# Is Cinema dying?



## MartialHorror (Jun 11, 2012)

I'm actually hoping that somebody proves me wrong here, because a few revelations in other threads has left me sort of shaken and depressed.

In the past, I've become irritable when people say that the 70's, 80's or any other decade was so much better when it came to film. I'd remind them that people only remember the high points, never the low points. 

When we think of the 70's, we think of "Star Wars" or "Jaws". Nobody remembers "Heavens Gate". So I've always felt that 20 years from now, people will say the same thing about now. Nobody will remember "Battleship", but they will remember "The Avengers".

But the more I think about it, the more I realize is that these days, studios are only interested in marketable names. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that most blockbusters have names that can be easily marketed.

Men In Black III: Sequel.
Snow White and the Huntsman: Adaptation.
The Avengers: Sequel. 
Prometheus: Prequel (while the name itself wasn't used, the teaser trailer was doing everything it could to remind us of "Alien".
Madagascar 3: Sequel. 
Dark Shadows: Adaptation.
Battleship: Adaptation.


Original material is apparently only reserved for low budget films, unless some high profile director gets a project moving ("Inception", "Sucker Punch", etc). Remakes have become more prominent, even if the movie being remade isn't that old. We've moved from video game adaptations to BOARD GAME adaptations. 

So...was it always this way? Am I forgetting that most movies in the past were based off books, or were remakes of other films? Or is cinema just...dying?

In some cases, I feel like original content is being overhyped simply because it IS original. "Avatar" (the term original is a little ironic here) got nominated for Best Picture, "District 9" is loved by everybody except me (not that I hate it), "Inception" has detractors that have provided good arguments and some fans are treating "Prometheus" (I do consider this original, even if it is a prequel) like it's revolutionary. 

So it almost feels to me that cinema has become a wasteland of original content, so we embrace anything that isn't a direct remake, sequel, etc. It seems to me that cinema has never been this hollow before, but I- like the people I criticize- could just be forgetting the past duds and remembering the gems. Please prove me wrong. 

Had to get this off my chest, lol...


----------



## Kuromaku (Jun 11, 2012)

I'm not quite sure if I'd use the term "dying" although arguments can be made that cinema (or at least mainstream cinema) has seen better days.

One factor is the current nature of the Hollywood system, in which studios are increasingly reliant on brand names (formerly actors, now franchises and established works) due to the limited number of films that they may release in any given year. My memory of the matter's kind of faded, but way back when the studio system was obliterated, even the big studios had to cut back on the number of productions. In this case, the greater importance of individual studio releases being profitable goes back decades.

It probably doesn't help that with new media and the prominence of TV (also an issue that dates quite a few decades back), the cinema experience just isn't what it used to be.

Some have noted however, that over the years, production values for television based works have become much better, be it in terms of writing or budgeting. Whether you're discussing turn of the century works like _The Wire_ or even the ongoing _Game of Thrones_, it's clear that the talent and funding behind TV is way better than what it used to be. In these cases, it's been suggested that talent is simply moving away from Hollywood film production.

There's definitely a lot more to this sort of thing than what I've managed to bring up though.


----------



## Deleted member 161031 (Jun 11, 2012)

there are no original ideas for movies, they fill the lack of storyline with spectacular effects, but there's nothing else in most movies. 

the money is spent in TV, that's where we have the good ideas for stories, and the most quality. I find it sad. nowadays if I want to go to the cinema there won't be many movies I'm really interested in seeing


----------



## MartialHorror (Jun 11, 2012)

That's actually a good point. Television productions HAVE improved a lot more. But it usually seems that writers/directors who began in TV tend to jump to the big screen if they have (Damon Lindelof is a recent example). Furthermore, I've yet to see an A list actor star in a TV show (usually they are actors who never took off in film or used to be big, but have fallen on hard times).

Part of me wonders if "Avatar" is guilty of making movies more expensive. Part of that films hype was the budget and now, $200,000,000+ movies are becoming more common. So they try to be safe with the concepts, name brands, etc.


