Did ‘Jaws’ and ‘Star Wars’ really ruin Hollywood?

[_____V_____]

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/did-jaws-and-star-wars-ruin-hollywood/

For those that are too lazy to click -

On the 35th anniversary of the great white blockbuster (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/shark-attack), John Podhoretz has an essay blaming the unprecedented box-office success of “Jaws” for the rise of the lousy, disposable summer tent-pole movie.
In his review of “Toy Story 3,” David Edelstein takes a different tack, arguing that if you want to trace Hollywood’s decline into dreck like “The A-Team” and the umpteen “Shrek” sequels, “the beginning of the end was ‘Star Wars,‘ synthetic then as now, clever but never exhilarating, infinitely merchandisable.”

These are both familiar arguments, and I think they’re bunk. Well, not exactly bunk: There’s no question that “Jaws” and “Stars Wars” were milestones in the transition from what Podhoretz calls the “frank, adult, more visceral fare” that characterized 1970s cinema to the more middlebrow movie culture of the 1980s.
(Though the twin disasters of “Heaven’s Gate” and “Apocalypse Now” probably had more to do with the eclipse of the ’70s auteur ethos in Hollywood than anything Steven Spielberg and George Lucas did or didn’t do.)

But no golden age lasts forever, and you know what? An awful lot of the middlebrow blockbusters of the 1980s were really, really good. If you just look at the 15 years after Spielberg’s great white shark first terrorized bathers and moviegoers, the legacy of “Jaws” and “Star Wars” includes the Indiana Jones saga, the “Back to the Future” trilogy, “Ghostbusters,” “Top Gun,” “Beverly Hills Cop,” “Alien” and “Aliens,” Tim Burton’s Batman movies, “Die Hard,” “The Hunt for Red October” and “E.T.,” among other entertainments.
That’s a pretty impressive roster of popcorn movies: Not cinematic art on the level of Coppola or Kubrick (though the supposedly-philistine ’80s were bracketed by Martin Scorsese’s two best films, “Raging Bull” and “Goodfellas”), but a record to be proud of all the same.

And then came the 1990s, in which the culture of the blockbuster persisted, but also coexisted with a late-decade flowering of independent cinema that inspired comparisons (not always justly, but still …) to the best of the ’70s.

It’s only really in the 2000s, in fact, that sequel-itis, the comic-book obsession, and the corrupting influence of special-effects — as well the siphoning of highbrow talent to television networks — created a box-office landscape dominated by movies that (to quote Edelstein’s indictment) “cost hundreds of millions and are not so much made as microengineered.” (Of the 25 highest-grossing movies of the last decade, only “Avatar” and “Finding Nemo” weren’t based on pre-existing properties.)

And blaming “Jaws” and “Star Wars” for creativity-killing trends that came to fruition 30 years later seems like an enormous stretch.

Yes, Spielberg and Lucas created the modern blockbuster. But there’s no necessary reason that big-budget summer movies have to be as lousy and derivative as “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” or “Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa,” or “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End.” (Pixar proves this point year in and year out.) Hollywood blockbusters were arguably better in the 1980s, and they’re arguably worse now — but with luck, the wheel will turn, and they’ll be better someday very soon.

[TheWickerFan]

Absolutely not.

I admit we're in one hell of a slump these days, but this isn't the first time this has happened; I have faith things will turn around.

[scouse mac]

There is alot of quality cinema out there but not much comes from Hollywood. They are in a slump but Wickerfan is right, things come around in cycles and things will improve.

The summer blockbusters aren't to blame, its the lack of new ideas behind them.

[ManchestrMorgue]

I don't think they ruined Hollywood.

Sure, the Blockbuster of the late '70s onward didn't have the gritty realism or social commentary of the late '60s and '70s. But times were different. In the late '60s the world had Vietnam to fear and outrage. Hollywood reflected this with a raw, visceral cinema. Relative harmony and prosperity in the late '70s and '80s led to a more "larger than life" experience in the cinema.

It's like the 1930s vs the late '40s and '50s. In the early to mid '30s some of the biggest 'stars' of Hollywood were the Universal monsters. These early Universal monster films were dark and intense (for the audience of the time at least). Fast forward to the mid '40s and the Monsters are all meeting Abbott and Costello, and we are well into the domain of the Hollywood Musical. World War II (and the turbulent inter-war period of the late '20s and '30s with its fragility and Great Depression) gave us a more serious, more downbeat cinema, yet the prosperity of the post-war era led to a 'lightening' of Hollywood.

So, these Blockbusters really reflected a changing social consciousness.

This is no different to the situation we have today. The world is becoming expensive and cautious (GFC, etc). Hollywood is cashing in on what it sees as a 'sure thing' - modern remakes of stars of the past. It is not a time for risk taking. The '80s were the time for that.

[Aperion]

No, Jaws and Star Wars didn't ruin Hollywood, they made Hollywood, but they destroyed good film. In any genre. If you are an auteur, it is basically impossible to get your films made and have a career. People like Spielberg, Lucas and Cameron aren't auteurs, they are businessmen. That said, I even enjoy some of their films.

I am in LOVE with 1970s giallo films. Almost every single one of these has some wack-o convoluted plot. But you know what? Almost every single one is way better made in every single way than every movie out of Hollywood in the past 30 years. Digital equipment and post-production technologies have made filmmaking better sure, but it has also made the abundance of crap a lot easier to get made and distributed. Look at how many supremely stupid and awful horror movies come out direct to DVD/onDemand every year?

Granted, I and probably many others on this forum like watching them, but at least 99% of those films are beyond awful. Then look at mainstream movies in theaters, they are not much better, if at all. Total crap designed by studio heads, marketers and investors to maximize profit at the box office - content of any film is almost irrelevant.

This current paradigm is due to Jaws and Star Wars.

[TheWickerFan]

http://rlv.zcache.com/stop_being_such_a_negative_nancy_tshirt-p235703042736347300trlf_400.jpg;)No, Jaws and Star Wars didn't ruin Hollywood, they made Hollywood, but they destroyed good film. In any genre. If you are an auteur, it is basically impossible to get your films made and have a career. People like Spielberg, Lucas and Cameron aren't auteurs, they are businessmen. That said, I even enjoy some of their films.

I am in LOVE with 1970s giallo films. Almost every single one of these has some wack-o convoluted plot. But you know what? Almost every single one is way better made in every single way than every movie out of Hollywood in the past 30 years. Digital equipment and post-production technologies have made filmmaking better sure, but it has also made the abundance of crap a lot easier to get made and distributed. Look at how many supremely stupid and awful horror movies come out direct to DVD/onDemand every year?

Granted, I and probably many others on this forum like watching them, but at least 99% of those films are beyond awful. Then look at mainstream movies in theaters, they are not much better, if at all. Total crap designed by studio heads, marketers and investors to maximize profit at the box office - content of any film is almost irrelevant.

This current paradigm is due to Jaws and Star Wars.

[Aperion]

http://rlv.zcache.com/stop_being_such_a_negative_nancy_tshirt-p235703042736347300trlf_400.jpg;)

Lol, hey its all just imho..

[TheWickerFan]

Lol, hey its all just imho..

I definitely understand how you feel; I am really starting to lose patience with Hollywood these days. I've been to the theater once this year to see The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, but I have to drive over an hour to get to our local art-house cinema (that film was worth it though). Guess I'll have to trek out there again to see The Girl Who Played With Fire; none of the more mainstream films look interesting.

Things really should turn around, but I do hope this 3-D mania doesn't take over all movies.

[neverending]

I work in movie market research, and let me tell you- the studios would LOVE it if every film was released in 3-D. They're going to push it as far as they can for as long as they can. They have us recently polling people about what types of films they'd like to see in 3-D- romance, comedy, drama... etc.

There's no such thing as a "negative nancy" in regards to Hollywood mentality. To paraphrase the old vaudeville axiom- you'll never go broke underestimating your audience.

[TheWickerFan]

I work in movie market research, and let me tell you- the studios would LOVE it if every film was released in 3-D. They're going to push it as far as they can for as long as they can. They have us recently polling people about what types of films they'd like to see in 3-D- romance, comedy, drama... etc.

There's no such thing as a "negative nancy" in regards to Hollywood mentality. To paraphrase the old vaudeville axiom- you'll never go broke underestimating your audience.

That is truly sickening news; I had hoped the studios would at least reserve the 3-D effects for action based movies. Hopefully the results of the polls will show people still prefer 2-D in most genres.

