God I hate Hollywood

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sebster**

Pook wrote:Sebster -
There is a very easy way that they can make the movie "episodic" and different. do it in a way SIMILAR (not the same as) Sin City. Tell stories from differing perspectives or even from one perspective but with different themes running through it.

That said ... anime does not translate to live action well. I don't think I've seen a good translation yet (not that too many people in Hollywood are stupid enough to try again and again).

That's an interesting thought. If done well it could make for a really good film. I'm not sure about anime in general not translating, I can't think of anything that's made a decent crossover, but there hasn't been a lot of crossovers, and it seems a more natural fit than other media.

Oh, and I think Trainspotting was a stronger film than book, as was Interview with the Vampire. Apparently Twilight is much better as a film as well, but I haven't read the book or seen the movie.

**Railguns**

Just because Hollywood has raped and pillaged material for years to generate money doesn't make it okay. I personally think that pursuit of money is empty and pointless. Contrary to what some may believe, there is such a thing as making art for the perfection of art. I think that Cowboy Bebop was done well enough that it should be respected, otaku rage or no. Otakus (who are almost universally hated in Japan, hilariously enough) are going to female dog if anything Japanese that they fill their meaningless lives with gets remade.

**Ahtman**

Railguns wrote:Just because Hollywood has raped and pillaged material for years to generate money doesn't make it okay.

lol

Railguns wrote:I personally think that pursuit of money is empty and pointless.

This sounds like someone not trying to make a living off an artform. Painters, Actors, novelists, illustrators don't live on a heigtened sense of satisfaction. They get paid for what they do.

Railguns wrote:Contrary to what some may believe, there is such a thing as making art for the perfection of art.

For homeless artists and hobbyists this may be true, but for the others they want to be able to eat and actually have people see there work.

Railguns wrote:I think that Cowboy Bebop was done well enough that it should be respected, otaku rage or no. Otakus (who are almost universally hated in Japan, hilariously enough) are going to female dog if anything Japanese that they fill their meaningless lives with gets remade.

The work is respected, just not some peoples narrow view of it. Do you really think they are making this thinking "oh man I hate this IP, I hope we can piss some weeaboos off!".

What is hilarious is the idea of art you are presenting is the idea of how art works presented by television and the movies, not the reality of professional artists. Do you think Cowboy Bebop was made as a philanthropic project?

**Kilkrazy**

Generally speaking, creators are not primarily motivated by money or they would be salesmen or bankers. However they usually have to make a living somehow.

Renaissance artists like Michelangelo had to do a lot of sucking up to the Medicis and popes to get their commissions.

**Railguns**

Hey don't confuse what I'm saying now. I'm also a musician. I am fully aware of the reality that I need to make money to continue, you know, living. Bass trombone work is a narrow field! But we don't practice at least 2hours a day just to have an edge over the other guys gunning for the money. It's because we enjoy what we do and try to do our best at it. Breaking something down to the lowest common social denominator to sell it to everyone is contrary to that.

Edit:Now that I think of it, nothing is more irritating than when someone asks you to play but won't pay you because you're supposed to "enjoy it". Yes, I do, but I'm providing a service and have to have income, so for God's sake pay or no play.

**sebster**

Railguns wrote:Just because Hollywood has raped and pillaged material for years to generate money doesn't make it okay. I personally think that pursuit of money is empty and pointless. Contrary to what some may believe, there is such a thing as making art for the perfection of art. I think that Cowboy Bebop was done well enough that it should be respected, otaku rage or no. Otakus (who are almost universally hated in Japan, hilariously enough) are going to female dog if anything Japanese that they fill their meaningless lives with gets remade.

Except that a remake doesn't diminish the original work in any way. That's just fanboys/otakus being precious. If anything, it opens up the work to a new audience. Even if the movie is dreadful, the animated series is exactly the same.

