Hollywood Making Cr@p for the M@sses: A Video by Taualumna
 

Yeah, I know, I shouldn't really be reading from my notes like that...

YouTube

can we start off with Epic Movie, Soul Plane, Meet the Spartans to name a few?

Hollywood relies far too often on the same old stupid formulae and sadly enough, there are a few stupid people that PAY to see these movies.

And if one stupid group pays for this flick, that is enough encouragement to make more...can you say...SEQUELS AND REMAKES?

I got a better one...you were going on a tangent about foreign flicks...how about....why does hollywood take perfectly good foreign horror flicks and water them down?

It's like the square peg round hole thing.

A lot of these movies should just be left alone

The Eye
The Ring
and
Dark water to name a few...

While slightly rambly, it's a good spot on observation that even I have noticed for years.

The film industry is unlike any other huge money-making industry. It's filled with a really strange mish mash of people. First there are the writers, actors, directors, etc. Some of them can be considered "artists" and within this group is a very wide range of backgrounds and levels of education (from highschool drop-outs to PhDs.)* Then there are those who are merely opportunists.

The studio executives are often more highly educated but wouldn't know "art" if it fell in their lap. They're looking at profits and nothing else.

One of the problems is that you get these two sets of people together and there's going to be conflict about "the product" they produce. Often the result is a compromise that leaves the real artists as well as the public disappointed.

Personally, I see a lot more cr@p being produced for television than film. I watch very little television anymore because of that.

Taualumna, could you be more specific about some of the films? I think that would make for an interesting discussion.


*Note: the comparison made about the levels of education among the artists isn't meant to suggest that the more educated ones necessarily produce better work. IMO

Boring video. :p

As for the the topic, people have been saying that America is dumbing down and that's why the movies are the way they are. That has yet to be substantiated and we also don't know which came first, the dumber movies or the dumber people. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy because when people know they are going to see the same formula, they will continue to pay to see the same formulas in movies. People also will stop expecting to think when they go to theater.

I don't think that foreign movies are better or "smarter." I also don't think that foreign people are smarter. They are just filling a cultural niche. The Ring was interesting to many Americans because many didn't know that it was a Japanese film first and that the original was better. It was an interesting "introductory" concept.

We can't use The Oscars as a metric for quality movies or where the better movies come from. The Oscars are Hollywood politics.

It's not just movies that are "dumbed" down. Let's not forget Harry Potter Book #1, where its REAL TITLE is "HP and the Philosopher's Stone", not "the Sorceror's Stone".

As for European movies, one thing that I definitely notice is that actors/actresses are not quite as coiffed to perfection as their American counterparts, onscreen.

Is the former supposed to sound "smarter" or something?

I dont even think it has so much to do with foreign flicks being smarter as it is with foreign flicks don't always follow the same old formulae that a lot of Hollywood films have done over the years...some of the more exciting and interesting movies that i have seen within the past 5 or so years haven't been Hollywood flicks.

I think what this is really about is that we get sick and tired of paying for the same old crap taht;s long on hype and CG and short on story.

I was feeling what she said about The Departed and I agree, it won all teh accolades but they may as well have handed the awards to those that made Infernal Affairs.


and yeah...in actuality, the title was 'dumbed down'

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20020123.html

I do agree with you that there's much more cr@p on TV (e.g. many of the new game shows that rely more on chance than on the brain), but I've found that lately, there's just so much more "guy comedies" that are a complete turn-off. Mr. Tau rented Superbad a few months ago, and I absolutely COULD NOT watch it. Too offensive for me.

Other movies:

Disney's The Little Mermaid and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. OK. I have to admit that I was a little kid when Little Mermaid came out and loved the movie a lot. But at that time, I had not read the original Hans Christian Andersen version and didn't realize that Ariel actually died. Did Disney really have to change it? Why can't kids accept that things don't always end happily ever after? Same thing with Hunchback. Actually, I don't think Disney should have done Hunchback to begin with. Victor Hugo's writing isn't exactly kid-friendly. Making it kid-friendly was a bad, bad thing.