[newb]

I work in movie market research, and let me tell you- the studios would LOVE it if every film was released in 3-D. They're going to push it as far as they can for as long as they can. They have us recently polling people about what types of films they'd like to see in 3-D- romance, comedy, drama... etc.


3-D PORN...now THAT could be interesting

WOAH....DUCK

[ManchestrMorgue]

I am in two minds about 3d. I can understand why Hollywood likes it - it draws people to cinemas, and allows remakes of remakes to be remade in 3d.

I imagine it stops films from being pirated in the cinema.

On the other hand, I don't think the technology is sophisticated enough to make it suitable for all films. It is great as a gimmick for action etc but it adds nothing to drama/comedy etc.

[neverending]

As far as the owners of the studios go- it's simply a numbers game. They have/are investing billions of dollars installing 3-D technology in theatres. The more films made in 3-D, the more product they have that they can charge inflated prices for, and the more they recoup on their investment. They have no concern over the quality of the product.

[Elvis_Christ]

It is great as a gimmick for action etc but it adds nothing to drama/comedy etc.

A 3D comedy could be great. But I hear ya about it not working for a drama as it would take the seriousness out of it to a certain extent.

[Doc Faustus]

Avarice, cocaine, technofetishism and the mephtiic stagnant pond that is mainstream literature ruined Hollywood.

[wufongtan.]

Saying that art house or indie films can't get a good run, because of star wars or jaws is a load of shit. Its just people who are involved in those genres using successful movies as an excuse for their own failures. If art house movies or indie films were any good. People would go see them. If people went to see them they would make money, if they made money, people in hollywood would be falling over themselves to make them. The fact is. 99% of art house or indie films are complete crap. So no one goes to see them, so they don't make money, which is why people in hollywood don't want to make them.

[TheWickerFan]

Saying that art house or indie films can't get a good run, because of star wars or jaws is a load of shit. Its just people who are involved in those genres using successful movies as an excuse for their own failures. If art house movies or indie films were any good. People would go see them. If people went to see them they would make money, if they made money, people in hollywood would be falling over themselves to make them. The fact is. 99% of art house or indie films are complete crap. So no one goes to see them, so they don't make money, which is why people in hollywood don't want to make them.

I think art house and indie films can't get a good run because the majority of film goers seem content with the same old song and dance over and over and over and over again that Hollywood spews out, and they can't be bothered to seek out something different.

I'm not one of those people that says anyone who doesn't like this type of film is an ignorant fool (there are plenty I don't like) but 99% seems a pretty high percentage; I think you're being a little harsh.

[wufongtan.]

I think art house and indie films can't get a good run because the majority of film goers seem content with the same old song and dance over and over and over and over again that Hollywood spews out, and they can't be bothered to seek out something different.

I'm not one of those people that says anyone who doesn't like this type of film is an ignorant fool (there are plenty I don't like) but 99% seems a pretty high percentage; I think you're being a little harsh.

Well. I don't know if film goers are so much content with a lot of the crap hollywood produces. I think they have no choice. True 99% is a little harsh. But i do feel the vast majority of indie films are crap. But some are very good.
I think the best indie films are the ones when the producers/directors, don't treat it as a indie film and just try and make the best film they can. Some indie films are so intent on being seen as a indie film that it loses it self. Same as a lot of big budget hollywood films. They are so interested in the big whiz bang special effects etc. That they forget the plot line.
I think both genres would be a great deal better off, if they took a leaf out of each other books.

[TheWickerFan]

Well. I don't know if film goers are so much content with a lot of the crap hollywood produces. I think they have no choice. True 99% is a little harsh. But i do feel the vast majority of indie films are crap. But some are very good.
I think the best indie films are the ones when the producers/directors, don't treat it as a indie film and just try and make the best film they can. Some indie films are so intent on being seen as a indie film that it loses it self. Same as a lot of big budget hollywood films. They are so interested in the big whiz bang special effects etc. That they forget the plot line.
I think both genres would be a great deal better off, if they took a leaf out of each other books.

Maybe "content" was the wrong word to use; maybe "resigned', "indifferent', or "apathetic" would be better.

When I see films like 'Grown Ups' and 'Knight And Day' in the top box office positions, that gives me very little faith that people are rejecting the offal and going for the gold.

[Posher778]

I don't see how Jaws ruined or affected anything negatively at all, actually.