Month: February 2016

Riley Bean Week 6: Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Posted on by rileybean078

It is hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that blockbusters have not always been around. I am so used to the fact that every year, the summer and holiday seasons are packed with blockbuster films, usually with one hitting theaters every one to two weeks. But this trend had to have come from somewhere and obviously the success of Jaws and Star Wars opened up a lot more possibilities for film companies. Films started being made with the intentions to become a blockbuster film. Since Spielberg started this movement, it seems appropriate to address his expectations for a blockbuster. In the Lewis reading, he followed the rule that if you could describe the plot of a film in under 25 seconds, it was on its way to becoming a successful blockbuster. He believed that simple narratives were the most effective because they could appeal to the widest audiences. These films are all about big budgets and big returns, as well as the spectacle of it all in order to make a profit. So films like Jaws and Jurassic Park, even though they were made years ago, have some of the believable special effects in cinematic history. These films create a legacy by making the audience want to come back over and over again to watch what they just saw over again.

Today’s film scene seems to have to main groups: blockbuster films and indie films. There are very few films that fall in the middle of these categories, and any other films that don’t fit in are because they flopped at the box office and failed to impress audiences. Back in the 70s, only a few blockbuster films were released a year so it was an event to go to the theater and see the new phenomenon. These days, every weekend there seems to be a new comic book movie or sequel coming out in the hopes of making millions. While the quantity of potential blockbuster films has gone up in recent years, it says a lot that there are still only a select number each year that people celebrate as true Hollywood blockbusters.

Week 6: THE Blockbuster

Posted on by channinghans3

Week 6

Channing Hans

The blockbuster era of New Hollywood that began with Spielberg’s Jaws (1975) and continued with George Lucas’s Star Wars in 1977. Both Spielberg and Lucas helped to launch Hollywood out of its economic trouble to an extent. They also set up a system that, for the most part, is still in affect today. For example, a lot of major studios focus on blockbusters. Warner Bros. Entertainment produces about 3-4 blockbuster films a year and around 7 other films. The blockbuster films are where they expect to make their money with hope that the other lower level films may break even. They have been able to grow off of their DC Comic franchise, creating sequel after sequel of everyone’s favorite heroes. I find Schatz point on why Jaws was so successful interesting. It pleased everyone; it had action, drama, romance and comedy all packed into one picture. Spielberg knew he needed to get people back into the theater to see a film. With the rise of TV, less people were likely to hit up the cinema on Friday night. He knew he had to offer and experience that one couldn’t get at home  on the tv screen and he knew it had to be one that almost all audiences would enjoy. And if the audience was just about everyone, why not put it in theaters just about everywhere. Both of these films also show what advertising can do for a film. Today, so much of the cost of a film is the advertising and marketing. For example the most recent Star Wars movie spent around $66 million on advertising alone. I believe the way Spielberg and Lucas were critiqued for ending an auteur generation of films and seen as “film brats” rather surprising. I believe there is an audience for both type of films and you can be a fan of both types as well. While artistic, indie films can be beautiful and thought-provoking, large scaled blockbusters can also be inspiring and entertaining (even if in a different way). It is very important to not only look at the film itself but to look at what was happening at the time the film was made. If anything the redounding this week prove just how important that is.

The Blockbuster: Rise from the Ashes

Posted on by spanditabehera

 

When we talk about the success of a film today the first thing we look at is how much money it made. The blockbuster formula that studios and production companies are chasing today have been limited certain genres, such as action films. In an industry where there is no certainty in how your film will do in the commercial sense. What the industry is trying to achieve today, began in the 1970s with filmmakers like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg.

Hollywood was slowly reaching its demise with the more and more people moving to the suburbs, the rising popularity of television and the growing popularity of foreign films. The industry was in a crisis, but only for so long. With the release of Jaws and Star Wars Hollywood regained its popularity that had been slowly diminishing after the war. The business model that was created with these films has continued to exist today. What the beginning of New Hollywood did however was narrow the scope of the kind of films that could count as a blockbuster. Studios and producers tend to stick to only those genres that have proved to make more money resulting in only action or even sci-fi. Today the ridiculously large number of superhero, animated and action movies show us that Hollywood is still in many ways stuck with these films because it’s the best way they know how to make money.

The question that arises now is how long will this last, and when it finally doesn’t work anymore what would that mean for Hollywood? Will the industry face another crisis like it did after World War II and have to acquire a new ‘formula’ to make films?

