Americans...Lucky Bastard
Ms Kay
intention to cause annoyance or to be an insult to Americans.
Ok, having watched many movies in my life time, I'm only 17 many more years
to go, I find it amazing that America is that only country that seems to
carry the worlds CRAP. I talk hear of all of those disaster movies that the
country has been spewing out over the last century.
Godzilla, decides to choose New York as its playground.
Independence Day-America becomes one big playground for those nasty aliens.
X-Files- Everyone is going to die, but guess what its those lucky Americans
again.
Predator2- That ugly thing roaming the street killing all of those innocent
folks....
and thousands more like it
I'm sure that by the Americans media standards the population of America
would be minute. But there's nothing with that.
So I'm wondering, when will the madness stop????
When will Britain make a film like the ones above or are we too tiny a
population as it is???
Kat
Andy Davidson
Avengers movie is pretty much along the lines you describe, but I wouldn't
strictly classify it as an American movie.
As a Brit living in the USA I take your point, though. The sad fact is
America produces some truly quality movies; they just don't seem to make it
to the UK. Independent film making in the US is a well-developed industry -
look out for the likes of Jim Jarmusch, Hal Hartley, Wayne Wang, John Waters
and others for some truly excellent American movies.
Andy
-----------------------------
Visit Carry On-Line,
the official website of the Carry On films at:
http://www.carryonline.com/
Ms Kay wrote in message <01bdb4e6$210cb2c0$0b4ed4d4@default>...
Bill Blum
matched. By picking on the US the story can have a huge villain
(Asteroid, although it did take out Paris). Britain usually won't
attract a big enough villain, except in James Bond films.
Bill
"Ms Kay" <ka...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>Firstly I would like to comment that this post has not been sent with the
>intention to cause annoyance or to be an insult to Americans.
>
>Ok, having watched many movies in my life time, I'm only 17 many more years
>to go, I find it amazing that America is that only country that seems to
>carry the worlds CRAP. I talk hear of all of those disaster movies that the
>country has been spewing out over the last century.
>
>Godzilla, decides to choose New York as its playground.
>Independence Day-America becomes one big playground for those nasty aliens.
>X-Files- Everyone is going to die, but guess what its those lucky Americans
>again.
>Predator2- That ugly thing roaming the street killing all of those innocent
>folks....
>and thousands more like it
>
>I'm sure that by the Americans media standards the population of America
>would be minute. But there's nothing with that.
>
>So I'm wondering, when will the madness stop????
>
>When will Britain make a film like the ones above or are we too tiny a
>population as it is???
>
>Kat
Bill
"The Player" was a documentary.
Alai
Maybe you should complain about the fact that the original godzilla movies
were based in Tokyo all the time. What about Akira? What about..... ahh
well....
I know it'll be politically correct to have the UN handle the ID4 issue, but
then, I hate PC movies, so there you go.
Alai
Andy Davidson wrote in message <6p3161$8...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>...
>Sort of depends what you define as "American". For example, the
forthcoming
>Avengers movie is pretty much along the lines you describe, but I wouldn't
>strictly classify it as an American movie.
>
>As a Brit living in the USA I take your point, though. The sad fact is
>America produces some truly quality movies; they just don't seem to make it
>to the UK. Independent film making in the US is a well-developed
industry -
>look out for the likes of Jim Jarmusch, Hal Hartley, Wayne Wang, John
Waters
>and others for some truly excellent American movies.
>
>Andy
>-----------------------------
>Visit Carry On-Line,
>the official website of the Carry On films at:
>http://www.carryonline.com/
>
>Ms Kay wrote in message <01bdb4e6$210cb2c0$0b4ed4d4@default>...
David Robkin
motion picture empire in the English-speaking world, but all of those
directors, writers and producers with an education and brains couldn't
quite stoop to the level of producing the kind of Pablum that would have
made them the obscene fortunes necessary to create these movies.
See what an education will get you?
;)
Dave
Michael Brooke
> As a Brit living in the USA I take your point, though. The sad fact is
> America produces some truly quality movies; they just don't seem to make it
> to the UK.
Some examples would be nice, as this seems to be the exact opposite of
the situation as I see it. In fact, American independent films now
dominate the independent distribution system in the UK to such an extent
that even venerable distributors like Artificial Eye (who until recently
would never have dreamed of handling anything without subtitles) have
been taking on things like 'Clerks' and 'Welcome to the Dollhouse'.
The real problem is that there are so many outstanding independent
American films that they're crowding out equally outstanding films from
other countries. US-made films have the immense advantage of not
needing subtitles, which automatically grants them a potentially bigger
audience.
> Independent film making in the US is a well-developed industry -
> look out for the likes of Jim Jarmusch, Hal Hartley, Wayne Wang, John Waters
> and others for some truly excellent American movies.
Virtually everything by those directors has been shown in the UK,
theatrically, on television and on video - the only exception I can
think of is Jarmusch's 'Permanent Vacation' (which was barely shown
anywhere) and Wang's 'Life is Cheap... But Toilet Paper is Expensive'
(which had a very limited theatrical run and then disappeared). Hal
Hartley's 'Henry Fool' has yet to open, but I think it has a British
distributor attached.
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAN SVANKMAJER - ALCHEMIST OF THE SURREAL
http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank
a lavish tribute to the cinema's wildest imagination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brooke
> Its your own fault. The British film industry had its chance to create a
> motion picture empire in the English-speaking world, but all of those
> directors, writers and producers with an education and brains couldn't
> quite stoop to the level of producing the kind of Pablum that would have
> made them the obscene fortunes necessary to create these movies.
>
> See what an education will get you?
I don't know how flippant that was intended to be, but there's a lot of
truth in that. Because Americans didn't have a great literary
tradition, screenwriters were less wedded to the written word, and were
able to develop a truly visual language. In Britain, by contrast, the
dominant attitude that film was an inferior art form and only worthy of
interest when it adapted some great literary masterwork arguably plays a
major part in Britain's lack of competitiveness.
To be fair, though, the British (and indeed the European) film industry
was extremely competitive in the early years of the medium - until World
War I came along and devastated it. While Europeans were fighting in
the trenches, the likes of D.W.Griffith were creating a new art form -
and by the time Europe caught up, it was too late: the Hollywood studio
system had been well established.
On a more general note, it's not necessarily the case that Americans set
out to produce crap and the British don't - there are God knows how many
examples that give the lie to that! The sad truth is that American crap
is usually superior to British crap - and this is as true today as it
ever has been!
Michael Brooke
> When will Britain make a film like the ones above or are we too tiny a
> population as it is???
The bottom line is that it would be financial suicide to attempt a film
on the scale of 'Godzilla' without some firm guarantee that it will be
financially successful - which means that it has to be financially
successful in the US. With very few exceptions, if an English-language
film flops in the US, it will probably flop everywhere else - or at
least not take anything like enough money to justify its budget. 'The
Name of the Rose' is the only example I can think of where a film took
$100 million worldwide despite flopping in the US, and that wasn't
exactly a disaster movie aimed at mainstream audiences.
As American audiences are notoriously parochial, this means that you
have to put in American elements - which usually means US characters,
settings, etc. British and European audiences are far less fussy about
this kind of thing.
So the chances of a London-based 'Godzilla' produced by a British studio
featuring entirely English characters are more or less nonexistent -
because where is the money going to come from?
David Robkin
a handicap in the 50's produceed some of the finest films ever-in their
genre. THE MAN IN THE WHITE SUIT for example. (Yes,...I did study with
Sandy Macendrick but that's beside the point) THey also produced one of
the worst bits of outhouse leavings I have ever seen in THE BOUNCING
BOMB. The difference, though, is that both movies tried very hard to be
good art where things like BLAZING SADDLES, THE ADDAMS FAMILY, HALOWEEN
I, etc, tried hard to be good entertainment.
The implication that the British Theatrical Tradition was also an
element in British Film's failure to become a world power is probably
right on the mark.
But that's another newsgroup
Dave
Gary Pollard
>
>I know it'll be politically correct to have the UN handle the ID4
issue, but
>then, I hate PC movies, so there you go.
So do I. But I hate jingoism even more
Gary
Empire3219
>The real problem is that there are so many outstanding independent
>American films that they're crowding out equally outstanding films from
>other countries.
That's a problem? Let's analyze that. "Independent Film" means what? That
someone went out, either wrote or worked on a script, got the money together
then made the film. I don't see a problem there. I would think that
independent film makers would be seen as an asset instead of a "problem". The
independent film maker is ready to stand behind a project and see it done
instead of turn it over to a bunch of idiot hollywood producers who would
change it and turn it into what they thought it should be. Then end up with
some sort of crap like Godzilla.
And by the way, I don't know that The Full Monty was independent or not, but I
loved the film. My point being.....it was not American and it got WIDE
coverage in the states. And if you even try to say it didn't, I live in a VERY
redneck part of the country that is NOT perceptive or even willing to give that
sort of film a shot, and I saw it here.
Empire3219
>featuring entirely English characters are more or less nonexistent -
Let's keep in mind that Godzilla will never pay off. It was one of the biggest
hyped films to be a major let down. The last time I remember that happening
was The Last Action Hero, the Arnold Schwarzaneger film.
Michael Brooke
> Actually, I was being only half-flippant. British Cinema, starting from
> a handicap in the 50's produceed some of the finest films ever-in their
> genre.
Actually, I'd argue that the true golden age of British cinema was
between 1945 and 1951 - where you had David Lean, Carol Reed, Powell and
Pressburger *and* Ealing Studios turning out their finest work. I don't
think there's any other era in British cinema that can match that.
> The implication that the British Theatrical Tradition was also an
> element in British Film's failure to become a world power is probably
> right on the mark.
>
It's very instructive to compare British and French attitudes. The
French also had a great literary and theatrical tradition - one just as
distinguished as anything the British can boast - but they also saw the
potential of film as a serious art form, and treated it as such from a
very early stage.
I doubt very much directors like Abel Gance or Jean Renoir could have
worked comfortably within the parochial confines of 1920s British cinema
- and Hitchcock (who was probably the only really outstanding British
director for something like the first three-and-a-half decades of the
medium) kept having run-ins with the cinema authorities.
"Your film is so terrible that we're not going to release it" said one
such official to Hitchcock after seeing his latest film. The film was
'The Lodger' - now acclaimed as probably the greatest of all British
silent films! And when the film finally got released, it was also a
huge box-office hit - thus proving that at least the British public
could recognise a good film even if industry officials couldn't.
Jason Bayne
studios would have liked, but it will (if it' hasn't already) make
profit. When the money it makes worldwide is combined
with the money the studio made off of the sale of the TV broadcast
rights ($30 million or so), it will clear a profit. Then add in the
video sales...
Jason
DENIS ROUX
Eugenie -a french girl-
Eug...@wanadoo.fr
Ms Kay <ka...@easynet.co.uk> a écrit dans l'article
<01bdb4e6$210cb2c0$0b4ed4d4@default>...
> Firstly I would like to comment that this post has not been sent with the
> intention to cause annoyance or to be an insult to Americans.
>
> Ok, having watched many movies in my life time, I'm only 17 many more
years
> to go, I find it amazing that America is that only country that seems to
> carry the worlds CRAP. I talk hear of all of those disaster movies that
the
> country has been spewing out over the last century.
>
> Godzilla, decides to choose New York as its playground.
> Independence Day-America becomes one big playground for those nasty
aliens.
> X-Files- Everyone is going to die, but guess what its those lucky
Americans
> again.
