As far as the old criticism that Hollywood is nothing but sequels and re-makes, I say a good re-make is better than an original idea sewn together by a talentless hack. I can sew a pair of pants. But they'll need another sewing soon after. A good mender or tailor can make something that will last a lifetime. Art may go through phases, new things will arise and light the world in amazement, but only the most shallow people can look at a classic work of art and slam it for not being "in". How may "original ideas" that Hollywood has put out over the last 20+ years stood the test of time? How many of them truly captivated and excited people that aren't in grade school? Probably not the best examples, but the label of "re-make" being there didn't didn't stop LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, THE HILLS HAVE EYES, and...um...others (my mind is a little fogged at the moment, I'm sure there's less icky and better quality examples...) from being somewhat original in their execution and striking people as works of art all of their own. The problem with Hollywood IS: the disposability of so much of its output - it's like music on vinyl vs CD or Coke-A-Cola in glass vs. plastic; the tried and true methods can certainly be altered if it feels right, but when money is the sole motivator and the word "art" becomes almost a dirty word, you lose out. Coke in plastic tastes OK and CDs sound just fine if you're listening to them on a budget sound system, or even an "audiophile on a budget" sound system with less than impeccable hearing, but to see where Hollywood was and is now, it's just sad. The newcomers of the world who didn't see a lot of the good films that came out in the late '50's- early '80's have no idea what they're missing.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
A petition of mercy for Ernie Hudson...
His dismay over the female GB reboot was over the proposal. He probably thought "oh, dumb gimmick", but now that it's shown to actually be happening and it's going forward, one can only hope it's as good as it should be. This is explained in an on the spot interview by TMZ seen here:
As for fans' raving about how bad Paul Feig is, I personally don't think BRIDESMAIDS and GHOSTBUSTERS go well together, which is maybe why Dan Aykroyd and Ivan Reitman are there, so if Paul Feig needs any advice or has any questions, they can help. Hopefully they'll also be authorized to tweak the script to tailor it more to the universe that Reitman and Aykroyd (along with Ramis) had envisioned more than 30 years ago. I didn't think an all female GB was a smart move either, but the more I think about it, the more I've accepted it and am hoping for the best. If Ernie Hudson were a screenwriter, I'd brand him a hypocrite, but his job, like any other actor, is to be a screenwriter's puppet. If the screenwriter says "jump", the actor jumps. Some intuition is preferable, but requires good acting and not just acting school acting, not that Ernie Hudson isn't a well seasoned actor, that's just a side statement, my point is actors are not hired for their creative input. That is the job of the scribe and the director. Imagination et al are not required to be part of an actor's resume. So when some actor or guy on the street says female GB is a bad idea, even seeing that Paul Fieg is dedicated to making a genuine/good quality film, they are not the final word on the matter. The final word is when it's done and the film is seen and heard. That's not to say I'm confident it will be good. I don't expect Hollywood to do anything right because they seldom do. And yes, the original was perfect and they should leave it alone. I haven't heard any plans to George Lucas-ize it, so fans have nothing to worry about in that regard as far as I'm aware.
As far as the old criticism that Hollywood is nothing but sequels and re-makes, I say a good re-make is better than an original idea sewn together by a talentless hack. I can sew a pair of pants. But they'll need another sewing soon after. A good mender or tailor can make something that will last a lifetime. Art may go through phases, new things will arise and light the world in amazement, but only the most shallow people can look at a classic work of art and slam it for not being "in". How may "original ideas" that Hollywood has put out over the last 20+ years stood the test of time? How many of them truly captivated and excited people that aren't in grade school? Probably not the best examples, but the label of "re-make" being there didn't didn't stop LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, THE HILLS HAVE EYES, and...um...others (my mind is a little fogged at the moment, I'm sure there's less icky and better quality examples...) from being somewhat original in their execution and striking people as works of art all of their own. The problem with Hollywood IS: the disposability of so much of its output - it's like music on vinyl vs CD or Coke-A-Cola in glass vs. plastic; the tried and true methods can certainly be altered if it feels right, but when money is the sole motivator and the word "art" becomes almost a dirty word, you lose out. Coke in plastic tastes OK and CDs sound just fine if you're listening to them on a budget sound system, or even an "audiophile on a budget" sound system with less than impeccable hearing, but to see where Hollywood was and is now, it's just sad. The newcomers of the world who didn't see a lot of the good films that came out in the late '50's- early '80's have no idea what they're missing.
As far as the old criticism that Hollywood is nothing but sequels and re-makes, I say a good re-make is better than an original idea sewn together by a talentless hack. I can sew a pair of pants. But they'll need another sewing soon after. A good mender or tailor can make something that will last a lifetime. Art may go through phases, new things will arise and light the world in amazement, but only the most shallow people can look at a classic work of art and slam it for not being "in". How may "original ideas" that Hollywood has put out over the last 20+ years stood the test of time? How many of them truly captivated and excited people that aren't in grade school? Probably not the best examples, but the label of "re-make" being there didn't didn't stop LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, THE HILLS HAVE EYES, and...um...others (my mind is a little fogged at the moment, I'm sure there's less icky and better quality examples...) from being somewhat original in their execution and striking people as works of art all of their own. The problem with Hollywood IS: the disposability of so much of its output - it's like music on vinyl vs CD or Coke-A-Cola in glass vs. plastic; the tried and true methods can certainly be altered if it feels right, but when money is the sole motivator and the word "art" becomes almost a dirty word, you lose out. Coke in plastic tastes OK and CDs sound just fine if you're listening to them on a budget sound system, or even an "audiophile on a budget" sound system with less than impeccable hearing, but to see where Hollywood was and is now, it's just sad. The newcomers of the world who didn't see a lot of the good films that came out in the late '50's- early '80's have no idea what they're missing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment