Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
This is a comments thread about Blog Post: Franchise Fatigue by Lukas Kendall
 
 Posted:   Jun 13, 2013 - 12:31 PM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

THOR, CAPTAIN AMERICA & X-MEN FIRST CLASS all did about the same business.
I would call them all 'hits"
IRON MAN & SPIDERMAN "smash hits"
AVENGERS "blockbuster hit"
bruce

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 13, 2013 - 1:00 PM   
 By:   riotengine   (Member)

THOR, CAPTAIN AMERICA & X-MEN FIRST CLASS all did about the same business.
I would call them all 'hits"
IRON MAN & SPIDERMAN "smash hits"
AVENGERS "blockbuster hit"
bruce


Iron Man Three can be added to blockbuster hit.

Greg Espinoza

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 13, 2013 - 6:46 PM   
 By:   dan the man   (Member)

Two points here, it has become a overseas, global market. how true. Have to look at the world now not our limited borders, The Europeans and other film markets got hit with this in the 70's, now the U.S,A is facing it.I get a kick out of the speaking ENGLISH ALIENS. Funny how everyone thought it was amusing and laughable years ago watching those SCIFI films from JAPAN and showing all the aliens are Japanese, nonsense, right? THAT'S SHOW BIZ FOR YOU.

 
 Posted:   Jun 14, 2013 - 8:26 AM   
 By:   BornOfAJackal   (Member)

If you haven't seen a superhero movie since 2002, you're not really in a position to judge superhero movies. To claim that, say, Captain America (or The Incredibles, for that matter) was soulless or heartless -- well, I guess some people are seeing different movies than I did.

I'd agree that CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER is likely the best of the current superhero projects. It has real pathos, good acting and some retro-WWII-movie feel. But its substantial weaknesses are the same as most big-budget CGI behemoths.

The director, Joe Johnston, is not as skilled with actors as he is with conceptualizing graphics. Hayley Atwell, a very fine actor, is so underdirected she seems like a decorative romantic afterthought. This is the greatest weakness of modern blockbuster movie mentality: the assumption that technical rigor and attention to visual detail is more important than the scriptwriter and the actor-director contributions.

This assessment would doubtless be vigorously denied by the makers of these films. In particular, Joss Whedon tries very hard to overcome it. My guess is that in the middle of juggling all the technical departments--while skating the thin line between modern media conglomerate employment and the constant threat of eternal banishment from it--the director can't realistically demand the proper time to get the dramatic basics of script and performance right.

Recall the way that most of the intrigue in THE AVENGERS was shoehorned into a couple of scenes aboard the big fortress ship, and you'll see what I mean. There's the germ of dramatic validity there, but it comes and goes before we've even had a chance to savor it.

 
 Posted:   Jun 14, 2013 - 8:36 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

What BornOfAJackal said. Even if the director has good intentions, it doesn't necessarily make it a good film.

As far as all the love for Pixar's Invincibles. There's an old saying, your film is only as good as your villain. And Invincibles has one of the most childish, obnoxious cardboard cutout Saturday morning cartoon villains of recent times.

 
 Posted:   Jun 14, 2013 - 9:06 AM   
 By:   BornOfAJackal   (Member)

Lukas, take a look at David Thewlis' first soliloquy in Mike Leigh's NAKED for a good overall synthesis of the modern creative conundrum. Fanboys, take note!

 
 Posted:   Jun 14, 2013 - 3:45 PM   
 By:   yonythemoony   (Member)

Great, another post of old farts bashing modern films (and scores), saying that everybody doesn't get involved in a film and the characters. Maybe they should speak for themselves.

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 15, 2013 - 5:27 PM   
 By:   riotengine   (Member)

More food for thought from Lynda Obst. This book sounds like it's going to be a must-read;

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/15/lynda_obst_hollywoods_completely_broken/

So since DVD revenues are drying up, studios are following the money. People bitch and rail about how 3D isn't doing well, and as a cycle it'll go away. The money is all overseas. I look at Box Office Mojo a lot and I look at worldwide/overseas grosses for certain films. It's really telling how much more 3D tentpole films take in. When 3D starts to die in overseas markets, you'll really see some panic from the studios.

