are movies getting worse?

Hey

Jack off topic for a second but you've got a weird link thing going on in your above post.

The entire post and mine (the one you quoted) are linked to your profile lol

Can you see it on your screen or is it just mine? But yes I know your point about things always going back to how they are supposed to be and that's part of the reason I enjoy superheroes. Like I said up above for me its a family I can always come back to....

But that's what also makes getting out of the superhero genre with things like Sex Criminals, Fatale, Y the last Man and Saga and all the Image stuff or indie creators. It can change and it does end. So its been nice to those blow up more in recent years. It gives comics more breathing room as those become more popular.

I'm actually hoping to try my hand at comic writing down the road.

 

Oops, I think I fixed it.

There are those that would make the argument that Walking Dead, Y the Last Man, Saga, Nowhere Men, all that stuff; are graphic novels not comic books. Which is a different argument in and of itself.

Are you planning on writing them regular, marvel style, or Alan Moore?

 

Oh, don't even get me started. Sins of the Past, which was the first dedicated run was funny as hell. Liefeld has many sins on his head, but making me laugh isn't one of them.

But after that? The talent behind the Deadpool run varies wildly. There isn't really anything that matches the writing quality until the 10s. Cable and Deadpool is worthless fan service.

But in the last couple of years comedians like Brian Posehn and web comic writers like Christopher Hastings have really picked it up and run with it, and it's funny as hell.

Gwenpool is fucking awesome.

 

I think he's right as far as mainstream theatrical-release movies go. I read an interview with a studio head a while ago and he said he bases his green-light (we're gonna make this movie) decisions on whether or not he thinks the box office for that film will move the company's stock price. The stock price!

Moving the stock price has nothing to do with entertainment. It's about large advertising budgets, big-name stars, computer-generated animation, franchises, and—most of all—greed.

I know it's possible to make good movies for under $1m. It happens all the time here in Canada, but none of those films find the audiences they might deserve because all of our movie theatres are owned by American interests and so we're locked into screening nothing but Hollywood mega-buster films.

Bottom line: until story trumps stock price moving once again, we're not going to see much of anything beyond superheros fighting for truth, justice and the American way (all of which fell by the wayside back in the 1960s).

 

I'd not consider graphic novels and comics different. I know someone could make the argument they are but its all the same to me or the same language if in an artistic way of speaking. If it looks like comic, reads like a comic then its a comic.

In my own way I even consider manga a form of comics but from lens of a different culture.

Don't me wrong graphic novel is a cool term but most times when people refer to them they are speaking of the collected issues of say something like Watchmen or Walking Dead. It all comes out in comic issues anyway normally at first or did in Watchmen's case (I figure the original issues are probably hard to track down).

Also regarding the above posts.

We must not for get Joe Kelly's run (which either started with Sins of the Past or after it) on Deadpool which is a fan favorite and one that made Deadpool his own character.

As for writing.....well I'm working normal books now and haven't tried comic scripting yet but I'd of course like to do superhero stuff if ever given the chance but wanna do more original stuff like at Image or wherever. So that be more like the regular style/Alan Moore-ish.

 

Not really. I have a copy of the original run in 80% mint. It cost me $107.

I was not nearly as impressed with Kelly's run as I wanted to be. The comics were fine, and I'm happy they brought some of that stuff into the movie; but the story arc was a horrible attempt to shoehorn a non-hero into a hero role, for really no reason at all. I read it, and I respect it, but I didn't actually like it.

Ah, you misunderstand me. Time for comic script learning!
Here is a regular comic strip script:
Notice that it's pretty much like a script. The Page and panel are there, there's narrative and dialogue, and it would be easy to just turn it into a movie.

Here is a "marvel" style script. These were created by Stan Lee to fit his exhaustive schedule and aren't used by Marvel anymore. Notice that the style is focused on what happens, instead of on each frame. This allowed Lee to let the artists focus on shots and perspectives. It's not as appropriate for a writer who wants some sort of visual control.

And here is an Alan Moore script. Notice that the style is batshit insane.

 

We get them if you look beyond the mainstream theaters to smaller ones that run independent films, foreign films, and the like.

 

@Jack Asher

Thanks for these scripts!

I mean for examples and all. I've seen Alan Moore's before and some others but never much got a side by side comparison. I haven't written any comic scripts yet so I can't really tell you how my style would be in making them.