----------



## Bungee Gum (Jun 11, 2012)

Movies are just changing. There are much less movies focused on characters and plot driven scripts, most of it is based on big CGI budgets, big stars, and remakes and sequels. There's no need to go to the movies for the big time drama's and intricate character driven stories, because we have about 50 award winning TV shows that do it better and last longer. Movies are just popcorn fests now, which is what they should be since TV is way better.


----------



## Rukia (Jun 11, 2012)

This didn't sneak up on us Martial.  Cinema has been dying for 10 years now.


----------



## Taleran (Jun 11, 2012)

I don't agree that a films place next to other films whether it be a series or a remake or anything has anything to do with the execution of said film nor the power of cinema.

Film has always been about theft and taking what looks good or works well in theme or plot, before remakes Yojimbo was made again as Fistful of Dollars or Hidden Fortress got a Han Solo added to it to make a Star Wars. 

The power of ideas is not entirely wrapped up in their inherent newness to other ideas around them, if you look to books or fiction in general a lot of our ideas about many things reach back farther than all our entertainment, human nature has a way of touching on the same themes over and over again because we are all human.

As long as people continue to execute fantastic movies regardless of the ideas filled within, cinema can and will never die.

Film is a visual medium so at least 50% of the movie exists outside the concept, script or anything said. Film can not die until imagination does.

Also listing 6 summer movies is a poor representation of Cinema.


----------



## Amuro (Jun 11, 2012)




----------



## Ennoea (Jun 11, 2012)

Mainstream cinema is in the shitter, let's all admit to that. Studios are only interested in films that will bring them short term profits so they invest as much money as they can in to big names and huge set pieces to draw in the audiences. When was the last time a film didn't end with a fucking war sequence? The more subtle, well written and thought out films are slowly dying out or being pushed aside to make room for the ones that studios can't afford to flop. Is Cinema dying, no but it's aiming towards a more Worldwide market. And it seems like the chumps Worldwide love their films  pretty but inoffensive and dull. I fear greatly for Sci Fi and horror, it's really struggling.

Great films will never die. But great mainstream films are already a rarity.


----------



## Stelios (Jun 11, 2012)

Well think about it. In the 70s 80s cinema really bloomed. I mean really. As times goes by and we are getting older we have things to remember. I was born in the 80s. For me in the 90s it was the Internet Revolution for me. Someone younger that was born in the 90s maybe for them it was the playstation 3 revolution and so on. However there is one fact that remains these days. New kids and new generation gets so much more information than we used to in our days. New things seemed awesome. Now nothing seems like that because face it. We got older. And as time goes by emotions fade away.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Jun 11, 2012)

Cinema is dead for about 10 years.


----------



## Doom85 (Jun 11, 2012)

MartialHorror said:


> Furthermore, I've yet to see an A list actor star in a TV show (usually they are actors who never took off in film or used to be big, but have fallen on hard times).



What "list" you're on doesn't automatically determine quality. Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul of Breaking Bad aren't A-list but if Breaking Bad was a movie (a really long one apparently) I'd consider them to be amongst the greatest movie performances of all time.


----------



## James Bond (Jun 11, 2012)

If cinema ticket prices go up anymore then yeah cinema will die, which it will as quality improves because they think they can charge an extra fiver just because its shot in 3D or Imax.


----------



## Comic Book Guy (Jun 11, 2012)

Still better than HK cinema these days.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jun 11, 2012)

What Cinema faces
-Lots of prequel/sequels/remakes
-3-D everything is even old movies like Titanic are brought back in 3-D
-Lots of emphasis on flash and style
-Executive meddling

No one is really trying to be original(outside a few but I'm talking general). Did they really need to remake Spiderman?I could understand if Marvel was doing it for the Avengers but it's not like Spiderman trilogy is that old. Don't have a problem with them adapting stuff, I mean Ghost in a Shell could be great as live action if done right.

