To reduce the number of recommendations are based DVD drive on its side for several years I have watched movies on fifteen weeks old and new, at home and abroad. This process has provided a broader understanding of the scope of the movie on my pre-existing know-how, Hollywood's Golden Age (was 1930-1960).
He also took me to a surprising conclusion: if the revenue and the conditions for distribution of Hollywood films remains the global market, dominated by the most original,Smart and durable films are now outside of this country.
This is a dynamic shocking, if the players in a sector worldwide continues to turn a product largely indifferent. Inevitably, parts of the traditional consumer base to start shooting. In Hollywood, the industry is gradually losing its training for adults (40 years) admissions. As a result, they hold much more difficult for our young people on a steady stream of comic books and hooks workAdaptations of video games, has led to the big screen with lots of quick cuts, the noise deafening and whiz-bang special effects.
In pursuit of this questionable strategy, a fundamental part of the great film-making excellence in writing, character development and overall story-telling is sacrificed, since there would be bells and whistles, the mere noise and stimulation kinetics Commercial Release of today seem superfluous. Believe that they are never superfluous.
It is also trueTop Hollywood, there was a lot of junk done. But with the built creating the system efficiency study, the goods far more in total there have been a good work in maintaining the growth of viewers demanding more happy.
Also be aware of the studio moguls wanted prestige with the industry, which was built as a picture "important." Today, "the important images" in Hollywood represented guided only risk a death sentence in a company solely by dollar signs.
Forcurrent adult film thought are increasingly marginalized, because there is less reason and excuse for us to find time for them, as we did in the past. The technology encourages us to remain forever chained to our computers and blackberries to answer every e-mail and phone calls in real time, and saw our old school friend on Facebook.
And if we are disappointed with what is currently in the theater, it is unlikely that the work much harder to identify and absorb an older or foreign filmsIssue, even though we have promised a reward out of proportion to the end.
It is easier, but the attitude of "Dancing With The Stars".
Perhaps as a movie fan, I over-dramatize the situation. But for me, feels terribly sad.
Just like the powerful Hollywood movie really start to stutter and machine? To find my own answer, I tried an experiment.
Although few outside the industry know of him has been following the annual Quigley Poll of the Top Ten of the stars of Hollywood at the box office, as theIn the early thirties. I have decided that their results appear every decade of 1938-2008, the review and are shown for each star in a given year, tally the corresponding number of movies on my website, Best Movies by Farr.
Assessing the trend of the total number of films by stars over the years has helped provide a quality should help when the whole film has begun to decline, at least from my point of view. Since this is actually the subjective concept of quality links to my personal standards,Results are hardly conclusive, but hopefully still worth discussion and debate.
I would expect to produce in the thirties to a whole top or the top ten box office stars of 1938, only 27 films on our side, with sixteen of these contributions are represented by only two actors: Spencer Tracy (10) and Clark Gable (6). Beyond runners Myrna Loy and Tyrone Power (each with 4 films) are faded, most of the other stars of the period, including Alice Faye, Sonja Henie and JaneGo) Withers (star who had a child playing in these memorable Josephine "Comet" spot in the sixties.
Ten years later, and the number of stars in the movie Quigley "on our website has more than doubled. 1948 On the list of ten titles every Tracy back, with Bogart, Cary Grant and Gary Cooper. Ingrid Bergman scores with 9 titles, while Bing Crosby 4 added. All other names of at least one title has had a total of forty, "62
The total number of stars in 1958, is the lowonly marginally from 57 tracks. All actors are represented with ten titles disappeared, by James Stewart (10), Marlon Brando and Elizabeth Taylor (9 each) replaced William Holden (8), and Frank Sinatra (7). As in the previous decade, and each star has been in the top ten of the survey included at least one title.
We meet our peak in 1968 with a record of 75 titles, ironically, is not the best time to Hollywood, but also in relation to the star, what a lively, very new generation. Only Liz Taylor returns to the list, which is also behind starter John Wayne (11 tracks). Are Paul Newman (10), Sidney Poitier (10), Jack Lemmon (8), Lee Marvin (7), Clint Eastwood (7) are united, and Steve McQueen (6).
List of the '70s, "is equivalent to a 1940s/50s level ', with the top ten star made a total of 61 films in BMBF, and with the exception of Clint Eastwood, was a completely new line-up of names: Peter Sellers and Woody Allen (with 10 titles each), followed by Diane Keaton (8), Warren> Beatty and Jane Fonda (6 pieces). Even newcomers John Travolta and Richard Dreyfuss appeared for the first and only time (each with 5 pieces). For the first time since the thirties, had a name, Barbra Streisand, No titles on the site.
When we look ten years or more, we find that a steady decline since the number of memorable films in the eighties, with the cast of '88 Quigley's Post poll just over half the number of films (32) from the firstDecade. Dustin Hoffman appears in 10 pieces, as forthcoming and Tom Hanks (7) and Tom Cruise (5). But after Robin Williams (4), the number of tracks for each star has contributed in small part: Danny DeVito (2), Eddie Murphy (2), Bette Midler (1), Arnold Schwarzenegger (1), Paul Hogan (0) , and Tom Selleck (0).
(I just read some of these names, I feel the building start to crumble.)
Erosion continues to generate drop in '90, which now stands below the level of the ThirtiesBMBF only 24 titles. According to Hanks, Robin Williams, Mel Gibson (5 titles), and Leonardo DiCaprio (3), we have again a series of big stars, but in my opinion, is not that many outstanding films: among them, Jim Carrey ( 1), Meg Ryan (1), Cameron Diaz (1), Julia Roberts (0), and Adam Sandler (0).
The top box-office draws for 2008 hit a new low, has a paltry 14 tracks on our website. Harrison Ford topped the list with 7 titles, followed by George Clooney with 3 All otherthe list were two or fewer films, including Reese Witherspoon (2), Daniel Craig (1) Christian Bale (1), and transported without any title, Will Smith, Shia La Beouf, Robert Downey Jr., Angelina Jolie, and again, Adam Sandler.
This last group must be fair, some of these stars long career ahead of him, but it is not them (or us) very well, if the industry did not start taking better script. (In particular, Robert Downey Jr. stands out as an actor who alwayscomes off better than the movie finds himself in.)
O ... Maybe my idea of who or what is the size of the film has become obsolete. Maybe I blinded by prejudice and generations rightly gained a lot of angry comments to criticize the lack of Will Smith, Adam Sandler and Julia Roberts for my website.
A request, however, before filing your protest: first, even some of the most recent, most notable titles from France, Italy, Japan, Germany, Korea, Denmark, Iranand the Middle East. Next, click back a couple of classic Hollywood from the forties, fifties and sixties. We probably have some differences of emphasis in film production and the approach that I mentioned earlier.
But with the so-called progress, and over time, these differences are inevitable. Ultimately, it all boils down to this fundamental question: are we in America do our fair share of great films movies today who will be the test of time?
I for my part, dearI wish I could answer "yes".
My Links : push mowers air force pay exotic car rental
แสดงความคิดเห็น