I don't think I'll end up doing it like Moore though as my fiction narrative writing isn't even as verbose as that or whatever that is lol

But I'll let you know how it turns out when I ever tackle it. I've also heard that people develop their own styles of scripting but I figure some companies have a standard or it depends on who you're working with or for?

As for Joe Kelly's Deadpool it didn't bother me and I did enjoy it for what it was. I've only read the first three volumes though.

But even though Deadpool is far from a hero I've never seen him as a total villian. He's either having fun as a wild card against everyone or is a anti-hero role of some kind most of the times I've read him. He's no means good person though but I buy I can buy when he does heroic things or is working with the heroes despite how crazy he is.

Compared to someone like Bullseye whose just down right evil....but then again Deadpool and Bullseye have a bit of an odd friendship

 

See, here's more people that don't understand movies. Movies have always been about stock price, since Universal made King Kong. Movie studio's have been publicly traded companies since before the golden era, arguably since they started as stage companies. You can't produce a movie without investor support, those financials simply don't exist.
(For the next several paragraphs I'm going to use the term producer, instead of investor. You should know that these terms are nearly synonymous.)

More importantly, those producers are one of the best ways to help a film. Jaws was in serious financial trouble until Speilberg went to the studio for more support. They ended up telling him to stop dicking with the shark, and paid for a bunch of underwater cameras. Then when it came time to market the film the used what been called "the first summer blockbuster" pitch. It turned a movie that was largely expected not to do well into an earnings powerhouse. Jaws sits at 97% on rotten tomatoes, when it could have been relegated to the trash heap. All because of producer support.

Do you know why those producers gave Speilberg more money? Was it because they wanted to make a good movie? No. Was it because they believed in his vision? Don't be an idiot. Was it because they wanted prestige and awards? There isn't an award for producing.
Was it because they thought the changes were going to make them a lot of money?
Fuck yes!

The best film of 2015, and arguably from the last three years, Mad Max: Fury Road was a powerhouse of insanity on the set. Miller went out of his way to make crazy decisions. And when he showed his treatment to Warner Brothers they said, "This is very good, but do you know what will make it better? If we give you more money." They didn't do this because they wanted to make an arthouse film. They did it because Fury Road was set to make back over twice the money they spent on it.

But it's so. much. more. than that. Movie studios operate on a razor's edge of bankruptcy all the time. In the past five years, Disney is the only studio with a positive stock trend, and the margin isn't high. Fox, Sony, Warner, Viacom, they are all loosing money on their movies. They've been loosing money on their movies for a very very long time, and the only thing that keeps these studios afloat is the prospect of one big blockbuster that can pay off all the debts for the year.

So, yeah. You're goddamn right he looks at the fucking stock price when he makes his decisions. Movies were never an art, they were always a business. They only way we keep getting movies is because those decisions are keeping the studios afloat.

Snerk! Yeah dude, keep telling yourself that. Canadian films are only doing bad because those mean old Americans keep making movies that everyone wants to see. No country exports as many films as America does. American films are translated into more languages than any other, and make far more money than any international releases. Do you think this happens because no one wants to see American movies?

 

This is like saying, there's no unicorns with red manes, but there are unicorns with rainbow manes, so they're the same thing.

No, not really. You can be a producer and still give only money. The Asistant Director usually represents the production company which will in turn be represented by a (more likely several) producers. But you can just sign on to a small movie as an producer by just giving them money.

 

Yeah, I've seen some really good stuff you guys have done. And not just in movies or TV shows. Tomorrow When the War Began was a great series.

 

It's understandable that you've confused moving the stock price with investor profit. Most people can't see the difference.

All that stuff you wrote about how movies and money work was very impressive and you're right, you probably know a lot more about moviemaking than I do despite the fact that I've been involved in the business one way or another for over 35 years. I'm sure you've been keeping abreast of all the financial news and box office reports which I never did because I—like most people—have always gone to the movies to be entertained, not to be impressed by how much money made it onto the screen (or into someone's pocket).

Right, and that's why things like the Oscars and People's Choice awards exist, to underline that it's a business and has absolutely nothing to do with art.

No, I think it happens (and I can only speak for Canada) because they own all the theatres in our country and make all the decisions about which movies are shown.

And until you've familiarized yourself with the history of how this all came about, starting just after World War II, do me a favour and keep your snerk to yourself. You give all Americans a bad name with that attitude.

 

If you want to "work in the business" as anything more important than a gopher, knowing what the industry is buying and paying for is essential. And you're right, I'm a credited producer on three indy projects.

