're looking for at any given moment. Sometimes, all I want is some mindless entertainment so I'll watch whatever movie that's hot at the moment. If however, I want something more I have to seek out a film.

Movies, Films there is a difference. Just like say a $10.00 bottle of wine vs. a $100.00 bottle. Sometimes all you want is a cheap buzz and other times you want an extraordinary experience (that still gets you buzzed of course :cool: )

P.S. I think I've seen a thread where you guys mentioned your favorite films of all times. Let me add mine to the list, albeit a bit late.

Paths of Glory (Kubrick)

Cool Hand Luke (I forget)

A Clockwork Orange (Kubrick)

[Talent Wasted at a Desk]

I thought that Star Wars episodes 1 thru 3 are independent productions. Indie movies, technically. From Industrial Light&Magic, not a major production company.

These big companies also own and run the movies' distribution systems, and that's how they make money. Money is usually lost on the film itself.

I'm no expert, but I think that's how it works.

Many critics and actors at the time felt that film was ruined by the addition of synchronous sound (1927). Then the aspect ratio was changed from 4:3 to 2:1 in 1954, I believe. Then Star Wars (1977) made computer-generated special effects a major element of movie-making. Now I think video games are the new movies that we all can star in. Things change. They don't get better or worse, just different.

[Baculus]

Well, a rather insulting post towards sci-fi fans!

First off, before the 70's, when the Lucas Films really came to fruitation, there were A LOT of crappy films. Sorry, but during the "Golden Years" of cimena, there were many busts and few gems. We just tend to be more familiar with the better films during that era. And, I have to agree with Burgold, the "big star" and "big director" has been around for YEARS. This ain't anything new...just the technology is more advanced!

And I think your description of "George Lucas" types, whatever that is, is quite crude. Mastubatory? What is that supposed to mean?

I have the feeling you're simply not a sci-fi fan. Why? Because, before the Star Wars serials, there were very few good sci-fi movies. Yes, tons of great sci-fi books, but besides 2001, Planet of the Apes, some of the Buster Crabbe serials, etc, the Golden Age of Sci-fi REALLY started with Star Wars. (And, by definition, Star Wars is more of a "Sci-fi Opera.")

Sorry, but I think your hatred of George Lucas, and your idiolizing of earlier Hollywood cinema, is blinding your opinion.

~B.

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

I agree about Episode I. That was one of the worst movies I've ever seen -- an incredible disappointment given how much time Lucas had had since the original trilogy.

As for the original trilogy, which I saw in its first run, I'd give Star Wars (IV) an 8, Empire a 9, and Jedi a 7. Parts of the original Star Wars were dramatically clunky, partly due to writing and direction, and partly due to bad acting (primarily by Mark Hamill). But you have to admire the incredibly well realized future vision of the movie, along with great action scenes, and delightful acting by Harrison Ford and Alec Guinness. Empire has the best script and best direction of the trilogy, along with all the strengths of the original. Jedi was a bit disappointing, mainly because of an episodic script that lacked dramatic unity, and also because of a nauseous ending.

Finally, some sane people on this board who agree with me on the quality of the Star Wars films. The first has not aged so well for all the reasons you mentioned, while the 2nd is still a classic. Why was the script so much better in the 2nd movie? - It's the only one where Lucas hired a screenwriter (Kasdan) to write it.

As I've stated a couple of times before, Ep. 1 was more like a muppets movie than a Star Wars episode. SORRY GUYS, BUT IT SUCKED!! From the childish characters, cheesy animation, and the Disney-esque 5 year old saving the world. :puke: :puke:

The problem with Jedi is they rewrote it as it was going into production to include Ewoks because -- THEY WANTED TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF THE TOY SALES!!! When Jedi came out on video, I taped it editing out all the scenes with the Ewoks, and it was a much better movie, despite how much they watered down Leia's character.

To me, the bad influence of Jedi and ET is that the formula has become to make "CUTE" movies families can take their kids to (i.e. Phantom Menace, Home Alone, etc.) I like fun mindless entertainment from time to time, but I hate the Bruckheimer formula b.s. (Con Air, Pearl Harbor, etc.), and all that CUTE crap.

