Final Fantasy Soundtracks | Personal Loans | Credit Reports | Fast Loans | Fantasy Football News
Why you should not watch movies today. [Archive] - ZGeek

PDA

View Full Version : Why you should not watch movies today.


kleph
15-02-2006, 01:20 PM
...or, perhaps, why you should go see "Brokeback Mountain."

Comic book author Alan Moore has been the driving creative force behind a lot of recent movies that have done quite a tidy profit. From Hell, Constantine, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and the upcoming V for Vendetta.

Typically, when one of these movies comes out, there are a few articles that focus on his reclusiveness and oddities. Which is sad because Moore has quite a few important things to say. And one of them is how modern movies are evil. Not just bad or shoddy or inept. Actually evil.

One of Moore's most highly regarded recent works is the wonderful League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Vol. II (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1401201180/sr=8-1/qid=1139968874/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-7314290-1862316?%5Fencoding=UTF8). I will spare the details about the work for a later review but there are two points you need to be aware of.

The comic series was the inspiration for the movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0311429/) of the same name but that is about the only similarity between them. The premise of the book and it's predecessor (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1563898586/sr=8-2/qid=1139968874/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-7314290-1862316?%5Fencoding=UTF8) is that it presents a world where almost every character is a previously concived fiction.

On the latter score, the scope is so vast that a companion book was created that consists of an annotation of every page explaining who and what is being referenced. A Blazing World : The Unofficial Companion to the Second League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932265104/sr=8-11/qid=1139968874/ref=sr_1_11/104-7314290-1862316?%5Fencoding=UTF8) by Houstonite Jess Nevins is a must-have for fans of this series (and, for the sake of full disclosure, I am a contributor to the annotation effort).

Anyhow, Nevins has an interview with Moore in the volume (and in it's predecessor (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/193226504X/qid=1139969283/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-7314290-1862316?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) as well) where the author sheds some interesting light on his creative process, the minutae of the series and his concerns about modern literature.

I though his comments concerning the modern film industry and it's products some of the most enlightening I have come across in quite some time:

I have kind of completely severed my connection with movies. I have kind of told them (DC Comics, the company that owns the rights) that actually I don't want a sequel (to League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) to be made. If they do make one, fine, I believe that they can, by our contract. If they do make one, fine, but I want my name taken off it, and I want hem to give all my money to Kevin (O'Neill, the artist on the comic book series).

...

I think the film medium is flawed from its inception. That's not to say there haven't been some wonderful films made, but they are very very much the exceptions that prove the rule, and I think that the big flaw from the inception is that film has always been technologicallly intensive as a medium, which means it has also been cash intensive.

You need a lot of kit to make a film, as opposed to, say, writing a book or drawing a picture. You need a lot of kit, and that means a lot of money, and that kind of inevitably means that the medium is going to end up in the hands of the accountants rather than the creators.

And I think it's difficult to argue that in most practical applications, in the greater majority of its practical applications, the film industry seems to be largely produced by and for people who have reading difficulties, and who have trouble taking on board complex ideas. That is not to say it is not possible, as I say to do brilliant, moving, transporting films. But you don't see many of them.

I'm sure that people who love films, they can go and watch them. It's very rare that I bother to watch a movie, and even when I do, it's rare that it satisfies me.

And, yes, there's plenty of bad comics and there's plenty of bad books and there's plenty of bad record albums, but the reason I think I hate the movie industry is that if I make a bad comic, it does not cost a hundred million dollars, which is the budget of an emergent small third world African nation.

And this is money that oculd have gone to alleviating some of the immense suffering in this world but has instead gone to giving bored, apathetic, lazy, indifferent Western teenage boys, largely, another way of killing 90 minutes of the interminable and seemingly pointless lives.

Aardvark
15-02-2006, 01:49 PM
Money from every movie ever produced by michael bay would've been more constructively spent giving every single african kid a coffee machine and a waffle iron

kleph
15-02-2006, 02:02 PM
add to jerry bruckheimer and his late partner don simpson to that list as well.

AntZ
15-02-2006, 04:01 PM
I feel sorry for Alan Moore - such a list of good quality comics being turned into utter shit by Hollywood.

Movius
15-02-2006, 05:40 PM
Ang Lee directed Hulk. Surely if I went to see Brokeback Mountain it would be a tacit endorsement of his involvement with evil hollywood megaliths?

Scythe
15-02-2006, 05:41 PM
It will be interesting to see whether there is a shift in this trend as the technology for film-making increasingly comes into the reach of the general public.

CGI was once the province of massive computer banks, but now the average home PC can function as a digital generation centre for basic graphics, and the increading complexity and detail of digital film technology means that anyone can have a home media and movie editing suite for under $3000AU. This is a trend that's going to accelerate as home users demand more and prettier graphics for their machines.

All of this means that real movie making may no longer be the sole province of big studios, at least not to the same extent that is is now. The next few decades may see some big changes in the movie industry.

kleph
16-02-2006, 12:25 AM
there are very few directors that are able to create movies of both types and ang lee has done very well at handling both. my point is it may send a strong economic message to studios more of ang lee's films like "mountain" and "the ice storm" do well rather than "the hulk"

but i am sure you picked up that reference and were being ironic.

Movius
16-02-2006, 01:15 AM
Yes.

I was mostly concerned with the fact he seems to imply that 'the medium' lives and dies with 'the industry'. I am always skeptical of people who make this concession.

kleph
16-02-2006, 01:23 AM
i believe his argument is neutral in this respect but, given the amount of money involved, he is concerned becomes an ethical question due to the types of movies his work has been transformed into.

even in the most favorable light, that point makes the entire enterprise seem... well, untenable.

because if you have to defend your right to go see some hollywood mega-million-dollar blockbuster you have already admitted to know to suck (Star Wars, anyone?) then the question is already moot.

do to the exorbant costs of movies today, most studios can only green light a handful and they make damn sure those few appeal to the widest audience possible. the result is diminishing returns, quality wise.

yes, you can make cheaper movies today and i think there is a clear opportunity here for innovative creators to capitalize on but these are still out of reach to a wider audience they deserve because of "the industry."