Comments on: Violence and Sentimentality in the Movies: A Dangerous Pair? http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/11/18/brody-on-violence-in-the-movies/ Los Angeles Based Award Winning Movie Review Podcast Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:55:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Watch Movies Online http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/11/18/brody-on-violence-in-the-movies/comment-page-1/#comment-3432 Watch Movies Online Sun, 13 Dec 2009 03:44:36 +0000 http://www.thefilmtalk.com/?p=4968#comment-3432 Visual Hub works only on Mac based systems, so which software should i download so dat i can convert videos on Windows based PC. Visual Hub works only on Mac based systems, so which software should i download so dat i can convert videos on Windows based PC.

]]> By: Eric http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/11/18/brody-on-violence-in-the-movies/comment-page-1/#comment-3221 Eric Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:59:00 +0000 http://www.thefilmtalk.com/?p=4968#comment-3221 You make a good point. Sure, businesses is simply maximizing profits by giving consumers what they want, but I think it's a little more complex than that. I honestly believe that if a studio gave as much marketing support to a Ramin Bahrani film as they do to the latest blockbuster, it would be a big commercial success. It's just easier to say, "Remember the Transformers toys you grew up with? Now see the explosive summer-event movie!" Plus, the image of a giant transforming robot is easier to paste on bags of M&M's and on billboards. Part of the problem isn't necessarily that modern audiences want to see crap, it's that they don't know any better. The newest generation of movie-goers has been preempted by Hollywood. They go to Transformers because they see 500 TV spots. Advertising is very effective. And they're not even aware that better films exist.<br><br>Of course the consumer creates the corporation, but once it exists it has no loyalties. It enters perpetual survival mode. If it can find a way to make more money off of a lower quality product, that's what it will do. And I don't think that's necessarily a direct reflection of society. You make a good point. Sure, businesses is simply maximizing profits by giving consumers what they want, but I think it's a little more complex than that. I honestly believe that if a studio gave as much marketing support to a Ramin Bahrani film as they do to the latest blockbuster, it would be a big commercial success. It's just easier to say, “Remember the Transformers toys you grew up with? Now see the explosive summer-event movie!” Plus, the image of a giant transforming robot is easier to paste on bags of M&M's and on billboards. Part of the problem isn't necessarily that modern audiences want to see crap, it's that they don't know any better. The newest generation of movie-goers has been preempted by Hollywood. They go to Transformers because they see 500 TV spots. Advertising is very effective. And they're not even aware that better films exist.

Of course the consumer creates the corporation, but once it exists it has no loyalties. It enters perpetual survival mode. If it can find a way to make more money off of a lower quality product, that's what it will do. And I don't think that's necessarily a direct reflection of society.

]]> By: Ana http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/11/18/brody-on-violence-in-the-movies/comment-page-1/#comment-3218 Ana Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:41:32 +0000 http://www.thefilmtalk.com/?p=4968#comment-3218 Great post, really interesting. I definitely appreciate the argument, but I would say that we, the public and the undiscerning corporations you mention are essentially one in the same. We created the coporations and they in kind, reflect our needs. If enough marketing dollars can get anybody to see anything that doesn't say much about the introspective depth and enlightened demands of the public. I think Stanley is on it when he implies that if we keep paying for emptiness, we are only requesting more and more of it. Great post, really interesting. I definitely appreciate the argument, but I would say that we, the public and the undiscerning corporations you mention are essentially one in the same. We created the coporations and they in kind, reflect our needs. If enough marketing dollars can get anybody to see anything that doesn't say much about the introspective depth and enlightened demands of the public. I think Stanley is on it when he implies that if we keep paying for emptiness, we are only requesting more and more of it.

