May 6, 2013

Is a 'Pixarification of Movies' Putting Mature Content in Danger? Director Danny Boyle Thinks So

danny boyle director filmmaker film filmmaking commentary cinema moviesWe recently shared commentary from Ridley Scott in which he acknowledged that filmmaking is indeed a business and a commercial industry -- and more often than not, it's an expensive one. As such, filmmakers are expected to put theater-going tushes in seats, one way or another, proverbial or otherwise. Now, director Danny Boyle (28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours) describes a trend he feels is making movies too safe, family-friendly, and overall unchallenging -- robbing cinema of mature, adult-oriented films. He calls this trend the 'Pixarification' of movies, and the added box office bankability that comes with it may or may not be a motivating factor. Click through to hear Boyle's interesting take on this state of cinema below.

First, a few disclaimers: one has to admit that a business is a business, and film is no exception. And, like any venture in which capital is at stake, it would be utterly self-defeating to invest in a product that wasn't expected to break even at the very least. In other words, movies have to make back their costs, or else be unsustainable. That said, and whether such a trend is business-motivated or not, Danny Boyle fears the worst for serious adult content in cinema (and does so with all due respect to the great Pixar) -- from VodkasterOfficiel on YouTube via /Film:

I'm sure we can all think of many a contemporary film for which this is decidedly not the case -- there are still plenty of challenging movies out there, though they may not be as easily seen in your local theater in some cases. Nor is there anything wrong with family-oriented films -- Pixar continues to produce work after incredible work, and the kid-friendly accessibility of each doesn't detract from the quality of storytelling in films like Wall-E, Up, Finding Nemo, etc.

At the same time, Danny's words ring true to me, as I'm sure they will to many readers. The benefit of the independent or low-/no-budget filmmaker is, of course, total freedom to tackle topics and subject matter of any maturity level. As long as you're willing to do a lot of the work yourself, you can explore all manner of "adult situations" (a confused term nowadays, as Danny points out above) without having to worry about recooping the $200 million budget of Transformers 3. This includes, to not-so-gracefully segue into a few additional Danny Boyle clips from VodkasterOfficiel, sequels, musicals, the two combined, and beyond.

What do you guys think of Danny's perception of modern cinema? Is there a 'Pixarification' happening in films, or does one just need to look a bit harder to find more mature content?

Link: VodkasterOfficiel -- YouTube Channel

[via /Film]

Your Comment

51 Comments

Both. I agree with him but you can still find wonderful «adult» movies.
BTW: I loooove Pixar animation's :)

May 6, 2013 at 12:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Etienne

I think mature movies should be smart, sophisticated, deep and complex, not just tits and ass, look look mom I'm R-rated movie now!! So what, you frikkin eternal teenager, if anything it's immature and childish as hell. I was all about edgy crap as a teen, but I frikkin moved on since then, but not Hollywood... not yet.

Nowadays it's two categories of movies with oh so rare exceptions. Dumb shit for lil kids and dumb shit for kids that grew older but not wiser.

May 6, 2013 at 1:00AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Natt

Respectfully disagree. Cinema is continually evolving and we haven't seen the best yet. But we don't need to go back to the 70's. We need fresh perspectives. We need good stories - told in a way that affect people in a fresh way. Adult themes? Violence and sexuality?? No.. We need to recognize that real cinema, real art, is a voice that speaks truth. It's about being true... Not about being "adult".

May 6, 2013 at 1:02AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Lane

I like your post. But I suspect DB would agree with you. I think the point is the value in an adult approach to that truth. There is clearly truth in Pixars work too. It's jus a "family" approach as he puts it.

But as he referenced, the comparison of TV shows like Breaking Bad or the Sopranos or even Game of Thrones as an "adult" level of fantasy, does highlight the kind of point he is making I think.

Personally I find a lot of cinema's "truth" these days to be either absent, pretentious, or juvenile. I agree with him. "adult" is pretty hard to come by. Fortunately film makers like Steve McQueen prove it's far from disappeared.

Love Danny Boyle. Brilliant man.

May 6, 2013 at 12:13PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

I disagree with him. Seems like the exact opposite to me. PG movies used to be the norm when I was a kid. Now they are all PG13 or R with Pixar seeming to be the only ones making family films anymore. Not that I am particularly interested in family stuff since I am 34 with no kids. But I feel like parents have fewer options today, not more.

May 6, 2013 at 1:05AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Damon

The reason there are less PG movies today isn't that the content is getting more "adult", but rather, the ratings system, and society in general, is more dogmatic and hysterical than before. So something that would have been PG back then, is now pg.-13. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" would get a pg-13 rating today. Forrest Gump would get an R rating today and so forth. This dumbification in all things (music, film, politics, etc) is caused by the shift that is occurring in society where everything has to pander to the common denominator. Eventually, you won't have high budget quality films since production companies will only finance common denominator tripe, and film for the intelligent will be relegated to low budget independent artists.

May 6, 2013 at 3:03PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Pianohero

I respectfully disagree. I feel like more films are being rated lower than what they should be. I do not believe that a film with nudity in it, even if it is just brief nudity (a flash), should be PG-13. That is commonplace now. Language is all over PG-13 movies. I don't think things have become more stringent, but less.

I also think you see less PG movies because there isn't a market for it. The PG market is smaller than the G or PG-13. I think PG has a stigma that it is for little, but not too little, kids, and loses a lot of viewers from both G and PG-13.

May 6, 2013 at 4:07PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Chris Lee

Go watch Raiders of the Lost Ark again...especially the airplane fist fight. There's no way in hell it would get a PG rating now.

May 6, 2013 at 5:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gabe

How would the second Raiders be treated today?

May 6, 2013 at 11:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

Sad but true words. You have to look no further than Dark Knight Rises (as just an example) to see how, as Boyle puts it, the "costless violence" is delivered to the moviegoer as they show acts of terrorism unfold in a way that isn't even remotely disturbing. They're just 3D wireframes and algorithmic exercises in particle generation whose impact to the viewer is later consciously offset by showing fight scenes utterly devoid of even a few drops of blood. It's all just a clever balancing act to mitigate risk.

I could watch Dark Knight Rises with an implied body-count of hundreds of dead people and feel nothing, but the simple thought of having to, for instance, witness the single "curb stomp" scene in American History X makes me cagey because it's challenging cinema you just simply don't see nowadays. Where's your Dog Day Afternoon with a (spoiler alert) ending that involves a gay/trans relationship? Big red equal signs on Facebook or not, that movie isn't getting made today.

I'm not saying the studios should never produce milquetoast movies with disposable scenes of violence, sex, and shallow relationships, but let's not forget that all the damn media companies are owned by like, what, 4 corporations? They're making more than enough money with things like Iron-Man 3's 650M weekend to take a loss on challenging cinema. The reason they don't is economic sure; it's not "profit vs loss" but rather "profit vs ridiculous profit'.

Kubrick said it best probably (paraphrasing), "finance your movie projects and then no one tells you want to make."

May 6, 2013 at 1:06AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply

This is pretty much what I've been thinking as well.

May 6, 2013 at 9:29AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Elias

Yeah i agree. The Hobbit was an interesting one for me, with LOTR often going out of it's way to show the cost of violence, and the level of reality was quite "adult" particularly for a fantasy/

Whereas in the Hobbit, they definitely went for "family" and so you run down bridges laden with goblins, they charge, you swing your axe, and five of them defy all physics to fly twenty metres backwards through the air without a drop of blood spilt.

May 6, 2013 at 12:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

Did you see Django? There Will Be Blood? No Country for Old Men?

There are tons of great movies out there, they are just not the blockbusters. There's just so much content out there that he's getting lost in what he doesn't like and not what he does.

To a comment earlier up in the thread. I did not like The Dark Knight Rises, there was no tension, it was just boring, but it also wasn't just wire frames, Nolan does try to capture everything in camera, but that doesn't mean that it has more of a connection with the audience than SFX. The Dark Knight was way better because there was that constant tension that the Joker might do something at any moment.

I have a problem with him bringing Pixar and Disney into the mix. What does he want from them? It's like going to see Django and saying it's too violent for my kids to watch. They each have a specific audience they are targeting. Pixar has an amazing process for creating stories and I think the rest of the industry would be better off if they were more like Pixar, maybe just tell more "adult" stories. But I'd like to ask, how are Pixar films not "adult" stories anyway? Wall-E had some deep meaning in it and the first 5 minutes of up is probably one of the few films to make everyone in the theater start crying like a baby.

It's all about story and I'm a little offended about Pixar being brought into this argument.

May 6, 2013 at 5:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Julian

I think Danny Boyle is a marvelous director who really forces you to go on a journey with his protagonists, not just watch them. I especially like that he works with smaller films because the Hollywood system was overwhelming for his creative vision.