And not everything Hollywood does is automatically soulless and bad. Sure, there's lots of rubbish, but every source of media is mostly rubbish. Anime, for instance, produces piles of derivative rubbish for every decent series. People complain about the Transformers movie, but have you seen the animated stuff that was coming out before the movie?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

No no no. It's the *snobs* complaining, not the fanboys. The Fanboys normally wait until it's released before going to see it and storming out having secretly enjoyed it....

The Snobs however, declare the whole sacred and touchable and don't want anyone else muscling in on their action.

**Jin**

dienekes96 wrote:
1) I specifically referred to anime as a Japanese artform. I joked about anime earlier (mocking the thread title, probably started by someone who paid for a Transformers movie ticket), but I respect that it is an artform. So, by all means, read the words I made the effort to type before responding.

Actually, I've yet to see Transformers. Shia Lebouf tends to really irritate me, so I avoid him.

Re: Thread title: yeah, it's a silly title, but it's a recurring sentiment when Hollywood does something that seems dumb.

dienekes96 wrote:Excellent points to both Destrado and Ahtman. This discussion just reminded me of recent Firefly tantrums. Way better shows have been treated way worse. I'm sorry Firefly was cancelled, but it's ratings sucked, and this is business.

Look, you can make art out of anything. If you had told me I would love the film Speed Racer (which is based on a cartoon I never cared for), I'd have laughed in your face. Which leads me to...

focusedfire wrote: wrote:Actually, Cowboy beebop could very well be considered high art. Just because its animated you dismiss it. The writing, concept, and story line stacks up against most classics. But i understand 96. You probably wouldn't get New Orleans or the blues either.

What in the "h" "e" double hockey sticks are you talked about? Did you even read my post? Let me address your reply in parts:

1) I specifically referred to anime as a Japanese artform. I joked about anime earlier (mocking the thread title, probably started by someone who paid for a Transformers movie ticket), but I respect that it is an artform. So, by all means, read the words I made the effort to type before responding.

2) Are you ACTUALLY equating a genre anime series (even if it's a great one) with the entire artform of jazz or a city with the cultural and historical significance of New Orleans? Perspective...look into it.

3) I love "cartoons". I own almost every Disney and Pixar film, Samurai Jack, every DC animated series (Superman, Batman:TAS, Justice League), and quite a bit of Tom and Jerry.

4) I'm open to the idea that Cowboy Bebop could be a great story. I've heard good things about it, and not just from douchy otaku geeks with limited worldviews. But it is still a combination of other genres and ideas, like Star Wars or The Matrix. Nothing wrong with that. But...

5) You need to either read more, watch more, or think more. Define high art or classic? Hamlet is a classic. A Christmas Carol is a classic. The Godfather is a classic.

And high art

High art is subjective, so I'll share my opinion and a few examples. High art is art that transcends its medium and traditional analysis mechanisms. Wagner's Ring of the Nibelung is high art. It predated psychology, but informed it. It is bigger than it's genre or medium. It is still researched and debated today. Rodin's sculptures are high art. They literally inform the human condition. The Sistine Chapel and the Pieta are high art. Mozart's symphonies are high art. Believe it or not, the work of Mark Twain is high art. The Bible is high art. Rembrandt is high art.

Feel free to google.

Lastly, Hollywood is more than capable of works that equal or better Cowboy Bebop. It all depends on the who (and that means the director and the screenwriters...not the actors). You get Ridley Scott, you are in business. You get Stephen Sommers, Van Helsing.

I don't disagree with any of your points.

I don't consider myself one of those otaku geeks, and I won't say that Cowboy Bebop is the end-all, be-all of "art" or what not. It's just a story/world that I happen to have enjoyed a lot.

