Does Hollywood [i]deserve[/i] its dominant position?

[megabyteme]

All the world looks to Hollywood for its "Big Budget Blockbusters". What we typically get out of this hype is a "big name celeb", explosions, cgi wizardry, weak/already done scripts, a flood of marketing, and then this is typically followed by tons of merchandising.

Occasionally, it all comes together, and we get something worth watching- perhaps even buying, but more often disappointment.

Movies are being produced by companies all over the world. With torrents, it isn't even too hard to stumble across quality projects from UK, Australia, and lots of Asian countries. India has a huge audience, but I have personally had a more difficult time finding "word of mouth" movies from there. If one is willing to read subtitles, a vast world of storytelling emerges.

I have only begun this exploration in the past few months. Hopefully others who have spent more time will shed more light on the subject.

As the thread title suggests, "Does Hollywood deserve its dominant position in the film world?" Is marketing and "Big Budget" enough to warrant/keep this position with so many new challengers and never-before-seen-availability via the internet? Who would be a worthy successor?

EDIT- they are also the main proponents of diminished rights online...

[talkboy]

I think they deserve it but that does not mean that others do not make good movies. bollywood for example has good movies i have seen some on tv or downloaded..

[Quarterquack]

Asian studios produce much much higher quality films. The same applies to French/German films, however, I prefer Asian films by miles. The problem with most movies nowadays, is that they strive for equality and normality. Actors in lead roles refuse to distance themselves from predominant social norms, making for terrible movie experiences. Pride and Prejudice had Darcy portrayed as an admirable gentleman throughout the movie, downplaying his pride, and effectively annihilating his prejudice. Kick Ass had its ending tweaked to suit mass audiences more. Movies like 2012 and Avatar are heralded based on their CGI merit, giving little chance for people to argue that movies are also intended to have a moral. I don't want to see actors withhold their roles' potential, in order to seem "real". No one, and I mean no one regretted Ledger fitting into the Joker's role as well as he did. Chalk it up to a man wearing a mask; but as Hillary Duff's managers ventured to say at one point "She doesn't want to get stuck being thought of as the same role of Lizzie McGuire." The issue is actors avoid becoming their roles in the future. Bob Saget also joked about always being associated with Full House. People will always smile at Will Smith when they see him, even though he tried to venture into the action genre. I for one will always see Stallone as only suited for Cop Land (as opposed to his other pointless movies). Producers/screenplay writers/directors in Hollywood are generally willing to stray away from that, by never pressuring the actors into playing the role fully/not becoming the characters in real life in peoples' eyes.

That aside, it seems screenplay writers and directors at large are creating a dichotomy in the industry, between the few that believe fantasy based settings are the way to go with no relation to human experience (take for example any action movie released in the last 10 years) and the other camp that believes "normalizing" the experience, by making the characters extremely relate-able on the personal, situational and living standards level (even when it comes to cast race, settings of choice etc.) to the point where it's awkward watching the movie (think movies like He's Just Not That Into You/Knocked Up/Juno/Superbad. The line between the two camps is more distinct than ever, and directors are wavering on either side, instead of trying to hit a "soft" spot, between something movie goers can relate to, while also enjoying the fact that it is fantasy based.

The reason the Godfather/Pulp Fiction were successful is we got to see lead characters, in incredible roles, still struggling with average human burdens, emotions, and putting on display the fact that every man has a limit/breaking point. We got to see mobsters dealing with ungodly acts, while dealing with family and faith issues. We saw something completely fantastical yet completely tangible to our minds, because the line between fantasy/reality was blurred eloquently.

Asian films, to a large extent, retain that quality, and that is why they will always top Hollywood/Box Office hits for me.

[A]

Even though there are lots of movies which doesnt make an impact for whatever reasons,there are always movies which comes out which are good.Since megabyteme pointed out India,the scene is really pathetic here as well.Actresses competing on who wears no dress at all,cheap imitation of western culture,no story and producers who just want to make money.The Golden days of Movies here is really over imho.There was a time when good stories,acting etc were loved by the masses.I think good movies will only come out if people actually "watch" and appreciate it,maybe the shift of the recent change in new movies is the shift in watching habits of masses.

After the movies I watch which are produced in my native language (movies from '80 to 2005 are the best,now its all just lame),the most watched is Hollywood movies.I think hollywood deserves the dominant position since there is no other film industry which can rival them in sheer volume of movies released,movies which always brings something new,budget healthy allowing them to make movies like avatar etc which is absolutely not possible in other film industries,always experimenting and for a lot of other reasons.

