The Big Picture: Hollywood History 101: Part 3

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Goddamn it ! now I'll have to wait for next week for the bitter conclusion ! T_T

This brings to mind something I read/heard/saw a documentary/dreamed up somewhere. They did a study in languages of slaves, namely, slaves with different languages, forced together in a society. In the first generation, they would develop a vocabulary to communicate, but they had no grammar. However, the second generation would develop a complex grammar without it actually being in the language to begin with. This, maybe, is also true for the movie-industry. The first generation of movie-makers could use the vocabulary of movies, but the second developed and sued a "grammar".

Freakin emotional rollercoaster.

Started with the facist society that looked very pretty from the outside, saw that kingdom fall, saw a rebellion in this episode that created a beautiful kingdom, and now we have a cliffhanger that foreshadows dark times ahead. There should be a hollywood movie about hollywood.

>:(

Slim jim ads are back.

"only one password manilla ad... panic... chaos... indeed.

Overall I freakin' loved your vid though. All the crap is totally worth going through for your words, bob.

canadamus_prime:
And now we're pretty much back where we started.

Crash 2.0 here we come! Seriously though great job Bob keeping all of this interesting and presenting it with such a short amount of time. I wonder what the ugly stuff entails? That got me curious.

Now we just need to hurry along the current movie studio and video game industry collapse to allow both movies AND games to become really good again. Though with soooo much money involved I wonder if it's even possbile.

Though when things do collapse I bet they'll both blame piracy for their piles of shit driving away customers, just like the old movie industry blamed TV

Really enjoying this segment. Condensed yes but accurate.

hermes200:

Hungry Donner:
I'm curious to see if the gaming industry goes through this same phase in the next 5-10 years.

I was thinking the same thing. After all, we are about to get to an age were adults making games have experience them for most of their life (although I guess the bar for entry is higher for games than for movies)

I find this series of episodes quite fascinating. Not that I didn't know some of this stuff, but its really good to see it in such an orderly fashion.

I see two big hurdles for gaming. First, it has yet to be taken seriously as a medium, despite the fact that it has finally become accepted as a mainstream pastime. There are games that I think can be considered artistic, and many more that emphasize style and storytelling in addition to entertainment, but these don't tend to be well known.

Which brings me to the second big problem, there are almost no games that reach a very wide audience unless they're of the "summer blockbuster, popcorn movie" equivalent; we sort of started with Star Wars rather than building up to it. Off hand Portal is the only exception I can think of, but there may be others.

It's much easier, and cheaper, to pay $8 and see a two hour movie than to purchase, play, and finish a triple A game. Indie games may be a better source of games, and it looks like they're finally starting to get more attention. Perhaps we're seeing the beginning of the first golden age of gaming (at least since it was accepted as a mainstream medium) and it's the kids playing these games who will grow up and be our Spielbergs and Lucases.

On the other hand I'm sure I'm not the only one here who fondly remembers the games made right before the medium went mainstream, and kids who grew up playing those games are the sort of people you're finding in current game developement schools. This could mean they're poised to released deeper and more complex titles just as those kids introduced to the medium when it went mainstream are maturing to the point they want that experience.

I've really been enjoying this history of Hollywood run, it's been informative, interesting and well put together, I'm totally looking forward to the last part. Good jub Bob :D

This is probably the first time that I've gone out of my way to show this stuff to my friends. Usually The Big Picture is so polarizing that it's difficult to spread around, but this stuff is just plain great.

Wow, a 4-parter, this is truly a revolution in oppinion shows!

Love it, well done Bob :)

This series is really interesting, thanks!

PrinceofPersia:

canadamus_prime:
And now we're pretty much back where we started.

Crash 2.0 here we come! Seriously though great job Bob keeping all of this interesting and presenting it with such a short amount of time. I wonder what the ugly stuff entails? That got me curious.

The really irritating part is you'd think the studio execs would recognize the pattern and take steps to prevent Crash 2.0; but no, apparently no one has any brains in Hollywood just artificial intelligence simulators that run on money.

