Pevere rants at H'wood

"When it comes to mass-market moviemaking, and especially at a time when the average cost of a studio release is creeping toward $200 million U.S., there is no room for originality in Hollywood. Never was and, barring some kind of wholesale revolution in industry thinking, never will be. It's not wanted and, for the time being at least, not needed: after all, this summer's most popular movie is also this summer's most tediously uninspired, by-the-numbers retread: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. I mean jeez, even suggesting Hollywood isn't original isn't original. In some form or another, the point itself has been expressed so often it's a cliché. The difference is, you can't get rich by repeating it. And that's what separates Hollywood's lack of inspiration from my own." -- the Toronto Star critic Geoff Pevere writing a feisty, original-sounding retread of a generic piece about why so many Hollywood movies blow the big one.

Deep Polanski<< previous | next >>"Truth" Weather Ad

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 29, 2006 at 2:18 PM

comment #1

Larry says ...

For all its lack of originality, I'll take Hollywood movies over any other country's.

Posted by Larry at July 29, 2006 2:45 PM

comment #2

Pablo R. says ...

It would be nice at least to be able to see a host of contemporary films from other countries before having to make the choice.

In fact, most of the really interesting work these days is not American.

Posted by Pablo R. at July 29, 2006 3:10 PM

comment #3

guy steele says ...

One can understand why the big Hollywood studios decry originality. they want the safest bet on their investment. Leave small movies $10 million and under to the original thought. It seems funny me that alot of the time a brillant young outta nowhere filmmaker creates one or two original engrossing film and is picked by Hollywood as the next great director only to have him/her helm a safe piece of marketable tripe.
I for one have always wondered why the Broccoli family has never hired a daring original-vision director for Bond. I know they like to play it safe and they are making money... but think of the Bond film directed by QT or Cameron even Mann.
Now what should really peeve us is when a director like Gore Verbiski get's to make his own sequel to a fresh and original Pirate film and gives us nothing new but stale storylines you gotta wonder... why don't the studios risk a little more time to mature a script. Look at Hill's Another 48hrs. or Alien 3 & 4 and they even had good fresh original directors but no stories that drove that franchise forward. When Hollywood does get it right accolades and money follows like Godfather II and Aliens. THey are perfect followups that continue the story instead of retreading.
If I have mispelled anyone's name I am sorry.

Posted by guy steele at July 29, 2006 3:17 PM

comment #4

Mike Gebert says ...

Well, for all the bashing of Pirates (I was bored with the first one before it was over, can't imagine watching two more) I just saw Miami Vice and was very disappointed with that as well. Basically a lifestyle catalog for drug dealers-- you'll want this watch, this phone, these clothes, this shower, this boat, this disco... and now our mannequins will model them for you. A certain amount of visual style, but much of it was just murky (the final shoot-out was so hard to see anybody or anything it was practically radio-- compare that with the stunning one in Heat, in which you know exactly what's going on and who's at risk where). It was like Gore Verbinski's idea of a Michael Mann movie, it had the look but there was no soul there. Part of the problem-- versus, say, Scarface or Goodfellas-- was that it had no outside perspective; it totally bought into the flashy drug dealer stuff, the tough guy talk (much of which was way overwritten), no satirical or ironic eye on it.

Hard to believe this was the same director who so brilliantly made Tom Noonan comically pathetic and yet ultra-badass-scary in his serial killer gear in Manhunter. But I guess one of the things you do when you spend $150 million on a movie is make sure no one in the audience thinks the filmmakers might be making fun of their pimp taste.

Posted by Mike Gebert at July 29, 2006 3:38 PM

comment #5

Anonymous says ...

Embrace technology, establish an independent artist repertoire and make films away from Hollywood.
Distribute digitally to theaters then through Amazon, netflix, and iTunes. Take no inventory risk.
Make an entertaining experience then get the word out through sites like these.
The system is fucked and will continue to be fucked because the artists have been polluted with entitlement and greed.
Terry Gilliam could have made Quixote for a third of the money he raised if he would start realizing that movies arent about the tools. It isnt about the "film stock".
Its about the ideas, their design and the relevance of the final assmebled expression.

Posted by Anonymous at July 29, 2006 5:02 PM

comment #6

Anonymous says ...

I must correct myself. It is the acencies that create such high costs by insisting that their clients are entitled to ridiculous upfront money. The executives breed ill will by demanding lower costs then soaking up all gross proceeds.
Eliminate the blood sucking agencies and executives.

Posted by Anonymous at July 29, 2006 6:15 PM

comment #7

Anonymous says ...

I must correct myself.
It is the agencies that instill the entitlement and greed in their clients, as it is in their interest to do so.
Executives dont help in demanding lower costs while paying themselves big bucks and hiding gross profits. So agents must demand those points up front.
The blood sucking agents, talentless executives, and useless layers of middle management must be eliminated.

Posted by Anonymous at July 29, 2006 6:22 PM

comment #8

Anonymous says ...

sorry for the double post....my first message must have been delayed so I recomposed it.

Posted by Anonymous at July 29, 2006 6:23 PM

comment #9

Daniel Zelter says ...

Pablo: Hollywood films are no longer American, either. Nowadays, they're shot in Australia, Eastern Europe and the U.K.

guy: Bond directed by Cameron would be the same generic tripe from True Lies. And Quentin doesn't have the class to do a good Bond movie. As for Mann, well, the complaints against Vice speak for themselves.

"Terry Gilliam could have made Quixote for a third of the money he raised if he would start realizing that movies arent about the tools. It isnt about the "film stock"."

It's not like Gilliam had much of a choice. He probably couldn't get any distribution if he didn't have big companies funding it.

Posted by Daniel Zelter at July 29, 2006 8:57 PM

comment #10

jbelkin says ...

a lot of it is elitist crap - is there ANYWHERE in the world the movie (Pirates) is NOT a hit? if "we" were really making movies that people thought was un-worthy of their time, they wouldn't go ... Is Pirates great? No, but is it entertaining enough and apparently a lot of other people agree. I'm not saying popularity is the only measure of whether it's good or not, but it is elitist and egoist to go around thinking if you don't like something and others do, we're all morons ... or that they are right.

Posted by jbelkin at July 29, 2006 11:48 PM

comment #11

Anonymous says ...

Its not about being anti-Pirates.
There are alot of interesting stories that arent "Pirates" or "War of the Worlds" but deserve to be made and find an audience.
It is not Hollywoods responsibility to make them though.
While some independent films may be "elitist crap" they all arent. Swingers, Primer, Donnie Darko, Trainspotting, and Memento are, in my opinion, great independent entertainments.
Studios didnt want to make The Graduate so the producers went to B independent proucer Joseph Levine to get it made. Now its a classic.

Posted by Anonymous at July 30, 2006 9:14 PM

Leave a comment