BF2S Forums EE Chats 2016

SuperJail Warden wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Yes I did. Thank god I wasn't a woman. I know you have a thing for mentally ill women. You would have tried to hook up with me or something. Weirdo.

yeah for sure.  It's kinda my thing. Mentally ill women.  Wanna hang out my passenger side tonight as I drive by the psych ward?  I'm sure there are some asians in there for you.  Or i may just try to pull a move on you.  Depends on if my adolescent homoerotic thoughts manifest.

I would totally airlock a few Asians with you. It might be hard to pick them up though. They don't understand our sense of humor?

I don't want to know what airlocking is.  I usually get girls by dropping trou.  Big hogs are as good as emoji bro. Universal language

I definitely do not need a graph to tell me common sense.

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

yep, totally dying off over the last 10 years.

oh my bad, i forgot china has only been around for 5 years and that movie studios have only been globally releasing movies for the same time period.

What the fuck does top kek mean? You use it a lot.

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

Not really sure what you're all on about. I see movies released without fanfare every week. Are you complaining that indie films aren't given the marketing muscle of blockbusters? Because that's absurd. Are you mad that the blockbusters get attention? Those things are self driving. There are enough people in this world terrified of missing out on whatever is currently popular to keep the idea of the blockbuster going forever. We all have friends who are terrified of the "have you seen x?" question and being forced to say no.

what on earth are you fucking going on about?

all we're talking about is how hollywood movies have dropped off. i'm not bemoaning the fact that the world isn't going mad for some cannes-feted iranian director and i'm not complaining about the health of indie cinema. hollywood is just incredibly conservative right now. most films are part of a franchise or some tired formula. we're discussing quite a specific thing. i'm quite happy keeping my tarkovsky chats to impressionable graduate school girls.

Hollywood is still producing the same crap they always have, they're just being conservative with their big budget films. Can you blame them when a movie can cost half a billion to film now?

Of course, but it's still bigger than the Mike Stanton contract

Pocshy2.0 wrote:

Mannnnnn. So the program I have been developing at work got activated today for the first time. The Agreement with the procured firm is not in place yet, so as lead policy analyst guess who gets to man the 1-800 number all weekend? You guessed it--100s of angry citizens calling me asking when they can get assistance from the government. No beers. No living off the grid. Status reports to the ADM (our equivalent of a VP) every 6 hours. They're letting me sleep at 10pm, though...so that's nice.

How's it going, bf2s?

I'm sorry you have a bad weekend but we are talking about movies now. I am going to need you to post a movie related to what you are experiencing.

making a film that is creative and of artistic merit and turning a profit are not mutually exclusive. i know this mindset may seem hard to adopt in a world where we are told that 'if it's popular, it's crap', but really it isn't quite as simple as that. hollywood has to be about making money because, as i said before, film making is a huge and expensive collaborative project. film distribution and reception is a costly apparatus (or at least was before home cinema and the DVD; 'cinema' still is pretty costly). so studios have to make money. they need bank. it's not the same scenario as a novelist sitting down to be the next faulkner vs. writing dan brown pap that will sensationalise and sell.

Last edited by uziq (2016-04-09 06:25:31)

french film making has also been state subsidised, much like small french bookstores, and the result is a lot of intolerable and pretentious pap. they arguably perfected the art of cinema and took it to its highest expression, but their culture – and their populace's attitude to 'culture' – is evidently very different from americans (hell, even from brits and aussies; half the time you are evidence of this philistinism) and their magnificent film culture and achievements came from public subsidy. that's artistic freedom with a social cost: stumping up the money in the first place and being willing to accept that a lot of creative effort necessarily ends in failure or contrived and painfully pretentious attempts. that is more like the patronage that macbeth misrepresented earlier than anything else.

the history of soviet cinema is a little different, but it had an initial period of incredible efflorescence, a small renaissance if you will – across architecture, visual arts, poetry and prose, cinema, all – before becoming strangled by increasing dogmatism and the strictures of 'soviet realism'. you went from the towering genius of eisenstein to minor talents producing movies about men who go to the city only to realise they are in love with the tractor they left back at home in the country.

there was a time when half of the best novelists in america took jobs as writers for hollywood. it wasn't all a cynical and empty cash exercise. i'm not saying it was noble, or that the studios ever aimed to lose money or merely break even, but there are creative and production decisions that can be made to ensure that you're getting quality and not another CGI rehash of a tired comic franchise.

of course this is all depends on an audience that demand quality as a precondition for parting with their cash. the studios hired good writers because there used to be a logic that a quality script would actually make more money and earn more acclaim. that is missing now. which is back to what i was complaining about initially. the audience hoover up any old shit. hollywood doesn't even have to try; hiring good actors or spending money on a quality script is now an extravagance, nothing more.

Last edited by uziq (2016-04-09 06:40:30)

Context?

how lazy are we talking?

uziq wrote:

french film making has also been state subsidised, much like small french bookstores, and the result is a lot of intolerable and pretentious pap. they arguably perfected the art of cinema and took it to its highest expression, but their culture – and their populace's attitude to 'culture' – is evidently very different from americans (hell, even from brits and aussies; half the time you are evidence of this philistinism) and their magnificent film culture and achievements came from public subsidy. that's artistic freedom with a social cost: stumping up the money in the first place and being willing to accept that a lot of creative effort necessarily ends in failure or contrived and painfully pretentious attempts. that is more like the patronage that macbeth misrepresented earlier than anything else.

the history of soviet cinema is a little different, but it had an initial period of incredible efflorescence, a small renaissance if you will – across architecture, visual arts, poetry and prose, cinema, all – before becoming strangled by increasing dogmatism and the strictures of 'soviet realism'. you went from the towering genius of eisenstein to minor talents producing movies about men who go to the city only to realise they are in love with the tractor they left back at home in the country.

there was a time when half of the best novelists in america took jobs as writers for hollywood. it wasn't all a cynical and empty cash exercise. i'm not saying it was noble, or that the studios ever aimed to lose money or merely break even, but there are creative and production decisions that can be made to ensure that you're getting quality and not another CGI rehash of a tired comic franchise.

of course this is all depends on an audience that demand quality as a precondition for parting with their cash. the studios hired good writers because there used to be a logic that a quality script would actually make more money and earn more acclaim. that is missing now. which is back to what i was complaining about initially. the audience hoover up any old shit. hollywood doesn't even have to try; hiring good actors or spending money on a quality script is now an extravagance, nothing more.

I like the subtexts in some of the Marvel and DC stuff, its not all complete rubbish.

If it's Marvel and DC, they're probably supertexts...