My main issue, I suppose with casting Keanu Reeves, is that it just smacks of movie producer/execs going, "Oh, I hear this Cowboy jazz thingy from Japan is really, popular. Get the rights and just stick some big name - Keanu Reeves, or Johnny Depp and pump it out". I understand that that's the name of the game there, but sometimes it would be nice to think that they at least care somewhat to the source material. I just sincerely think Keanu Reeves is not suited for the role, and I suspect that this movie will be another Constantine or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. And it's not just cartoon/comic -> live action movie transitions that I feel similarly about. I can't even count the number of variations of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (one of my favorite novels) that I've hated (though that one MacGyver episode/movie was somewhat entertaining).

It's not like good movies can't be made that are based off of other works - Blade Runner was mentioned. Lord of the Rings I thought (some scenes/dialogue excepted) did good justice to the originals. Hellboy 1 & 2 I found delightful. Minority Report was also decent (minus some of the gratuitous CGI shots and the ending). (I also found Speed Racer surprisingly enjoyable for what it was).

**dienekes96**

Then my off-hand snide comment at the thread title was somewhat unjustified. My apologies.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I think the problem with Hollywood, particularly where Eastern fare is concerned, is the apparent inability to realise what made the original so popular.

Lets take Ring as an example. The original Japanese versions are exceedingly creepy, and at no point do you know much more than the cast members. It was all kept very atmospheric and weird. Now, this might have to do with the subtitles demanding your attention, and thus keeping you riveted, but when it was remade, it just felt entirely gratuitous. Most of the atmosphere was lost with the introduction of warning music, and it just wasn't anywhere near as fear inducing. Same goes for The Grudge and others.

But, with Anime going to live action, there is more room to manouver, as it's the first time it's been acted rather than drawn. As long as they stick to the core concepts, it should be okay, and lets face it, the Otaku weirdos will never, ever be happy!

**Ahtman**

Railguns wrote:Edit:Now that I think of it, nothing is more irritating than when someone asks you to play but won't pay you because you're supposed to "enjoy it". Yes, I do, but I'm providing a service and have to have income, so for God's sake pay or no play.

Exactly!

Though it makes me think part of the problem is that we are talking about two different things when we are talking about 'art'. There are different types of art and each plays a different role but to be general we'll say there is personal, local, broad, and mass. Each looks for something different and has different expressions. Something that has to be mass market like a large budget film makes some concessions to try and make back the monstrous investment. The personal level can involve no money and only personal expectations.

It also seems like the real problem is a dislike of Keannu Reeves. Blame the production companies and casting directors. Of course they are hedging their bets that for each online angry person there will be others that like him and get them to go see a movie they have never heard of. Now I think he seems like a nice guy but I think his value is overinflated in the market. Matrix messed it up by making studio heads and production companies think he was popular when it was more than that. He has a certain audience draw, sure, but I think it isn't as great as thought. If anything Constatine and TDTESS should have shown that, but then I'm not doing focus groups and testing either. I will concede he seems like an odd choice for this role on the surface but then again almost no one though of Heath Ledger for the Joker and we see how that worked out. Only time will tell if it is a mistake or not.

Also stop blaming "Hollywood", this isn't the 30's studio system anymore.

**Railguns**

If not by studios, then who is running all of this? Personally I think that art, as a refinement of expression, is better served on a more individual basis. Mass market does make concessions, and when a subject is introduced to a new audience and its crap, then you're basically doing a disservice to the original artists, designers, etc. by misrepresenting their work. Thats what I'm worried about.

**Orlanth**

If anything I think Keanu Reaves is a good choice , sorry for going back on topic by the way, Reaves is musically minded and a fair musician himself and he can act he just has a small though by no means relatively small repetoire of viable roles for a man of his paycheck.

As for the music, if the Japanese can mimic 60's cinema imagery aswell as they have with Cowboy Bebop, cinema can mimic right back. Yes it does depend on the director but by and large the film industry is learning to do adaptions better than it once did, noone wants to be labelled the next Uwe Boll.

**Railguns**

Keanu has music experience? Really? Still, the episodic nature of the show makes me wonder how they will approach the film. The over-arching plot about Spike and his pals against ....... whatever his name was with the sword was important, but the side adventures and such were just as important.

