I think sometimes just the buzz of being part of a community that consumed the latest thing is part of the appeal. A great example is 50 shades of grey- people mostly went into it knowing it was awful, but the real fun came afterwards complaining about how awful it was with friends. At the other extreme for some "literary" type works people consume them as an act of solitude and exclusivity. If the masses suddenly started foaming over Proust the current Proust fans might find an excuse to look down on it. I was also amazed at how forgettable the first avatar was, and don't plan on bothering with the sequel. But maybe that was part of the appeal for modern audiences. Kind of like salvia or DMT- profound, but over in five minutes so you can get back to scrolling on your phone.
Mar 15, 2023·edited Mar 15, 2023Liked by Jody J. Sperling
I'm at a loss here, because neither Ant Man nor Avatar are my thing - never saw either, and have no interest. I'm not a comic book fan, and have no interest in today's obsession with all things anime, comic book heroes, and CGI. Ever since the writer's strike of 2008, we've been getting nothing but remakes of existing movies, CGI-heavy eye candy, and no substance. Indie movies, anymore, are the closest thing you have to "story" - and, alas, I have other criticisms on the specifics of many of those.
Having said that, I truly enjoyed "Red" and "Red 2," which I didn't know were DC comic-related at the time.
Writers like us have little opportunity anymore to breach the Hollywood/film industry, despite often having more interesting work. Only rarely will you get a Where the Crawdads Sing come out. And, though it's not new, much of what made the book great is on the cutting room floor. Hollywood is less cinematic these days and more a special effects playground. It's dumbed down the audience and frozen out real talent. Writers are the enemy to them, anymore. Directors write many of the actual "original" scripts, and they openly scoff at real writers. Some may disagree with me, but I've spoken to insiders who confirm this. All blockbuster and no epics. That's huge. And disappointing.
However, a comment on Mr. Cameron: ANY artist who steps out from behind the art they create to steal the spotlight from it is like the reporter who makes himself the story. It's a huge no-no in journalistic settings. It would be one thing if Cameron's personality was "so big" that people gravitated to him. But he's the one making all that of himself? No thanks. Seriously.
My question is: when deciding the biggest grossing film, are they comparing apples to apples? Tickets are considerably more expensive now. It would be easy to eclipse a top-grossing film of 1939 nearly a hundred years later. So are they doing the math? For a top-grossing film, it seems odd that I'd never heard of it until this podcast.
Blockbusters are all hype. It's shiny, kleg lights, and studio-pushed. What made Titanic so amazing was that it was good, but no one expected it to be such a hit. It was Epic. Not a blockbuster. Avatar would be blockbuster. So would Star Wars, by the way, except that - again - no one expected it to be so big. And lo and behold? Titanic AND Star Wars were story-centered with tons of heart. Blockbusters are the shiny things. They're neon. Epics are natural sunlight, and not fake.
That's my opinion. And yes - today's parameters of political correctness and the like has dealt the final blow to the film industry. Old Hollywood is gone. It's tragic. Especially when so many stories out there - stories by you and me - would be wonderful on the screen.
And P.S. - yes, as a writer, I feel like I've written something only I'm interested in.
I think sometimes just the buzz of being part of a community that consumed the latest thing is part of the appeal. A great example is 50 shades of grey- people mostly went into it knowing it was awful, but the real fun came afterwards complaining about how awful it was with friends. At the other extreme for some "literary" type works people consume them as an act of solitude and exclusivity. If the masses suddenly started foaming over Proust the current Proust fans might find an excuse to look down on it. I was also amazed at how forgettable the first avatar was, and don't plan on bothering with the sequel. But maybe that was part of the appeal for modern audiences. Kind of like salvia or DMT- profound, but over in five minutes so you can get back to scrolling on your phone.
I'm at a loss here, because neither Ant Man nor Avatar are my thing - never saw either, and have no interest. I'm not a comic book fan, and have no interest in today's obsession with all things anime, comic book heroes, and CGI. Ever since the writer's strike of 2008, we've been getting nothing but remakes of existing movies, CGI-heavy eye candy, and no substance. Indie movies, anymore, are the closest thing you have to "story" - and, alas, I have other criticisms on the specifics of many of those.
Having said that, I truly enjoyed "Red" and "Red 2," which I didn't know were DC comic-related at the time.
Writers like us have little opportunity anymore to breach the Hollywood/film industry, despite often having more interesting work. Only rarely will you get a Where the Crawdads Sing come out. And, though it's not new, much of what made the book great is on the cutting room floor. Hollywood is less cinematic these days and more a special effects playground. It's dumbed down the audience and frozen out real talent. Writers are the enemy to them, anymore. Directors write many of the actual "original" scripts, and they openly scoff at real writers. Some may disagree with me, but I've spoken to insiders who confirm this. All blockbuster and no epics. That's huge. And disappointing.
However, a comment on Mr. Cameron: ANY artist who steps out from behind the art they create to steal the spotlight from it is like the reporter who makes himself the story. It's a huge no-no in journalistic settings. It would be one thing if Cameron's personality was "so big" that people gravitated to him. But he's the one making all that of himself? No thanks. Seriously.
My question is: when deciding the biggest grossing film, are they comparing apples to apples? Tickets are considerably more expensive now. It would be easy to eclipse a top-grossing film of 1939 nearly a hundred years later. So are they doing the math? For a top-grossing film, it seems odd that I'd never heard of it until this podcast.
Blockbusters are all hype. It's shiny, kleg lights, and studio-pushed. What made Titanic so amazing was that it was good, but no one expected it to be such a hit. It was Epic. Not a blockbuster. Avatar would be blockbuster. So would Star Wars, by the way, except that - again - no one expected it to be so big. And lo and behold? Titanic AND Star Wars were story-centered with tons of heart. Blockbusters are the shiny things. They're neon. Epics are natural sunlight, and not fake.
That's my opinion. And yes - today's parameters of political correctness and the like has dealt the final blow to the film industry. Old Hollywood is gone. It's tragic. Especially when so many stories out there - stories by you and me - would be wonderful on the screen.
And P.S. - yes, as a writer, I feel like I've written something only I'm interested in.