I like to believe they're just in a quality slump but at this rate unless more people are willing to break new ground(which is'nt easy with so many ideas already used up) it will only get worse. They're not going to die. They still have some good movies these days, it's just they take lesser risks sadly.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jun 11, 2012)

Year    Total (M)  2012-Adjusted (M)
2012    $3,859.80   $3,859.80
2011    $10,174.10  $10,161.27
2010    $10,565.50  $10,605.67
2009    $10,595.50  $11,188.85
2008    $9,630.70   $10,623.28
2007    $9,663.70   $11,124.49
2006    $9,209.50   $11,135.76
2005    $8,840.50   $10,923.05
2004    $9,380.50   $11,963.54
2003    $9,239.70   $12,135.73
2002    $9,155.00   $12,479.79
2001    $8,412.50   $11,771.55
2000    $7,661.00   $11,256.98
1999    $7,448.00   $11,611.84
1998    $6,949.00   $11,734.77
1997    $6,365.90   $10,984.30
1996    $5,911.50   $10,592.55
1995    $5,493.50   $10,001.96
1994    $5,396.20   $10,224.38
1993    $5,154.20   $9,860.21
1992    $4,871.00   $9,295.98
1991    $4,803.20   $9,035.95
1990    $5,021.80   $9,402.52
1989    $5,033.40   $10,041.44
1988    $4,458.40   $8,591.37
1987    $4,252.90   $8,614.57
1986    $3,778.00   $8,065.16
1985    $3,749.20   $8,364.41
1984    $4,031.00   $9,501.64
1983    $3,766.00   $9,468.80
1982    $3,453.00   $9,301.96
1981    $2,966.00   $8,449.90
1980    $2,749.00   $8,093.71


----------



## Samavarti (Jun 11, 2012)

There are still many great films with original ideas, just that they are not Mainstream and no one gives a shit about them.
Speaking strictly of Mainstream the problem is that now is purley a business, it has always been a business, but now more than ever studios won't take any risk and go by the secure investment, which means no innovation and avoid any touchy subject, and for that superhero movies work perfectly, or go by what already showed to work and remake any successful foreign or old film, and the 3D has worsen the situation, since now everthig has to be in 3D, and the film requires more money, and the studios will take even less riks.


----------



## Parallax (Jun 11, 2012)

Cinema is not dying and is not going to die

This type of question is the worst


----------



## Whimsy (Jun 11, 2012)

At least this isn't as bad as the "WHAT HAPPENED TO KICK ASS MUSIC" thread


----------



## Mider T (Jun 11, 2012)

Nah it's not.  Don't be cynical.


----------



## Parallax (Jun 11, 2012)

Whimsy said:


> At least this isn't as bad as the "WHAT HAPPENED TO KICK ASS MUSIC" thread



Yeah that one blew

people way too stuck in the past and "golden age" mentality.


----------



## Whimsy (Jun 11, 2012)

The golden age of nu-metal

oy vey


----------



## αshɘs (Jun 11, 2012)

Am I the only one bothered by how Hollywood-centric Martial sounds in the op? Mainstream Hollywood is shit, yeah, but there are still lots of good stuff out there.


----------



## Parallax (Jun 11, 2012)

I'm bothered by the question 

I'm bothered when anyone asks that question about literature, music, movies, etc.  Dig in those crates don't be lazy :|


----------



## Whimsy (Jun 11, 2012)

He should change the thread title to "Is hollywood dying?"


----------



## Samavarti (Jun 11, 2012)

αshɘs said:


> Am I the only one bothered by how Hollywood-centric Martial sounds in the op? Mainstream Hollywood is shit, yeah, but there are still lots of good stuff out there.



Nop, i felt the same, it seems as if movie industry didn't exist outside Hollywood or EUA.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jun 11, 2012)

Non-Hollywood films are hard to come by in America.

If I didn't pirate films I would never see them.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Jun 11, 2012)

You mean Hollywood - yes, I think it has declined.


----------



## gumby2ms (Jun 11, 2012)

they always run out of ideas. old movies came from books and older/foreign movies/plays. now the lack of marketability of a new project in a new universe per say is very damn hard and producing a movie from an original screenplay is just as difficult. 

so as much as we think they are running out of ideas I think they have to release more these days and they have to follow profitable trends. comedy's and romcoms can be original content but who cares it's all about the scifi, fantasy, drama and thrillers for people looking for 'quality' films. 

you want 'quality' you need a good hitch and a good wallet. in order to get a wallet a set idea which can make a profit will do much more readily then some genius visionary screenplay.