[Henry]

Funny, I always blamed 'The Godfather' for ushering in an age of mindlessly voilent "the bad guy is cool" mafia movies. Thanks for setting me straight.

I see a lot of self-servicing going on with regards to the Star Wars movies, but not just by Lucas fans. The Lucas hater, too, has been spending many an hour sequestered away with their fellow beret wearing, latte drinking, goatee sporting buddies endlessly droning on about the death of the independant film, the true epic, story-driven cinema blah blah blah blah blah. These people are also important to society. But it's too bad they've managed to bring self-indulgent tripe like 'American Beauty' and 'The English Patient' to the forefront of American cinema. I am sure there is worse damage yet to come.

Lucky for me there are still movies out there where the good guy wins, the bad guy loses, there's a car chase and a lot of explosions. The self-proclaimed deep thinkers pat themselves on the back all they want for hating pop-culture. I don't care. I'm just glad folks like George Lucas will make his movies despite them.

I'm off to the basement now. Where's my popcorn?

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by Henry

Funny, I always blamed 'The Godfather' for ushering in an age of mindlessly voilent "the bad guy is cool" mafia movies. Thanks for setting me straight.

Good heavens, you just ripped my All Time Favorite movie (actually, my favorite is the 8 hour Godfather Epic which combines the first two movies in chronological order, and includes about an extra hour of outtakes from GII)

And my favorite TV show? The Sopranos, of course!!!

What, your father never cut off anybody's pinky?

[Henry]

Sorry Riggo. I think The Godfather is one heck of a movie.

I just find it amusing when one mistakes personal taste for Universal Truth. I thought that sort of thing was reserved for The Tailgate.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Baculus1

Well, a rather insulting post towards sci-fi fans!

...

I have the feeling you're simply not a sci-fi fan.

This couldn't be further from the truth. I liked the first two Star Wars films quite a lot, and I've been a longtime fan of the original Star Trek series and films -- especially the Star Trek II and IV films. I loved Alien and Aliens, Terminator I and II, and even such lost classics as Forbidden Planet and Dark City.

This is *not* a vent against sci-fi. It's a rant against a Hollywood system that has come to virtually ignore the importance of high-quality scripts, acting, direction and cinematography. In place of these elements is a system that increasingly views films simply as products to be marketed, emphasizing big names or FX eye candy in search of box-office blockbusters.

Obviously commercial interests have long been a driving Hollywood influence, and some elements of the bad cinema of the last 20 years have always been present. Hollywood in the original golden age had even stronger studios than they have today, and those studios turned out an amazing volume of star-driven films of very uneven quality.

But the 1960s and 1970s brought the emergence of the director, screenwriters and actors as the primary driving influence of the best films -- enabling Hitch****, Scorsese, Coppola, Kubrick, as well as lesser-known directors (even Peter Fonda with the uneven but original "Easy Rider") to produce truly stunning, original work. What has changed since the late 1970s is how difficult it has been for such artist-driven work to be produced and broadly distributed. Rare gems do emerge from relative unknowns (at the time), such as Lynch's "Blue Velvet" and Figgis's "Leaving Las Vegas". But there are clearly fewer great films being made of original artistic merit, and most of those are being made by established "names" who still have Hollywood pull. Altman gets to make "The Player", Scorsese gets to make whatever he wants, and even Spielberg makes a few serious (if flawed) films, such as "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan"

However bad it's been in the past 20 years, it's going to get far worse if end-to-end digital filmmaking and distribution takes hold. I'm not some kind of anti-digital Luddite -- I've made my income since 1986 through computer technology. But digital filmmaking simply isn't the cinematic equal yet of ordinary 35mm celluloid, and it's ridiculously overmatched by 70mm, IMAX and some the emerging high-end film systems. Yes, digital filmmaking is superior for computer-generated imagery and enables a new wave low-end indie productions that can be shot affordably on DV instead of 16mm -- but it seriously degrades the quality of traditional cinema. Even worse, the investments in digital filmmaking and distribution being made now will tend to "lock in" digital cinema at its current, inferior quality level. (This would be the quality of HD cameras and projection systems.)

