6 problems with modern blockbusters

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-simple-ways-hollywood-could-make-movies-stop-sucking/

I thought this was really interesting, particularly the analysis of the trend of giving inexperienced indie directors huge tent pole movies.

Does this really warrant an own topic? But okay, I am game. I agree with most of what is written in the articles, though there are some minor points which bother me about it. For example, they bring up the age of Spider-man in the next movie, even though Marvel and Sony have already clarified that it will not be an origin story. And in principle, I have no problem with origin stories if they are interesting. For example, I like the first half of Iron Man much better than the second half, because the story of some guy trapped in a cave with terrorist and working on a way out is way more interesting as the story of the guy who has to take out his corrupt business partner. I agree though that most origin stories aren't really that compelling and should be told as fast as possible, not at all or in a quick flashback after starting the movie in medias res. There is more than one way to tell a story.

I agree about the point with the actors and directors, but I also think that the time at which the audience picked a movie based on the actor is mostly over. The audience is nowadays more prone to picking based on theme, franchise or the trailer than necessarily the actor. Having the right actor in the movie can generate some interest but nothing more. Also: It was sheer dumb look that Got G was so successful that Chris Pratt became a household name over night. I am pretty sure that at this point Jurassic World was already in production. He wasn't picked for his name, he was picked because he was the fitting actor, as it should be.

I also don't think that the number of villains or heroes or characters in general is really the problem, the problem is that most directors don't know how to priorities. For example The Winter Soldier has technically no less than five villains: Crossbone, Bartoc, Pierce, Zola and The Winter Soldier (if you see Bucky as a villain). But the focus was firmly on Pierce and Bucky, while the other were just utilized when they fit into the scene (plus, the actual villain was Hydra in general, an idea rather than a person). On the other side of the spectrum, Got G has no less than five new heroes, four villains (Thanos, Ronan, Nebula and Korthak) and two Antagonists (Yondu and Saal). But it worked because the director knew that first and foremost he had to establish the heroes. If Dawn of Justice is handled right, it can work, though building the universe up step by step is naturally easier because the characters have more room to breath that way.

I agree that movies shouldn't assume that they will get sequels. I disagree that this was the problem with Age of Ultron (I think the problem was more a lack of focus in general), and Ant-man was certainly not a two hour advertisement for Phase 4. But yes, each movie should stand on its own unless it is planned and advertised as a two-parter from the get go and shot back-to-back.

I certainly agree about appealing to the right target demographic. I don't think that a movie HAS to be r-rated to do that. To be honest, I think there are few stories which really require a r-rating.

The point with the Indie-directors...the problem is that there aren't really many movies which are made on a "not so high" budget. It is all or nothing for the studios, which is a problem. But I also think that the problem with Trank was not that he was an indie director, the problem was that he did exactly one movie and had zero experience otherwise. Whedon or the Russo brothers had a ton of experience before making a movie, TV experience, but nowadays a lot of TV shows have a cinematic feel to it. And someone who deals with networks is certainly also able to deal with the Studio system.

Also, Thor the Dark world is one of the worst movies in the MCU, and I don't think that the director ever was a good choice, but then, he was Marvel's second choice, wasn't he?

It's an interesting article, although it doesn't quite stick to its own claims (which it actually lampshades). Dawn of Justice does not have a bunch of villains, it has a handful of primary characters with a bunch of minor characters. The only villain we are sure of is Luthor. You show an imdb cast list and you are more than likely to hit at least 8 major characters in any given film. The talk of Terminator Genisys and similar films with arbitrary villains along the way is rather spot on, though.

The issue with casting indie film directors is not so much properly scaling of the budget. The comparisons to how Spielberg and Cameron slowly worked their way up ignores that those two basically created the modern blockbuster because of film budgets scaling up over their lifetime (meaning the cost of making a movie has become more expensive than natural inflation over time, The Terminator would probably cost at least 25 million to make today versus the 15 million accounting for inflation). Promoting a small time director has worked multiple times in the past (Bryan Singer, Russo Brothers, even Michael Bay), so it's not inherently the budget but depends on who you select.

