| Author |
 Topic  |
|
brandywine
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
56 Posts |
 Posted - 01/24/2007 : 10:59:14 AM
|
People are starting to refuse to watch movies with me because I get pissed off at the (Stupid, stupid, stupid!) plot holes and general nonsense. Like really actively pissed off. Most of the time the other viewers agree with me but are "Lighten up. It's just a movie, it's not meant to be thought about that hard. Just go with it."
But I WILL NOT TOLERATE IT from Hollywood. Someone put $100,000,000 dollars behind this! A studio and director and producers and agents and actors looked at the script and said: "This is a winner!" Thousands and thousands of people at every level spent hours and hours of their lives on this. NOBODY noticed how stupid this is? Did they all NOT CARE?
Yeah. I need Xanax. |
|
|
RossM
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 12:32:34 PM
|
It asounds like going to the movies with you is a little bit like going to the movies with Peter Griffin.
rossM |
 |
|
|
Sardu
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1126 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 2:41:56 PM
|
It depends on the movie. I'll take it from something like Crank- it's clearly just a live action video game with some Miike thrown in and you go with it. It's enough fun that it gets a pass; it's giving me something. From something like Ultraviolet though I'm with you- sorry, maybe it's a popcorn action ride but you have to at least TRY not to just rape my intelligence without even buying me dinner first...
"Meeting you makes me want to be a real noodle cook"
--Tampopo |
Edited by - Sardu on 01/24/2007 2:43:32 PM |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 2:11:19 PM
|
The problem is that the bad movies you see on the big screen often represent the better scripts that come across the Hollywood transom. 99% of the scripts that remain unproduced would likely make Eight Legged Freaks look like The Lion in Winter. In other words, believe it or not, things could be worse.
I think people are sometimes under the illusion that there are hundreds of unproduced In the Bedroom-quality scripts floating around Hollywood that are somehow not getting made becuase studio execs insist on pushing the next Rob Schneider gross-out comedy to the front of the production line. More likely, the opposite is true. Sure, many deserving scripts have waited years, even decades, to get greenlighted (we've all heard the horror stories) but for the most part those are probably the cream of the crop anyway. Whether Hollywood makes only 50 or 500 movies in a year, the number of good movies in the pack would likely remain a constant. Only the number of bad movies would increase.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
339 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2007 : 6:39:35 PM
|
| I find that if a movie is exciting or compelling enough, I'll gloss over some big problem, whereas a dull film will get nitpicked to pieces. As an example of the former case, consider Batman Begins-- the way the bad guys try to spread the Scarecrow's toxin through the city shouldn't work without basically parboiling everyone caught in the spray (PV=nRT!), but it didn't bother me until well after the film was over. |
|
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2007 : 6:55:03 PM
|
Actually, from reading books like William Goldman's I get the impression that there ARE a lot of good scripts out there. In spite of what you might think, it takes a good script to get put in production, unless you've got some super-hot actor or director on board, and even then, these people don't always have the bad taste you'd associate with them. I've heard stories of actors signing on board a good script, and then getting stuck as it gets rewritten into a piece of crap.
And that's the problem: studio nitpicking and producers trying to justify their salaries often make changes where none are needed, until everything comes out as flashy but empty crap. A lot of scripts you see have been rewritten by a committee, so it's little wonder they make no sense. Even when the director has the clout to make the movie they want, they often meddle heavily with a group of anonymous writers-for-hire so that "their vision" is what's up on screen--Michael Bay is notorious for this. That's why I often refrain from judging a writer if they're credited with a lousy script. It's usually not their fault. The director usually gets to make the movie he wants; the writer doesn't.
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2007 : 8:40:12 PM
|
A lot of good screenplays get ruined in the development process. No doubt that's true. My point, really, is that there are very few top-caliber screenwriters to begin with. Not every writer earning a paycheck in Tinseltown is as talented as Tony Gilroy or Rossio & Elliot or whoever (fill in your favorite screenwriter here.) Those that are, you better believe they're in top demand already. Unfortunately, they can't be expected to work on every movie. So while it's easy to nitpick a movie that's somehow predictable or run-of-the-mill (in other words, your average Hollywood movie), I would still cut writers some slack. Nobody sets out to write a bad screenplay, and it's very hard to write a good screenplay. It's even harder to write a great one.
BTW, the rewriting process works both ways. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that J.D. Zeik's original screenplay for Ronin was better than the David Mamet rewrite. |
Edited by - zombiewhacker on 01/28/2007 8:45:48 PM |
|
|
|
brandywine
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
56 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 6:43:10 PM
|
quote:
The problem is that the bad movies you see on the big screen often represent the better scripts that come across the Hollywood transom. 99% of the scripts that remain unproduced would likely make Eight Legged Freaks look like The Lion in Winter. In other words, believe it or not, things could be worse.