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 11, 2012)

> comedy's and romcoms can be original content



I have about 15 female cousins, I've watched every Romcom imaginable, and 99% of them are regurgitated rubbish.


----------



## James Bond (Jun 11, 2012)

Just thinking about how awesome a movie adaption of Resident Evil could have been still pisses me off.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jun 11, 2012)

> I don't agree that a films place next to other films whether it be a series or a remake or anything has anything to do with the execution of said film nor the power of cinema.
> 
> Film has always been about theft and taking what looks good or works well in theme or plot, before remakes Yojimbo was made again as Fistful of Dollars or Hidden Fortress got a Han Solo added to it to make a Star Wars.
> 
> ...



Good post, but

- Remakes used to be more for artistic reasons. "Fistful of Dollars" did a good job at translating "Yojimbo" to a western and had its own execution of the material. Eastwood did his own iconic take on the character than Mifune. Leone had his own style.

Or take "The Thing", a remake of "The Thing From Another World". Both have some similar moments, but are very different movies. 

I don't agree with the Star Wars-Hidden Fortress thing because while yes, there are some similarities, there are enough differences that I doubt most viewers will notice that Star Wars was inspired by it.

These days, remakes are made for their name value. Hell, Michael Bay even confessed to remaking "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" only because of the name.

Also, you're right about my list not being a good representation. I just picked the recent movies I've seen.



> What "list" you're on doesn't automatically determine quality. Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul of Breaking Bad aren't A-list but if Breaking Bad was a movie (a really long one apparently) I'd consider them to be amongst the greatest movie performances of all time.



Well, of course many great actors got their start with television. But generally, TV is usually where careers are born or die. Bryan Cranston probably will move out of TV once breaking bad ends.



> Yeah that one blew
> 
> people way too stuck in the past and "golden age" mentality.



But I'm also one of those people who complain about that. Fuck, I think most people are like that when it comes to how they remember the old Indiana Jones and Star Wars movies.

It just seems that cinema has become so shallow lately. Thats why I'd like to be proven wrong. Has this always been a problem? 



> Am I the only one bothered by how Hollywood-centric Martial sounds in the op? Mainstream Hollywood is shit, yeah, but there are still lots of good stuff out there.



The problem is these days, most of the movies getting a wide release are the easy cash-ins, the shit that costs a lot because they have high profile concepts. Sure, "Drive" and a few others do break the mold, but they are a rarity.

Some of the best movies I've seen in the past few years were barely released in theaters or were dumped on DVD. 

I am probably just being overly cynical, but it does seem like we are overly embracing original movies that aren't THAT good.

Edit: It should be noted that I wasn't in the best state of mind when I created the thread. While writing a post in the Prometheus thread, I suddenly realized I was talking in circles because a lot of original movies seem to be dumbing down the story for the sake of being thematic. That thought lead to another. Didn't mean to sound THAT cynical, lol.


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 11, 2012)

> I am probably just being overly cynical, but it does seem like we are overly embracing original movies that aren't THAT good.



I don't think we are. People are more savvy than Studios give them credit. Yes you get alot of casual idiots or moronic teens who hype up a few rather crappy films, but people in general want to watch good films. I went to see Prometheus, I witnessed people making a collective prayer that we were gonna experience something like Alien, that we'd get quality. We're not embracing anything. I don't even care if a film is a trainwreck as long as it's done out of ambition or love (like Casshern). But what we get is inoffensive garbage from Studios that think they have the audience pegged. Well they don't. 

Who doesn't criticise Hollywood these days? Bourgeois budgets, poor scripts, no heart or love anywhere to be found half the time. But having said that we're gonna some great films this year and next so maybe people need to stop constantly looking for quick entertainment, and give more drama films a go. Most films that I've enjoyed in the last year at the Cinema weren't mainstream films.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jun 11, 2012)

Cabin in the Woods was a mainstream hollywood film and found it to be not only great but also fresh and unique.

Quintin Tarantino also consistently comes out with "new" material that turns out to be great, even if its inspiration draws heavily from older genres.