**gorgon**

General comment here -- what if the source material needs a shakeup? I bet J.J. Abrams' Star Trek is going to p*ss off the true believers. But ST is an incredibly stale franchise that badly needs a reboot.

Also -- just playing devil's advocate here -- sometimes the Hollywood interference is a good thing. Jackson's King Kong is a perfect example of what happens when a director gets full control and there's no studio person there to tell the director to cut the @$%&* film. The fact that he even released an *extended* version for DVD is astounding and shows some tremendous ego. Is it in real time?

**focusedfire**

Ahtman wrote:None of these shows are made for arts sake, same goes for film. They are made to generate revenue. The same goes for the Blues and New Orleans travel industry. 'Hollywood' isn't making art films for small audiences, they are making broad products for a broad audience. It isn't just their fault either, it is as much as the audiences fault. They make crap, we buy it.

From Aaron Sorkin:
"It's important to remember that, first and foremost, if not only, this is entertainment. "The West Wing" isn't meant to be good for you. We're not telling anyone to eat their vegetables, and we do not consider it important in the sense that you're saying...Our responsibility is to captivate you for however long we've asked for your attention. That said, there is tremendous drama to be gotten from the great, what you would say, heavy issues."

Your applying western entertainment structure to Eastern art. If Beebop was made only for money they would have caved to the millions(possibly billions) of dollars of pressure to rewrite and extend the series.
There is a reason the asian film industry and the independents have been kicking Hollyweirds tail lately. It is exactly like you said, all about profit. As a matter of fact they have it down to a formulaic process. If something doesn't fit into the formula they don't make it, until some art based independent makes a profit off of something new. Then they over do, overly cookie cutter, & overly market some artist concept turning it mainstream.
The independent and eastern film markets apply a completely different method of film production.

**Frazzled**

Do you have confirmation the asian film industry has been kicking Hollywood's butt? I'll grant Bollywood is the real deal as a rising competitor, but other than that you need to put some numbers up. Batman made more than the GDP of Europe for crying out loud

**Ahtman**

focusedfire wrote:Your applying western entertainment structure to Eastern art. If Beebop was made only for money they would have caved to the millions(possibly billions) of dollars of pressure to rewrite and extend the series.

That is the same reason Battlestar Galactica is stopping at the fourth season, because the money is so good and the audience is to big. The fact that you think it might be worth "billions" gives me a sense that you are both an otaku and naive to the realities of financing and licensing.

focusedfire wrote:There is a reason the asian film industry and the independents have been kicking Hollyweirds tail lately.

Which they actually haven't, so, yee-haw to that. Their business model is different and they do ok, but the only "Asian film industry" that competes significantly is Bollywood, and I get no impression that you are even thinking of India. To further the point there is no "Asain film industry" as a homogeneous whole. Japan and China have very different business models and create very different content and don't team up that much.

It is exactly like you said, all about profit. As a matter of fact they have it down to a formulaic process.

You are complain about western being formulaic? Have....have you ever seen more than one anime? Ever seen any Wuxia film? And it isn't all about profit, but it is the important factor. You have to be able to eat and pay rent. If you have neither then making a movie is the least of your concerns.

The independent and eastern film markets apply a completely different method of film production.

Last time I checked they still point a camera and hope at the end of the day to be able to feed their kids, so not really.

Either you are a troll (7/10 Rage) or you are really ignorant of the subject you are trying to pass yourself off as an expert on. The problem being that your argument is weak and also that there are people who do actually know something about the subject and they see how much crap is being laid out. You have created a romanticized and idealized model of the East that doesn't hold up to real scrutiny because it doesn't mirror the reality of the situation.

**focusedfire**

They,ve been kicking Hollywierds tail in the intoduction of new concepts and being first to market with fresh stories and ideas. That Hollywierd has been coopting into its mainstream pablum.

You just attempted to lure me into a fiscal measurement which would have proven my own argument wrong.

