Tweet
I think the main difference between the films of, the 40's and the films of the 70's, is that, with the production code, film-makers were forced to work within a framework that forced them to work harder to express themselves and therefore, made better films. With the lifting of the code in the 60's, anything goes and film-makers could be lazier and not work as hard. Now, ironically, in the last number of years, Hollywood or more approximately, the academy has placed a framework in place that, in a different, complete opposite way, does the exact opposite. Instead of spurring higher creativity, is stifling creativity. When you have to automatically include elements into a story, that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject you tackle, just to satisfy a requirement, you make a less fulfilling experience for the audience. In the last ten or so years, my wife and I have seen characters that have alternative lifestyles, that have absolutely nothing to do with the story in any way, shape or form. We both wondered why this character is a part of the story, and only after we found out about this new Hollywood reality, didwr understand. Yet, still, these absolutely unnecessary characters only serve one purpose ... to distract from the reason for the stories existence, and therefore, I would highly suggest for these film-makers, after release, when releasing these to Blu-ray, do a directors cut, and eliminate these distractions, and make the stories, the way they were meant to be. BTW, a good example of this was the horror film "IT 2" the sequel to IT ( which was a pretty good horror film ), the sequel began with a gay couple, one of the two is beaten to death and after that, that subplot is completely gone, it had absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the story, not anything to do withe part 1. It was just thrown in there, and had my wife and I looking at each other, shaking our heads. Look, I have nothing against these folks, but at least, if it's in the film, just like any other element, it needs to be an actual part of the plot in some way, shape or form. You could take that 5 or so minutes off the beginning, and the film would have never missed it.
-
-
Osi,
It: Chapter Two is taken directly from Stephen King's 1986 book. The first film only covered the first half of the book. The sequel is the second half of the book which does indeed start off with the killing you mention. King uses that incident to show that Pennywise has returned 27 years after being defeated, to start a new killing spree. So...it's in the source material, not just thrown in there.Comment
-
Also I wonder if better films can't get original finance or are made but can't get distribution deals so we never see them. I suppose they could be sold cheap to minor "streaming" platforms but still not get seen by many.Comment
-
Was the gay subtext actually in the book? I honestly don't have a copy of the book handy. BTW, thanks 4 all the feedback in the posts, although I will admit that I myself went slightly off topic.Comment
-
-
I seem to recall a woman swimming off of Amity Island at the beginning of JAWS. She was attacked by a shark, but then we heard nothing more of her after that. How odd!!Comment
-
Give the shark a few hours ... She'll resurface!Comment
-
We watched my old feature only yesterday. The shark still lives!Originally posted by Osi Osgood View PostComment
-
Hi!
Hollywood abandoned Technicolor. Hollywood abandoned the „larger than live“ idea in favor of „realism“ (despite all the CGI). This results in today’s camera operation - simply compare the rock-steady camera in „Die Hard“ with the „did they hire someone to permanently shake the camera?“ in „Die Hard 4.0“. Now add today’s „we’re now only creating movies that result in the highest profit“ attitude… and then that’s it.Comment
Comment