Greg Espinoza

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 16, 2013 - 5:03 AM   
 By:   Ellen   (Member)

I've read her book, and she does a great job of describing the problem, but doesn't look much at current events. The assumption seems to be that Hollywood will always be needed to churn out these big movies. Yet in the NY Times this weekend, there's a story about how the Chinese government plans to move millions of rural people to the cities. The idea is to create more of a consumer economy, rather than an export economy. More urban dwellers mean more regular moviegoers, and more moviemakers. Why China would want to import American blockbusters when they could have their own self-profitable moviemaking economy (one that their government can profit from) is food for thought.

So I think the collapse is closer than you think. Obviously, not all of Hollywood will burn out, but don't expect things to get more interesting on screen.

Obst's book does a nice job of explaining why I have barely wanted to see any movies in the past ten years, and why there are so many reboots (gives you the ability to replace actors who want too much money), and why Nicholas Cage and Robert Downey get to be in everything, despite the fact that (especially) Cage has zero charisma. He must appeal to some tiny segment of the actual audience, but I can't imagine who. To paraphrase one of the studio execs in Obst's book, "I wouldn't fuck him."

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 16, 2013 - 5:42 AM   
 By:   Nils   (Member)

but other aspects have dated horribly. The show is 19th century colonialism in space, uncomfortably translating white Americans to the Starfleet heroes, With blacks/Jews/Asians/everyone else cast as the aliens.

Uhura, Sulu and Chekov make that untrue. Shatner and Nimoy are Jewish. How many evil Asians were on Star Trek? Or blacks? Or Jews? You know all this, am I missing your point? Or were just cranky?


I agree, Scott - I doubt statistics would support Lukas here.

Also about the "colonialism": Not sure what Lukas is referring to here. The Federation is like a future version of the United Nations. No one forces any planet to join the Federation, just as no one forces any country to join the UN. If there ever was any Trek episode that showed the Federation in any way coercing a planet into joining them, I sure can't remember it.

What COULD possibly be construed as "colonialism" would be if the attitude of the Starfleet crews towards alien civilizations - Federation or otherwise - was like "we're right and you're wrong and you'd better get your act straight". That may have happened in a few episodes, but those instances are certainly few and far between as well.

As to the "relevance" of Trek these days - it's too bad if there's no room for a TV show (or movies) that can potentially take ANY relevant present-day topic and put it through the sci-fi wringer to present that topic from an unexpected angle, put it on its head, or portray a possible future development of that topic. I.e., do just what science fiction is supposed to do. Star Trek has done that, and I don't see why it couldn't do it again, given the right writers and producers. Sure, there may not be many taboos these days, but looking at something from different angles is healthy anyway.

So I don't agree that "there's no need for a message". It doesn't have to be preachy (it shouldn't be), but I certainly enjoy a piece of fiction more if it supplies some food for thought as well as being entertaining.

 
 Posted:   Jun 17, 2013 - 12:25 PM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

Right!
Roddenberry was explicitly putting forth an anti-imperiailsm critique that was inspired by the US
intervention in countries like Vietnam. The "prime directive' was born out of this.
Nick Meyer made the same mistake in his book, calling STAR TREK's mission a US imperial
crusade.
bruce

 
 Posted:   Jun 17, 2013 - 12:27 PM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

More food for thought from Lynda Obst. This book sounds like it's going to be a must-read;

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/15/lynda_obst_hollywoods_completely_broken/

So since DVD revenues are drying up, studios are following the money. People bitch and rail about how 3D isn't doing well, and as a cycle it'll go away. The money is all overseas. I look at Box Office Mojo a lot and I look at worldwide/overseas grosses for certain films. It's really telling how much more 3D tentpole films take in. When 3D starts to die in overseas markets, you'll really see some panic from the studios.

Greg Espinoza


You really should get into the exhibition enf of the movie biz, Greg!
Have you ever tried working for a movie theater?
brm

 
 Posted:   Jun 17, 2013 - 12:41 PM   
 By:   Ron Pulliam   (Member)

The one big-budget film of recent years that Hollywood considers a certifiable bomb is "John Carter".

And yet...it's one of my absolute favorite adventure-scifi films.