"Jay, I gotta tell you about my latest project. It's called Rubix Cube. I have 24 hours to solve it or a planeload of models will die! But, you see, I'm colorblind, but my dog isn't and guess who's gonna be the voice of the dog... Roger Clinton!" -- Jeremy on The Critic
---
I disagree as I've seen better offerings on the internet and from a high school film making club. Hollywood could start courting Indy writers and CGI fests wouldn't make LESS money if they were better written. It's so frustrating because the script takes less money and energy than anything else, but most look like they haven't been given any thought.
---
I think I'll end with another The Critic quote. Just 'cause The Critic totally rocked.
Critic: Tim Allen gives that same likeable performance we've always love. Once again proving Disney Pictures have the magical touch that may not win awards but keep America smiling. How's that?
Gene Siskel: You're Satan aren't you?
Satan: [transforms back into himself] You've won another round Siskel. But we shall meet again! [burns away leaving burn mark on the floor.] |
|
|
|
RossM
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 9:18:44 PM
|
The Last Action Hero is an example of just this. It started as a low budget and very funny paridy of Hollywood buddy movies and included every cliche that the screen writers could think of. After Hollywood got through with it it was a bloated and unfunny and very expensive showcase for Arnold. All the humor and paridy was sucked dry.
rossM |
|
|
|
New Hinda
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Israel
469 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 08:47:33 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Prankster
The director usually gets to make the movie he wants; the writer doesn't.
If directors get to make the movies they want, how come Alan Smithee makes so many movies? |
|
|
|
Prankster
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 2:57:19 PM
|
Because he's the most POWERFUL MAN IN HOLLYWOOD.
No, you're right, directors can fall prey to studio meddling too. But it's far, far more common to see a good script ruined by a lousy director than a weak script elevated by a talented one. Some examples include "Soldier" (originally written by the people who brought you "Blade Runner" and "Unforgiven", the final product delivered by the man who made "Resident Evil"), "Suspect Zero" (I've seen the director, Elias Merhige, speak, and frankly he was a bit of jerk) "Nacho Libre" (I have an internet correspondant who was absolutely furious over how badly this script was botched) and of course the depredations performed on most novels brought to the screen; "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is the one that lingers most painfully for me, but there are of course many others. Those were all 100% the fault of the directors. Right now the director generally has the freedom to make the film he wants, as long as he doesn't abuse things.
The catch, of course, is that the director is frequently a guy brought in by the producers, so if you're getting Joel Schumacher to reimagine Batman it's not really his fault when it becomes a disaster--he was just the wrong guy to begin with.
---
Check out my online comics at [URL]http://www.phantasmictales.com[/URL]! |
|
|
|
BradH812
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1294 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 5:38:24 PM
|
| Prankster's got a point. I've seen several movies botched by talented directors who are the wrong people for the job. The remake of Psycho and Vanilla Sky are standouts. (Of course, remaking Psycho was a horrible idea to begin with....) |
|
|
|
kdraut
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 9:14:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BradH812
Prankster's got a point. I've seen several movies botched by talented directors who are the wrong people for the job.
*cough* Starship Troopers *cough*
http://www.kdraut.com/photo |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2007 : 2:26:07 PM
|
Yeah, but again, this is a case of crashing planes making the six o'clock news while planes that land safely don't.
We all know the horror that is the mangled screenplay, whether the perpetrator behind the scenes was the producers, the director, the actor, or studio execs themselves. But there are plenty of examples of where screenplays (and therefore movies) are improved by studio interference and filmmaking by committee. Star Wars: A New Hope anyone? Anyone seriously believe that the movie would have better served by leaving Lucas to his own devices? Heck, based on the opinions cited here, I'm assuming you all think the new trilogy was better than the old one. Because, ya know, the new trilogy Lucas had complete freedom to pursue his vision. The old trilogy he had to face a committee.
Jaws - Ever read the early drafts? Heck, ever read the novel? Sheez!!! One example alone should suffice: Robert Shaw's now legendary monologue about the sinking of the Indianapolis only really evolved when a new writer (John Milius) and ultimately Shaw himself were called upon to refine what others had written before them. If Benchley's original screenplay had been left intact, would it have been a better movie?
Rocky 2 - Just thought I'd throw this one in. Stallone's original draft didn't even have a fight scene! The entire script was about Rocky's marital problems, Adrienne attending group encounter therapy sessions, and so on. I kid you not. No boxing! No rematch with Creed. The producers and the studio balked. Think they were wrong to stick their noses in?