Urh:
It was my understanding that Lucas' dream was in fact to do a remake of Flash Gordon, but he couldn't because Dino de Laurentiis had already got his hands on the film rights. Also, after having read some of the early drafts of Star Wars, I can actually understand why Lucas' colleagues had some misgivings as to whether or not the film would work. Heck, Fox were having so much trouble getting Star Wars in cinemas that they initially had to resort to block booking (which had been illegal for nearly 30 years) to get it on screens. When you add to that the budget blowouts (a rather large chunk of change was spent on SFX shots that Lucas ended up discarding), and it's kind of a wonder that Star Wars was the big hit that it turned out to be.

This is true and is one of the numerous things left out or skewed to match Bob's view of this "big picture".

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this is wikipedia lite at best and I'm constantly stunned why this is being lauded as anything but lazy moneymaking. Seriously, it's not informative, new or in any way a BIG Picture of anything except Bob's hideously askew view of the big evil Hollywood. I'm consistently surprised Escapist continues to fund this stuff.

Great series, Bob. I know from your columns that you feel you have a kind of obligation to teach about movie history when you have an audience such as the Escapist's that will watch your stuff even though they're not that much into it. I'll honestly say it's working for me.

Also great choice of Nickelodeon clipart.

Your serials are great, Bob, but the suspense is killing me.

Well made. I already know all of this information, but it's nice to hear it arranged and translated through the moviebob prism. Looking forward to "the really ugly stuff."

MovieBob, you've often pointed out how a great movie- like Star Wars- occasionally starts new trends, popularizes a school of thought, or reshapes the industry around them. Sometimes this is primarily what made the movie great, even more so than the film itself.

But what are some films that did the opposite, features that weren't just bad films by their own merits, but had far-reaching negative effects on cinema as an art and an industry, or society at large?

What film bears the most deplorable legacy in movie history?

Bob is 2 for 2 so far in correctly identifying the (admittedly obvious) films that "changed movies forever", i.e. Citizen Kane and Star Wars. I wonder if he would agree with me on what is the Gen Y "Star Wars" in this vein. I wasn't sure if he quite arrived at that conclusion when (hint) he reviewed it, but I think it's a film that will be revered hereafter, not for what the film itself was, but what came in its wake.

That was great Bob, I'm really enjoying the Big Picture.

Could anyone tell me who the animated girl was at around 1.38? I just cant place her.

TheRocketeer:
MovieBob, you've often pointed out how a great movie- like Star Wars- occasionally starts new trends, popularizes a school of thought, or reshapes the industry around them. Sometimes this is primarily what made the movie great, even more so than the film itself.

But what are some films that did the opposite, features that weren't just bad films by their own merits, but had far-reaching negative effects on cinema as an art and an industry, or society at large?

What film bears the most deplorable legacy in movie history?

Well... Star Wars.

SpiderJerusalem:

This is true and is one of the numerous things left out or skewed to match Bob's view of this "big picture".

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this is wikipedia lite at best and I'm constantly stunned why this is being lauded as anything but lazy moneymaking. Seriously, it's not informative, new or in any way a BIG Picture of anything except Bob's hideously askew view of the big evil Hollywood. I'm consistently surprised Escapist continues to fund this stuff.

While it is true that Bob's discussion of film history has been rather wanting, he did at least have the honesty to admit this in the beginning of part one. I took that as a disclaimer and as such took it upon myself to do some more reading on the subject. If Bob is guilty of anything, it is of being over-ambitious in trying to do a treatment of almost a century of history in only 20 or so minutes (I'm including what I assume will be part 4 next week), especially when you consider that there's a documentary based on "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" that clocks in at just under two hours. While Bob's videos aren't always the most informative (primarily due to time restrictions), it can be argued that they're at least encouraging people (well, myself at least) to go out and read up on topics they normally wouldn't have.

Plus, while TBP does contain quite a lot of discussion on various nuggets of pop culture history, isn't it also an opinion piece at the end of the day?

SpiderJerusalem:

Urh:
It was my understanding that Lucas' dream was in fact to do a remake of Flash Gordon, but he couldn't because Dino de Laurentiis had already got his hands on the film rights. Also, after having read some of the early drafts of Star Wars, I can actually understand why Lucas' colleagues had some misgivings as to whether or not the film would work. Heck, Fox were having so much trouble getting Star Wars in cinemas that they initially had to resort to block booking (which had been illegal for nearly 30 years) to get it on screens. When you add to that the budget blowouts (a rather large chunk of change was spent on SFX shots that Lucas ended up discarding), and it's kind of a wonder that Star Wars was the big hit that it turned out to be.

