Hi simplemindedsociety,
-
raygal — 12 years ago(October 23, 2013 11:53 PM)
I'm going to say this again:
For you to demean today's folks just cause they're not off fighting in wars or doing charity the way you wants them to is ignorant. What the beep have you done; concentrate on yourself and how you're making the world better/worse or whatever. It's a good thing your behind hasn't been on the site, many need to follow suit. -
jclarke@attglobal.net — 12 years ago(September 16, 2013 05:10 AM)
also consider that the six major studios also own pretty much every theater in the United States
I hate to resurrect an ancient thread but I have to address this on two different grounds.
In 1939 nearly all the theaters in the US were owned by the studios.
That was the year that "The Wizard of Oz", "Dark Victory", "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", "Stagecoach", and "Goodbye Mr. Chips" were all beaten out for Best Picture by "Gone With the Wind"it is generally regarded as the the greatest single year of movie releases in history.
In 1938 an antitrust action was filed by the Federal government and by 1940 almost all the studio-owned theaters had been divested.
So the theaters being owned by the studios was not necessarily a bad thing.
However . . .
Right now the largest single chain of theaters in the US is Regal Entertainment, with more than 7000 screens in more than 600 theaters, is privately owned by an oil tycoon named Philip Anschutz, who wants more for it than anybody is willing to pay.
The second largest, AMC, with more than 5000 screens in 378 theaters, is owned by the Chinese real estate conglomerate Dalian Wanda Group.
The third largest, Cinemark, with roughly 4000 screens in more than 300 theaters, is an independent corporation traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
The fourth largest, Carmike, with more than 2000 screens, is another independent, traded on NASADAQ.
I could go on but those between them represent more than 80 percent of the screens and the theaters in the US. None of them are owned by a studio. -
manofsteel4455 — 13 years ago(July 14, 2012 07:57 AM)
The fact that alot of the people on this topic are in their teens and early twenties just proves that she's absolutely right!!
You want to play the game, you'd better know the rules, love.
-Harry Callahan -
Destinata — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 10:12 PM)
I really like Lauren Bacall but why does she always complain about contemporary Hollywood.
Because she remembers it when it was good.
No, the '40's and '50's are not the same as today. Today an actor doesn't have to act, scripts don't have to be good. There has to be action, dirty jokes, nudity, F-bombs, CGI, and and this is the only thing that's similar to the '40's and '50's a couple of the handful of actors who are box office draws. That isn't art. It's formula.
I rarely watch new movies. I've seen enough of them, though, that I realize the latest addition to the formula is "teal" everything. I love teal. It's my favorite color. But if a movie has that all over it all the time I find it revolting. It's like a shortcut to "we're being all next-level and 'edgy' now."
No. It's not "art."
You will probably disagree. That's the nature of discussions they have two sides. -
kenny-164 — 11 years ago(August 15, 2014 07:24 AM)
I tend to agree that films today are not as good as in the past, but that does not mean no good films are being made or are not worth seeing.
I have not rated a newer film at 10 here since The Thin Red Line. But I do think the following films in the interim are near excellent, if not deserving of a ten:
Lost in Translation
No Country for Old Men
Master and Commander
3:10 to Yuma
Up in the Air
The Wrestler
Blue Valentine
The Descendants
Tree of Life
The Hunt
Lincoln
Even just last year I greatly enjoyed American Hustle and Before Midnight.
But I do tend also to agree with Bacall's criticism, which is of a more general nature. The studio system at least was run by people who knew how to make films, who loved films. The companies in control of Hollywood now are more purely corporate in nature. They also play to the world market, which tends to prefer stories that are more visual in nature, tending to undercut character development, acting with dialogue, and the like.
A more general problem is that Hollywood in its golden age attracted many of hte most talented people in society. Now those people can go into any number of lines of business to find success. I have my favorite actors and actresses now, but who among them really deserve to be ranked among the best all time? Perhaps Meryl Streep, Daniel Day-Lewis. Maybe Kate Winslett. Christian Bale might have made it, but gets sucked into these comic book type productions aimed at teenaged boys. No Bogarts, John Waynes, Bette Davises in the lot of them. And no more Lauren Bacall for that matter. -
PopperTheKungFuDragn — 11 years ago(August 15, 2014 10:31 AM)
Pople are always nostalgic about the times they grew up in. I don't think she was any different than anyone else.
Hell, I'm only 32, but I still prefer the 80s and 90s to the present day because those are the times I grew up in.
So its only natural for her to prefer those days rather than the present just like a lot of people.
We often look back with nostalgia on the 40s and 50s but they were just the same as today.
I think this depends on the perspective of the people who lived through those times.
Like I said, I prefer the 80s and 90s even though, as you say, they were probably not much different to today. -
BMWGriffith — 10 years ago(July 06, 2015 01:35 AM)
They say Bacall was such a bitch but I'm glad she was because she's one celebrity who was courageous enough to criticize the behavior of the all too powerful Tom Cruise when he appeared on Oprah. And who else would have panned the Twilight movie outright? (She wanted to beat up her granddaughter for dragging her to see it!). We all need a Lauren Bacall to say that a lot of things in today's Hollywood just aren't right and that not everything Hollywood publicists say is true.