> Predator2- That ugly thing roaming the street killing all of those
innocent
> folks....
> and thousands more like it
>
> I'm sure that by the Americans media standards the population of America
> would be minute. But there's nothing with that.
>
> So I'm wondering, when will the madness stop????
>
> When will Britain make a film like the ones above or are we too tiny a
> population as it is???
>
> Kat
>
Speedbyrd
Press) wrote:
>In article <01bdb4e6$210cb2c0$0b4ed4d4@default>, "Ms Kay"
><ka...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Firstly I would like to comment that this post has not been sent with the
>> intention to cause annoyance or to be an insult to Americans.
>>
>> Ok, having watched many movies in my life time, I'm only 17 many more years
>> to go, I find it amazing that America is that only country that seems to
>> carry the worlds CRAP. I talk hear of all of those disaster movies that the
>> country has been spewing out over the last century.
>>
>> Godzilla, decides to choose New York as its playground.
>> Independence Day-America becomes one big playground for those nasty aliens.
>> X-Files- Everyone is going to die, but guess what its those lucky Americans
>> again.
>> Predator2- That ugly thing roaming the street killing all of those innocent
>> folks....
>> and thousands more like it
>>
>> I'm sure that by the Americans media standards the population of America
>> would be minute. But there's nothing with that.
>>
>> So I'm wondering, when will the madness stop????
>>
>> When will Britain make a film like the ones above or are we too tiny a
>> population as it is???
>>
>We like to see stuff blowing up. Next stop, London.
Who's 'we'??
Speedbyrd
>It's well-know that america is the center of the world. (!)
>Eugenie -a french girl-
As an American and a proud one, I still have to ask where you get this
notion from?
DanVision2
>population as it is???
Okay Kay, I'm going to tell you what I think at the risk of being flamed to
death by everybody. I would say that you aren't alone when you get annoyed by
America being the centre of things but the rest of us do accept it. You'll find
that many of todays kids in Britain are heavily influenced by the movies and
therefore know more about American culture then their own because Hollywood
seems to miss its responsibility to the world and appears just to satisfy
America.
The result is that most kids who like movies will be able to tell you who David
Letterman is, but probably won't have heard of Winston Churchill.
And in answer to your quetion about Britain being too tiny, and this is the bit
thats going to get me killed. I think America has a kind of patriotic arrogance
now that Hollywood is the size it is. It protects itself, and as America is a
very important market to film makes because of the revenue it can get them a
British film may find it very hard to make it. (When I say British I mean
anything that isn't American)
This is not an attack on Americans, I'm sure if the role was reversed it would
be just the same. But what I'm trying to say is that whereas the world is quite
happy to sit through popcorn movies, Godzilla etc, if anybody else made trashy
forgettable movies, they would find themselves hounded out of the market.
On the upside though it usually means other countries can concentrate on
quality and let the US churn out the B-movie style stuff that fills the market.
Sorry if this offended anyone
BUZZ LIGHTYEAR
http://members.aol.com/DanVision2/Main.htm
Michael Brooke
> In article <01bdb4e6$210cb2c0$0b4ed4d4@default>, "Ms Kay"
> <ka...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > When will Britain make a film like the ones above or are we too tiny a
> > population as it is???
> >
> We like to see stuff blowing up. Next stop, London.
Try 'Mars Attacks!' - if memory serves, that has a brief sequence of
London being demolished.
Speedbyrd
And remember 'Gorgo'???? London really took a beating in that one.
Teach them to kidnap little kids....;>
Susan Umpleby
<199807250804...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>When will Britain make a film like the ones above or are we too tiny
a
>>population as it is???
>
flamed to
>death by everybody. I would say that you aren't alone when you get
annoyed by
>America being the centre of things but the rest of us do accept it.
You'll find
>that many of todays kids in Britain are heavily influenced by the
movies and
>therefore know more about American culture then their own because
Hollywood
>seems to miss its responsibility to the world and appears just to
satisfy
>America.
----------I can't believe I just read this! Let's see. Your country
imports movies made in the U.S., by U.S. companies, and you complain
that those movies were made to entertain U.S. citizens &/or reflect
U.S. culture. And as for "Hollywood's responsibility to the
world".......it has none outside of putting out films for the
movie-going public. And by your reasoning, why are other countries
missing _their_ responsibilities to the world? My lord! They too are
making films to satisfy _their_ citizens first & if they are enjoyed
in other countries, OK.
Britain, like other countries, imports U.S. films of their own free
will. I find all the grousing about the quality of said films
ludicrous--no one forces you to either import or watch them. Why
isn't the UK putting out more films for those heavily influenced
British youth you fear for? No one is stopping you. If you don't
want to watch "crap", don't. That's easy enough.
>The result is that most kids who like movies will be able to tell you
who David
>Letterman is, but probably won't have heard of Winston Churchill.
----------It is the school's responsibility to teach British kids
about Churchill, not Hollywood's. But this is not a failing solely in
the UK, our kids are also being short-changed in the history
department.
>
>And in answer to your quetion about Britain being too tiny, and this
is the bit
>thats going to get me killed. I think America has a kind of patriotic
arrogance
>now that Hollywood is the size it is. It protects itself, and as
America is a
>very important market to film makes because of the revenue it can get
them a
>British film may find it very hard to make it. (When I say British I
mean
>anything that isn't American)
----------Hockeypucks! The "size" of the American movie industry in
no way prevents you from making the types of films you want in your
country. Go ahead, no one's stopping you. You surely can't be saying
that the U.S. is the sole source of movie funding in the world.
If you refer to the success of "foreign" films in the _U.S._, well,
for them to be successful here they need to be marketed more
aggressively. Better deals need to be negotiated to ensure wider
distribution. Limited releases to small numbers of houses just isn't
going to do it. Get them publicized in magazines and on TV to get
public demand going. Your companies need to hustle. How do you
expect a film to do well in the U.S. if 99% of us have never heard of
it? Patriotic arrogance has nothing to do with it. Get off your lazy
butts--have stars, directors & writers of films to be distributed in
this country make appearances here on widely watched shows, talk
radio, in magazines, newspapers. I drove 35 miles last weekend to see
"The Governess", and the only way I knew about it was a friend who
works at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences saw the file on
it and told me about it.
>
>This is not an attack on Americans, I'm sure if the role was reversed
it would
>be just the same. But what I'm trying to say is that whereas the
world is quite
>happy to sit through popcorn movies, Godzilla etc, if anybody else
made trashy
>forgettable movies, they would find themselves hounded out of the
market.
--------Uh, huh. The U.S. is the only country who has made trashy,
forgettable movies. Get real. Who, exactly, would be doing this
"hounding"? BTW, by your own admission the world is quite happy to
sit through "popcorn" movies, so I doubt the world cares which country
they happen to come from.
>
>On the upside though it usually means other countries can concentrate
on
>quality and let the US churn out the B-movie style stuff that fills
the market.
--------But you just said that the size of Hollywood prevents you from
doing just that, and that since they don't do well in the U.S., your
films "must" flop. Make up your mind.
>Sorry if this offended anyone
>BUZZ LIGHTYEAR
---------No offense at all, just amazement that that you seem to blame
Hollywood for the education of your children, the number & quality of
the films you watch, and for the failure of your own film industry to
provide the entertainment needs & wants of its own country.
Jerry
says...
> On Sat, 25 Jul 1998 13:35:54 +0100, mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk
> (Michael Brooke) wrote:
>
> >Skip Press <skip...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <01bdb4e6$210cb2c0$0b4ed4d4@default>, "Ms Kay"
> >> <ka...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> >
> >> > population as it is???
> >> >
> >
> >
> >Try 'Mars Attacks!' - if memory serves, that has a brief sequence of
> >London being demolished.
> >
> >Michael
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> > JAN SVANKMAJER - ALCHEMIST OF THE SURREAL
> > http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank
> > a lavish tribute to the cinema's wildest imagination
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> And remember 'Gorgo'???? London really took a beating in that one.
> Teach them to kidnap little kids....;>
>
Bill Blum
SHUSH YOU!
Do you how many years it's taken for us to get French women to believe
this?
Luis Canau
>Try 'Mars Attacks!' - if memory serves, that has a brief sequence of
>London being demolished.
The French were better regarded since they have a whole sequence with
negociations with the martians.
--
luis canau_________________________________
<luis....@mail.euNOT.pt> euNOT -> EUnet)
cinema: http://home.EUnet.pt/cinedie
opinativo informativo pouco decorativo
____________[pro-widescreen]________________
Speedbyrd
>> (Michael Brooke) wrote:
>>
>> >Skip Press <skip...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <01bdb4e6$210cb2c0$0b4ed4d4@default>, "Ms Kay"
>> >> <ka...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > When will Britain make a film like the ones above or are we too tiny a
>> >> > population as it is???
>> >> >
>> >> We like to see stuff blowing up. Next stop, London.
>> >
>> >
>> >London being demolished.
>> >
>> >----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > JAN SVANKMAJER - ALCHEMIST OF THE SURREAL
>> > http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank
>> > a lavish tribute to the cinema's wildest imagination
>> >----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> And remember 'Gorgo'???? London really took a beating in that one.
>> Teach them to kidnap little kids....;>
>>
>And don't forget "Lifeforce" the vampires were centered in London.
And what about "American Werewolf in London?"??? Guess that one was a
joint effort between nations...
DanVision2
>Hollywood for the education of your children, the number & quality of
>the films you watch, and for the failure of your own film industry to
>provide the entertainment needs & wants of its own country.
>
You're missing the point, this isn't an atack on America, its just that which
ever country has the near monopoly on the market has to watch out for the
influences it creates. And I also believe, if America sinks into the ocean
tomorrow, that whichever country took over the industry at the forefront would
do the same and try to protect itself.
BUZZ LIGHTYEAR
http://members.aol.com/DanVision2/Main.htm
DanVision2
>no way prevents you from making the types of films you want in your
>country. Go ahead, no one's stopping you. You surely can't be saying
>that the U.S. is the sole source of movie funding in the world.
>
> If you refer to the success of "foreign" films in the _U.S._, well,
>for them to be successful here they need to be marketed more
>aggressively. Better deals need to be negotiated to ensure wider
>distribution. Limited releases to small numbers of houses just isn't
>going to do it. Get them publicized in magazines and on TV to get
>public demand going. Your companies need to hustle. How do you
>expect a film to do well in the U.S. if 99% of us have never heard of
>it? Patriotic arrogance has nothing to do with it. Get off your lazy
>butts--have stars, directors & writers of films to be distributed in
>this country make appearances here on widely watched shows, talk
>radio, in magazines, newspapers. I drove 35 miles last weekend to see
>"The Governess", and the only way I knew about it was a friend who
>works at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences saw the file on
>it and told me about it.
This is the point. To make a film successful it has to sell in America, its the
same with music. Therefore Britain will not make anything remotely action like
because it will be the same as the majority of Hollywood films. And unless its
very good will be ignored.
What I am trying to say is that it would cost us huge amounts of money to set
up a decent movie industry and we just don't have and can't raise it when we
can only rely on a population our size. Therefore we have no choice but to
export our stars to America.
And don't get offended when I refer to films as crap, I am talking about the
standard action, sci fi films that Hollywood makes its basic revenue from.
Thats the part that Britain cannot compete with. We will not spend the huge
amount of money on the type of movie like Godzila in case it flops, and as this
is the 'staple diet' for the movie going public, we rely on your films of that
standard to make the money and try to do something special. Obviously we don't
succeed all the time and I am not saying that the only films that come out of
America are standard fare. Look at the recent excellent examples of LA
Confidential and Good Will Hunting and yes I could go on for a while.