Bryan Singer is pretty much the golden child of this method, and he nails that pattern. Josh Trank made a wildly successful original film and was given a big name comic book movie to make. The fact both of his movies made the same amount of money is complete coincidence, poor reviews, bad word-of-mouth and stories of behind-the-scenes drama is what tanked the FF reboot, and that can happen with any director.

There are some good points made. Tomorrowland had some big names, but none of them really worked together as some sort of dream team. George Clooney, highly respected for intense and mature dramas, put into a family movie trying to sell you on its special effects. Brad Bird, known for animated films with a lot of adult humor (Incredible and Iron Giant would easily be PG-13 if they were live action), put in charge of a live action PG rated movie.

edited 25th Sep '15 1:10:58 PM by KJMackley

I think the problem with Tomorrowland was mostly the advertising and the budget. The budget was too high and the advertising didn't really do a good job to explain what the movie is supposed to be about.

The issue with Terminator was that it is a franchise that needs to just be laid to rest, Arnold is far past his prime, and it got downgraded to pg13.

I also agree superhero movies should stop cramming as many villains as possible into a movie like Spider-man 3 where Venom was shoehorned in. Speaking of Spider-man, there was absolutely no reason to waste a movie on his origin story all over again.

Seriously, his backstory should have been explained like how Mad Max:Fury Road treated the backstory of Max and the whole setting: the most basic opening that lasts less than a minute.

I mean, holy crap, at this point who doesn't know what his backstory is?

There was literally nothing new added by retelling his origin. The stuff with his dad was potentially interesting, but spreading it over two movies didn't really do it justice.

As for Tomorrowland, it feels like a blank check project and no one understood what it was supposed to be about. Even the reviews were rather "eh" about it.

It's funny though, I have a paper for a class on a topic of my own choice and I am planning on writing about overcomplicated plots in modern blockbusters, largely taking off this article. Basically there is a very tangible difference between how Age of Ultron bounces from one plot point and character scene to another and how straightforward the stories are in original films like Fury Road and Pacific Rim.

edited 25th Sep '15 1:42:49 PM by KJMackley

The problem with the Terminator franchise is that it tries to say something about the relationship between humans and machines, even though it more or less already said everything about it in the first two movies. But I actually think that there would have been place for one last Terminator movie which should have happened instead of Terminator four. Think about it, the first Terminator was about Sarah Connor. The second was about the Terminator. The third was about John Connor. The last one should have been about Reese, and only Reese. It should have focussed on the relationship between Reese and John Connor and it shouldn't have been about the philosophical meaning of machines, but about fate. Let's imagine that Reese is in danger. And John Connor has to decide if he should try to rescue him, no matter the cost, to ensure his own existence, or if he should trust that the timeline will happen the way it is suppose to happen. If Terminator 4 had been about that, it could have allowed the franchise to end on a high note...and perhaps even laid the groundwork for another movie which is set in "the next generation after the machines got defeated". How would humanity built a new world when it doesn't trust into machines? There is so much which could have been done with the story if it had moved away from the Terminator and focussed on the humans. It would have been a totally different approach to the story, but honestly, who wants to see the same movie again and again?

I agree that citing budgets with Cameron and Spielberg is misleading. I think the failures mentioned were more about incongruous artistic directions being crammed together, which has long been a problem in films trying to appeal to everyone.

The demographics section is better, but it doesn't change that they should focus on what works in the story, rather than second-guessing what works with the audience.

A point that occurs to me with those huge budgets tossed about: the industry needs to learn parsimony. Like the video game industry, it feels obliged to up the ante each time with technical support when it would do better to look on the artistic side of things.

But cramming in villains is a problem. Those are brands that were built up over years of comics where each had the spotlight in turn, if you compress their part you lose their charm.

About number of villians, that happen way before DC and Marvel create their shared universes: Superman with Luthor and Zod,Batman with two villian each time(from the pinguin and catwoman,the riddle and two faces,Joker and....two faces again, and bane and catwoman., hell in dark knight Two face as proper only apear for little moments and his biggest impact is in the end of the movie.

"Also, Thor the Dark world is one of the worst movies in the MCU"

Thor 2 is a good movie...but is loki movie, just as first one.

