Traditional vs unconventional formats in movies and TV shows?
CC99
Say yes to the sex industry!
Wednesday, February 19, 2020 11:52 PM
I'm curious to see where people's heads are at, especially if you are a more casual movie-goer and not somebody who necessarily watches TV and film for hours every day.
Do you prefer a traditional format for movies? A clear protagonist, heroic good characters fighting against evil, high paced action.
Or do you prefer films that subvert common tropes? A movie without a clear protagonist or one with more everyday characters instead of heroic characters, one where characters may be more morally ambiguous or there is no obvious "bad side" in the movie's conflict, might be a little slower in the beginning rather than hooking you with an action scene.
Basically, if you had the ability to talk to Hollywood producers and tell them what you want to see more of in film. Would you prefer seeing a lot of the same formats we've seen before or would you prefer films that take risks with unconventional formats?
Do you prefer a traditional format for movies? A clear protagonist, heroic good characters fighting against evil, high paced action.
Or do you prefer films that subvert common tropes? A movie without a clear protagonist or one with more everyday characters instead of heroic characters, one where characters may be more morally ambiguous or there is no obvious "bad side" in the movie's conflict, might be a little slower in the beginning rather than hooking you with an action scene.
Basically, if you had the ability to talk to Hollywood producers and tell them what you want to see more of in film. Would you prefer seeing a lot of the same formats we've seen before or would you prefer films that take risks with unconventional formats?
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
20 comments
You know - Oscar fare. Aah...yup
I don't need to talk to Hollywood movie makers. They make all kinds of things, and much of it does come down to money. But I can make my voice known by which I watch and which I do not.
The straight up action hero and clear protagonist movies are dumb. Real life is not like that. And likewise they run on character stereotypes. And as I see it, this is the quickest way to see that a movie is crumby, the stereo typed characters.
Many people feel that it was the 60's and 70's which brought us some of the best movies. You walked into a theater and you had no idea what to expect. The reason for this was that the old studio system had collapsed, under the pressure of television. So for a while it was wide open.
And so people like Elia Kazan, John Frankenheimer, and Francis Ford Coppola flourished.
But come the 80's and it was the New Paramount, and then movie characters turned into yuppies.
Most people feel that movies which are totally amoral are the very best. Film Noir is like this to a degree. But often cited is Superfly (1972).
Documentary Superfly [1972], really interesting!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJEC-lJh…
Sweetback and Shaft are also something like this.
And it's just like how most people like Last Tango in Paris.
Butter Scene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAKFjozy…
And people like Bertolucci's other stuff, and they like Kubrick.
Today we have Oliver Stone, who is always good. And then the films of Spike Lee usually have it so that none of the characters are good or bad, they are all just being a little bit excessive, and so it generates tensions.
Subverting common tropes is extremely important in film, visual art, or literature.
SJG
Ringo Starr: It Don't Come Easy (Starr, 1971)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anpjEN9K…
@SJG
I don’t know how going to movie theaters was like in the 60s and 70s but I do think a major issue with film right now is producers worried too much about making safe bets. I think filmmaking might be too expensive these days. Lots of actors demand enormous amounts of money to star in films. In Avengers, just about every major actor requested $20 million dollars with Robert Downey Jr. in particular requesting a whopping $75 million.
I’m thinking the quality of films could be increased if studios gave acting opportunities to more people that are not well known for films they might consider a “risky” decision to cut down on spending while producing more.
But I would agree with you that generally a film should not have to depend on that, and better to use lesser known people. Don't want the screen personae of the performers to overshadow the film.
I think we are seeing more and more independent and low budget films, and especially with it now being done on DVD, bringing the costs down.
https://www.filmmakerscollaborative.org/
and imagine how much different things would have been if Elliot Rodger could have been in something like this.
SJG
Satin Doll Oscar Peterson 1963 (instrumental)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidAJ4VL…
Jimmy Smith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDJ6d5dv…
Patti Austin (vocal)
https://youtu.be/4JwMgEyRv-8?t=35m21s
Curtis Mayfield, Superfly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Rm7IO4…
I do think in a lot of action films that the star actors overshadow the plot a little bit. I can’t say it isn’t to some degree effective. I’ve known some people who will go see a movie just because it has Tom Hanks or Leonardo DiCaprio in it.
To be fair I think some of this comes from a perception of what the movie will be like as Leonardo DiCaprio usually does star in pretty good movies. I think for the general quality of the film industry though that it’s not good for big star actors to dominate the movie they are cast in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIQPidsw…
Romane Bohringer, also good. :) :) :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romane_Boh…
Movies get stupid when you have people like Bruce Willis.
John Cusack is good.
SJG
Satin Doll Oscar Peterson 1963 (instrumental)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidAJ4VL…
Jimmy Smith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDJ6d5dv…
Patti Austin (vocal)
https://youtu.be/4JwMgEyRv-8?t=35m21s
Curtis Mayfield, Superfly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Rm7IO4…
Game of Thrones broke a lot of new ground in my opinion. At least if we are talking about seasons 1-4. After season 4 it started really going downhill.
But it broke ground in the sense of portraying politics in a manner that felt more realistic despite being set in a fantasy world. There was no clear protagonist or “bad guys” in the show. I mean Joffrey was certainly a bad guy but it’s more like him specifically was a bad guy. But even if the Lannister’s had a lot of bad guys in charge you still had Tyrion who is one of the most ethical characters in the show. So while I wouldn’t like to see Tywin, Joffrey, or Cersei as king of the iron throne, I do think Tyrion would’ve been a good and fair ruler.
Similarly although the Starks were generally good. I think Arya had a bit too much of a blood lust and would’ve abused a position of power if she obtained it. I also couldn’t really decide whether I considered Stannis a good guy or not. He felt very much like a morally neutral character. So the show really played with who you felt you should root for.
80% of Marvel movies feel like a cut and paste format film. Just about every film seems to be “this object will allow this alien to control the universe and iron man and friends must go to the place and find this object before bad guy can use it.”
All those movies as well as the new Star Wars movies are boring, predictable, and forgettable.