Topic: The art of Filmmaking

[Bandy]

A couple of questions for those 'in the know' and of course those that aren't

Is the art of filmmaking dead?

In the past you had some amazing directors and crews working on tight budgets that really had to organise many people and massive sets to pull off making a film - and because you knew those sets were there - it added an extra dimension that although the action wasn't real - the props were (slightly) real.

With all this CGA stuff coming in - as breathtaking as it may be - it's just not real - and this can only continue

Additionally, in the cases where we have remakes of classic films/series/ideas; The Italian Job, Flight of the Pheonix, Rollerball, The Ladykillers, Around the world in 80 days, Solaris, Assault of Precinct 13, Judge Dredd, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Get Carter, Mission: Impossible, Dukes of Hazard, The Ring and the list is nearly endless - in each case, despite massive advances in technology and know-how the films just aren't any good.

Is this the fault of the studios or directors or in reality has every good film already been made and explored to death?

Is it likely that any new films as breathtaking as some of those in the past are likely to re-appear?

As an aside - what are the worst five remakes in history?

I reckon:

1. Get Carter
2. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
3. Mission: Impossible
4. The Ring
5. Rollerball

[koolkamal]

Charlie and the Chocolate factory??? Are you mad, I thought it was excellent.

Some of them I can give you, but I really enjoyed charlie and the chocolate factory.

[Ben_JP]

I just can't agree that the art of film-making is dead. CGI might be more prominant these days, but it isn't a bad thing by any means; CGI was put to good use in Sin City, certainly an innovative film that advanced the methods earlier seen in Sky Captain: The World of Tomorrow (okay, the latter isn't a fantastic film but deserves merit for use of technology)

For every wayward blockbuster or tripe remake there is a gem like Sideways or The Machinist or even a decent remake or 're-imagining' such is the vogue term for it these days. Sure it's easy to hark back to an assumed 'Golden Age' of movie-making, but every decade in the history of cinema is littered with good and bad films and the 'noughties' are no different - some films embrace innovation whilst others are lazy examples of what is still, and always will be, an art.

[koolkamal]

I agree there are some truely great movies. Sin city showed how cg and great film making can work hand in hand. I dont think the are of filmmaking is dead but there are some pretty crap filmmakers (or those that call themselves filmmakers) out there.

[Hinesy]

its a massive question.
Youhave to take into the account the different types of films we have made.
1) The Hollywood studio film
Big budget (they've always been big budget) usually with an eye to the lowest common denominator to make money. That's all they exist for. By this I'd also include most of Guy Ritchie's stuff, and other UK 'gangster' films.

2) The smaller US or European film
where a director has more power but less money : this is where most of the interesting stuff comes out, if a tad indulgent

3) the small budget independent film/ art house film
Experimental and treat fim as an art form not an entertainment form neccessarily.

i think your question is too big a one to be easily answered but for its worth you make the film you can. So the art of filmmaking in terms of handling the egos, the money and time you have, still exists. Perhaps what you define as a good end product may have changed.

[Bandy]

Don't get me wrong - Charlie and the Chocolate factory was reasonable as a film - but why remake it and make it so completely like the original?

The effects weren't as good (for some reason?!) the acting was reasonable, but the whole thing didn't seem to be able to hold a candle to the original.

Just a pointless remake that took a step backward rather than forward

I suppose if you've never seen the original - then it would be worth seeing - but me paying money to see a film that was 99.9% the same (Except the badly acted and conceived neurosis of Wonka) just seemed a bit rich

There seemed to be no need for the film.

[koolkamal]

I watched both and I enjoyed this one more...

Even dalhs' family said that this remake was better.

[Ben_JP]

There probably wasn't a need for the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake, but the intrigue of Tim Burton devising his own interpretation of a Roald Dahl book would have been hard for a studio to turn down. Or rather if you prefer to be more cynical, a large Hollywood studio isn't going to shy away from a money-making idea, especially one with great potential for plenty of commercial tie-ins.

People may not like that, but film studios, as much as they are about making entertainment, also need to be profit-making or else make a date with administrators.

[ElSheak]

Roll out a film quick, make the money and run. No fucking appreciation for a story. We'll take a template for a story, put our own spin on it, slap it up with some CG and ship it out! It's shit! It's about the money, not the quality. The benchmark set is the quality of SFX, and not the story!

Been watching some forigien films. Free from the restraints of Hollywood, you get a good story!

[Ben_JP]

If you're watching foreign films ElSheak, check out a German thriller called Antibodies. It's not stunning, but still throws up some interesting ideas.

[Bandy]

I think the reason that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory rankles so much is that it had already been done and there are just so many fantastic books out there that have never been transferred to film

Saying that quite often there is nothing worse than to see a favourite book mangled by hollywood

That Comic Strip episode about Scargill still makes me chuckle though!

[Drobs]

Charlie and the chocolate factory; i had this one out with my mate the other week. The 'original' that most think of is the Gene Wilder film, not the book. When the film was remade and made to be more like the ORIGINAL, people didn't like it as much because they'd built up this idea of how it all should be from the previous film. Which is right? Which is wrong? Film changed the expectations of the viewer down the line, like someone covering a famous old song but doing it well, how many kids grow up thinking only of the cover version as a result? Therein lies the problem, if you want to call it that. Distorted fact maybe.

Money is the answer to it all nowadays though as someone else stated. Entertainment for one isn't necessarily entertainment for another. I'd much prefer a great storyline preferably with no explosions or gruesome death scenes what so ever, but for some strange reason this appeals to a mass audience. I'd love more writers/directors/producers to get together and rebel against the trend and the lure of the big bucks but the money is talking pretty loudly now.

Same with music, the scene is being dominated by a mainstream trend but the gems are still there to be found, so look harder.