[ziggyjuarez]

Yes.Just because 80% does not pertain to you or me does not mean Hollywood is Making crappy films.They are not meant for us.Hollywood is so big they make movies for every kind of person out there.I do not see other English speaking country's doing that.Hollywood has and will be on top for a very long time to come, To every country.
Asian movies suck btw

[Quarterquack]

movies for every kind of person out there ... Asian movies suck btw

That's hilarious.

[A]

Just because 80% does not pertain to you or me does not mean Hollywood is Making crappy films.They are not meant for us.Hollywood is so big they make movies for every kind of person out there.

So true

[IdolEyes787]

Asian studios produce much much higher quality films. The same applies to French/German films, however, I prefer Asian films by miles. The problem with most movies nowadays, is that they strive for equality and normality. Actors in lead roles refuse to distance themselves from predominant social norms, making for terrible movie experiences. Pride and Prejudice had Darcy portrayed as an admirable gentleman throughout the movie, downplaying his pride, and effectively annihilating his prejudice. Kick Ass had its ending tweaked to suit mass audiences more. Movies like 2012 and Avatar are heralded based on their CGI merit, giving little chance for people to argue that movies are also intended to have a moral. I don't want to see actors withhold their roles' potential, in order to seem "real". No one, and I mean no one regretted Ledger fitting into the Joker's role as well as he did. Chalk it up to a man wearing a mask; but as Hillary Duff's managers ventured to say at one point "She doesn't want to get stuck being thought of as the same role of Lizzie McGuire." The issue is actors avoid becoming their roles in the future. Bob Saget also joked about always being associated with Full House. People will always smile at Will Smith when they see him, even though he tried to venture into the action genre. I for one will always see Stallone as only suited for Cop Land (as opposed to his other pointless movies). Producers/screenplay writers/directors in Hollywood are generally willing to stray away from that, by never pressuring the actors into playing the role fully/not becoming the characters in real life in peoples' eyes.

That aside, it seems screenplay writers and directors at large are creating a dichotomy in the industry, between the few that believe fantasy based settings are the way to go with no relation to human experience (take for example any action movie released in the last 10 years) and the other camp that believes "normalizing" the experience, by making the characters extremely relate-able on the personal, situational and living standards level (even when it comes to cast race, settings of choice etc.) to the point where it's awkward watching the movie (think movies like He's Just Not That Into You/Knocked Up/Juno/Superbad. The line between the two camps is more distinct than ever, and directors are wavering on either side, instead of trying to hit a "soft" spot, between something movie goers can relate to, while also enjoying the fact that it is fantasy based.

The reason the Godfather/Pulp Fiction were successful is we got to see lead characters, in incredible roles, still struggling with average human burdens, emotions, and putting on display the fact that every man has a limit/breaking point. We got to see mobsters dealing with ungodly acts, while dealing with family and faith issues. We saw something completely fantastical yet completely tangible to our minds, because the line between fantasy/reality was blurred eloquently.

Asian films, to a large extent, retain that quality, and that is why they will always top Hollywood/Box Office hits for me.

No you just have a preference for that type of film.

The reason that the Godfather or Pulp Fiction were "good" was not because of a certain definable equation of reality to fantasy but simply because the stories ( and the actors interpreting them ) where interesting.
"Army of Darkness" certainly doesn't blur any lines but it's still a terrific movie.

Simply fact: a movie doesn't "have " to be written in a way to suspend your disbelief , a movie only has to be entertaining or engaging enough to make you( as in the singular) want to .
This is why movies aren't universally praised ,why I , for instance ,"get" Bull Durham and you (maybe ) do not.

There is no "better" film industry just as there are per se no "better" films .As with all art it's "value" is totally subjective .

[megabyteme]

The criteria I would like to see followed is, the best stories, told by the best people.

Hollywood is a long ways away from that. They are after the most braindead monkeys in the most seats. Period.

I have stumbled across many really good non-Hollywood movies over the past few months. It seems that a lot of those are being "remade" by Hollywood. Why, since the best version has already been created. Hollywood has failed the audience, imo. They aren't producing an art anymore than McDowells is producing food.

A dominant group that is no longer producing quality is destined to be beaten, and eventually killed, by new quicker, smarter, more efficient rivals.

[needmusic90]

It did, at one point. The music industry did at one point too.