If 2001: A Space Odyssey were released today...

[Tom Ace]

Saying something's 'overrated' has nothing to do with its quality though. If I said The Godfather was overrated I still wouldn't be saying how good I thought it was. 'Pretentious' is also too vague to be a useful criticism, because you have to actually assess and convey what you believe the director's intentions were and then say why you thought the film fell short of them.

I don't understand the point, though. "Overrated" and "pretentious" are still valid words to use to describe a movie. You might like people to elaborate more, but you seem to be saying that people simply can't use those words ever, or else it means they don't have anything real to say. Blanket statements like "Using those words means you have nothing of significance to say" is no better than the people you're pretending to be better than.

[Ozymandias]

No, that doesn't mean the industry has changed a lot, and it certainly doesn't mean it's changed for the worse. How is Planet of the Apes not a big-budget PG-13 popcorn movie? 2001 was popular because of the effects, not necessarily because everyone loved the movie. Again, it's not much different from Avatar. A whole lot of people went to see it, but most people didn't think it was a great movie all around.

Thats not true at all. 2001 and Avatar are about as far apart as you can get. Avatar was criticized for its simplicity and cliche story, 2001 was criticized for its extreme use of ambiguity. The visuals were very impressive for both, but 1 is something everyone can enjoy(Avatar), the other is not(2001). 2001 also did very well because it was re-released multiple times. 2001 would completely bomb if it were released today, because the market for the industry has dramatically changed in the last 40 years in favor of big loud popcorn flicks, although I'll say Avatar is infinitely more than your average superhero movie.

Why not? A lot of movies get made without big directors.

Not always. If that were true, At the Mountains of Madness would have got the greenlight with Del Toro at the helm a long time ago. In order to do that film right, the budget would have to be very big, probably much bigger than Prometheus's(when the film was being considered, the budget was in the ballpark of 200m). Plus, that story is a hard R-rated horror tale with an unhappy ending which is probably another reason why it didn't get greenlit. This is why its considered a huge risk, and will never happen unless a hugely successful director like James Cameron does it, whos name alone will make people show up in droves. Having "from the director of Aliens" in the trailer for AtMoM would also be a huge selling point for the film as well. Edited August 14, 2012 by Shpongle

[Tom Ace]

Thats not true at all. 2001 and Avatar are about as far apart as you can get. Avatar was criticized for its simplicity and cliche story, 2001 was criticized for its extreme use of ambiguity. The visuals were very impressive for both, but 1 is something everyone can enjoy(Avatar), the other is not(2001). 2001 also did very well because it was re-released multiple times. 2001 would completely bomb if it were released today, because the market for the industry has dramatically changed in the last 40 years in favor of big loud popcorn flicks, although I'll say Avatar is infinitely more than your average superhero movie.

My point was that people went to see both of them because of the cutting edge effects and technology. 2001 was somewhat of an event film. Even today, you'll hear from a lot of people that watching it for the first time now doesn't give you an accurate understanding because our effects and tech are so much more advanced that those in the film don't impress like they used to. Plotwise and such, yes, it and Avatar are very different, but the reason they were successful is the same.

Not always. If that were true, At the Mountains of Madness would have got the greenlight with Del Toro at the helm a long time ago. In order to do that film right, the budget would have to be very big, probably much bigger than Prometheus's(when the film was being considered, the budget was in the ballpark of 200m). Plus, that story is a hard R-rated horror tale with an unhappy ending which is probably another reason why it didn't get greenlit. This is why its considered a huge risk, and will never happen unless a hugely successful director like James Cameron does it, whos name alone will make people show up in droves. Having "from the director of Aliens" in the trailer for AtMoM would also be a huge selling point for the film as well.

I'm not really sure what the point is here. In general, Hollywood doesn't take risks. It never has. It's not a new thing. As you say, it's an R-rated horror movie. R ratings and horror don't exactly do that well at the box office. So, why would a company put $200 million into a movie that had little chance of even making that back for them? Even worse, why would they decrease their already bad odds by not using a big name in some way?Originally you said Lovecrat stories would never get made into movies unless big-name directors were involved. That's not true. There's every chance that they'd do such a thing. They just might not want to spend $200 million on it, when they know they're unlikely to recoup that amount.

[Hatebox]

I don't understand the point, though. "Overrated" and "pretentious" are still valid words to use to describe a movie. You might like people to elaborate more, but you seem to be saying that people simply can't use those words ever, or else it means they don't have anything real to say.

If they only use those words without elaborating further then yes, they may as well have said nothing. Especially on the internet, 'pretentious' is usually just a another way of saying 'arty in a way I didn't like' and tells me nothing about the film apart from that. Edited August 14, 2012 by Hatebox

[Ozymandias]

I'm not really sure what the point is here. In general, Hollywood doesn't take risks. It never has. It's not a new thing. As you say, it's an R-rated horror movie. R ratings and horror don't exactly do that well at the box office. So, why would a company put $200 million into a movie that had little chance of even making that back for them? Even worse, why would they decrease their already bad odds by not using a big name in some way?Originally you said Lovecrat stories would never get made into movies unless big-name directors were involved. That's not true. There's every chance that they'd do such a thing. They just might not want to spend $200 million on it, when they know they're unlikely to recoup that amount.

