Traditional vs unconventional formats in movies and TV shows?

It depends on the quality of the film. It doesn't really matter to me. And its not that unconventional. A protagonist doesn't have to be a person. Or it can be many people or things adding to the plot.

I'd say a protagonist that isn't a person would be fairly unconventional. But I'm curious as to what movie or TV show you had in mind when you said the protagonist doesn't have to be a person?

I used to really like those when I was a kid. Been a very long time since I saw one though. I suppose I thought Little Foot was the protagonist of Land Before Time though?

?

I prefer films that accurately portray the lives of the ricks. We are, of course, truly heroic figures. If a rick does it, it is right! ROAR!!!

Like my fellow ricks, I prefer realism. Deep and fully realized character studies of sexy testudines that wear suits, make bank, drive fast cars while drinking a nice cocktail 🍸 and - most importantly - bang the living shit out of female hairless ape strippers.

You know - Oscar fare. Aah...yup

I think it goes without saying that all the female hairless ape characters should get fucked or appear half naked, or naked 😂

The trend is decidedly more toward having characters who are not black and white, but with mixed motivations and histories. It leads to more complicated characters and storylines. If done well, you get Game of Thrones, The Wire or Breaking Bad. If done not as well you get a incoherent mess. It’s all about the execution.

If the unconventional format legitimately serves the story, I'm good with that. If it's the writer / director trying to show off with no story to back it up, it's garbage.

I’ve been thinking as well that the reason TV shows are becoming more popular than movies is that TV dramas are taking more risks than Hollywood is. But when Hollywood does try something unconventional like Joker it ends up being a huge hit.

Straight drama is very rare in feature films now. Mostly moved to TV / streaming. Somewhat the same for comedy.

Existentially speaking I think it depends on how big her boobs are

The difference between tv and movies is time. You are very limited in how complex a world you can create in two hours. TV has at least 10 hours in a season. Huge difference.

"Or do you prefer films that subvert common tropes?"

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…

Yeah the difference in time makes a big difference in regards to how good something can be.

@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.

Usually when a producer and director go for the high salary, it's just because they don't want the critics to pan an otherwise good film. Oliver Stone does this, Tom Cruise in Born on the 4th of July, and Kevin Costner in JFK. Those starts are his protection from having the film ignored.

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…

A lot of low budget films are pretty good actually. I saw a couple independent films that were produced on a budget of $3.5 million (Sin Nombre and Beasts of no Nation) and you couldn’t even really tell the difference in terms of camera quality and scenery to Hollywood films with $200 million dollar budgets.

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.

I prefer good plots or stories regardless of hero/foil. That is why most of the Marvel movies can suck a fat one, they're so boring and predictable. That is why GOT got bashed forthe last two seasons, it turned from a mentally stimulating political drama to a stupid CGI action movie. Give me a good Tarrantino movie with gratuitous titty shots any day.

CC, not seen the ones you've mentioned. But Hanks and DiCaprio are good.

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…

@pistola

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.