It boasts strong performances, a major film score (better than any score I've heard in YEARS), and it's a fascinating film.

It was badly served by Disney.

"John Carter of Mars" is one of the best movies of this decade!

 
 Posted:   Jun 17, 2013 - 12:44 PM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

The one big-budget film of recent years that Hollywood considers a certifiable bomb is "John Carter".

And yet...it's one of my absolute favorite adventure-scifi films.

It boasts strong performances, a major film score (better than any score I've heard in YEARS), and it's a fascinating film.

It was badly served by Disney.

"John Carter of Mars" is one of the best movies of this decade!


Are you serious?
bruce

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 17, 2013 - 12:51 PM   
 By:   riotengine   (Member)

More food for thought from Lynda Obst. This book sounds like it's going to be a must-read;

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/15/lynda_obst_hollywoods_completely_broken/

So since DVD revenues are drying up, studios are following the money. People bitch and rail about how 3D isn't doing well, and as a cycle it'll go away. The money is all overseas. I look at Box Office Mojo a lot and I look at worldwide/overseas grosses for certain films. It's really telling how much more 3D tentpole films take in. When 3D starts to die in overseas markets, you'll really see some panic from the studios.

Greg Espinoza


You really should get into the exhibition enf of the movie biz, Greg!
Have you ever tried working for a movie theater?
brm


Maybe I should move to China, LOL. wink

Greg Espinoza

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 17, 2013 - 12:52 PM   
 By:   riotengine   (Member)

The one big-budget film of recent years that Hollywood considers a certifiable bomb is "John Carter".

And yet...it's one of my absolute favorite adventure-scifi films.

It boasts strong performances, a major film score (better than any score I've heard in YEARS), and it's a fascinating film.

It was badly served by Disney.

"John Carter of Mars" is one of the best movies of this decade!


Are you serious?
bruce


I liked it better the second time, myself. smile

Greg Espinoza

 
 Posted:   Jun 17, 2013 - 12:54 PM   
 By:   Ron Pulliam   (Member)

The one big-budget film of recent years that Hollywood considers a certifiable bomb is "John Carter".

And yet...it's one of my absolute favorite adventure-scifi films.

It boasts strong performances, a major film score (better than any score I've heard in YEARS), and it's a fascinating film.

It was badly served by Disney.

"John Carter of Mars" is one of the best movies of this decade!


Are you serious?
bruce


As a heart attack!

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 17, 2013 - 8:16 PM   
 By:   dan the man   (Member)

I think I mention this before. I thought JOHN CARTER was a pretty good movie. Did anyone else here think so.

 
 Posted:   Jun 17, 2013 - 9:08 PM   
 By:   Zoragoth   (Member)

The one big-budget film of recent years that Hollywood considers a certifiable bomb is "John Carter".

And yet...it's one of my absolute favorite adventure-scifi films.

It boasts strong performances, a major film score (better than any score I've heard in YEARS), and it's a fascinating film.

It was badly served by Disney.

"John Carter of Mars" is one of the best movies of this decade!


I really enjoyed it too. Regrettable that there won't be a follow up, and studios will steer clear of Burroughs for as long, well, as long as Disney avoided L Frank Baum after their RETURN TO OZ, another classic that unjustly belly-flopped.

 
 Posted:   Jun 18, 2013 - 6:05 AM   
 By:   Scott M (Oldsmith)   (Member)

You make a good point:

As to the "relevance" of Trek these days - it's too bad if there's no room for a TV show (or movies) that can potentially take ANY relevant present-day topic and put it through the sci-fi wringer to present that topic from an unexpected angle, put it on its head, or portray a possible future development of that topic.

So I don't agree that "there's no need for a message". It doesn't have to be preachy (it shouldn't be), but I certainly enjoy a piece of fiction more if it supplies some food for thought as well as being entertaining.


I agree that having more content than simple "fun" is great and sci-fi does present a forum for tales of caution regarding how future generations will be impacted by what we do. I actually didn't consider that, so thanks. I just feel the "need" which gave us Star Trek, Twilight Zone, and the Outer Limits, etc. doesn't exist as it once did. But I would more than welcome it as long as, yes, it's not a "stop and chat" that latter day Trek often became.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.