My point is that ambition and quality of a film are now seen as liabilities much more than it ever has now because its all about the action, explosions, and sexy people. Avengers is the epitome of that. I think Avengers was a fun movie, but the problem though is that there is not much variety anymore. You also only need a 30 second attention span to enjoy that movie.I can't entirely blame Hollywood for this though, the film industry is a business afterall and the goal is to make money. Its an unfortunate side effect that we gotta live with though. Edited August 15, 2012 by Shpongle

[FTF]

I'd go see it in the theater immediately!

[Tom Ace]

My point is that ambition and quality of a film are now seen as liabilities much more than it ever has now because its all about the action, explosions, and sexy people. Avengers is the epitome of that. I think Avengers was a fun movie, but the problem though is that there is not much variety anymore. You also only need a 30 second attention span to enjoy that movie.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that ambition and quality of film are now seen as liabilities. Titanic got made (yes, with some help from Cameron himself), and that was one of the most ambitious movies ever. And at the time Cameron was a successful director, but not nearly the god-like money-maker he is now. It's not ambition or quality of film that are seen as liabilities. There is a simple formula. R-rated movies just don't make as much money as others. It's extremely hard for them to make even $200 million, much less $300 or 400 million. So, companies aren't going to put in $200 million to a movie that has very little chance of making it back, much less making a profit. But movies like The King's Speech still get made and still do very well.Again, I think there is a confusion because of how successful other movies are. Movies like Avengers, Spider-Man and Shrek are so successful because they appeal to a broad range of people, and they work well as movie-theater fare. That doesn't mean that other things don't get made or aren't successful. The King's Speech is a good example. That is the complete opposite of The Avengers, and yet it got made and did very well.

I can't entirely blame Hollywood for this though, the film industry is a business afterall and the goal is to make money. Its an unfortunate side effect that we gotta live with though.

It always has been. This idea of big action/comedy movies being the most successful isn't new. It was around in the 60s, too, when 2001 came out. It's not much different now than it was then.

[pinocchio]

I'd go see it in the theater immediately!

Yes, watching 2001 on big screen must be a similar great experience like Lawrence of Arabia I guess.

[ladyevenstar22]

i swear the more i read people's opinion about THE TREE OF LIFE good or bad ,the good is really good and the bad is really bad! i fear watching this film , i'll get around eventually , i'm not in a rush to sacrifice the time required quite yet!

[Ozymandias]

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that ambition and quality of film are now seen as liabilities. Titanic got made (yes, with some help from Cameron himself), and that was one of the most ambitious movies ever. And at the time Cameron was a successful director, but not nearly the god-like money-maker he is now. It's not ambition or quality of film that are seen as liabilities. There is a simple formula. R-rated movies just don't make as much money as others. It's extremely hard for them to make even $200 million, much less $300 or 400 million. So, companies aren't going to put in $200 million to a movie that has very little chance of making it back, much less making a profit. But movies like The King's Speech still get made and still do very well.Again, I think there is a confusion because of how successful other movies are. Movies like Avengers, Spider-Man and Shrek are so successful because they appeal to a broad range of people, and they work well as movie-theater fare. That doesn't mean that other things don't get made or aren't successful. The King's Speech is a good example. That is the complete opposite of The Avengers, and yet it got made and did very well.

Titanic and other anecdotal examples do not reflect the industry as a whole, you know that.

It always has been. This idea of big action/comedy movies being the most successful isn't new. It was around in the 60s, too, when 2001 came out. It's not much different now than it was then.

Thats just not true, I'm sorry. There wasn't even really something called "summer blockbuster season" in the 50s and 60s and even early 70s(Jaws and Star Wars changed that).Back in those days, the big movies were stuff like Lawrence of Arabia, Planet of the Apes, Ben-Hur, Dr. Zhivago, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dirty Harry, and Westerns... etc. As you can see, vastly different than all the big shit today. Edited August 20, 2012 by Shpongle

[Tom Ace]

Titanic and other anecdotal examples do not reflect the industry as a whole, you know that.

Yup, just like 2001 and other anecdotal example don't reflect the industry as a whole. You know that.

Thats just not true, I'm sorry. There wasn't even really something called "summer blockbuster season" in the 50s and 60s and even early 70s(Jaws and Star Wars changed that).Back in those days, the big movies were stuff like Lawrence of Arabia, Planet of the Apes, Ben-Hur, Dr. Zhivago, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dirty Harry, and Westerns... etc. As you can see, vastly different than all the big shit today.

No, it's not vastly different than the big stuff today. How is Lawrence of Arabia different from Braveheart or Gladiator? 2001 is a big-effects movie like a lot that come out today. And who cares about summer blockbuster season? Just because there wasn't that season doesn't mean the same type of movies weren't popular.It's simple. the most successful movies at the box office are the ones that can appeal to the broadest range of people. That has always been the case. Some decades ago, the movie-going audience was older, and so you got a little different group of movies. But even back then, the comedy/special-effects/action-thrillers were the most popular in general.