Thursday, June 30, 2005

I Hate Hollywood


I am writing this post in red because it reflects my feelings right now. I just got back from seeing War of the Worlds, and I am absolutely fuming over what I just saw. Once again, Hollywood has managed to take something good and make it bad, something smart and make it dumb, something beautiful and make it ugly, something cool and make it totally lame. It is what I have come to expect the past few years. But I guess I should have seen this coming, after Peter Jackson decided that his version of The Lord of the Rings was better than Tolkien's.

Allow me to explain why I am so upset about Spielberg's theatrical adaptation of this book. He actually kept the movie close to the book for the most part of the film, up until the last 30 minutes. Then he decides that he needs to create his own ending, yet tries to somehow cram the actual book ending in along with, almost as if he is trying to appease both those who haven't read the book and those who have. The result a finale that ruins the entire movie.

This seems to be a common theme among movies today: directors take existing literature or film and try to change things to make them better. Why is it so hard to understand that what makes a book good is the material already in it, the authors creation, the way the story is told, etc. But for some reason, directors fear that they need to add to the plot to make it better. And I know what that reason is: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

That's right. It's all about money. We have to throw things into the plot so that we make everybody happy, so that we appeal to a wide range of audiences. Let me give you a couple examples of this. In the book War of the Worlds, the story is being told in 1st person by a man who is married, but is seperated from his wife for most of the book due to the events of the story. He is, for the most part, alone throughout the entire book. In this new film adaptation, however, Spielberg felt that it was necessary to turn the main character into a man who is divorced with two children, who accompany him throughout the story. And when one of his children is "killed" early in the movie, it is only inevitable that, in the end, the child never died at all, and that everybody is united in one happy ending. It makes me sick. That happens in EVERY story. Why did you have to add this crap into the movie? I'll tell you why. Because we have to appeal to EVERYONE, not just those who liked the book. We gotta get everyonw to spend money to go see this movie. Same goes for Lord of the Rings. I've got news for you: there was virtually no love story in the books, but it was a major part of the movies so that more women would go see them.

Frankly I am sick of Hollywood producers and directors taking good literature and turning it into crap. God forbid someone should make a movie adaptation that was true to the book 100% and make less money. I know Spielberg is doing all right financially. And it's not just fans of the book that will come to see the movie; others will come, too, I gaurantee it.

Unfortunatley, it is not just film adaptations that suck. Movies these days are terrible in general. It is bad that you go to the theater and are lucky to come out feeling that you got your money's worth. And with sky-high ticket prices these days, those occasions are few and far between. Hollywood has become so unoriginal it is unbelievable. Most movies nowadays seem to be remakes or based on a true story. What has happened to the creativity that once existed?

The problem is not just unoriginality, though. It is the fact that we live in a population that is stupid, and are therefore entertained by stupid ideas. I'm not talking about Dumb & Dumber or Napoleon Dynamite. Those films require little intelligence to watch, but they are entertaining. I'm talking about movies that are just pointless and have no redeeming quality. Example: I saw a preview tonight for a movie about a computer guided warplane that gets struck by lightning, which "rewires" the planes compute and cause it to start attacking civilians. And this is supposed to be entertainment? Give me a break. Yet the public will flock to see it because it has Jamie Foxx and Jessica Beil in it, and has some cool special effects.

As long as people keep going to see ignorant movies, Hollywood will keep churning them out as fast as they can. And they will keep raking in the billions of dollars that people spend to go see them. That is why I have decided to boycott Hollywood. As of now, I will no longer be paying to see movies, except in a few rare exceptions. I am sick of the feeling I get afterspending 6 bucks to see a movie that was awful. I've got better things to do.

So I guess there's only one way for me to sum this up...........

Here's what you did, Steven Spielberg. You took a good story, changed it, filmed it, and made it worse, thus upsetting a lot of people. That's what you did.




posted by Wes @ 12:25 AM

7 Comments:

At 6/30/2005 11:22:00 AM, Blogger JTapp said...

I'd agree about Hollywood, except Batman Begins is a REALLY good movie. They finally made a movie worthy of the title "Batman." All the others were so cheezy and lame. This one even has a good twist on the hero-katie holmes relationship.

Alright, my blog is UP, and you all can link to it and check it out.
http://justintapp.blogspot.com

 
At 6/30/2005 12:11:00 PM, Blogger dc said...

cool down my babies. all this rage from seeing one movie. i predict that pride and prejudice will remain true to the book.

 
At 6/30/2005 12:45:00 PM, Blogger Wes said...

Tapp, Batman Begins was very good, as was Episode III. I will put your site up on my links section.

DC, this is not just about one movie. This was just the straw that broke the camel's back. I think the reason that I am so upset about this movie is because it was actually very good for the first hour and a half (despite the changes that were made, such as adding a family into the picture), but the ending was totally retarted and could have been done so much better. It was like Spielberg felt that he needed to add to the ending to make it better, when all he really did was make it worse. It felt like they rushed the ending. And when the ending is bad, it ruins the whole movie for me, especially a movie like this.

 
At 6/30/2005 01:42:00 PM, Blogger Ranjit said...

Unfortunately, the majority of the American public wants feel-good movies. They have plenty of focus groups who watch these movies, and determine what they do and don't like about them. They don't want "artistic integrity" or anything that makes them think. The job of the producer is to find a story and a director that will make $$, and it has been shown time and time again that people want to see endings that make them feel good, even if they stray from the original. I am with you, and I prefer actual adaptations than stupid changes to make more money, but apparently there are more of "them" than "us."

 
At 7/01/2005 08:58:00 AM, Blogger d blake said...

there have been 18 straight weekends where theaters have grossed less this year than last year (longest run in something like 20 years). either others are joining you in avoiding movie theaters or they just have better things to do.

 
At 7/01/2005 05:41:00 PM, Blogger Wes said...

I saw that stat too, Dave.

 
At 7/14/2005 02:55:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess maybe I shouldn't say this, becuase I didn't read the book or anything. But I don't like seeing movies that end without enough to let them know that the characters are okay. In fact, VERY few people do.

I didn't like how the wife's house and whole neighborhood was okay, but I am glad it wasn't bashed to bits. More trash on the street, a bit dirtier, and I'da liked it.

But like Ranjit said, ppl want to feel good at the end of a movie. I liked the last 30 seconds of this movie.

I've read some books on writing, and it says that you should let your characters enjoy thier victory. Not just have them win and then "THE END".

 

Post a Comment

<< Home