About Terminaitor...I want the war with machine, that is why I like salvation, it finally drop the whole "jugement day" and finally show it, for me genesis is a step back again.

As I said, it doesn't matter how many villains are in one movie, what matters is how they are utilized. If you try to give each of them an arc, you have a problem. But five villains working on one goal, and perhaps one or two which get a little bit more focus? That can certainly work.

The demographic is an important point. It's not the demographic which should fit the story, it is the other way around. Before I sit down and write a story, I have to consider which group of people I want to address with it. Otherwise the result is something like The Hunchback of Notre Dame, a movie which can't decide if it is written for teens or five year olds.

Though in the case of Tomorrowland, I think the problem is more the marketing than anything else. There is nothing wrong with casting a good actor for a role, but if you look at the poster and you see said actor on it and some vague city, you would never get the idea that the story is actually more for older teens and young adults and not some Oscar-bait movie about the woes of the older generation.

On, the Loki movie in The Dark World is excellent...if that were the whole movie, it would be one of my favs. But there is this pesky little frame narrative with Dark Elves, Annoying Interns and a naked professor which takes up half of the story and bores me out of my mind.

edited 25th Sep '15 5:12:26 PM by Swanpride

Number of characters is not really the problem, as there are movies with loads of characters, both heroes and villains, that don't have the same pacing problems. It's the lack of a proper hierarchy in terms of story and in terms of character focus. Trying to have equal balance between all characters and all plotlines does not work. Having some characters be more important than others is perfectly fine and preferable, as you keep the attention on the most important part of the story.

For instance, in Batman Begins they have many villains between Falcone, Scarecrow and Ras Al Ghul, but there is no question who is the biggest threat in the story. I would say it was probably Batman Returns that started the trend of putting in multiple villains, which lets the hero seem more heroic in that they have to beat two bad guys at once. And it's easier to keep a script moving when you can cut to another plotline.

Yeah, this is the reason I am not worried at all about Civil War. The priorities are pretty clear, it is a Captain America movie, everyone else is just around.

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2013/06/12/film-crit-hulk-smash-the-age-of-the-convoluted-blockbuster problems

if they are given agency then you shouldn't fear anything. If they have a purpose within the plot or shine brightly for a moment then you shouldn't fear anything. Since captain America is the focus you are forgetting they contribute to his external observation characterization, what other people see in the primary protagonist. The world is centered on him and most people act in response to his actions, which extends to every Avenger. Tony follows a similar concept. Two leaders and their attendants. Whatever side people choose shows us where they are currently at

What matters most is the emotional impact at the dramatic level. These are characters wer'e already acquainted with. If you have no connection to any of them then you won't care about their conflicts, which in the MCU are always internal. They won't feel like fluff added just to put more people in the background as long as they retain an emotional connection with you that is dramatized. It's harder to care about someone who carries no weight irrelevant to the external conflict. Personality behavior wants needs interest counts that motivate them, otherwise we got a bunch of flat guys and girls roaming around punching each other. If their life is revealant to the overall story then you shouldn't fear anything. If you take out Scarlet Witch Vision and Agent 13 and replace them with nobodies would Civil War still be worth watching or would it change for the worst? Those are the questions you must ask. Why is Falcon here?

Of course if this connection doesn't happen then you must be at least entertained by their established perosnailty. That's the shine brightly moment I spoke of. For example Ant Man might be thrown in for comic relief but it's not out of place for him to act in such a way based on his film. It makes grooping Steve's face organic. If you are not turned on by that then so be it. Not everyone is the same. Even within the scene his choice to stand by Captain America's side is reinforced by the reason he wears the Ant Man suit, to be the hero Cassie looks up to

edited 26th Sep '15 5:08:05 AM by xbimpy

This is a big problem for females in blockbusters https://thedissolve.com/features/exposition/618-were-losing-all-our-strong-female-characters-to-tr/

The big fallacy is that apparently there is this believe that a female character has to be kick-ass to be a good character or strong character. That is not the case. It helps, but it means nothing if the character doesn't have her own agency and in important part in the story which makes sense.