Let's take a look at Shall We Dance. The original Japanese movie apparently had two versions. The original version is over two hours long, while the version released in the US (this IS NOT the 2004 Richard Gere/J.Lo movie) was some 20 minutes shorter. According to something I found online, one of the scenes with the main character's wife was altered to suit how Americans/the west see the typical Japanese wife. I wouldn't know, since I've never seen the 2 hour+ version of the film. Never mind that the Richard Gere/J.Lo version wasn't nearly as good.

(I have also heard that the original Korean version of The Lake House had a completely different, sadder ending than the Keanu/Sandra Bullock movie that was more Hollywoodized.)

As I said in the video, I originally made the video to discuss the altering of the main characters' ethnicities in the upcoming movie 21 (the movie is based on a true story of students from MIT. These students were of Asian descent). I wouldn't have had much of a problem with it if some people said that they did the change to keep the original people anonymous or whatever, but according to several things I read online, the change was made because they wanted the movie to make money (not sure if they really should have said that, IMHO). So yeah, Hollywood is dumbing down to parts of our society who have trouble seeing characters who aren't of their ethnicity in mainstream roles. If this movie were "artsier" the cast would likely have been more reflective of the original story.

Mainstream Hollywood is unlikely to make the following types of movies because mainstream society wouldn't watch it:

• Story of hate crimes against Catholics (you have to admit that even in 2008, some parts of the US are hugely anti-Catholic. Especially in some parts of the Bible Belt. BTW, when was the last time a television show had a main character that was openly Catholic that wasn't a priest, nun or from a culture that is historically RC? I can only think of Donna Martin from 90210, and the show went off the air 8 years ago.)
  
• A gay character that is just "one of the guys/girls" but happens to date someone of his/her own sex
  
• Story about immigrants/children of immigrants who are not poor (I read somewhere that an Eva Longoria movie was called off because people felt that a story about a wealthy Latina wouldn't sell... not sure if this is true, since she plays this type of character on Housewives..maybe what's okay for TV isn't okay for movies? But also, we don't know long the Solises and Gabi's families have been in the US.)
  
• Difference between Evangelical Christians and mainline Christians. Maybe even issues that these groups have. I think it could make a good Romeo and Juliet type of story.

I want to know this: Why won't people buy tickets for these movies? Is the general public really that out-of-touch? Is the general public really as stupid as Miss Teen South Carolina, who thought Europe was a country?


ETA: Re Harry Potter - Yeah..what's wrong with "philosopher"? Kids really aren't that dumb, are they? They didn't change the title in Canada (and usually we get the US title on everything) and the entire series did well. I heard that Harry Potter and the PHILOSOPHER'S Stone wasn't exactly a best seller when it first came out in the UK, anyway.

Like I said, the original title doesn't sound "smarter."

The title was changed for American audiences but it wasn't "dumbed down." From what I've read, that's people putting their own spin or interpretation on it. It was changed so that people could identify the subject matter and so that people who don't know about this genre/author/story line could be drawn to it. The original work was published in 1997 in London so it was designed to familiarize others with the line of work and appeal to a larger audience. Forms of American media often have to do the same when they go national and international.

No. LOL. Kids are only as dumb as the adults so if kids are dumb we have ourselves to blame.

"Philosopher" is boring in a title and as a kid I wouldn't find it kid-worthy. "Philosopher" doesn't sound magical or mythical. Based on what a philosopher is. It sounds educational. Not wanting to be educated everytime we are being entertained shouldn't make America less "smart" than the UK. :)

But why did it have to be changed for American audiences when it wasn't in other parts of the English speaking world? Like I said in my last post, even Canadians got the original British title, and we usually get what the US gets. The original British title for Confessions of a Shopoholic was The Secret Dreamworld of a Shopoholic. We got Confessions, not Secret Dreamworld.

Does "Secret Dreamworld" sound smarter than "Confessions" to you? It doesn't to me. "Confessions" sounds catchier and probably fits the theme better.