Not gonna happen. Will say that due to a non-corporate style that isn't overburdened with overpaid parasites and the use of fresh talent on reasonable payscales that these industries have been more successful at introducing New art and Genres

**Ahtman**

focusedfire wrote: They,ve been kicking Hollywierds tail in the intoduction of new concepts and being first to market with fresh stories and ideas. That Hollywierd has been coopting into its mainstream pablum.

You just attempted to lure me into a fiscal measurement which would have proven my own argument wrong.

Not gonna happen. Will say that due to a non-corporate style that isn't overburdened with overpaid parasites and the use of fresh talent on reasonable payscales that these industries have been more successful at introducing New art and Genres

My god, his trolling power, it's...

Seriously, "hollywierd"? What are you twelve? If you think the argument was fiscal measurement, you clearly couldn't grasp what was being said.

**focusedfire**

AHHH AHtman, Always trying to escalate on that which you don't know.

Production- how the budget for the film is gathered and used.

Battlestar galactica- American made, american concieved, american profit motive

The comparison I made was western to eastern. Hollywierd in recent years took drastic steps to bring film back to LA due losing films to reduced production costs in other areas.

Look at how many "mainstream" movies are now made by independent production companies that the big studios buy the finished product from.

Do you know the catch 22 of getting a SAC card?

If my views and personal experience and the expression of such makes me a troll, then I have a lot of company in this thread.

**Envy89**

.... who are they going to get to play Fey Valentine

**focusedfire**

Did the aspca monitor the animal handling in that photo

**Ahtman**

focusedfire wrote:AHHH AHtman, Always trying to escalate on that which you don't know.

I've responded to your ignorant scrawling enough and see no reason to continue to do so. You still have yet to provide Frazzled with any numbers to back up any of your statements.

**focusedfire**

Ahtman wrote:My god, his trolling power, it's...

Seriously, "hollywierd"? What are you twelve? If you think the argument was fiscal measurement, you clearly couldn't grasp what was being said.

Yes, this so much more muture and on topic.

**Deadshane1**

It's just as relevant as the previous arguement that you made....

**Frazzled**

There is a reason the asian film industry and the independents have been kicking Hollyweirds tail lately.

Put up or shut up. $ in the door is the only one that can be quantified other than sheer number of films. I'd probably put Hollywood ahead in that category as well. I think Bollywood may be the winner in that category though-its my understanding they churn out gazillions of films at this point.

**focusedfire**

Bollywood 800 films/ year. Hollywood 250/films per year.

Ratio of profitability is higher in films costing less than 1million.http://home.earthlink.net/~brucecook/main/negat1.html. Never claimed to be the most computer literate, Will eventually learn how to Hotlink.

This thread was about why we hate hollywood. Hate is not something debated. It is a feeling that we all are allowed to have. There are times I love Hollywood. Then there are times like the Disney Three Musketeers that make my teeth itch. In this upcoming movie I am not happy about some of the choices and have been reminded of what I hate about Hollywood. So I chose to vent about these choices .
Different people see different things as worthy of respect and the title art. I, IMHO, personally believe that the current trend of money=art or money=entertainement is a failing of our soceity.
I have a certain amount of respect for the artistic ability and integrity of the Beebop creators.

I'll shut up at this point and bow to the (MOD)s will.

**Frazzled**

Actually its no different now than previously. Much of the art we associate with "high art" at least in Europe, was sponsored. I can think of very little Renaissance or Boroque art that was done just to be done-it was always sponsored.

I will say though I get tired of Hollyood's endless (and usually bad) recycling of previous movies. Valentines Day 3d??? That was a horrid piece of vomitous filth originally. Remaking it is offensive to sentient creatures.

**dogma**

Yeah, the illusion of art for art's sake is just that. A fantasy based upon the disappearance of the original force of inspiration. For example, most great poets were commissioned to either disparage a rival, or talk up a patron. It was medieval propaganda.