This is going to sound a bit odd but the main place I find stories that challenge me as a viewer are Japanese animation films where audiences expect and appreciate complexity. I know a lot of people cannot see past the caricatures and animation but some of the stories are absolutely incredible and really force the viewer to think as an adult. When I saw ghost in the shell for the first time it took me 2 days to figure out what had happened. I had never seen a movie that demanded so much from its viewers.

My favorite animation director is Satoshi Kon, who has since passed, and many Hollywood directors obviously agree. His film Perfect Blue was a heavy influence for Darren Arronofsky who even bought the rights to recreate scenes for both Requiem for a Dream and Black Swan. Ellen Page's character in inception was based off of Paprika, another Satoshi Kon film. Ghost in the Shell was screened for the producers of The Matrix to show him what the film would be like and has several sequences taken directly from it. As amazing as the lobby shootout scene was in the Matrix I believe the final tank battle in Ghost in the Shell is cinematically superior (and in this era where best cinemetography oscar can go to a CG heavy film like Life of Pi, why not call it cinematography?)

I believe the reason for the success and complexity of these Japanese stories is that animated films in japan usually rise through the ranks of competing comic books, authored by a single person who often has a team of artists helping make their vision come true. It is a very different system that rewards story risks, something limited mostly to books in America.

In an interview in 1978 Steven Spielberg said he thought Disney animators were the father's of modern cinema and appreciated that contrary to a live action director an animator had to know exactly what he wanted because the entire world has to be created. He believed director's should be animators first.
Here's the video of young Stevie talking about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHOmqglvShw

If pixarification is the problem I believe japanese animation influence (and its international equivalent) is the answer. My next answer would be looking at story complexity in some video games, but I believe that is still a budding art form.

May 6, 2013 at 1:24AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Dan

Yeah I completely agree with the anime part, it seems like the storyline can be more complex since there isn't as much of a budget issue regarding practical effects etc. which is the main reason why I can't watch many indies, of course there are indies that still pull off amazing stories and have the visuals/sound to match.

May 6, 2013 at 9:30AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Derek

I agree. Once you have accepted an animated world the possibilities are endless for what disbelief you can suspend whereas with a live action film the director must rigorously work to make the story world consistent and 'real'. I think it is the same reason I have a much more difficult time finding poor acting in foreign films than when I understand the nuances of a language/culture.

Danny Boyle absolutely excels at making his worlds tangible and real. When I watched slumdog millionaire the first time I turned to my friend during the opening chase sequence and said, "this is the best film of the year" because I was with these children, running through the slums of India, in a way I had never experienced before in a film. I hadn't even finished the credits!

May 6, 2013 at 4:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Dan

Again, I completely agree

May 6, 2013 at 9:04PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Derek

Yeah, no, not odd at all, I completely hear you.

May 6, 2013 at 12:23PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

I agree completely. This is the reason why I've started collecting all those japanese works, from Akira to Evangelion. My favorite directors are Koji Morimoto (Memories, Animatrix's Beyond...) Katsuhiro Otomo, Satoshi Kon and Hayao Miyazaki.
As an animator I look to them, this are the kind of films I would like to make.
You should watch The Girl Who Lept Through Time, a fantastic film.
These are the only animation I'm kinda watching right now...

May 9, 2013 at 9:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
Regis

*these are* sorry

May 9, 2013 at 9:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Regis

I generally agree with what he is saying but unfortunately Trance was not up there in terms of 'adult' movies. The narrative is full of holes which lead to a unconvincing experience.

May 6, 2013 at 2:01AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

He should watch "The Limey".

I can agree with him in a way. Though The Incredibles by Pixar was a great movie for any audience. That was Pixar pre Disney. I think Disney has taken the punch out of what Pixar was just like Dreamworks took the punch out of Aardman for a few years. And I think that's what he was talking about, the combining of ideas. I don't like the mixing of Pixar with Disney. And I really didn't like the mixing of Aardman with DreamWorks.

I thought movies in the 70's were too heavy handed with what he's talking about. Now movies are too heavy handed with light family fare. But they're making $100's of millions. They aren't going to stop making them.