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Jun 11, 2012)

It looks like its dying when the only thing people are intrested in are fucking superheroes.... there are hundreds of great filmakers in the world and even in hollywood as well...


----------



## Ippy (Jun 11, 2012)

I honestly feel that the great stories, which include fleshed out characters and plots, can only be truly realized in the television format.

I agree with the guy who said that movies are essentially for mindless popcorn entertainment (paraphrasing, obviously).

Let's look at The Last Airbender vs. Avatar the series.  Ignoring the easily visible flaws in every aspect of that travesty of a movie, in one two hour slot, or even a trilogy, there is simply no way that they could have adequately conveyed the growing feeling of inadequacy from Aang, the hidden jealousy from Sokka surrounded by all of those powerful benders, and Zuko's internal conflict from trying to appease his father and regain his favor, to his developing dissatisfaction at the war and need for love and friendship.  

How do you show the steady and slow progress of a martial artist trying desperately to master completely foreign movements?  How do you introduce new characters without giving them the appropriate time to showcase their skills, air their dirty laundry, and tie their stories in with the main characters?

Sure, it is possible to get great stories out of movies, but television simply has a better model.


----------



## Violent by Design (Jun 11, 2012)

sequels and remakes have always been in the norm. been like this since the silent film era. and lets be real, mainstream movies were worse in the 80s, that was when every director was trying to deliver the biggest popcorn flick. 

also the point on movies being adaptions is really poor in terms of attacking creativity. an insanely large amount of  famous movies are based on novels and plays, which certainly requires less creativity than a movie based on a board game, at least I would think. 



Shinoda Kenichi said:


> I honestly feel that the great stories, which include fleshed out characters and plots, can only be truly realized in the television format.
> 
> I agree with the guy who said that movies are essentially for mindless popcorn entertainment (paraphrasing, obviously).
> 
> ...



your comparison is silly, you're comparing a terrible movie to a television show (not to mention the movie you're using is *based* on said show).

and to answer your question, the same way you would do it in a movie. the ability to tell a short story with images is something that is not time consuming when done correctly. it's not like television shows are in real time either, the same exact tricks are used in both forms of film.


----------



## Taleran (Jun 11, 2012)

> It just seems that cinema has become so shallow lately. Thats why I'd like to be proven wrong. Has this always been a problem?



From a personal standpoint 90% of everything will always be shit. The goal is to find the 10% that works for you and ignore everything else.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jun 11, 2012)

> I don't think we are. People are more savvy than Studios give them credit. Yes you get alot of casual idiots or moronic teens who hype up a few rather crappy films, but people in general want to watch good films. I went to see Prometheus, I witnessed people making a collective prayer that we were gonna experience something like Alien, that we'd get quality. We're not embracing anything. I don't even care if a film is a trainwreck as long as it's done out of ambition or love (like Casshern). But what we get is inoffensive garbage from Studios that think they have the audience pegged. Well they don't.
> 
> Who doesn't criticise Hollywood these days? Bourgeois budgets, poor scripts, no heart or love anywhere to be found half the time. But having said that we're gonna some great films this year and next so maybe people need to stop constantly looking for quick entertainment, and give more drama films a go. Most films that I've enjoyed in the last year at the Cinema weren't mainstream films.



Good point. 



> From a personal standpoint 90% of everything will always be shit. The goal is to find the 10% that works for you and ignore everything else.



I guess.

FYI, in case anybody has misinterpreted me, I wasn't putting down TV shows. They just haven't overtaken movies....yet. I wouldn't be surprised if they did though in the near future.

But really, I think I just started arguing in circles and it exhausted me to the point of depression...which lead to this. Yet who knows. I need to cheer myself up with Hammer horror movies.


----------



## Parallax (Jun 11, 2012)

The Wire overtakes 90% of films ever made


----------



## MartialHorror (Jun 11, 2012)

You miss....my....point.

I mean in popularity, not necessarily the quality.


----------



## Robin (Jun 11, 2012)

you probably were talking about big blockbuster movies, Martial. There have been some good action dramas in the recent years. I liked Sucker Punch a lot, for example, as well as Bourne series. Sci-fi blockbusters have always been dumb, a good inspiring one with original idea is a rarity. It's very hard to make an original idea that sells.

I think now it's the age of 3D animated movies: Shrek, Madagascar, Ice Age, among others.


----------



## Mikaveli (Jun 12, 2012)

So many cynics


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 12, 2012)

Wire is one series, lets talk about all those other TV series that were overly long, draggy and ultimately a waste of time.



> I agree with the guy who said that movies are essentially for mindless popcorn entertainment (paraphrasing, obviously).



They're not. That's a mindset of a few people who watch films, not films themselves.


----------



## Mikaveli (Jun 12, 2012)

There's obviously good and bad in both mediums. Television has a greater potential for longer, more engaging stories simply because it isn't confined to 2 hours or less. 

I think that's why I liked the Avengers so much. They set up continuity much like a tv series could. Each movie tells it's own story or part of one (if it's a trilogy or something) and they interact with the other characters in their own movies. In the end we get that 2 and a half hours of awesome shit. You know what I mean?


----------



## Taleran (Jun 12, 2012)

No because that is part of what turned me off the Marvel movies. I want my movies to be singular concise tales that work in and of themselves. It is much harder and near impossible to create tension and weight and gravitas inside a movie that is building to another and dependent to another.

Avengers embraces comic book continuity and in with that sneak all those other problems. Avengers hamstrings the other movies and then uses their bodies to prop itself higher.


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 12, 2012)

If the best example is something like Avengers then I don't see the TV argument holding much validity. The build up was tedious and the Avengers films were mostly mediocre.



> Television has a greater potential for longer, more engaging stories simply because it isn't confined to 2 hours or less.



Everything depends on writing. Sure if most series were kept to their core episodes and plot then we'd get some great TV, but so much TV is dragged endlessly for the sake of keeping a show going or ratings that ultimately it suffers.


----------



## Magnum Miracles (Jun 12, 2012)

Every form of entertainment has its own amount of shit. Comics, movies,books etc. are said to be dying, but they're not if you dig through the pile in front of you.

Cinema is far from dead.


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 12, 2012)

Ethnocentric Americans. Hollywood=/=All of Cinema


----------



## horsdhaleine (Jun 13, 2012)

I used to attend film festivals and private screenings actively (2002-2009). There's always so much to discover in the world of film, both old and new, foreign and local, mainstream and indie. In the past few years, I find cinema less appealing not because it is less interesting or the quality has deteriorated but because my priorities have changed. I cannot expend the same time and effort hunting good films. 

The cinema will not die. For all I know, it's getting more vibrant. Sometimes, you need to look more.


----------



## Eskilllicous (Jun 13, 2012)

Pretty much. It's sad 'cause I love going to the cinema. It's so much fun.


----------



## Kahvehane (Jun 13, 2012)

Dying is a strong word, but I hesitate to challenge its use in this case. Cinema is certainly in decline, though. Just ask any critic and they'll tell you they're far more interested in what will happen in the next season of _Mad Men_ than they are in what's set to arrive at the box office in the coming months. In a way it's like the scales have shifted. TV producers have started to realize the true storytelling potential of the serial, while filmmakers are increasingly spewing forth frivolous and insipid drivel to the detriment of the industry and the disappointment of moviegoers.

But I don't believe it's reached the point of no return.


----------



## Pocket4Miracles (Jun 16, 2012)

Yes cinema is dying.... the artistic merit....

Now for the theaters are garbage superheroes and shitty CGI. Also, movie productions are turning away from Indie movie.


----------



## A. Waltz (Jun 29, 2012)

history of film

movies back in the 70s or 80s were based off the cold war and wars

things happening in history

the godfather for example


so there can always be inspiration from things going on around you


even those "original" dumb romance movies are based off ofthings happening now
"finding a friend for the end of the war"
is it not an "original" based off of something that is "happening" irl?[apocalypse ideas and shit]


sorry it was the best example i could come up with that is reccent and stuff lol


----------



## Suigetsu (Jun 30, 2012)

It has lost a certain sense of philanthropy if that's what you mean. Don't worry, once I advance with my cinematographic studies, Ill promise Ill make movies that you'll all enjoy and love.

Well at least the great majority of you.


----------