I'm not trying to attack American movies, I'm on this damn newsgroup because I
love films and I am incredibly jealous that Hollywood isnt in Britain, that
goes without saying. But what I am saying is that Hollywood is now so powerful
that we have no chance of ever having a movie industry again, unless we can
find aliies, like Austrailia etc.
BUZZ LIGHTYEAR
http://members.aol.com/DanVision2/Main.htm
Susan Umpleby
<199807260934...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
----------This is what I find amazing. If people in other countries
feel that the U.S. has a "monopoly" on the market _and_ that the films
we produce are all dreck, a simple solution would be *don't watch*!!
If the powers-that-be in your country insist on importing films you
don't think are any good, don't put down your money at the boxoffice.
The "monopoly" would soon be broken if it failed to be profitable.
I _didn't_ take your post as an attack, BTW. It's just that "we"
constantly hear how *terrible* American exports such as movies or
fast-food chains or whatever are---from the same people who _support_
those exports with their own money. If these things are so terrible
why does your country (& others) support them? It's very simple: no
one forces you to spend your money on U.S. films so if you don't like
them organize a boycott.
Fantomas
Michael Brooke <mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> escribió en artículo
<1dcq3fu.1pb...@everyman.demon.co.uk>...
> Skip Press <skip...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <01bdb4e6$210cb2c0$0b4ed4d4@default>, "Ms Kay"
> > <ka...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
>
> > >
> > > When will Britain make a film like the ones above or are we too tiny
a
> > > population as it is???
> > >
> > We like to see stuff blowing up. Next stop, London.
>
>
> Try 'Mars Attacks!' - if memory serves, that has a brief sequence of
> London being demolished.
Or¨ ¨The Time Machine ¨and ¨Quatermass and The Pit ¨( US Five Million Years
to Earth,
Esp. ? Que sucedio entonces ? )
JNa2494826
Canau) writes:
>>Try 'Mars Attacks!' - if memory serves, that has a brief sequence of
>>London being demolished.
>
>The French were better regarded since they have a whole sequence with
>negociations with the martians.
bahh bahh bahhbahhbahhh bahh bahh bahh bahh bahh bahh
bahh bahh
bahh........bahhh
Dogbreath
loads of special effects etc. MONEY!!!! Yes, the USA dominates the
worldwide movie industry.
The UK is just a little country with over fifty million people. I am
sure there are a lot of talented actresses, film people, etc. from the
UK. Why do you think they end up working in Hollywood?
I am a Brit living in Los Angeles at the moment, and yes, I do see a
fair of amount of movies. You cannot get away from their influence
here. They are everywhere. I do not see typical Hollywood movies, I
cannot stand most of them, their cliches, stereotypes and sense of being
overblown. I would rather see a really good movie that probably cost a
few million than some overblown piece of crap that cost $100 million.
But hey, that's my tastes and that's why I subscribe to
alt.movies.independent.
Look around, you will see quite a few British actors in movies and being
successful. Look at Minnie Driver, Ralph Fiennes, Kristin Scott Thomas,
Tom Wilkinson, Robert Carlyle, Kate Winslet, I could go on and on. Hey,
these actors are on an absolute roll at the moment. I have just read an
article in the LA Times with an interview with Minnie Driver and she is
the cat who has definitely got the cream. In another part of the paper
I read about movies companies wanting to invest in the UK. Hey, lucky
Brit bastards!
Remember The English Patient winning 9 Oscars? The Full Monty being
nominated as well? Her Majesty Mrs Brown? Wings of the Dove?
I am a believer in the fact that a movie reflects the country in which
it came from. Hence the UK is known for James Bond, history movies,
working class themes etc. I couldn't never imagine Godzilla being
filmed in the UK, for the same reason.
I am sorry if I have waffled on a bit but the USA is the best at turning
out movies like Godzilla, Independence Day.
DanVision2
>feel that the U.S. has a "monopoly" on the market _and_ that the films
>we produce are all dreck, a simple solution would be *don't watch*!!
>If the powers-that-be in your country insist on importing films you
>don't think are any good, don't put down your money at the boxoffice.
>The "monopoly" would soon be broken if it failed to be profitable.
>
>I _didn't_ take your post as an attack, BTW. It's just that "we"
>constantly hear how *terrible* American exports such as movies or
>fast-food chains or whatever are---from the same people who _support_
>those exports with their own money. If these things are so terrible
>why does your country (& others) support them? It's very simple: no
>one forces you to spend your money on U.S. films so if you don't like
>them organize a boycott.
>
I'm not saying that the movies of America are rubbish, its just that a movie
industry needs a basic. This is what I mean when I talk about crappy films. All
of the usual fare, things you go to see just for a laugh rather than because it
looks good. This is the part that America monopolises, the part that every
industry needs. Therefore I believe that if America eased off a bit on these
films and made more space in the market there would be more then just one movie
superpower which I think would raise the quality of movies.
BUZZ LIGHTYEAR
http://members.aol.com/DanVision2/Main.htm
Susan Umpleby
<199807272019...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
----------There you go again! Blaming another country's film industry
for the lacks of your own. Our films can only "monopolize" in your
country if _you_ let them. There is no reason that the UK can't
become a "movie superpower"--goodness knows you have the acting
talent! And I've seen enough of your recent films to know that the
directorial talent is there aplenty. But you will never become that
"movie superpower" if you expect us or any other country to stop what
we're doing so you can have room. Push in! Make the room.
