Why Watching Online Movie Critics Makes Me Feel Better

Some of the most popular channels on Youtube are movie critics.  Their rise has come because of how much a producer could get with the smaller investment.  A content creator can tape him or herself in a room, or even just record their voice, and let the clips of the movies provide the higher production value.  Since these movies have their own marketing departments, audiences already know what they are.  And since Youtube worked out a fair use clause to utilize movie footage, they could air their reviews and even monetize them.

In some ways I feel guilty for watching so many of these shows rather than searching harder for more original content by people who are willing to take the risk and not ride on the coattails of premade products.  However, I've found that there's something very cathartic about watching the critics slam on bad movies.  There were obvious reasons for this, but as I got to thinking about it, there were more reasons for me that go beyond the usual viewer.

When my own scripts and projects got rejected, I was willing to accept that there could be something better.  Whatever they did choose would probably be a better film, something that I would aspire to with my own writing.  Whenever a film got accepted into a festival mine didn't get into, I thought the same thing.  Then I would watch them...

My discouragement came from the fact that there was nothing to look up to; nothing to aspire to.  What I had presented may not have been perfect, but it was certainly better than what they were choosing.  Added to my frustration was the fact that I was then told that no, I was wrong.  The production companies, studios, and film festivals were right in their choices.  After all, they were the ones in power.  They made more money than me.  Their careers were going great.  They're right and I'm wrong.

Channels like Nostalgia Critic, Lindsay Ellis, Red Letter Media, and Your Movie Sucks beg to differ.  In fact, they've specifically taken on some of the movies that I got rejected in favor of.  Being outside of the industry, they feel no need to conform, or kiss the ass of anyone "important."  They actually scoff at Hollywood's self-importance.

THAT is cathartic.  It may not give me a career or change Hollywood, but it definitely makes me feel better to see movies that are objectively bad and producers who believe they're right about everything get called out on their bullshit.

Rebooting Tales of a Failed Filmmaker

A couple years ago I started blogging about my experiences in the film industry.  It's a story my mom's practically begged me to tell because I witnessed so many odd things.  I've also wanted to share them as some of the events are behind the scenes looks at things people know about.

However, it's always been last priority as these events are not things that effect me today, and it's not like this is a book I'm planning to publish any time soon, regardless of what my mom wants me to do.  So as a result, it's been constantly pushed in the background.

But now I've given myself enough time to sit down and do what I need to do.  Plus I'm going to post some of them on this blog as well as an extra incentive to get me to do it.  (I've been making a point of posting every week on this one, so adding them to this cue will force me to make them.)

I'll be starting these posts next week over at http://talesofafailedfilmmaker.blogspot.com/

The Real Reason Style Over Substance is King Now

Many online critics have noted how movies today seem to care a lot more about being flashy than about being substantial.  It's not that there aren't good movies anymore; there are several great ones that couldn't even be made in decades past.

However, there is a noticeable drop in how many movies that are released in theaters have much substance to them.  Most of them, even many of the good ones, place an emphasis on the style way above the substance.  And people have been asking why.

I've personally seen the progress of this, and why it happened; though I didn't recognize what was happening because I thought it was just my own bitterness at failing to become a filmmaker myself.  In retrospect, however, I realize that the change was taking place right before my eyes.

It all comes from the film festivals.  You see, in order to get a film made, you can't go directly to any studio or production company.  They will all tell you that they take no unsolicited materials, which means you have to go through a major agency.  You go to the agencies and they all say the same thing, that you have to go through a manager.  Most managers will say the same thing, and the buck stops there.  It's a catch 22; an incestuous relationship among Hollywood insiders of which no one can break in.

The only way to slip through is in a film festival.  If you can get a film accepted into one of those, the agencies will go to them and will contact you to represent you.  You can then submit your projects to the studios through your agent, and those are the films that get made.  Even the "independent" companies that claim to be outside the Hollywood system work this way.  (It's called hypocrisy.)

So the real gatekeepers are those deciding what films show at the film festivals.  These festivals were originally created to build up creative talent and independent voices outside the studio system.  Many of the early films were rough around the edges but had a spirit to them that sparked viewers' interests.  As a great example of this, check out Peter Jackson's first film that got accepted to the Cannes Film Festival.

Films like this would never get accepted into festivals today because they're not sleek enough, or because they don't have a famous name in them; and thus, one of the greatest directors of all time would be overlooked.  How many other Peter Jacksons are being overlooked today because of this reason?  We'll never know.