This is true and is one of the numerous things left out or skewed to match Bob's view of this "big picture".

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this is wikipedia lite at best and I'm constantly stunned why this is being lauded as anything but lazy moneymaking. Seriously, it's not informative, new or in any way a BIG Picture of anything except Bob's hideously askew view of the big evil Hollywood. I'm consistently surprised Escapist continues to fund this stuff.

That's not in particular very vital information, I can see why he left it out.

I didn't know most of this stuff before, even if it is a very broad and undetailed way of looking at it. I'm definitely checking out that book though.

Diggin this. Yep, still diggin it. Can't wait until next time. I love the history lessons.

Another great episode, the next one cant come sooner!!!!!!!!!

hermes200:

Hungry Donner:
I'm curious to see if the gaming industry goes through this same phase in the next 5-10 years.

I was thinking the same thing. After all, we are about to get to an age were adults making games have experience them for most of their life (although I guess the bar for entry is higher for games than for movies)

I find this series of episodes quite fascinating. Not that I didn't know some of this stuff, but its really good to see it in such an orderly fashion.

I'm not sure I agree with entry in gaming as being higher than movies. With so many different gaming outlets (consoles, computers, handhelds, phones, etc.) a person can create an interesting game with little resources. There are a handful of movies that did that, but even then it took tens of thousands of dollars in most cases (heck, even hundreds of thousands of dollars is considered low budget for movies). Then it would take years for them to be distributed. For games, there are indie develops that can make a game with little capital and manpower. Sure, you won't find the next great fps multiplayer come out of an indie developer, but you have already seen highly rated games like Limbo, Minecraft, Super Meat Boy, World of Goo, etc. made on shoe string budgets. Distributors, especially digital ones, are much easier to find to sell one of these games than getting movie theaters to show a movie.

Sure, there are outlets to show movies over the web and DVD's. Yet those tend to be really low budget and very poor quality compared to indie games. In fact, some independent games are much better than the majority of major studio games. Yes, that happens with movies too, but every single year you can find a really good low budget video game. I can't really say the same for movies, at least ones that are readily available to people like they are with video games and done with a similar budget (tens of thousands of dollars).

SpiderJerusalem:

Urh:
It was my understanding that Lucas' dream was in fact to do a remake of Flash Gordon, but he couldn't because Dino de Laurentiis had already got his hands on the film rights. Also, after having read some of the early drafts of Star Wars, I can actually understand why Lucas' colleagues had some misgivings as to whether or not the film would work. Heck, Fox were having so much trouble getting Star Wars in cinemas that they initially had to resort to block booking (which had been illegal for nearly 30 years) to get it on screens. When you add to that the budget blowouts (a rather large chunk of change was spent on SFX shots that Lucas ended up discarding), and it's kind of a wonder that Star Wars was the big hit that it turned out to be.

This is true and is one of the numerous things left out or skewed to match Bob's view of this "big picture".

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this is wikipedia lite at best and I'm constantly stunned why this is being lauded as anything but lazy moneymaking. Seriously, it's not informative, new or in any way a BIG Picture of anything except Bob's hideously askew view of the big evil Hollywood. I'm consistently surprised Escapist continues to fund this stuff.

I don't really see anything that he is saying as really skewed to this point. I am not really sure what you are expecting here. You say it's wiki lite, and then state it's skewed. So is it a new viewpoint you hate or regurgitation of something old?

He is just throwing out movie history here, and much of what he has talked about has been discussed before and agreed upon in many circles. Yet is history class just wiki lite? What do you expect, some new information in something like this? I doubt Bob is privy to information that has not already been published. Do you expect Bob to be throwing out bombshells in something he is calling movie history 101? It's seems from the title he is putting out there what should be expected...A basic history of movie making done in his allotted time. I am sure there are plenty of people who come here not aware of this stuff, and it may pique their interest to look into it more.

It's no real secret movie sales have stagnated and even declined in the past decade. I am not sure what you want. Would you like someone to tell you everything is great with movies? I don't even think Hollywood thinks that, and consumers are becoming more jaded with movies. As Bob has shown, this has happened before.

Bob's displeasure with much of Hollywood is being mirrored by the consumer, and as we have seen in the past Hollywood is slow to react when it's run by large conglomerates.

TheRocketeer:
MovieBob, you've often pointed out how a great movie- like Star Wars- occasionally starts new trends, popularizes a school of thought, or reshapes the industry around them. Sometimes this is primarily what made the movie great, even more so than the film itself.

But what are some films that did the opposite, features that weren't just bad films by their own merits, but had far-reaching negative effects on cinema as an art and an industry, or society at large?

What film bears the most deplorable legacy in movie history?

Anything involving Michael Bay.

2nd Golden Age of cinema that it was! Since the 90s when I became a teen and got fed up of the Tom Cruise Mission Impossibles and Michael Bay Armageddons , I started discovering these masterpieces like Taxi Driver, Network, and Dog's Day Afternoon.

Now 20 years later I can still honestly say nothing comes close...NOTHING!

scott91575:

TheRocketeer:
MovieBob, you've often pointed out how a great movie- like Star Wars- occasionally starts new trends, popularizes a school of thought, or reshapes the industry around them. Sometimes this is primarily what made the movie great, even more so than the film itself.

But what are some films that did the opposite, features that weren't just bad films by their own merits, but had far-reaching negative effects on cinema as an art and an industry, or society at large?

What film bears the most deplorable legacy in movie history?

Anything involving Michael Bay.

Hey, don't forget Uwe Boll.

...There's still more? Well anyway, can't wait for next week's video!

hermes200:
[(although I guess the bar for entry is higher for games than for movies)

Not necessarily. For somebody with an idea and some programming know-how, the indie scene has never been easier to get into. Services like Steam have made it almost absurdly easy to get a game out on the market.

The triple-A industry, on the other hand, will face some serious problems going forward. Competition with casual games for mainstream markets and indie games for more hardcore audiences will really force them to pick one to survive - they can't afford to pander to both of us at the same time for much longer.

scott91575:

SpiderJerusalem:

Urh:
It was my understanding that Lucas' dream was in fact to do a remake of Flash Gordon, but he couldn't because Dino de Laurentiis had already got his hands on the film rights. Also, after having read some of the early drafts of Star Wars, I can actually understand why Lucas' colleagues had some misgivings as to whether or not the film would work. Heck, Fox were having so much trouble getting Star Wars in cinemas that they initially had to resort to block booking (which had been illegal for nearly 30 years) to get it on screens. When you add to that the budget blowouts (a rather large chunk of change was spent on SFX shots that Lucas ended up discarding), and it's kind of a wonder that Star Wars was the big hit that it turned out to be.

This is true and is one of the numerous things left out or skewed to match Bob's view of this "big picture".

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this is wikipedia lite at best and I'm constantly stunned why this is being lauded as anything but lazy moneymaking. Seriously, it's not informative, new or in any way a BIG Picture of anything except Bob's hideously askew view of the big evil Hollywood. I'm consistently surprised Escapist continues to fund this stuff.

I don't really see anything that he is saying as really skewed to this point. I am not really sure what you are expecting here. You say it's wiki lite, and then state it's skewed. So is it a new viewpoint you hate or regurgitation of something old?

He is just throwing out movie history here, and much of what he has talked about has been discussed before and agreed upon in many circles. Yet is history class just wiki lite? What do you expect, some new information in something like this? I doubt Bob is privy to information that has not already been published. Do you expect Bob to be throwing out bombshells in something he is calling movie history 101? It's seems from the title he is putting out there what should be expected...A basic history of movie making done in his allotted time. I am sure there are plenty of people who come here not aware of this stuff, and it may pique their interest to look into it more.

It's no real secret movie sales have stagnated and even declined in the past decade. I am not sure what you want. Would you like someone to tell you everything is great with movies? I don't even think Hollywood thinks that, and consumers are becoming more jaded with movies. As Bob has shown, this has happened before.

Bob's displeasure with much of Hollywood is being mirrored by the consumer, and as we have seen in the past Hollywood is slow to react when it's run by large conglomerates.

This part, like the previous before it, is filled with the kind egregious film school idolizing of the late 60's, early 70's filmmaking, painting the studios like an excessively corrupt empire, dropping information on numerous places to what led to the ultimate recessions in film, what brought it back up, and consistently drawing an image of saintly directors arriving from geek-fed neighborhoods to save cinema.