This is exactly why Lois Lane annoys me so much, in every single adaptation of her.

In Donners movies the Lois and clark relationship was the actual story. His superman movies were love stories first where she had her own importance. In returns and man of steel she tethered on clark. So male centric

edited 26th Sep '15 8:14:00 AM by xbimpy

It's easy to make something look like a trend if you cherry-pick your examples. For example, their arguments about "directors who never make money" and "indie directors":

Clooney's made a ton of good films, including several that won major Academy Awards, and most of them have been successful, albeit on smaller budgets; there's no reason to conclude that he couldn't make a successful big-budget movie when directors with a lot less experience have done so. There's still no reason to conclude he couldn't make a successful big-budget movie; Tomorrowland just wasn't it.

All of The Matrix films made good money; an extremely successful triology is going to be something directors can bank on for a while, so it's not surprising the Wachowskis continue to make big sci-fi/fantasy movies.

The argument about "indie directors" is even worse, because just within the universe of superhero-franchise movies there are obvious counterexamples. Yes, Josh Trank didn't work out, but Winter Soldier was directed by the Russos, who had basically zero movie-directing or action-directing experience, and it was fantastic. Guardians of the Galaxy was also directed by someone with little experience. Francis Lawrence had only done Constantine" (dreadful) and I Am Legend (mediocre) before he was brought on for The Hunger Games'' franchise, and he's done an amazing job. So clearly it's not just the director's level of experience that's necessarily the deciding factor in whether they, or their movies, are successful.

Having lots of villains can be done well or done poorly. The important thing is that the villains' plots need to be connected to each other; Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 both had villains whose aims really didn't connect in any way aside from them all being enemies of Spider-Man, so both movies felt overloaded and disjointed. In contrast, Batman Begins managed make plots involving the mob, Scarecrow, and Ra's al Ghul all work together to create an effective story.

But when you've got a franchise, and need to give time to a ton of different characters in the same movie, like Age of Ultron did, the film gets too top-heavy and none of the characters get the focus they deserve, the focus that's necessary to create an emotional investment in the story. Bv S and Civil War look to be heading in that direction.

The points about avoiding overlong origin stories and movies that are advertisements for their sequels are good ones. They're basically subsets of a smaller, more central point, though, which is: Make Good Movies. If you have a strong story with engaging characters, people will generally enjoy watching it. If the story takes too long to rev up, or the characters aren't interesting, people generally won't like your movie. And "know your audience" is always good advice, especially for mid-budget films.

So the article is a mixed bag that cherry-picks its examples to try to support its point.

edited 26th Sep '15 6:47:58 AM by Galadriel

The problem with judging directors is for me that the quality of a movie hinges on the writing. Hunger Games is a really strong source text, I think every half-competent director could adapt it, provided the script writer knows what he does.

Catching Fire was better than The Hunger Games, though, because it got rid of the shaky-cam (which many people disliked) and went for a much smoother style of filming.

And I'd say that The Hunger Games books are a good story, but the writing and pacing is not particularly good; the movies have improved on them by streamlining the story so that the elements fit together more clearly. The book Catching Fire felt like it kept setting up to move in one direction, and then rapidly leaving that direction behind to move in a different one. The film, by showing us Snow's decisions and his reasons for them, clarified the reasons for the different directions the story took, and made it a more cohesive story.

Hence my emphasis in the script writer.

Good point.

Dont directors have final say though aside from their studio bosses so they basically have control over the script to fit whatever they shoot.https://kiayamangan.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/a-directors-style/

edited 26th Sep '15 8:29:30 AM by xbimpy

In the traditional Hollywood style, yes, Directors can pretty much say fuck it to anything the scriptwriter writes. But of course, it's not recommended because A) Scriptwriters have some level of respect in the industry B) Scriptwriters were paid to write that. Paying them for a service and then not using it is just a bad business decision.

But yes it happens. It's one of the reasons the modern industry considers directors "the creator". Some time ago (when the French ruled the cinema world, so to speak) the scriptwriter was considered the creator and the director couldn't change shit of what he wrote, but things changed and the director is "THE CREATOR".