Again, I've got nothing against digital technology in theory. I've got shelves of DVDs and CDs, I subscribe to DirecTV and Tivo, I've got semi-pro and professional DV cameras and post-production equipment -- I'm the most digital guy I know. But trust me that the digital film distribution system currently being marketed by Lucas and company is inferior to film. If this digital system becomes the standard for theater distribution, we're the big losers -- for many years to come. Everything but FX films will look worse, and FX films will be emphasized more than ever in Hollywood distribution.

[Burgold]

To be honest, I agree with you on that last point a little, but find myself agreeing even more in the theatre world than in the movie world. Theatre, Broadway especially, seems intent on revivals or producing the safest of possible works. Works that incorporate new ideas or talent is very rare now a days. Primarily because of the initial investment the big or small producer needs to put forward. Still, the gems can always be found.

Where I disagree is that the period of the 60's through the seventies was such a haven for directors. I think that this is selective vision. I find myself looking back and recalling the great things of my past as well. We rarely if ever recognize the classics when we see them. This in fact is one of pet peeves. Film studios who present a new work and pronounce them instant classics. Many of the movies that are now classics were received dubiously in the original incarnation. Whether camp classics like Attack of the Killer Tomatoes and Get Smart or dramatic classics like Citizen Kane.

If you want to find great art you've got to be willing to hunt. However, it is good to demand it. As a playwright with only a few productions under his belt, I think it's a good idea to demand new ideas and new voices too. On the other hand, I still think your original premise, that Star Wars ushered this era of safety and marketablility and the reduction or deminishment of originality or at least quality is off base. Then again, that is just my opinion.

[NavyDave]

Fortunately there is still excellent scripts and directing in films like Baby Go Back, Staff, Bare Wench project, Thighs wide shut and shaving dianne's privates

I just dont get into acting ability or the nonsense like you cant hear explosions in space,the shock wave from being that close to explosions would kill you and a light saber wont hum like that.

This isnt a play on the stage.

[Barney B]

Things in Hollywood are changing fast, and computers are at the forefront of that change.

The fact remains, though, that the maximization of profit is the driving force behind most movie releases, and is THE single driving force behind all major studio releases, take it from somebody in the industry.

And to tie those last two points together: you want to know what the next growth industry is here in Hollywood? Automated script writing --- computer programs writing the scripts, thus doing away with writers once and for all. I'm not kidding. The rumor here is that all the studios are working on it, and since it will represent such a cost savings for the producers, it's easy to believe.

[Burgold]

Actually, that's not hard to believe at all, Chief. Curious, which aspect of the industry do you work in? Historically, the film industry has treated the writer very poorly.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by The Chief

you want to know what the next growth industry is here in Hollywood? Automated script writing --- computer programs writing the scripts, thus doing away with writers once and for all. I'm not kidding. The rumor here is that all the studios are working on it, and since it will represent such a cost savings for the producers, it's easy to believe.

See, this is *exactly* my point. If anything, Hollywood doesn't spend *enough* on scripts. Hollywood simply doesn't believe that scripts make the movie.

There are only a handful of actors and directors who can take an average script and make a great movie out of it. (It's impossible to make a great movie out of a terrible script.) But a majority of successful actors and directors can make a great movie out of a great script. They might make *different* kinds of great movies from that great script (a different reading of characters, a different selection of shots and styles of editing), but these "different" movies would all be great movies.

For some bizarre reason, Hollywood values writers much less than actors, directors, producers, and DPs. It's not even in Hollywood's interest to do so -- if they made movies based on better scripts, they'd sell more tickets and make more money.

As for the rumored "automated writing program," it doesn't even make sense. The writer normally gets only the tiniest percentage of a movie's production costs.

