Edge44
3rd year Batmanian
Global user
Registered: 09-2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 1095
Karma: 5 (+6/-1)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
 Question for Fitz, or anybody else who wants to give an opinion
Do you ever consider the disparity between what an audience deems a good story, and what the 'industry' deems a good story?
For instance, at the last Academy Awards, Crash was given the coveted 'Best Film' Oscar, but in a poll from the mainstream audience, King Kong was voted best film.
The disparity obviously exists, and I was just wandering if you, or anybody else, had an opinion on why it exists.
Last edited by Edge44, 9/19/2006, 8:01 pm
---
"Everything's relative..."
|
|
9/19/2006, 2:26 pm
|
Send Email to Edge44
Send PM to Edge44
|
NovelNymph
Fiesty Flamehaired Female
Global user
Registered: 09-2005
Location: ink stained, paper strewn desk
Posts: 544
Karma: 26 (+27/-1)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Question for Fitz, or anybody else who wants to give an opinion
I'm no expert but I think it's because they don't take into account how wide an audience can be. The people who decide the winner are not a true representation of the cinema going audience, they consider themselves above that.
They look at technical aspects that a normal person wouldn't. They think they look at the bigger picture by considering themes etc but inevitably they don't consider the 'fun' and 'entertainment' factor.
Last edited by NovelNymph, 9/28/2006, 12:32 pm
|
|
9/28/2006, 12:31 pm
|
Send Email to NovelNymph
Send PM to NovelNymph
|
Fitzgerald Fortune
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 10-2005
Location: Inside the Red Circle
Posts: 792
Karma: 12 (+12/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Question for Fitz, or anybody else who wants to give an opinion
I think a little differently to NovelNymph: I tend to think they don't reward thematic weight or innovation, but rather make their judgements to reward the 'well-made film'. By 'well-made film', I mean films that deploy a neoclassicist aesthetic, not drawing attention to either the construction of their narrative or the construction of their aesthetic but instead making these aspects seem 'invisible'.
At the moment I'm trying to find new examples of dynamic and symbolic film lighting for my A Level Media Studies class. However, it's almost impossible to find any good examples of lighting from most modern Hollywood flicks: they're mostly shot like television shows, with 'flat' and unexpressive lighting, largely because the technical crews also work on television shows.
Synergy between the television market and Hollywood filmmaking has ruined Hollywood movies, I think.
--- 'Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy'.
 |
|
10/10/2006, 11:47 pm
|
Send Email to Fitzgerald Fortune
Send PM to Fitzgerald Fortune
|
Edge44
3rd year Batmanian
Global user
Registered: 09-2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 1095
Karma: 5 (+6/-1)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Question for Fitz, or anybody else who wants to give an opinion
Thanks for both of those responses... some interesting points, I think 
---
"Everything's relative..."
|
|
12/14/2006, 11:16 am
|
Send Email to Edge44
Send PM to Edge44
|