How about this scenario: your film industry actually goes ahead and
makes more movies of all genres; then ordinary British citizens can
join with British prouction companies to pursuade the British
government to pass legislature similar to that in France for music
stations that requires British cinemas to carry a certain percentage
of British films. This, combined with a grassroots movement that
_you_ can spearhead convince people to steer away from American films
in favor of British, will loosen our "stranglehold" on the film market
in the UK at least. From there, with good _aggressive_ marketing your
films can spread around the globe.
Of course, my scenario necessitates that you actually take action &
attempt to change what you don't like, instead of sitting back &
wishing that the U.S. make fewer films.
Michael Brooke
> Well, it is pretty obvious why the USA produces megablockbusters with
> loads of special effects etc. MONEY!!!! Yes, the USA dominates the
> worldwide movie industry.
>
> The UK is just a little country with over fifty million people. I am
> sure there are a lot of talented actresses, film people, etc. from the
> UK. Why do you think they end up working in Hollywood?
You're making a rather sweeping assumption that the size of the country
is a major factor in whether or not it can sustain a film industry - and
there's very little evidence to support this.
True, the country with the most productive film industry in the world
also has a population of 750 million people (India), but that's one of
the few examples that supports your contention.
France and Italy, despite a population similar to that of the UK, both
sustained far larger and more productive film industries (though Italy's
has rather collapsed in recent years) - and of course there's also Hong
Kong: tiny country, tiny population, but one of the world's biggest and
most commercially successful film industries. The biggest film star in
the world by a very long way - if measured in terms of the fan base - is
Jackie Chan. And even now, despite problems in the industry, Hong Kong
films make up 40% of the domestic box office charts.
> Look around, you will see quite a few British actors in movies and being
> successful. Look at Minnie Driver, Ralph Fiennes, Kristin Scott Thomas,
> Tom Wilkinson, Robert Carlyle, Kate Winslet, I could go on and on. Hey,
> these actors are on an absolute roll at the moment.
Has Robert Carlyle done anything in the US yet? I understood that he
preferred working for British production companies on relatively low
budgets.
> I am a believer in the fact that a movie reflects the country in which
> it came from. Hence the UK is known for James Bond, history movies,
> working class themes etc. I couldn't never imagine Godzilla being
> filmed in the UK, for the same reason.
I'm not necessarily sure I agree with your first sentence - because
there's no question that the UK would make a film like 'Godzilla' like a
shot given half the chance. The problem is, where would the money come
from? A country like Hong Kong could do it because they have access to
the huge South-East Asian market, whereas every British film has to
really struggle to get noticed in the US. This also applies to European
films - 'The Fifth Element' (French) was a much bigger hit in Europe
than it was in the US.
> I am sorry if I have waffled on a bit but the USA is the best at turning
> out movies like Godzilla, Independence Day.
Actually, Hong Kong and (stating the obvious) Japan have a pretty good
track record in that department...
David Robkin
bearing on the size of their film industry. The size of your country is
the size of your audience
That France and Italy have a larger (had a larger?) more dynamic
industry than the UK might be a function of competition from the 'other'
english-language film producer-the U.S.
HongKong is not a small country, it never was. Hong Kong has always been
a part of mainland China with strong ties to the mainland. A better
comparison would be the Hong Kong film industry vs. the Taiwan film
industry.
Michael Brooke
> Actually- I would argue that the size of a country does have a direct
> bearing on the size of their film industry. The size of your country is
> the size of your audience.
Not necessarily - because if you share a language with another country,
you automatically have a potentially greater market. French films, for
example, can be (and are) sold to Belgium, Switzerland, Canada and
certain African states.
There are huge countries (Russia, Brazil) with relatively tiny film
industries and, conversely, tiny countries (the Czech Republic, Hong
Kong - which I do regard as a separate entity from China, for all sorts
of political and sociological reasons) which are considerably more
productive. Certainly, a small domestic population makes things more
difficult - but isn't necessarily a major barrier.
>
> That France and Italy have a larger (had a larger?) more dynamic
> industry than the UK might be a function of competition from the 'other'
> english-language film producer-the U.S.
Actually, it's largely due to massive government support - this is
particularly true in France, which has a long tradition of protectionist
policies designed to boost the domestic film industry. And it's worth
noting that the reason that Sergio Leone's 'A Fistful of Dollars' was
credited to "Bob Robertson" (amongst other pseudonyms) is not because
Leone wanted to fool Americans into thinking it was an American film, it
was to fool *Italians* into thinking that - which suggests that American
films were dominating the Italian box office even back then, when the
domestic industry was riding high.
> HongKong is not a small country, it never was. Hong Kong has always been
> a part of mainland China with strong ties to the mainland.
...though in fact, until surprisingly recently, China was not a major
market for Hong Kong films!
> A better
> comparison would be the Hong Kong film industry vs. the Taiwan film
> industry.
I agree, but not for the reasons you seem to be implying - Taiwan is one
of the biggest markets for Hong Kong films, which dominate Taiwan's
cinemas in much the same way that Hollywood films dominate British
cinemas. Your comparison doesn't really work because if you substitute
'Japan' for 'Taiwan' (which you could easily do in terms of size and
population of the relevant country) it becomes meaningless.
DeppityBob
towards populism--that is, higher population equals lowest-common-denominator
movies, and lower population equals more well-crafted movies. Both are sweeping
generalizations that are very flawed.
All one needs to do is look at one country's crap and another country's gold to
see that it isn't so. Britain is the home of many fine films, but looking at
British crap--dreadfully dull murder mysteries, boring horror movies, stiffly
wooden recantations of classic novels--really, truly makes one yearn for
something like Ghostbusters or Star Wars... (And let's not even talk about bad
East Indian films, or bad Hong Kong chopsocky films...)
Then again, America pumps out more crap than just about anybody, but we also
have given the world such (recent) excellent films as Smoke Signals, Chasing
Amy, The Whole Wide World, Clockwatchers, Household Saints, Runaway Train,
Basquiat, Red Rock West, Three of Hearts, Fargo, Miller's Crossing...all
independents. And that doesn't even take into account the excellent,
intelligent films of depth made by the majors: Saving Private Ryan, The Truman
Show, Gattaca, and so on. Plus, we make *good* all-around entertainment (for
when you are not in the mood for depth)--stuff like Ghostbusters, The Fugitive,
Titanic, Braveheart, and so on. You know, MOVIE MOVIES.
So yeah, we shove a lot of crap down the world's throat,
unfortunately--everyone had a chance to see Godzilla yet? Are we all ready for
Halloween H20?--but we're not hardly solely responsible for it, nor is it the
only thing we make.
Dep
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Humans. Can't live with 'em, can't
escape the fallout when you
bomb 'em into oblivion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I picked myself up, dusted myself off,
and joined the Dark Side!"
Steve Raymar
Dogbreath wrote in message <35BCCCF8...@spam.com>...
>Well, it is pretty obvious why the USA produces megablockbusters with
>loads of special effects etc. MONEY!!!! Yes, the USA dominates the
>worldwide movie industry.
>
>The UK is just a little country with over fifty million people. I am
>sure there are a lot of talented actresses, film people, etc. from the
>UK. Why do you think they end up working in Hollywood?
>
>fair of amount of movies. You cannot get away from their influence
>here. They are everywhere. I do not see typical Hollywood movies, I
>cannot stand most of them, their cliches, stereotypes and sense of being
>overblown. I would rather see a really good movie that probably cost a
>few million than some overblown piece of crap that cost $100 million.
>But hey, that's my tastes and that's why I subscribe to
>alt.movies.independent.
>it came from. Hence the UK is known for James Bond, history movies,
>working class themes etc. I couldn't never imagine Godzilla being
>filmed in the UK, for the same reason.
>
>out movies like Godzilla, Independence Day.
I'm an American and to me most of the above blockbuster type movies
are a waste. I've know people in their 20's and 30's that really like this
crap too! They tend to like junk food, junk music, junk internet and junk
films. Europe really values art and culture whereas America values making
megabucks via junk entertainment. All I can say is never envy this trait.
Thank God we do have some good films comming out anyway.
Steve Raymar
http://home.earthlink.net/~sraymar
DanVision2
>sustained far larger and more productive film industries (though Italy's
>has rather collapsed in recent years)
I think that has to do with common language more than population
BUZZ LIGHTYEAR
http://members.aol.com/DanVision2/Main.htm
Susan Umpleby
<199807301728...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>France and Italy, despite a population similar to that of the UK,
both
>>sustained far larger and more productive film industries (though
Italy's
>>has rather collapsed in recent years)
>
>I think that has to do with common language more than population
---------I'm not sure I understand this. 1) France & Italy certainly
don't share a language. 2) Within the three respective countries,
language is equally homogenous--English in UK, French in France,
Italian in Italy. though like other countries, each has regional
dialects. 3) if you meant that more countries speak French &/or
Italian than they do English, that is incorrect: English is is the
official language, or main means of international communication, in
more countries than any other. French comes in second in this
respect. Italian is down the list a bit....
DanVision2
>don't share a language. 2) Within the three respective countries,
>language is equally homogenous--English in UK, French in France,
>Italian in Italy. though like other countries, each has regional
>dialects. 3) if you meant that more countries speak French &/or
>Italian than they do English, that is incorrect: English is is the
>official language, or main means of international communication, in
>more countries than any other. French comes in second in this
>respect. Italian is down the list a bit....
English people speak English as do Americans. But the French and Italians
don't. Therefore Americans can sell easier to Britain than the other two. After
all the majority of movie going publics like their own language and its only a
relatively small majority that prefer subtitles
BUZZ LIGHTYEAR
http://members.aol.com/DanVision2/Main.htm
Susan Umpleby
<199807311826...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
---------We're getting our wires crossed _somewhere_. You stated that
France & Italy despite similar population sizes to UK support larger,
more productive film industries & that you thought "that has to do
with common language more than population". You now counter my query
on that statement with the above reply which doesn't really fit,
either. By the above argument, the British film industry should
actually do _better_ than the French or Italian counterparts, since
the British films can comfortably be marketed in the USA (shared
language) and in the large number of other countries having English as
the Main or secondary language. So this argument for "why UK films
don't do well" is a dead end.
DanVision2
Sorry Susan, I realise my answer was a bit vague. Somebody else was talking
about a population size being responsible for movie output and said that whilst
Britain, France and Italy had all really similar populations Italy and France
had higher movie output. I was saying that it was language rather then
population in this case (Although I do believe that population is a major
reason)
The British can buy from the Americans whereas the French and Italians cannot
if they prefer to watch films without subtitles. That was the point I was
trying to make, sorry for the confusion.
BUZZ LIGHTYEAR
http://members.aol.com/DanVision2/Main.htm
Steve M.
Years ago, the film studios were owned and RUN by people who *loved*
films, so we had Maltese Falcon, 12 Angry Men, The Searchers, The
Fortune Cookie, etc. etc.
Now, the studios are owned by Sony, Coca Cola, Rupert (F*^%$&") !
Murdoch, and we have Independence Day, Lost in Space,
Armageddon....................
Susan Umpleby
<199808010731...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
----------So you're saying that because the UK can & does import a lot
of U.S. films, it's film industry makes small effort to compete &
turns out few films? That's a pathetic statement to make about your
own industry isn't it? The movie industry is a business first &
foremost & business is all about competition. You make it sound as if
the British film industry has lain down & died :-{
I think you're wrong on this. You think that the UK should be turning
out big blockbuster action films in order to be able to compete with
the U.S. & that this country should make less films so there will be
"room" for the UK. Why? Action films aren't everything, you know.