I suspect what you're hearing about is an outgrowth of the current screenwriting programs used by Hollywood. All movies now are based on scripts generated and printed from one of various software packages. The most popular of these is MovieMagic Screenwriter 2000, but there are many others. These packages function as a word processor for the writer, with added features such as automated formatting of copy in standard screenplay form, outline functions, editing/change management, and a variety of output options that help manage the distribution of up-to-date revisions to the cast and director. Some software actually attempts to help the writer write the screenplay, asking the writer questions and forcing the writer to deal with certain dramatic expectations (some imposed by a genre, some imposed by multiple-act structure, some imposed within individual scenes).

I really doubt seriously that Hollywood is dumb enough to try to get a computer program to write a working Hollywood script. If anything, they are probably playing with these advanced screenwriting programs to generate plot possibilities and to generate some boilerplate dialogue.

A much more intelligent approach would be to force their crappy screenwriters to learn their craft better. On this note, the best screenwriting book I've ever seen is called "Story" by Robert McKee. It's a must-read for anyone who wants to write a screenplay or understand how great movies are constructed through a screenplay.

[Barney B]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

As for the rumored "automated writing program," it doesn't even make sense. The writer normally gets only the tiniest percentage of a movie's production costs.

Atlanta, I agree in principle with nearly everything you've said, but then, too...

I am accustomed to haggling for up to half an hour with a Production Coordinator over a savings of several hundred dollars, so as you might imagine, my opinion is that the producers creed involves pursuing savings wherever and whenever they can be found. Did you know that production team members are often given bonuses based upon how much money they save the production?

I've also seen people's lives endangered (including mine) on movie sets, for the reason that it was faster (and therefore cheaper) to get the shot dangerously than it would have been to follow strict safety guidelines. No one complains, because the jobs pay well, but a guy got killed during the making of Spider-man, for just that reason.

My point here is that those "tiniest percentages" add up, in the minds of producers, and producers know that if every effort is not made to keep costs down, a feature with a budget of (let's say) $50 million can easily get out of hand, and end up costing $100 million to make. This would be catastrophic, so there's tremendous pressure to save money everywhere possible.

I therefore expect to see automated script writing eventually, but not any time soon.

Respectfully yours,

The Chief

[Barney B]

Originally posted by Burgold

Actually, that's not hard to believe at all, Chief. Curious, which aspect of the industry do you work in?

I'm involved with equipment rental. I used to work on the set as a technician, but now I'm esconced in the office. I'll be changing careers very soon, though, moving back East, and my "tell all" book is in the works.:laugh:

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by The Chief

I therefore expect to see automated script writing eventually, but not any time soon.

I originally addressed this point on the cost merits -- i.e., the writer fees for most Hollywood productions are so small (relative to other costs) they could be a rounding error. I didn't seriously believe anyone saw merit in this approach beyond cost savings.

Apparently you do. I can't get get my mind around that.

Do you have any idea how impossible it is to automate the creation of a *good* screenplay? We can't even get computers to carry on an intelligent conversation, and now you want to turn over to computers the job of creating a compelling, original human drama or comedy?

I don't doubt that in time it will be possible for computers to be programmed to create something that *looks* like a screenplay -- i.e. involves a familiar genre, has scenes, characters, and recognizable human dialogue. With enough work, you can break down the elements of screenplay production, plot elements, dialogue and so forth into a kind of object-oriented computer language. The computer could create some random variation among the variables and spit out a screenplay. You might even be able to read that screenplay and follow a story of sorts, and recognize that the story is following certain conventional genre structures.

What it wouldn't be is something insightful -- a drama of character experiences and development that told us something both new and recognizably true about human experience. *This* is the challenge to screenwriters: to create and dramatize a story that hasn't been told before (though it may mirror certain classic story patterns -- patterns that can be summarized in a sentence or two) -- and to make that story, setting, characters and dialogue seem fresh and original, and yet at the same time profoundly true and essential to our human experience.

Computers can't do that. Most screenwriters don't do a very good job at that. It is a very difficult art and simply can't be "automated" by a computer that by definition has no human experiences and thus no original insights from that experience. Anything it spits out is simply a regurgitation and recombination of its programming.

I find it depressing that this is even worth discussing. I can't believe the objective and art of creative writing is so misunderstood.

P.S. I do realize that George Lucas's screenplays look like they were produced by a poorly programmed computer with absolutely no human experience or insight, but I'm quite certain it was ol' George and his buddies banging on the keys.

[Barney B]

Well, Atlanta, let's just say I'm not too sanguine about the future of the industry right now, , because I think we'll be seeing (not very soon) computer generated EVERYTHING.

Did you know that as we speak, a new movie is being made in Korea, which stars, of all people, Bruce Lee? That's right, he's being digitally encoded, and the movie will use a CGI rendition of The Master interacting with real-life actors (and kicking butt, of course). This movie is expected to take three years to complete, and will probably suck. I bet it does bang-up business, though.

Similarly, I predict that people will clamor to go see the first movie to be "Written By A Computer", and that this movie will also probably suck. But as you pointed out, it might be better than what George Lucas can disgorge.

Like I said, though, Not Very Soon.

And like you, I wish there were better scripts out there.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by The Chief

Similarly, I predict that people will clamor to go see the first movie to be "Written By A Computer", and that this movie will also probably suck. But as you pointed out, it might be better than what George Lucas can disgorge.

I'm glad you put "Written By A Computer" in quotes. Because should the sad day come when we see such a Hollywood release, the screenplay will not have been "Written By A Computer." The screenplay will have been spit out by a computer program written by a human programmer working with screenplay "experts" who provide content. All the computer will do is follow programming instructions to recombine the "expert" content and programmed story patterns. The essential achievement then will be to distill the worst of Hollywood (formulaic plots and dialogue) into a software system that will *ensure* that no original insight is achieved.

The achievement would be like spending years designing an android that looked human, and then trying to make that android President of the United States. Even if you could do it, why would you want to? We should be paying our presidents and screenwriters for their exceptional insight, decision-making, and communications skills. The android approach simply can't work -- the Al Gore experiment is proof. :laugh:

[Barney B]

Atlanta, one more thing I forgot to mention about that rumor:

The threat of a writer's strike (along with an actor's strike) last year caused mucho disruption in the industry, so the writers, while arguably underpaid, evidently had enough collective clout to scare some people.

A rumor that they'll soon be replaced by machines, therefore, actually may benefit the producers (or at least afford them a measure of revenge?).

Could it be that the rumor was started by some smirking producer?

I doubt it, but it's fun to speculate.

[Mad Mike]

All right! Interesting thread. I gotta jump in on this one.

Atlanta. Great insightful posts! I will be getting a copy of "story" ASAP

Computer generated scripts? Ain't gonna happen in this lifetime. I'm not sure you understand what a profound leap forward in artificial intelegence that would require. Even formula movies requre a rudimentery level of creativity that if atained by a computer would have far greater implications than the lowering of quality in the movies.

And I cant believe that with all of the talk of Sci fi movies, no one said anything about "2001" A truely amazing movie that would never get done today.

And no one brought up one of the biggest changes in film. The ever decreasing amount of dialog as films become more and more visual in nature.

But the real root of all of this boils down to an ever decreasing attention span of the audience. Movie companies are in the business of prodicing a product that people will pay to see. Big blockbuster movies with lots of explosions sell.

[Glenn X]

“The number one book of the ages was written by a committee, and it was called The Bible” - said by Louis B. Mayer (1885-1957), founder and CEO of M.G.M. Pictures, to a complaining screenwriter

I think what this really boils down to is the Mythologizing of 1970s Cinema. And as a film school grad, I am acutely familiar with this brand of mythologizing. During my time at USC, the question would often be asked, “Why didn’t the Golden Era of the ‘70s, a time marked by an intense willingness on the part of studios to be challenging and daring, last?” To me, this is sort of like asking “Why didn’t Hugh Hefner’s ten-year marriage to Playmate Kimberley Conrad last?” The real question isn’t “Why didn’t it last?” but rather “Why did it even last as long as it did?!”