]]> By: StanleyRumm http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/11/18/brody-on-violence-in-the-movies/comment-page-1/#comment-3214 StanleyRumm Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:31:06 +0000 http://www.thefilmtalk.com/?p=4968#comment-3214 It's about quantitative analysis. Corporations can calculate pretty accurately for the most part how much they can make back if they "do a XYZ movie". They know the market who will buy it and how much they will take on foreign/ domestic/ tv/ etc.<br><br>Enter something new. It _could_ make money and it would only cost 20million... but it's untried. Nobody has ever done it before. It's not a story that any kind of analysis can say for sure how much will be recouped. It could easily get lost in the throng.<br>In short -it's a risk.<br><br>Most people who are only looking at the bottom dollar (and that is almost everyone who is responsible for putting money into films) would rather pay that 20mil towards the star than an entire movie because "statistics prove" John Travolta + Michael Bay together in a movie featuring lots of guns has a 97% chance of turning 300% profit.<br><br>I know it's a movie I wouldn't go see, but until there are enough people who won't put their money into supporting such ventures they will keep churning them out. <br><br>Who here went to see Transformers 2 for example? <br>Shame on you I say ...even our esteemed hosts ...stop supporting this shit. It's killing us all, man! It's about quantitative analysis. Corporations can calculate pretty accurately for the most part how much they can make back if they “do a XYZ movie”. They know the market who will buy it and how much they will take on foreign/ domestic/ tv/ etc.

Enter something new. It _could_ make money and it would only cost 20million… but it's untried. Nobody has ever done it before. It's not a story that any kind of analysis can say for sure how much will be recouped. It could easily get lost in the throng.
In short -it's a risk.

Most people who are only looking at the bottom dollar (and that is almost everyone who is responsible for putting money into films) would rather pay that 20mil towards the star than an entire movie because “statistics prove” John Travolta + Michael Bay together in a movie featuring lots of guns has a 97% chance of turning 300% profit.

I know it's a movie I wouldn't go see, but until there are enough people who won't put their money into supporting such ventures they will keep churning them out.

Who here went to see Transformers 2 for example?
Shame on you I say …even our esteemed hosts …stop supporting this shit. It's killing us all, man!

]]> By: Eric http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/11/18/brody-on-violence-in-the-movies/comment-page-1/#comment-3212 Eric Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:26:23 +0000 http://www.thefilmtalk.com/?p=4968#comment-3212 I think there's definitely some validity to idea that the sorry state of cinema reflects contemporary society. But I also think there's something to be said for the marketing savvy of the studio system. Hollywood execs have all but abandoned the small, personal, artistic movie in favor of flavor-of-the-week popcorn fare. The question is this: Did we, the public, cause this through our methodically waning sophistication, or is it a result of undiscerning corporations realizing that with enough marketing dollars they can get anybody to see anything, effectively disposing of the necessity to have a quality picture to make money?<br><br>Perhaps it's a little of both, but I'm more inclined to believe the latter. I think there's definitely some validity to idea that the sorry state of cinema reflects contemporary society. But I also think there's something to be said for the marketing savvy of the studio system. Hollywood execs have all but abandoned the small, personal, artistic movie in favor of flavor-of-the-week popcorn fare. The question is this: Did we, the public, cause this through our methodically waning sophistication, or is it a result of undiscerning corporations realizing that with enough marketing dollars they can get anybody to see anything, effectively disposing of the necessity to have a quality picture to make money?

Perhaps it's a little of both, but I'm more inclined to believe the latter.

]]> By: Ana http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/11/18/brody-on-violence-in-the-movies/comment-page-1/#comment-3211 Ana Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:32:13 +0000 http://www.thefilmtalk.com/?p=4968#comment-3211 I think the movies that get made are a simple reflection of who we are as a society. If we want to change entertainment we have to change what we expect from ourselves and from others. I think the movies that get made are a simple reflection of who we are as a society. If we want to change entertainment we have to change what we expect from ourselves and from others.

]]> By: StanleyRumm http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/11/18/brody-on-violence-in-the-movies/comment-page-1/#comment-3210 StanleyRumm Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:48:16 +0000 http://www.thefilmtalk.com/?p=4968#comment-3210 I'm with you there Gareth. Saccharine gushings and evermore graphic violence (and/or violent situations) kill movies and "stories" for me. Not that there are any stories in movies any more. It's the cinematic equivalent of the shaven-headed yob with a "Mother" tattoo. All emotions -and only the most-heightened ones at that- to be worn on your sleeve, lest anyone not notice.<br><br>(by the way, I have nothing against shaved heads -just painting a specific picture!) I'm with you there Gareth. Saccharine gushings and evermore graphic violence (and/or violent situations) kill movies and “stories” for me. Not that there are any stories in movies any more. It's the cinematic equivalent of the shaven-headed yob with a “Mother” tattoo. All emotions -and only the most-heightened ones at that- to be worn on your sleeve, lest anyone not notice.

(by the way, I have nothing against shaved heads -just painting a specific picture!)

]]>