I'm guessing that this is going to continue to the "oh the 90's sucked and the studios are wrong, blahdiblahblahblahihatemichaelbay" shtick that Bob keeps pushing.

And movie sales haven't stagnated, that's another illusion that people are trying to pull. They've pretty much kept a consistent rise over the years, facing the same crisis' that the other economies have as well. The writers strike didn't help either, but from that there came numerous great films that wouldn't have come at another time.

I worded the Wikipedia-lite thing wrong, I'm sorry, I meant to point out that it's info that can be gotten with a glance from that site, then twisted and turned into a badly misinformed point and presented like Bob wants to view himself; as a resident expert, while all he's doing is the Glenn Beck type of reportage fit for maybe Harry Knowles, but is way below the standard of The Escapist.

Wait, making a sequel was thought to be distasteful? HA, who'd of thought?!

SpiderJerusalem:

scott91575:

SpiderJerusalem:

This is true and is one of the numerous things left out or skewed to match Bob's view of this "big picture".

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this is wikipedia lite at best and I'm constantly stunned why this is being lauded as anything but lazy moneymaking. Seriously, it's not informative, new or in any way a BIG Picture of anything except Bob's hideously askew view of the big evil Hollywood. I'm consistently surprised Escapist continues to fund this stuff.

I don't really see anything that he is saying as really skewed to this point. I am not really sure what you are expecting here. You say it's wiki lite, and then state it's skewed. So is it a new viewpoint you hate or regurgitation of something old?

He is just throwing out movie history here, and much of what he has talked about has been discussed before and agreed upon in many circles. Yet is history class just wiki lite? What do you expect, some new information in something like this? I doubt Bob is privy to information that has not already been published. Do you expect Bob to be throwing out bombshells in something he is calling movie history 101? It's seems from the title he is putting out there what should be expected...A basic history of movie making done in his allotted time. I am sure there are plenty of people who come here not aware of this stuff, and it may pique their interest to look into it more.

It's no real secret movie sales have stagnated and even declined in the past decade. I am not sure what you want. Would you like someone to tell you everything is great with movies? I don't even think Hollywood thinks that, and consumers are becoming more jaded with movies. As Bob has shown, this has happened before.

Bob's displeasure with much of Hollywood is being mirrored by the consumer, and as we have seen in the past Hollywood is slow to react when it's run by large conglomerates.

This part, like the previous before it, is filled with the kind egregious film school idolizing of the late 60's, early 70's filmmaking, painting the studios like an excessively corrupt empire, dropping information on numerous places to what led to the ultimate recessions in film, what brought it back up, and consistently drawing an image of saintly directors arriving from geek-fed neighborhoods to save cinema.

I'm guessing that this is going to continue to the "oh the 90's sucked and the studios are wrong, blahdiblahblahblahihatemichaelbay" shtick that Bob keeps pushing.

And movie sales haven't stagnated, that's another illusion that people are trying to pull. They've pretty much kept a consistent rise over the years, facing the same crisis' that the other economies have as well. The writers strike didn't help either, but from that there came numerous great films that wouldn't have come at another time.

I worded the Wikipedia-lite thing wrong, I'm sorry, I meant to point out that it's info that can be gotten with a glance from that site, then twisted and turned into a badly misinformed point and presented like Bob wants to view himself; as a resident expert, while all he's doing is the Glenn Beck type of reportage fit for maybe Harry Knowles, but is way below the standard of The Escapist.

yeah, no stagnation or decline there....

http://www.the-numbers.com/market/

Oh wait, there is, and it started in 2002. If I seem to recall there was not an economic downturn until 2008. If you are going to call someone out for skewing info, you probably shouldn't do it yourself. The only thing that has changed in the movie industry is they charge more (often by implementing gimmicks, one of Bob's big points). They are not winning people over with the current formula, and in fact losing people.

Honestly, have you not read a single movie sales article in the last 5 years? Movie makers have inflated prices, and then state revenue is up. Yet for actual ticket sales, they are approaching mid 90's levels (and the current population is 20% higher, which means the percentage decline is even greater). That practice (driven by major corporations and share holders) along with the product they are throwing out there is driving people away from the movie theater. They can only milk the die hards in order to boost revenues so much. It's a failing business model used to satiate share holders in order to save their own ass, but in the long run it's a failing model.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here