But we'd have to seek the answers to these questions. We could speculate all day. I'm sure the official statements from the publishers/producers/authors wouldn't tell Americans that we are dumb, even if that's why the names were changed.

I believe the mermaid in the original was "nameless", but yes, the Little Mermaid does die, as does the Little Matchgirl and other protagonists in many other fairy tales. When you ask: "Why can't kids accept that things don't always end happily ever after?", I don't think it's kids, I think it's meddling, overprotective parents groups and Disney trying to dodge anything controversial ("Song of the South", anyone?). I guess it's Disney's way of keeping everything happy happy in Happy Land.

The fairy tales of Hans Christian Andersen and the aptly named Brothers Grimm are gruesome and brutal, and as a little kid being read to by her German (what else?) Grandma, that's how I liked 'em! LOL In Little Red Riding Hood, the wolf definitely ATE Red and the Grandma (one would surmise he swallowed them whole) and then the huntsmen came, CUT OPEN the stomach, out they jumped and he sewed in some big a$$ boulders and then the wolf went to get a drink from the river, fell in and drowned. There was none of this "the wolf put them in a cupboard" business, which is the sanitized Disney version.

Another thing about Disney movies that I have noticed. In the final showdown, even though the antagonist "gets it" in the end, the protagonist NEVER, EVER, EVER, is left with the proverbial blood of their enemy on their hands, because for them to actually "kill" their enemey would make them "bad", too, right?

Lion King: Simba vs. Scar - Scar slips and plummets to his death.
Beauty and the Beast: Beast vs. Gaston - Gaston slips and plummets to his death.
Hunchback of Notre Dame: Quasimodo vs. Evil Magistrate Guy - Evil Magistrate Guy slips and plummets to his death.

Any other Disney movies with the cop out 'plummets to their death' cause-of-death that I'm missing? Surely there must be more.

I grew up on Hans Christian Andersen and Brothers Grimm, in addition to "Song of the South" and the extremely racist cartoons of Warner Bros and, to a lesser extent, the sometimes questionable imagery of Disney. [sidebar: I also read the excellently illustrated tale of Bilbo Baggins/Lord of the Rings in the 1980s when a lot of adults didn't even know what that was and other kids were still stuck on Dungeons and Dragons. Some people thought that novel was too graphic or complex for kids but my parents didn't.]

I can completely understand why some parents took charge when they realized that adults were feeding children some images that they were uncomfortable with their children being exposed to. That could be violence or anything else. For example, the things that I found entertaining as a kid were extremely offensive as I got older and realized things like the black baby with the bone through its hair and Tom from Tom and Jerry in blackface.

I don't think that makes parents overbearing and kids afraid of reality. There's enough reality in the world that most kids are exposed to and it's okay for kids to see a movie or tale where the main character doesn't perish. [Or for kids to not be exposed to characters that are used for sexist, racist, or other -ist imagery by adults with an agenda] However, the bad person often does perish in these stories, which sends kids messages about what happens to bad people and that's still "happily ever after" and unrealistic. I also notice what a lot of people notice--American children stories tend to give the bad person foreign accents which is another message that adults are sending.

Ehh...I was just asking why some titles are changed.

Not just foreign accents, but any accent that isn't standard American (unless story takes place in a location where a regional accent is used).

Tau....hey...bottom line too, it's all about marketing....same reason why you have Confessions of a Video Vixen as opposed to A Video Vixen's Dreamworld.

Which do you think the audience would buy?

If there are enough consumers out there who are buying into the crap that is made, it will continue to be made ( I think I said it before).

It doesn't necessarily have to be smart or intelligent.

Any media made has to be marketed to a targeted audience and as long as a goal is met that shows that it is working, it's going to continuously be made.

For instance, historic epics....anyone remember Gladiator?

One of my admitted favorite movies...won best picture...kind of alluding to the politics again...but how historically inaccurate was it?

It sometimes makes you wonder what standards are set when the powers that be in Hollywood make when they measure a movie. IMO...I understand they are basing part of the award on the quality...but to me, I would have thought that a part of the quality of a film like this is also in its accuracy....but hey...the Titanic and A Beautiful Mind won too right? LOL.

I believe what has happened is that Hollywood is running short on greenlighting good ideas and mkaing them nto movies...I used to say that we have run out of ideas, but I don't think that at all. Holly wood has just gotten lazy. Hollywood, instead of putting out more cutting edge movies has turned to doing the following:

1. Remaking 'classic' horror franchises (Halloween and now Friday the 13th)
2. Butchering comics and children's books (Spiderman, XMen and Golden Compass)
3. Chruning out way too many sequels for franchises that has long since left the limelight (Star Trek and A vs P anyone?)

But why make changes though? Why won't the typical American watch a movie about hate crimes against Catholics in certain parts of the Bible Belt (but would watch a movie about the Holocaust)? Why not a movie about a gay person where his or her sexuality isn't a central part of the story? A remake of a foreign film that isn't bastardized/Hollywoodized because Americans want a happy ending?

Can't the PR people publicize it in a way that can appeal to everyone?

I still remember being very upset by the movie Teachers as its PR presented it as a goofy teen comedy....it was NOT that...it was extremely dark.

I don't even know if it was a good movie or not, because in effect, my mouth was set for roast beef and I got banana cream pie. It could have been good but the marketing was so far from what it actually was I couldn't enjoy it. So no, the PR people should NOT publicize movies as something they are not.

As far as your original question, can you think of a certain hate crime against Catholics you want movie-ized? I mean, that sounds more like something that would end up on Law & Order (where many more people will watch it).

A lot of your ideas sound vaguely familiar, like there were independent films about them (did you see Saved?). Just because it isn't the major studio doesn't mean it won't be seen.

And I was just saying that most answers will be speculation.

Well, you seemed to be trying to make an argument that a specific title was "dumbed down."

Y'all act like this is something new. I can make a good case that "one of the best-loved movies of all time," the MGM 1939 "The Wizard of Oz," butchered the original story by making the whole trip to Oz a dream and stuffing in the whole "if-I-ever-go-looking-for-my-heart's-desire" sentimentality. And note that in the movie, Dorothy "accidently" throws water on the witch as she tries to put out the Scarecrow's fire; in the book, she grabs the bucket and throws water on the witch out of anger. And it's not even Disney.

There's really nothing new in this thread.

Not that it's new...it's becoming more and more apparent....how many times was The 10 Commandments done? at least 3 before we got Cecil B Demille's verson.

I think the whole point of this thread is not how 'new' a phenomenon is, but how much blatant redundancy we are finding coming from the movie industry due in part to Hollywood's laziness.


Go thru a list of big movies coming out this year and count how many of them are either sequels or remakes...they probably far outnumber any based on an orginal story.

So what is this thread about, really? It's all over the place just like most threads are.

Remakes are often done because people want to add their own artistic touches to it. Titles are sometimes changed for the same reason that there are different endings to movies and execs wait to see which one gets the best response.

How is any of that about dumbing down for Americans (or even overprotective parents keeping everything in happy happy land so kids won't be damaged)? Still waiting.....

Sometimes the best of anything is the original

Let me give you a list off the top of my head of some good foreign flicks you may want to check out...and if you find an American equivalent watch and see if there is a difference

Oldboy
Lady Vengeance
Nuevas Reignas (9 Queens)
The Devil's Backbone
Pan's Labrynth
Breaking News
3 Extremes
Irreversable
Warriors of Heaven and Earth
Hero
Audition

DST

1. When is the last time you went to the movies?
2. What is the last good remake you saw?
3. What's the last movie You saw remade that was overhyped?
4. Name a franchise movie that you wish Hollywood would stop doing.

And that was in 1956. You say it's becoming more apparent, and you site four (or more) movies made before 1960 as your examples.

It's not becoming more apparent. Some people are just becoming more aware.

ok...