-Spandita Behera

Week 6: The Blockbuster (Close Encounters of the Third Kind)

Posted on by Hannah Currie

This week’s readings focus on the rise of the blockbuster film, ushered in most notably by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. Although their prestige is not universally respected throughout the film community, Jon Lewis, the author of the excerpt we read titled “The Perfect Money Machine(s): George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Auteurism in the New Hollywood”, argues that these two directors are arguably the most important of their time. This, he claims, is due to their advances in the roles of directors and producers, their financial successes, their advances in film merchandising, and their overall creation of the “Blockbuster film”, a model that still stands today. Spielberg and Lucas are responsible for some of the best-known films of the last quarter century- Jaws, the Star Wars and Indiana Jones series’, Back to the Future, Forrest Gump, and Jurassic Park, just to name a few. They introduced simple, strong narratives that were easy to market and parlay into other merchandising realms. In addition to their new aesthetic and content models, their rise also signaled a shift in the way consumers take in film and the way historians must view film. With the mass financial success achieved by these filmmakers combined with a changing industry and culture as a whole, focus on the box office rapidly inflated at the time of Spielberg and Lucas’ releases. This new, disproportionate focus on the easily-manipulated box office statistics caused viewers to “assess the value of a film in the least amount of time using as little data as possible,” (Lewis 15.) These statistics could easily be falsified by studios to make their films appear more successful and were also rarely indicative of the true quality of the film. This, in conjunction with the rise of interest in film in other media formats and the rising role of the “celebrity”, has prevented films from entering “any sort of intellectual, critical, or historical dialogue” (Lewis 15) as they once did.

 

-Hannah Currie

Week 6: The Blockbuster

Posted on by Chaia Mascall

All of the readings consider the question of aesthetic versus commercial value in their discussion of the New Hollywood shift towards the blockbuster formula in the late 70s. In a powerful deviation from the auteur-driven, European art cinema inspired films that came from directors like Hitchcock and Kubrick; the films of this late New Hollywood were focused on films as moneymaking spectacles.   A quote used in Thomas Schatz’s “New Hollywood,” quotes an industry contemporary saying that “the beauty” of the modern  film that “there seems to be no limit to what the box office return may be” (Schatz, New Hollywood 6). Films are now beautiful because of how much money they bring in or how successful they can make the people involved—gone are the days when aesthetic or technical achievement, creativity, and originality were the champions of a film’s beauty.

It almost feels unfair to call the blockbuster and everything that has come after it “New Hollywood” when it resembles the vertical integrated, monopolized Hollywood of old. Conglomerate studios producing hundreds of films a year, with factory assembly efficiency. In its recovery the film industry has reverted to its origins, creating their pictures in the manner of the first feature films born of the cinema of attractions, dependent on stars, the spectacle, and attractions. Critics bemoan this new-old era, crying that cinema is dead in this profit-focused age. Yet, looking back at the blockbusters made in the past year, I think we could be entering a new “New Hollywood,” an era in which the commercial film can be something beautiful and recognized for it. Consider Mad Max: Fury Road an apocalyptic action adventure summer blockbuster that just (deservedly) won 6 academy awards for technical achievement at the 88th Academy Awards. While being fairly typical action movie fare (with the exception of a female-centric storyline), most of the discourse surrounding the film focuses on its breathtaking visuals. George Miller has found a way to Hollywood’s moneymaking formula and infuse it with enough creative integrity and aesthetic accomplishment to prove that cinema is not dead—there is hope after all.

tumblr_o0ad0lAHHG1r4dpmso1_540
tumblr_o0ad0lAHHG1r4dpmso4_r1_540

tumblr_o0ad0lAHHG1r4dpmso2_540

 

Week 6: Spielberg, Lucas and Blockbuster Hollywood

Posted on by charliefellows15

Certainly one of the largest impacts on cinema history, the Blockbuster age ushered in by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg definitely shed many traditional Hollywood habits from the screen, but also revived the art at a time when it had become distressed and ignored by general audiences. Coming off the heels of the auteur era of New Hollywood, the repetition of success from celebrate figures like Coppola and Scorsese were wavering as each director’s habit of pushing the envelope inevitably flew to close to the sun. However, As Jon Lewis points out, “As Hollywood evolved into a blockbuster industry in the late 1970’s, Lucas and Spielberg provided the formula for higher concept entertainment.”(Lewis 18) With Spielberg eying a large audience, he couldn’t worry about adapting a complex plot for this purpose and instead sought out a short narrative framework before constructing his blockbuster. “If a person can tell me in 25 words or less, it’s going to make a good movie”(Lewis 18) the director “boasted” in 1985. Adding just a tad more to Spielberg’s formula, Lucas had his eyes set on Christmas 1977, and the merchandising mindset of his Space-western would only prove the idea a lucrative one. With blockbusters now comfortable fixated to merchandise and enfranchisement, the two directors had indeed succeeded in drawing massive crowds back to the theaters yet almost at the sacrifice of the surge of quality filmmaking that had been brought in by the first wave of auteurs before them. Whether they did more harm then good is of course the subject of conversation for both their fans and critics, but whenever approached themselves about their take on the phenomenon the answer is as simple as their blockbusters, for “both men insist that they are interested primarily, even solely in entertaining their audience.”(Lewis 20)