May 6, 2013 at 2:53AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

the term "adult" is a cop out for most directors and pretentious imo because lots of movies with so called "adult"(whatever that is) themes often lack the basic artistic-umph about it. they have very "juvenile" characters, story plots and most importantly Hollywood-dialogue structure. most of the adult movies are left to the "artsy" directors to do right! For example, I saw Amor by Michael Haneke! Now that's an "adult" movie. I used to be forced to watch lifetime movie network cos i lived with lots of women and although the network showed movies geared towards adult women, supposedly of a very "sophisticated" demographic or social incline (be it feminists, activists, etc) I found most of the movies to be lacking in terms of complex characters, story and especially dialogue structure. The term "adult" is subjective. i think we should just make movies with artistic integrity, regardless of preference for genre, etc!

May 6, 2013 at 3:00AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
rob calico

The NY Times has verified Boyle's claim. From today's paper, how statistics can be used to shape screenplays: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/business/media/solving-equation-of-a-h...

May 6, 2013 at 3:12AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Josh

Topic aside, i hate that the writer of this article feels the need to spoon feed that which is already known. Assume your readers can create opinions with merit and not have a disclaimer added as if "this is not the views of this site and solely those of the director comments" Yea I got that.

On topic, Disney is a mega behemoth of a machine that has dictated close to 18%(or 34 trillion dollars in revenue) of what we viewed since 1995. Of course movies are going to be less and less adult oriented. (summer blockbuster release period, Christmas release dates are 90% family oriented films) With that being said, no other film company has had that much influence in the market so why not follow suit.

Sad part of this trend is that it slowly starts to seep outside of these release date boundaries and then you realize films like 3 Days of the Condor or The Last Castle would probably get overlooked in the bubble gum/popcorn era.

May 6, 2013 at 3:28AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply

Sorry. My earns went numb when he said he didn't like Star Wars.

May 6, 2013 at 4:16AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Nate

*Ears* Love the edit function.

May 6, 2013 at 4:17AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Nate

He said he didn't wasn't at first amused by it when he was a young punk, but then he saw it and was fascinated by it.

May 6, 2013 at 5:43AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Billy_Dee_Williams

Its lovely to see film makers like Lars von Trier take risks with every film and abandon his own formulas. I think we are reaching a breaking point where not only film buffs, but non-film oriented folks go to the cinema to watch a Michael Haneke film and enjoy it as something challenging and different. Let the american studios do their business as usual, Great times for European, Asian and South American films in the near horizon.

May 6, 2013 at 4:20AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Manuel

Right. The way most people lament the demise of Hollywood is simply irksome to me now. You'd think it was the only place on the planet producing movies. The mainstream American movie system hasn't been producing the best films for many decades now. There was somewhat of a renaissance in the 70's but really you have to go back to the 40's and 50's to find the last time that the funniest, most entertaining, most heartfelt and most challenging films being made were mostly coming out of Hollywood.
Most of the best stuff being made in America now is produced in the independent system (admittedly heavily bankrolled by the Hollywood studios) with the exception of a handful of directors who are powerful enough that the studios give them enough creative freedom to make interesting films (providing they make money too). I can't see this changing anytime in the near future. The studios have brought the current malaise upon themselves. Why would they take risks when they can churn out the same tired but SAFE product and continue to make billions?

May 6, 2013 at 10:17AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Mak

That observation may well be right. But only if you deem excesses of cruelty, mass murder and brutality/ boundless violence as problem solvers to be "appropriate" to children.

May 6, 2013 at 6:12AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Thyl Engelhardt

Guys, slightly offtopic, who is he talking about at ~0:20? I'm having problems deciphering it ;) Something along the lines of 'Nick Rogue'? Thx!

May 6, 2013 at 7:06AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

5
Reply
JB

Nicolas Roeg, director of "Don't Look Now" and "The Man Who Fell To Earth".

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001676

May 6, 2013 at 7:41AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Daniel

Ha, of course, silly me:) I hoped he meant some hidden gem nobody knew:) Thanks anyway!

May 6, 2013 at 7:59AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
JB

I think he's right-to a point-but I think he simplifies the causes of the 'Pixarification'. Yeah the movies of the 70s were awesome. But it wasn't just Star Wars (and Jaws too). It was the fact that even then television was getting better. The early eighties brought shows like 'Hill Street Blues' that had a new, adult sensibility to them. And with TV getting better, audiences weren't going to pay to watch talking heads anymore on screen. They needed spectacle-like a Star Wars.