All the Texas Chainsaw Massacre Remakes, The 39 Steps done 4 times,1984 and The Fly (which is due out AGAIN in 09),King Kong, even your aforementioned Wizard of Oz was a remake (not referring to the Wiz)

I think we are trying to say the same thing and with that awareness, there is much frustatration to see something fresh...technology has helped Hollywood stay in the game but the lack of great stories or worse the lack of EXECUTING a great story is what is holding Hollywood back.

I'm not so sure about that.

Plug for her book, apparently.

Wow, really, just took the time to watch the video, supremely not interesting. It started out heading somewhere that could have been interesting (changing the ethnicity of the characters in the movie "21"), but then you veered off into a lecture to the "big studios" (who I'm sure are watching) about how they're trying to "make fun of us". And then it seemed to become a contest as to how many times you could say "dumb down" in a 6-plus-minute time period.

The subject has been explored and discussed to death. Are TV and movies geared toward the masses and some might argue the "lowest common denominator?" Duh, yes. Foreign films exist if you find them more palatable, go crazy. But if you think the latest export from France is going to play well in the flyover states, you're completely wrong, and the "big studios" know it.

And yes, the bottom line IS the studio's bottom line, here's what they care about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sNJhX0x7yI (hey, it's "foreign", it must be smarter, right?!?)

RE: 21 - Changing the characters' ethnicities is actually dumbing the movie down to make money.

How does just that change make the movie "dumber"?

How is it dumbing down? Making assumptions that audiences would rather see caucasion actors, without a doubt, but surely you're not saying that people are too dumb to understand Asian characters and can only understand white characters.

They say that they made the main characters white rather than keeping them Asian to appeal to the masses because the masses don't feel comfortable watching Asian male leads that aren't foreign. To many, this is dumbing the movie down.

Many what? Who? Says who? You did this all throughout your video too, lots of 'to me' rationales and you kept saying "us" or "this part of the country" like you are the elected mouthpiece for... ??

But hey, good luck with the book.

No, that is pandering to racist and prejudiced attitudes. Dumbing down is entirely different. If they really wanted to dumb the movie down, the kids wouldn't count cards (too much math). The girls would shake their tits in the dealer's face or something.

Just changing a story doesn't constitute "dumbing down." The Nick Perry story was supposed to be the basis for the movie Lucky Numbers, but it was completely changed. I don't think that was dumbing it down, but changing it to appeal to a wider audience. If you didn't "get" Nick Perry (which you probably didn't unless you were from here) and the gravitas of HIM doing the fixing, you probably wouldn't get the movie. I mean, even though we keep hearing about how homogenized our country has become, there are still regional differences.

Nitty,

I didn't want to insult too many people, which was why i used lots of "some people", "to me" etc...

But 33girl, aren't racist attitudes stupid to begin with?

Um, it's NittANy, like the lion, and the point is you came across as though you were trying to sound like an "authority" on...something...but you just kept spouting opinions without any supportive evidence or really, any point, it seemed. And now this thread is boring me as much as your video did, so I'm going back to the crap I'm supposed to be doing that I've been avoiding by playing here.

They are many things, stupid being one of them. But on that same tack, you could argue that it makes the movie dangerous to watch because racist attitudes are dangerous.

Well, apparently those "many" need to have things dumbed down for them since they don't seem to understand what "dumbing down" (as opposed to pandering, playing to prejudices or the like) actually means.

I'm more concerned about using the @ as if it were a letter of the alphabet. Unless you were trying to say Cratp and Matsses.

And just because it caught my eye, to make a movie about hate crimes against Catholics you'd first have to find and choose one to make a movie on, or do a documentary style about a pattern of occurances. This would have to have a compelling story, we don't make movies over the boring crap (or was it cratp?). But it would totally become a movie if someone could actually write a good one. And America would watch it as much as they watch any crime drama these days.

But comparing it to the Holocaust? Irresponsible and illogical. It's just shy of a self-Godwin. The two are NOT comparable.