Week 6 Close Encounters Madeline Leary

Posted on by ml4365

I was struck by a distinct undertone I felt in Jon Lewis’ Perfect Money Machines, that there was this underlying suggestion that during the late 70’s to early 80’s, there was this strong demand for a certain type of white American man in the public image. He compares Harrison Ford to Regan, and that Harrison Ford, being in six of Spielburg’s best selling movies, appealed to the same image that Regan did- this rugged, masculine, ulra-powerful and intelligent prototype like hadn’t been seen before. Though this sounds exactly like the main white protagonist of most movies, there feels to be something more distinctive about the demand of this particular era for this specific type of man. Images of Ronald Regan riding through the west on horseback, with a hugely All American attitude through-and through, seems to echo in Harrison Ford’s character in Indiana Jones. Perhaps this has something to do with the decline in patriotism after the Vietnam war and recovering from years of political turbulence and distrust.

On the similar note, Lewis used a similar explanation to hint at the success of Spielburg and Lucas. The two affluent, rugged looking white men had a similar mentality. Neither of them being particularly meticulous in an historical aesthetic sense, they were adventurous and fostered between them a healthy American market competition.  Though this might all be very drastic speculation, I do feel as though there is some merit to this face within the mainstream public media at this time- especially compared more to the “anti-hero” of the 60’s…

 

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

Posted on by Mizuki Toriya

Mizuki Toriya

The readings this week on the second half of New Hollywood headed by George Lucas and Spielberg illustrates that the current film industry in Hollywood is still, in many ways, a continuation of what was started in the late 1970s with Spielberg’s Jaws. In the late 70s into the 80s, many popular blockbuster films were a part of a series of films, such as the Star Wars Trilogy or the Indiana Jones films.

Today, Hollywood films reflect this multi-film franchises with the Marvel superhero films in which many superheroes weave in and out, featuring in films where they are not the title main character, and with film adaptations of popular novels, such as the Hunger Games series and The Hobbit films, in which the story is drawn out and (unnecessarily, in my opinion) split into multiple films. In addition to multiple sequels and prequels, the current Hollywood remakes and reboots popular franchises from the past, such as with Star Wars: The Force Awakens and Mad Max: Fury Road, using their popularity in the past as evidence for guaranteed box office success in the present. Disney and Pixar, who still has successes with one film blockbusters, such as Tangled, Frozen, and Inside Out, has also jumped on the franchise bandwagon with Toy Story 3 and the upcoming Toy Story 4, Finding Dory, Cars 3, and The Incredibles 2, as well as live action adaptations of popular animated films, such as Cinderella and the announced Beauty and the Beast. Hollywood is still invested in films that merge the fantasy, sci-fi, adventure genres and showcase the power of visual effects over a complex story, such as Oblivion, Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian, and Mad Max: Fury Road, etc.

In terms of distribution, there is the shift from VHS to DVD, and now, films on the internet with Netflix and Amazon Prime and on mobile devices and tablets.

The “conversion of theaters worldwide to digital 3-D” in the late 2000s after Avatar reminded me of the wiring of theaters for sound in the late 1920s and early 1930s with the coming of synced sound, and I wondered if there might be another transformation of theaters in the near future when new technologies are embraced by the industry, perhaps, for example, with 4-D or virtual reality.

Week 6, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Gabriela Assuncao

Posted on by gabrielaassuncao

Again, I found these week’s readings interesting, particularly the one that focused on Spielberg and Lucas. I confess growing up I always admired Spielberg specifically, and loved most of his movies. I was never aware of how Spielberg and his counterpart Lucas were often vilified as the culprits for the end of Auterism and the Hollywood Renaissance; they’re accused of being “show-men” with no real substance. As critic David Thomson notes “Lucas and Spielberg were quite like the first wave of auteurs. They were ‘young, industrious, hopeful, smart, well-intentioned, and, in their way, brilliant.’ But their instincts were for more akin to producers, to ‘presenters’, to showmen.” They were also called “recyclers, geniuses of pastiche” with no signature style. They focused on post-production, simple high-concept films, and their main concern was making something that audiences would like, with no apparent higher artistic ambitions. Maybe I’m being too nice, but I think these critiques are a little harsh. Some of my favorite movies are indies, cult films, or movies from New Hollywood I. These films stick with me, inspire me, and make me rethink important things about life. But I also love movie magic. I also love escapist fantasy stories, even if this means I’m less “intellectual.” Today, I still strive to find a childlike joy I would get when watching a movie like the little mermaid. The memories of the thrill of suspension of disbelief are magical, and I honestly don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Yes, perhaps Spielberg and Lucas traded their intellectual ambitions for easy, simple popularity, and didn’t fit the auteristic mold of “personal signature, marginal and/or antagonistic relations with studio Hollywood, a priority on artistic integrity, and a seeming disinterest in a film’s stake at the market place” (Lewis), but some of their movies were great.

Now If I may backtrack a bit, I must add that I was talking about something really interesting in my cultures and contexts class this week. In my class, we are learning about Latin America, and we were discussing this book called “How to Read Donald Duck: Imperialist Ideology in the Disney Comic.” Basically, we discussed how movies like “Saludos Amigos” created the stereotypes we have of Latin America today. Also, they portrayed this idea of brotherhood between the US and Latin American countries, where the Latin American citizens would welcome Donald Duck into their countries with open arms. The authors of the book discuss how these films present a hidden hierarchy, and are saying that Latin Americans welcomed the US, so that when the US exploits them it’s like “oh, but they let us in.” When watching movies, particularly children’s movies, your critical thinking skills are turned off. You’re just there to be entertained and take in information, which is when you’re more susceptible to be subconsciously influenced. I thought I’d share this, and maybe hone in on this idea of how certain “entertainment focused” movies turn off our conscious thinking.

I also enjoyed the discussion on how we define success. Today, there is a focus on box-office revenue, while before aesthetic and political critiques were more valued. I particularly like this quote from the Lewis reading: “The media attention to a film’s first weekend reflects a familiar postmodern impatience and shortsightedness. It enables the filmgoer, like the film executive, to assess the value of a film in the least amount of time using as little data as possible.” This notion of defining success something I think about a lot in life. How do you define professional success? Is it your salary, your position in the corporate hierarchy, fame, how many people you were able to help, or just plain old personal happiness with your job?

The two Thomas Schatz readings basically elaborated on what we had first discussed about New Hollywood II, and the context in which blockbusters flourished. I’d already anticipated and/or learnt about the impact of VCRs and DVDs, shopping malls, and increased globalization (and thus larger international audiences), but one thing that I had never thought about before was how the deregulation of media by Reagan impacted the movie business. The economic boom in America in general that started under Reagan and lasted well into the 90s and early 00s, is often seen as a successful time. Today, we know that certain deregulations gave big short-term comebacks, but were ultimately responsible in large part for the 2008 economic crisis. I wonder what is the long-term consequence of deregulation of the movie business?

The final reading about the production process of a movie was also revealing, particularly the statistics on how most movies don’t get off the ground. I love how the author concluded that no one knows what makes a hit, and sometimes these  big hot-shots are no better at judging than an average person.

 

By: Gabby

Week 6: The Blockbuster (Close Encounters of the Third Kind)

Posted on by Audrey Payne

The readings this week reemphasised to me how important it is to look at Hollywood as an industry and to consider the context in which films are made. I think that the rise of the Hollywood Blockbuster is interesting in that its continued popularity can be traced back to a series of financial reasons.

The financial trouble that Hollywood found itself in in the New Hollywood era, I believe, meant that studios were more willing to take risks in order to attract audiences. This appears to be what gave rise to New Hollywood films such as Bonnie and Clyde. While these films received moderate box office success, it was until Steven Spielberg’s Jaws was released that a New Hollywood experienced significant box office success. As studios aimed to recreate this success they recognised that producing blockbusters was a way to do that.

Additionally, the importance of marketing films and the impact that the success of Jaws had on the way that film is marketed to this day is of interest. The large amount of TV advertisements and saturation booking that was used for Jaws was found to be successful and thus, is common practice today.   Furthermore, the importance of being able to make money in ways that are distinct from the film itself was made evident in the readings. George Lucas’ Star Wars seems ingenious not only because of the way that that film was able to successfully blend genre but also because of the way the characters lend themselves perfectly to merchandising. I think that the impact that Jaws and Star Wars have had is evident when considering the Hollywood blockbusters of today. As the Thomas Schatz article discussed, big blockbusters often create commodities which can then be used to produce additional revenue for studios which is often beyond that which is generated by the film itself once marketing and production costs are taken into consideration.