Alien - Come on, seriously. Walter Hill and David Giler saved that picture with a great rewrite. While Dan O'Bannon and Ron Shusett deserve every credit in the world with coming up with the initial concept, their "vision" if shot verbatim would have resembled little more than a Corman-esque B movie. (Or, conversely, a humorless version of Dark Star).
Return of the Living Dead - Speaking of O'Bannon... given the cinematic track record of John Russo, George Romero's one-time collaborator, I think it's a safe bet that O'Bannon and cronies did Russo a favor by taking the original script out of his hands and drastically rewriting it.
Star Trek: Wrath of Khan - Yeah, Jack B. Sowards, that Hollywood legend, gets full credit on-screen, but it's Nicholas Meyer who did the uncredited rewrite. Think Meyer screwed up big time? (Here's a hint: Khan represents the only movie credit of Sowards' career.)
Speed - Joss Whedon's rewrite was a definite improvement over Graham Yost's original script.
Ronin - As cited before. You really think the studio should have gone with Zeik's original script over Mamet's rewrite? Come on, log onto Drew's Script-o-Rama and read the thing. I dare ya.
Pitch Black - Just playing a hunch here, since I've never read the original script, but is it the opinion of anyone else here that the movie might have been better if they ditched David Twohy's rewrite and stuck with the original script by Jim and Ken Wheat, whose only previously produced film to date was Ewoks: The Battle for Endor?
Wyatt Earp - Agreed, this movie was a bloated misfire, but no matter what you think of the finished product, believe me, Lawrence Kasdan's rewrite was an enormous improvement over Dan Gordon's original draft. I read the first thirty pages of Gordon's version before I finally just gave up. Out of all those pages, one and a half scenes actually made it to the finished film. And do you know why? Because the other twenty-seven and a half pages of that first act were close to unfilmable. If you though the movie was talky, wait'll you see this draft.
And those are just the most dramatic examples. I've read countless scripts where even if there weren't major changes to the script, even the minor ones helped the film enormously. And of course there's always editing. The Usual Suspects was a great movie but only a very good screenplay because the latter featured too much bloat. A lot of Chrisopher McQuarrie's more useless scenes and dialogue were hacked away, leaving behind a sleeker, more streamlined script. Ditto Aliens.
In short, the re-writing process is neither good nor bad. Sometimes it wrecks a film; other times it saves it. It all depends on the players involved. |
Edited by - zombiewhacker on 02/01/2007 12:29:18 PM |
|
|
|
Sardu
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1126 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2007 : 7:18:09 PM
|
Star Wars: ANH?? AFAIK Lucas made it totally unsupervised in England. The studio almost pulled the plug because they were hearing bad reports and no one could figure out what it was supposed to be from the dailies bereft of special effects. But I don't think anyone at the studio had anything to do with the script, editing or anything else about the final film. And they damn sure didn't have a say in ESB, because he was totally independent at that point and most fans agree that was the best film of the six.
But your point is still valid. I suspect at least as many films have been helped by judicious meddling as hurt- it probably balances out.
"Meeting you makes me want to be a real noodle cook"
--Tampopo |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2007 : 10:02:33 PM
|
Not to beat this point to death, but allow me to clarify my point on Star Wars:
Lucas himself hired screenwriters Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz (American Graffiti) to rewrite his own script. The opening "A long time ago..." credits crawl was heavily re-written by a number of Lucas then-cronies, including Brian DePalma. The fact that Lucas himself permitted his script to be re-written by others does not alter my point that too many cooks don't always spoil the brew.
Also bear in mind that it took around the clock film doctoring and re-editing by Marcia Lucas and someone else (Verna Fields, maybe?) to get the movie into shape. Why do you think Lucas always bemoaned the fact that Han shot first? Because it wasn't his "vision" for the cantina sequence... but it was the only way his editors could find to salvage the scene.
As for Empire, he didn't write that all by himself either. Leigh Brackett got first crack, but the finished screenplay really belongs to Lawrence Kasdan. Then, of course, Irvin Kershner directed it, not Lucas.
As Sardu points out, Lucas also had to deal with 20th Century Fox constantly threatening to pull the plug. Believe me, that's pressure. If I were a director, I'd sooner subject myself to a thousand inane in-house creative memos than have my rug pulled out from under me altogether. The only ally Lucas had at Fox was executive Alan Ladd Jr. Ladd allowed more free reign than filmmakers normally are given on projects like this, but that was Ladd's call, not Lucas'. If Ladd didn't like what he was seeing (or more accurately, what he was foreseeing) he could have dropped the anvil on Lucas anytime he wanted. This, of course, was not the case with the new trilogy.
Bearing this in mind, I think it's safe to say that both New Hope and Empire... fall under the category of "Filmmaking by Committee." |
Edited by - zombiewhacker on 02/01/2007 10:15:34 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked