 | | |
| timark_uk wrote: I don't think it is worse ... whatever that may mean in this context, I just think it is now different. You still do get the character driven films being made, there's still dramas being produced, but I think TV is now producing the types of shows that cinema used to produce; the paradigm has shifted. Mass-market cinema these days is all about the spectacle, TV can't compete with that on a budgetary level, so it has to use the tools available to it that it can afford. Mark | |
| | |
I think it's become very split. You have the 'arthouse' character pieces and you have the $200m budget marvel/DC/Bond level blockbusters and there's really nothing in between. You can't imagine a large budget film with a more challenging script (say a Full Metal Jacket or 2001, to use one particular director's work) being made at the moment. if it costs a lot of money it's got to make much, much more money back and the only way to do that is mass appeal. And the mass market doesn't want to be made to think or question itself, it just wants two hours of explosions and chest thumping.
Not that a $200m film can't have a good script - I thought Captain America : The Winter solider was pretty decent for example - but a film with that budget simply isn't going to take any major risks any more. There's always a place for big, loud, dumb blockbusters. The Avengers is one but so was Star Wars and so was raiders Of The Lost Ark. And there's still a place for cinema that asks questions and requires introspection. What we seem to have lost is the auteur's vision being backed by significant money. And I think that is a loss.