One must always remember that we’re talking about the film business here. It doesn’t run on artfulness or good intentions. It runs on money. If something artful and well-intentioned gets made along the line, great, but the bottom line is, ultimately, the bottom line.

The reason things seemed to be so different in the film industry during the ‘70s was because things were so different in the entire country during the ‘70s. The Vietnam War finally came to its ignoble close, the economy was in the toilet, there was the Arab oil embargo, rising unemployment, and the broad-based Civil Rights movement of the 1960s suddenly gave rise to a fractious new multitude of groups fighting to assert their own unique sense of identity and power (e.g. the Black Power movement, the Women’s Rights movement, the Gay Rights movement, etc.) The entire sociocultural environment seemed to be in a quagmire, racked by internecine conflict and a growing sense of dread about the future.

The studios, of course, were not cut off from or oblivious to these problems. In fact, they had problems of their own. 20th Century Fox was going through corporate reorganization after as series of costly flops (namely Cleopatra), and other Hollywood studios were being bought up by corporations whose main business endeavors fell entirely outside of the Hollywood loop (e.g. Gulf & Western Oil Company’s purchase of Paramount Pictures). There was a sea change in Hollywood, with the studio’s boardrooms now populated by a mix of holdover executives who were suddenly timid after barely escaping being fired and new executives who were hungry and eager to make their own brand of movies. (Of course, like their studio executive forbears, these new executives were also interested in making money -- and lots of it.) Out of this situation sprang daring and provocative films like The French Connection, Serpico, Mean Streets, Dog Day Afternoon, Looking for Mr. Goodbar, All the President’s Men, Shampoo, Play Misty For Me, All That Jazz, The Parallax View, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

However, it would be folly to suggest that the studios suddenly recognized what “quality filmmaking” was in the ‘70s, and dutifully opted for that path. The reality is that the studios made these films more out of desperation than ingenuity. They were still hemorrhaging market share to TV’s voracious televisual maw, and badly trying to work their way out of massive debts incurred by producing mega-buck Westerns and Biblical epics during the ‘60s that didn’t hit it big. While the new execs may have been proclaiming, “Let’s do something new here,” the old, timid executives were surely warning, “As long as it doesn’t cost a bundle!” Big budgets and logistically complicated fare were out. Small budgets and logistically simplistic fare were in. Expensive costume/historical dramas, for example, were eschewed in favor of gritty, urban, dialogue-heavy films, which were cheaper and easier to shoot. The studios were basically throwing anything -- so long as it was inexpensive! -- against the wall to see what, if any of it, would stick.

Some of these daring and provocative films made money. And some made no money at all. But there were two films during the ‘70s that made a sh*tload of money, Jaws and Star Wars. They made so much money that it was downright obscene. It was mindboggling. The studio execs who made these films were gleefully sh*tting themselves. And the execs at rival studios were regretfully kicking themselves. “How can we get in on this action?” the Jaws-less and Star Wars-less studio execs wondered. They quickly surmised, as studio execs before them had, that “Mimicry was the best form of flattery -- and, more importantly, the best way to make a buck!” In addition, the studio execs that had birthed these two monstrously successful films to begin with were soon keen to the same idea as their rivals. All of a sudden, audiences were surrounded not just by knock-off Jaws and Star Wars flicks but by sequels to the original movies as well. Then the knock-offs themselves spawned sequels. The phenomenon of sequel-itis was born.

“The sign of a clever auteur is to achieve the illusion that there is a sole individual responsible for magnificent creations that require thousands of people to accomplish.” - Louis B. Mayer

The critics, as always, were not amused by the return of big-budget, “less human” filmmaking and the advent of sequel-itis. They cried foul and bemoaned what they saw as the “end of original cinema” and the “death of the auteur.” (Interestingly, one of the most angrily vocal film critics during this period was the Village Voice’s Andrew Sarris, who’s own supposedly self-styled “Auteur Theory,” which held that the director of a motion picture is essentially the motion picture’s author -- although only a select few directors were deemed “special enough” by Mr. Sarris to garner the rarefied “auteur” tag -- was actually borrowed [or ripped off, depending on your point of view] from an article penned by filmmaker Francois Truffaut that appeared in the French film magazine Cahiers du Cinéma during the 1950s.)

Yet even if one takes as Gospel what folks like Sarris have said, to blame the individual filmmakers behind Jaws and Star Wars for “bringing to a close” that “daring period of ‘70s cinema” is silly. As Deep Throat from All the President’s Men famously advised, “Follow the money.” Audiences, despite the howls of critics like Sarris, decide to spend their money on whatever film that happens to tickle their fancy at the local cineplex. Unlike certain film critics, they don’t cast their “monetary ballot” to make some kind of indelible ideological statement. They just want to be entertained for two hours. And, as it turned out, they found movies like Jaws and Star Wars to be vastly more entertaining than movies like Dog Day Afternoon and All That Jazz. And, ultimately, the studio execs out in Hollywood, no matter what personal ideological statements they may or may not be interested in making, are certainly most interested in doing one thing and doing it well: making money. So once the execs figured out that they could make more money off of one Jaws or one Star Wars than a dozen Serpicos combined, that’s the direction they headed in.

To me, the popularity of Star Wars, in particular, no matter how one may view the film aesthetically or artistically, is not all that surprising. If the ‘70s were a time marked by intense unrest in America, they were also a time marked by an intense desire to see that unrest come to an end. Star Wars, to the extent that it can be read as a conservative or even neo-conservative text, is definitely a film about restoring order, as Lucas’ last, meticulously arranged, Leni Riefenstahl-esque shot in the film of his conquering heroes and their adoring public (seen onscreen and implied beyond) makes perfectly clear. People were tired of corrupt politicians, whiny and self-serving activists, and a lame economy. They were searching for an escape. They were searching for true heroes who kicked @ss and saved the day. Bigtime. And Star Wars gave that to people in a huge, polished, state-of-the-art fashion.

If you want to “blame” anyone for the success of Jaws and Star Wars and the rise of so-called High Concept Cinema (which, as explained by Steven Spielberg, is based on ideas “that you can hold in your hand. If a person can tell me the idea in twenty-five words or less, it’s probably going to make a pretty good movie.”) during the ‘80s and ‘90s, blame audiences for going to see such films in droves and blame Hollywood studio executives for readily responding to that demand.

However, if you’re expecting such concerns to be met with widespread sympathy, you’ve got, as Judas Priest once sang, another thing coming. Media research companies have conducted numerous polls over the years asking moviegoers what they think of “the current state of movies,” and most have responded over that time either (a) favorably or ( overwhelmingly favorably. In fact, the main source of complaints about the movie studios’ output has been elite in origin: film critics. And until, if ever, that changes and the complaints become more broad-based and populist, Atlanta Skins Fan, you are likely to remain dissatisfied with both the current and future state of filmmaking.

Addendum: As to the issue of digital filmmaking & projection being lacking when compared against celluloid filmmaking & projection, you’ll get no argument from me. Based upon my knowledge of the situation, digital imaging, while constantly improving, is nowhere near the equal of good ol’ celluloid in terms of resolution and overall image quality. However, one thing to consider is this: Anymore, theatrical exhibition is but one platform on which a film will play. There’s also pay-per-view TV, premium cable TV, network TV, and syndicated TV. Ultimately, of course, films will end up on VHS/DVD and be played on... yes, you guessed it, TV. Given these facts, I can see studio execs saying, “Look, as long as it looks good on people’s TVs, that’s all that matters. I mean, people are gonna have a limited opportunity to see these films in theaters, anyway -- a couple of months or so. So who cares if it looks less than perfect on a movie theater screen?” I’m not saying that’s the right mindset for them to have on this issue, mind you. But I could see them feeling this way, nonetheless.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

*Excellent* post, Glenn X.

[Glenn X]

Thank you, Atlanta Skins Fan.