Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

The quality of Hollywood has decreased over the years

They aren't making anything creative or original anymore.

by Anonymousreply 1801/20/2013

OP is a thousand years old.

There's always been disposable crap - you just think the 40's were better because you're only seeing the good stuff on DVD or continually being repeated on TCM.

Also, with much better access to films now you shouldn't expect Hollywood to provide all of your entertainment. There's plenty of indie films and foreign films out there as well.

by Anonymousreply 101/20/2013

TV has gotten so much better in the past 10 years, and certainly that counts as "Hollywood."

by Anonymousreply 201/20/2013

The quality of Hollywood films is much better than it has been at certain past periods and much worse than it has been at others, though I agree with r1 than in the periods when Hollywood was producing its best work it was simultaneously producing a whole lot of shit.

Because I agree with r1 on that, I will not prejudge OP's age, nor would I treat anyone's advanced age as some kind of insult. To the contrary.

What I would say, however, is that if one compares the best screenwriting (top ten - twenty shows) for television and the best screenwriting for the big screen (to ten - twenty films), the screenwriting for television today is far superior.

by Anonymousreply 301/20/2013

The first 2 seasons of The Sopranos were tons better than anything by Clownface Tarentino.

by Anonymousreply 401/20/2013

[quote]Clownface Tarentino

That's what passes for humor around here?

by Anonymousreply 501/20/2013

Almost all of the good stuff is on tv these days - Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Mad Men, Downton Abbey etc.

by Anonymousreply 601/20/2013

The same, one supposes, could be said of posts on the Datalounge.

by Anonymousreply 701/20/2013

All good films are foreign now. Get used to subtitles, folks- or suffer through a Katherine Heigl/Jason Segel romcom.

by Anonymousreply 801/20/2013

"TV has gotten so much better in the past 10 years."

No it hasn't. You're basing this comment on your own selectivity. While there are some good and excellent comedy and dramatic shows being produced, there is a flood of reality crap permeating the airwaves along with sub par scripted shows. But the reality crap far outweighs anything else being produced today.

Television in general is at its most mediocre and redundant.

by Anonymousreply 901/20/2013

[quote]No it hasn't. You're basing this comment on your own selectivity. While there are some good and excellent comedy and dramatic shows being produced, there is a flood of reality crap permeating the airwaves along with sub par scripted shows. But the reality crap far outweighs anything else being produced today. Television in general is at its most mediocre and redundant.

Oh yes it has.

Sure, there's plenty of crap on TV. There always has been, and now there are hundreds of networks out there. But the good stuff is terrific, and it's easy enough now to watch on your own terms, while avoiding the garbage.

by Anonymousreply 1001/20/2013

Hollywood still creates soon good movies, but other countries have started making much better films in the last 10 to 20 years.

India, Iran, the UK, Russia, Spain, Brazil, Czech Republic & China have really stepped up their movie making game. The quality of films from these countries is often amazing these days. Zhang Yimou's films from China are all terrific, almost all starring Gong Li, and India's Aamir Khan is making some of the best films I've ever seen.

Other small countries are making spectacular films, too, now. Look at Undertow from Peru, Black Book from The Netherlands, Before the Rain from Macedonia, No Man's Land from Bosnia-Herzogovina, Troubled Water from Norway, Whale Rider from New Zealand... even tiny countries are capable of putting out GREAT films now.

by Anonymousreply 1101/20/2013

There are hundreds of networks out there, and you can lose count of the number of them that either show reality programs all day or blocks of one or two shows. If there are ten networks showing excellent top of the line programming out of four hundred, that's a lot.

"But the good stuff is terrific, and it's easy enough now to watch on your own terms, while avoiding the garbage."

That doesn't negate the fact that there is a large pile of garbage being produced. Like I said, you're being selective in your opinion.

Find me a network other than PBS that actually shows opera and theater nowadays. There used to be several outlets, including prime time network television devoted to actually showing the best in the arts.

Now all of those outlets are showing reality shows. And Honey Boo Boo and the Kardashians are a poor substitution.

by Anonymousreply 1201/20/2013

Morons like R1 are dragging down this site...BIG TIME.

by Anonymousreply 1301/20/2013

R7 wins

by Anonymousreply 1401/20/2013

[quote]Find me a network other than PBS that actually shows opera and theater nowadays. There used to be several outlets, including prime time network television devoted to actually showing the best in the arts.

If there was an audience, that stuff would be aired. I feel like some of you don't understand even the very basics of how the media operates.

by Anonymousreply 1501/20/2013

What bugs me more than anything are two techniques that have become predominant in the past two decades: rapid-fire editing and the handheld camera.

Used in moderation, to improve the impact of a scene, they can be effective, but when the entire film consists of handheld camera and/or rapid-fire editing, it delutes the impact. Movies like "Melancholia" or "Beasts of the Southern Wild" may be well-written, but they are unwatchable due to the handheld camera; many major blockbusters like "The Avengers" and "The Bourne" flicks are so sliced-and-diced that it's impossible to follow what's happening on the screen. And when they combine into one, such as "Les Miserables," it's downright repulsive.

by Anonymousreply 1601/20/2013

"I feel like some of you don't understand even the very basics of how the media operates."

Reality TV is cheap to produce. It's not rocket science as to why it permeates the television. The fact that some of the shows get good ratings is an afterthought to the cost savings it takes to create such alleged reality.

"If there was an audience, that stuff would be aired."

LOL. That line gets trotted out as an excuse for a number of scenarios. How can you declare an audience for something if it hasn't been shown in at least a decade?

by Anonymousreply 1701/20/2013

R17, it hasn't been shown for at least a decade because it doesn't get ratings.

Look, networks would love to air filmed opera and theater. That's even cheaper to produce than reality stuff, especially if they're performing the classics. If it made financial sense, it would happen.

by Anonymousreply 1801/20/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.