If that's all there was the movie-going public would get pretty sick
of them. Your industry turns out great films in other genres, many
of which will stand the test of time a lot better than a lot of the
blow-em-ups. They just need to be marketed better to do well here in
the U.S.
Michael Brooke
> It's pure corporatism, folks !
>
> Years ago, the film studios were owned and RUN by people who *loved*
> films, so we had Maltese Falcon, 12 Angry Men, The Searchers, The
> Fortune Cookie, etc. etc.
A lovely idea, but one seriously at odds with historical reality -
studios have *always* been run by philistines who were more influenced
by the box office than by aesthetics.
1941 may have produced 'Citizen Kane' and 'The Maltese Falcon', but it
also produced hundreds of routine, unimaginative, forgettable films...
which have of course been duly forgotten, thus distorting the picture
and creating a largely mythical "golden age".
I can just imagine a 1941 equivalent of this newsgroup: "I see that
Warner Bros have so little imagination that they're making a third
version of 'The Maltese Falcon', only ten years after the first one!
It's obviously going to be crap, so let's boycott it and warn people
against going to see it!"
Pretzel
Private Ryan' ?
They are powerful movies done with imagination and flare, its very hard to
rebuke Hollywood completely. There are movies that are important historical
mile stones and only can be made by Hollywood budgets and experienced
directors like Spielberg and Cameron.
I agree that a great deal of trash is produced by Hollywood but Hollywood is
immensely important, and one cant just castigate in its entirety.
Lash
Michael Brooke wrote in message
<1dd5lsr.1au...@everyman.demon.co.uk>...
Gary Jones
<pat...@cableinet.co.uk> wrote
>
>
>Years ago, the film studios were owned and RUN by people who *loved*
>films,
Nice idea, but probably just rose-tinted twaddle. Since the birth of
Hollywood, the studio owners have generally been mercenary bastards, but
there have always been exceptions, like United Artists, or American
Zoetrope, which were founded with ideals of artistic independence. Such
ideals don't often last long. Someone should have told Fairbanks,
Chaplin and Coppola the old joke: If you want to hear God laugh, tell
him your plans.
> so we had Maltese Falcon, 12 Angry Men, The Searchers, The
>Fortune Cookie, etc. etc.
>
I don't think this handful of great films, spread over a period of 25
years, really does much to confirm your hypothesis. There are just as
many great films made today as in the past. When thinking back to movies
of the past, we have a selective cultural memory, tending to remember
the good stuff and forget the crap.
--
Gary Jones (Remove SSPPAAMMBLOCK from e-mail address)
PGP public keys available from servers
RSA Key ID: 0x6AFBEAA1
DSS/Diffie-Hellman Key ID: 0x11EAE903
Brian Fitzharrs
so, but when they do happen to hit the nail on the head with a film like "Saving
Private Ryan" every so often, the results can be breathtaking and epic in a way
that few indies can aspire to....
Brian
Alan Bloom
wrote:
>What does every one think about blockbusters like 'Titanic' and 'Saving
>Private Ryan' ?
>They are powerful movies......
Puh-leez! Don't put Titanic and ....Private Ryan in the same
category. Titanic was a "blockbuster" because hordes of pre-pubes sat
through it 18 times to watch that twit DeCaprio. I was anxiously
awaiting the sinking of the ship so I could finally leave!
Quicksilver
was a great film. Of course there is all the hype and shit, which I hate.
Because it ruins the who thing for me. Seeing little girls at the Titanic
movie on tour looking at nothing but movie clips of Leo. But a lot maybe
more than half of the people who went to see Titanic was for the story the
effects, and curiosity because of all the money spent on the making of the
film.
I have nothing against Leo, I though he did a great job in What's Eating
Gilbert Grape. And even though I want particularly impressed with his
acting in Titanic, I thought Kate Winslet did great.
And many adults saw the film for the sake of seeing the film. The Leo teeny
boppers only make a small portion of Titanic fans. I wonder if people would
still be criticizing Titanic, or being stubborn about not watching it. If
there was absolutely no hype if not everyone who came up to you said, you
have to go watch it Leo is soooo cute. Or Kate Winslet is naked. When I
went to see the film I hadn't even heard about it my friend said it was good
so I watched it with her. I was really touched by how the story was
portrayed and impressed at how realistic the sinking was. I think for the
most part this is what made this film a blockbuster. If Leo was in Saving
Private Ryan would you say the same thing?
Neena
Speedbyrd :>
wrote:
>Umm you should think about something like that before you say it. Titanic
>was a great film. Of course there is all the hype and shit, which I hate.
>Because it ruins the who thing for me. Seeing little girls at the Titanic
>movie on tour looking at nothing but movie clips of Leo. But a lot maybe
>more than half of the people who went to see Titanic was for the story the
>effects, and curiosity because of all the money spent on the making of the
>film.
>
>I have nothing against Leo, I though he did a great job in What's Eating
>Gilbert Grape. And even though I want particularly impressed with his
>acting in Titanic, I thought Kate Winslet did great.
>
>And many adults saw the film for the sake of seeing the film. The Leo teeny
>boppers only make a small portion of Titanic fans. I wonder if people would
>still be criticizing Titanic, or being stubborn about not watching it. If
>there was absolutely no hype if not everyone who came up to you said, you
>have to go watch it Leo is soooo cute. Or Kate Winslet is naked. When I
>went to see the film I hadn't even heard about it my friend said it was good
>so I watched it with her. I was really touched by how the story was
>portrayed and impressed at how realistic the sinking was. I think for the
>most part this is what made this film a blockbuster. If Leo was in Saving
>Private Ryan would you say the same thing?
>
>Neena
>
Titanic was a great film, but I have to say it had nothing to do
with Leo, in my opinion. If anything, it could have been better
with someone else. Goes for Winslet too. They were 'ok', but
the film was too grand in scope for their limited abilities.
The Speedbyrd(tm) :>