But I think the larger issue too is that studios have stopped marketing to adults. Its always a surprise when a movie targeted to adults does well because its like they've forgotten that there's an entire generation that grew up watching movies (baby boomers with discretionary income-many of whom are empty nesters. They're actually the perfect segment to market to-now that I think about it). For the last fifteen to twenty years they've been trying to get teens to go see movies.

And if any of you watched the Steven Soderbergh interview that was posted, he talked about how the people in charge don't really give a crap about movies themselves. Its all counting beans to them. Let's have a four quadrant high concept tentpole: that's all they're really after.

May 6, 2013 at 10:43AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

5
Reply
Dave Mueller

i disagree with his view on TV. HBO, showtime, etc are the perfect venue for complex story telling because it has the time to tell it. I don't want to see a horribly complex story-line crammed into a 2 hour movie, it feels sloppy and unfocused most of the time. Breaking bad is my favorite show, ever, and it would not be nearly as good as a movie.

May 6, 2013 at 11:57AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Kevin

I see where you're going with your point and can agree... but you can't compare apples and oranges.

To say 'Breaking Bad' (probably my fav show as well) would be a shitty feature is like saying "Die Hard would make an awful TV show". Well, yes, both statements are perfectly correct but it's irrelevant. OFTEN the case for television is that it's LESS focused than a properly executed film. Don't get me wrong, television is in its second Golden Age at the moment, but for the longest time cinema attracted the cream of the crop , the guys that could really turn a story. Not so much now as televisions integrity has climbed (in my humble opinion it's because of the power instilled in the writers - the essential creative element of all storytelling) while HOLLYWOOD (indie is another argument) has largely lost integrity in their storytelling (focusing on spectacle, big name talent, presold franchises - you know, the stuff that draws the moths to the flame for the weekend).

But film is cyclic. We're riding a wave of technology that is liberating and democratizing everything from film production to film distribution. For reference, take into account the effect of the French New Wave (the first 'dslr' cameras being small, light 16mm) and now add a whole new distribution revolution that they didn't have at the time.

Exciting!

May 6, 2013 at 10:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Brock

Well he's right, as far as western/english language cinema is concerned of course- the great era being the 70's,although this extends to the 80's in england(greenaway/loach/frears etc) not sure how he missed that, because of the risk taking and the blockbuster(and several other factors) trend that destroyed it. But adult/mature film making has never been better globally, so many of the alltime greats of international cinema are producing great work now, what boyle is saying only relates to american/u.k cinema, globally, perhaps he needs to watch more foreign language films...

May 6, 2013 at 12:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
andy

I would definitely say no. While it may be more difficult to get theatrical distribution for those kinds of film, with all the different new forms of distribution it's never been easier for those types of film, and in fact any film, to get to the viewer. Those afraid of one type of film or another disappearing simply haven't embraced the new model of film yet.

May 6, 2013 at 1:13PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Jake

When one door closes, another opens. If Hollywood shies away from adult themed content, then I'll gladly turn to television to get my fix. In fact, I prefer the long form narrative that a tv season of "Breaking Bad" or "Game of Thrones" can provide.

May 6, 2013 at 2:49PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Bill Clar

Some movies just don't have nearly enough time to make it feel like the real deal, an example is Oblivion(admittedly not the best movie ever) as soon as it started to really connect it ended compared to say Cloud Atlas or Django Unchained when there was much more time to get into the story and characters, not saying that everything has to be long to get the audience's emotion because obviously there are plenty of shorts that are very emotional it is just easier to have the audience connect over time.

^^^worst run-ons eva

May 6, 2013 at 8:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Derek

I think Boyle's opinion is where the real danger comes from. Who of us goes to the theater, ignores the movie titles and only looks to their ratings? "Hmmm... Well do you want to see an R or a PG?" Beyond his argument, I've grown irritated at seeing a focus on cinema elements and a bypass of cinema story. I find it much more entertaining to watch a film written from "inside the box." Films created "outside of the box" have no bounds or limits. They have all the blood, gore, violence, explosions, death, vulgarity, and language at their disposal in order to make a film entertaining. Keeping a film within the box, or within family friendly means, creates a challenge. "How do we make a film that moves the audience, is entertaining, and that won't be offensive?" That takes talent.

May 6, 2013 at 3:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Jordan

Majority of todays movies seem like immitations of better movies that came before. We need pioneers.

May 6, 2013 at 4:05PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
VinceGortho

Everything is an imitatio of something that came before it. Even being original is nothing new, every story is some variation of the hero's journey which has been in storytelling since greek mythology.