If you think that the Academy is interested in anything other than justifying their insular power structure, you've been watching the Academy Awards for the wrong fucking country. I'm not even going to address the merits of the People's Choice awards, other than to say the fact that you think there are any, is hilarious.

This is quite easy to check. How frequently are Canadian films screened in countries that don't have theaters owned by American interests. Is the answer pathetically small? Yes it is. Your most frequent exports go to France. Because the French are desperate for films in French that don't star any French.

Oh, did I not express my disdain in a manner that you found appropriate? I'm pretty sure your concern meets the definition if irony.

 

Oh, yeah, you've got disdain down pat. And yes, it's obvious to me that you're a producer (how could you be so sure of your opinions being the only ones worth considering if you weren't?)

Do us all a favour and go back to movieland (or should I say, 'moneyland?') This forum is for writers who care about creativity and you've made it abundantly clear that you don't.

 

Your insistence that one cannot care about a production and still be involved in the creative process only cements your foundation in ignorance.

 

Nice one! You're really good at this insulting stuff.

So, can we end this now? Or have you got something to say about my mother, too?

 

I can honestly say in the last 5 years that the only movies I have went to see in the theaters were Marvel movies, Star Trek, and Star Wars. Only because those types you want to the effects at their fullest.
I also have seen the top 5 movies listed for best picture last year. All at home for $5.99, I liked all of them.
There are still great movies being made. The problem now is that you can see them at home after 3 months.
In the 70's, 80's, and 90's you had to wait almost a year before it went to cable. On demand has killed most films in the theaters. Why watch a drama like "The Big Short" for $15 dollars plus food when I can sit and enjoy it at home. It still is a great movie, but I am watching it for the story at the comfort of my home. I can wait for it and not have to deal with the whole theater experience.
If "The Big Short" came out in the 90's, I would have went to the theater to see it rather than wait for a year to watch on HBO.
I think, and just my opinion, if there were no superhero movies or star wars or star trek, movie theaters would be a thing of the past. It would all be on television.
Sorry, if forgot Mission Impossible movies, my wife drags me to them. But they are also made to be seen on the big screen.

 

Well the issue is that the production companies are in trouble, as mentioned above, every one except Disney is down over the last five years, and every on is down over the last 10.
They say that piracy is the problem, but I'm going to wax loquacious on a matter of interest to me. Setting aside the ethical quandaries over the ownership of information, and the difficulty of ascertaining whether a pirated movie actually represents a loss to the company if the pirate would never have seen the movie if they had to pay for it; piracy is here to stay. You can shut down every torrent site on the net, and tomorrow there will be just as many as there were yesterday. You can stop every file sharing site, and people will share on reddit and facebook.

This is a reality with which every industry must now contend, and appealing to the moral compass of the public is just as useless now as it was in the drug war, or prohibition.

But there are absolutely ways in which the industry could mitigate the effects of piracy, they just refuse to do them. In interviews and focus groups across the country, self avowed pirates have sited the cost of a DVD as the number one reason that they pirate. If one could go into Best Buy with $50 dollars and buy 10 DVDs, instead of 2, the desire to pirate would be substantially less.

This price fixing is especially galling, when you account for the fact that DVD printing is incredibly cheap. The industries rational, has been to add "special features" to the DVDs to justify their price, which is especially fascinating, because industry research indicates that: no one fucking uses the special features.

There's research right now that indicates that, if you were to release the DVD copy the same day as the movie, you could cut down the piracy by nearly 50%. Give the audience the ability to buy the DVD the second they leave the theater, and it's down another 40%. And on demand releases, have done much better than industry expectations, when calculated as a ratio.

We are in the midst of a bloody market revolution, and the actions of the Entertainment industry have been to call down from their ivory tower, at the masses with pitchforks and say, "No! You should pay $20 dollars for a DVD, because that's all we're willing to sell it for! But you shouldn't use any other option but to buy from us, because that's morally wrong!"

So these companies will adapt or die, and that's all there is to it.

 

I think that a lot of what sells doesn't necessarily make for most poignant or intriguing stories. We're all writers here, so we have an insatiable lust for more than just Michael Bay explosions and epic fight scenes. Don't let the blockbusters (most of which have their redeeming qualities, too- explosions and fights are usually pretty entertaining ) cloud your vision of the movie industry as a whole.

Case in point: Anyone see Boyhood? It was fucking phenomenal. Won tons of awards, but it didn't break any records. Doesn't change the fact that it was incredibly well done.