My problem is with stories that don't even try. The Hangover "trilogy" for example is just stupid, but it makes so much money repeating the exact same story, just slightly different situations.

May 6, 2013 at 5:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Julian

It's funny to me that Apple releases FCPX and tells people "yes we know you can't open FCP7 projects, but you can run your old software in parallel until some enterprising third party makes an import" and editors quite literally went into hysterical Chicken Little kvetching. Meanwhile Adobe with these new changes is going to say "hey if you ever want to open your files you created you're going to need to pay us, or you're screwed, and you probably can't run your old software AND the new software in parallel" and people are unfazed.

Adobe is more Microsoft than Microsoft is nowadays, and the quality of their software has suffered greatly, publicly, because they saw outsourcing to low-skilled labor in India as not just a great way to maximize profits from Tech Support, but also as a great way to actually write their software. If there were any industry accepted alternative to Photoshop or Illustrator I would use them in an instant, and I certainly won't be upgrading to their Creative Cloud nonsense anytime soon lest there's an extremely compelling SET of features.

May 6, 2013 at 9:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply

:) Wrong thread, Alec.

May 6, 2013 at 10:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Ed

He lost me at "musical." I'll take a "pixarfied" summer blockbuster over a musical everyday. The good news is that services like netflix are catering to those who want something aside from just blockbusters. As major studios pull films from netlfix, it's business model is even more focussed, as a purveyor of "alternative" films. Prior to online options, the video rental store was the only outlet, for many, to access non-hollywood movies. What's most ironic about this, actually, is his views on 70's moviemaking paired with his desire to make musicals. It was the musicals--hollywood's traditional bread and butter--that were falling flat. Audiences had enough of them, and the studio system was in a difficult position. They tried creating all kinds of different stuff, in search of what would pull people back to the cinemas. It turned out audiences wanted action-adventure films (more rooted in fantasy than reality), and those have dominated since "start wars" as he mentions. From theatres to internet based services, I think there is a good amount of variety and choice. His films are in theatres, and they make money, so I'm not really sure what the issue is. Ultimately, this is just a promotion for his latest film.

May 8, 2013 at 11:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Joe Tangerine

What bothers me about the current ratings is that gross profanity is now labeled "Adult" language.
It is neither adult nor mature but an expession of the lack of education especially the "Proper" English Language.
Even the dictionary now includes most "Slang" words.
I don't think this is "Progressive" but a furthering of the degeneration and downfall of this world and our country.

May 9, 2013 at 4:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
RRRoger

AMEN.

May 11, 2013 at 4:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Jordan

Lets get real. Any good script requires that the character dictates the language. If the character is a Harvard Professor then proper clean English would be realistic in most situations but even a Harvard Professor when angered might slip in some profanity. Though more uncommon for that character he too is human and humans will sometimes resort to profanity when angered. Profanity for a New York dock worker in the 30's would be far more common in his normal conversation without being angry. It all depends on the character and the context. Can you imagine that dock worker saying something like "oh you poopy head you" or is he more likely to say something like "you f'...n a....hole" The Godfather would be absolutely ridiculous if they tried to make it family friendly but what kind of idiot would take his six yr old son to see The Godfather ?

I'm not suggesting that I'm any expert on script writing but it seems obvious to me that you have to try to match the dialogue to the character and scene context in order to make it believable.

It's a constant source of irritation to me when I hear people complain about glorification of violence profanity and sex in film. These are all part of the real world and I wonder what would a script be if you completely eliminated all three. You can't have the Yin without the Yang, the light side without the dark side without one or the other you have either pitch black or a white out no contrast.

In the vast majority of films it seems the good guy the hero or heroine wins in the end.
By using these very human characteristics in film doesn't mean your promoting or glorifying them it just means your trying to tell a story and without any of them there is no story. Even in the most child friendly films of Disney and Pixar you have villains witches goblins Cruella DeVlle etc.

May 11, 2013 at 9:47PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
You voted '+1'.
Reply
JHagan

P.S. I remember watching a broadcast version of Cheech and Chong's film Up In Smoke edited for TV. What I saw in the theater I thought was Hilarious. In the edited TV version they replaced every reference to marijuana to "Diamonds" and every sex joke they changed but I don't remember to what. What I do remember was thinking "Why did they even bother airing this garbage"? Totally destroyed the film.

May 11, 2013 at 10:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
JHagan