Instead, most of the films that get accepted have high production value, and little attention is paid to story or character.  Sometimes films have style and some of the other elements, but only style makes a difference in whether or not a movie gets accepted.  Thus you wind up with filmmakers that are all about flash going to these festivals and getting through the gates to be able to pitch to studios.

The only way to break this cycle is for production companies and studios, or at least agents, to open up their ears to other voices that didn't have to go through such a narrow-minded corridor.  It's the reason why Youtube has such fresh voices that we're not seeing in the movie theater, and why staying home and watching something for free is often more appealing to people than paying money to go see movies that are full of style and lacking on substance.

Why Watching Online Movie Critics Makes Me Feel Better

Some of the most popular channels on Youtube are movie critics.  Their rise has come because of how much a producer could get with the smaller investment.  A content creator can tape him or herself in a room, or even just record their voice, and let the clips of the movies provide the higher production value.  Since these movies have their own marketing departments, audiences already know what they are.  And since Youtube worked out a fair use clause to utilize movie footage, they could air their reviews and even monetize them.

In some ways I feel guilty for watching so many of these shows rather than searching harder for more original content by people who are willing to take the risk and not ride on the coattails of premade products.  However, I've found that there's something very cathartic about watching the critics slam on bad movies.  There were obvious reasons for this, but as I got to thinking about it, there were more reasons for me that go beyond the usual viewer.

When my own scripts and projects got rejected, I was willing to accept that there could be something better.  Whatever they did choose would probably be a better film, something that I would aspire to with my own writing.  Whenever a film got accepted into a festival mine didn't get into, I thought the same thing.  Then I would watch them...

My discouragement came from the fact that there was nothing to look up to; nothing to aspire to.  What I had presented may not have been perfect, but it was certainly better than what they were choosing.  Added to my frustration was the fact that I was then told that no, I was wrong.  The production companies, studios, and film festivals were right in their choices.  After all, they were the ones in power.  They made more money than me.  Their careers were going great.  They're right and I'm wrong.

Channels like Nostalgia Critic, Lindsay Ellis, Red Letter Media, and Your Movie Sucks beg to differ.  In fact, they've specifically taken on some of the movies that I got rejected in favor of.  Being outside of the industry, they feel no need to conform, or kiss the ass of anyone "important."  They actually scoff at Hollywood's self-importance.

THAT is cathartic.  It may not give me a career or change Hollywood, but it definitely makes me feel better to see movies that are objectively bad and producers who believe they're right about everything get called out on their bullshit.

The Screenplay Formula and Why Movies are so Homogenized

You might hear a lot of people question why so many movies have such a similar tone; as if they're all of the same genre, or made by a few filmmakers with exactly the same tastes.  You may have noticed this yourself and added your voice to the plethora of bloggers, vloggers, and other fans who have expressed their frustrations at how all movies seem alike now.

This might seem a bit like the old man going, "it' ain't like the good ol' days," but there's a strong truth to it, and a reason for it.  As an example, when Star Wars and Star Trek movies came out in the late '70s and early '80s, there was a strong distinction between them.  You went to Star Wars and got an action packed adventure.  You went to Star Trek and got an intriguing mystery.  Even the action scenes were completely different.  In Star Wars you got fast cuts with small ships or individuals shooting rapid fire shots at one another.  In Star Trek you had longer wide shots of large ships laboriously turning on one another while their crews discussed the best way to win.

Neither style was better.  It was like going to a restaurant.  No one wants the same food every day.  If you want Mexican food, you go to a Mexican restaurant.  If you want Italian food, you go to an Italian restaurant.  You switch it up to have a variety.  Hell, even films made by the same director had very different feels.  Take for instance Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark versus Jaws.  Their tone and style was so different that they seem like they're made by completely different filmmakers.

But now you could replace the title of one film with another and hardly anyone would notice.  In computer gaming terms, it's like changing the skins.  So what caused this?  Well, there are numerous theories, and I'm sure many of them have truth as any subject of this magnitude will naturally have a lot of answers.  But I've come to believe there's one overall reason.

Screenplay formulas.

For decades, filmmakers and theorists have been trying to narrow down what makes a film "work."  Understanding this will cause filmmaking to be less risky, and solve psychological mysteries of taste.  So people set about writing books on screenwriting, observing what has been respected and loved in movies, and trying to capture the reason for the magic in them.  The result of all this research was a multitude of formulas.  Books from Adventures in the Screen Trade to The Foundations of Screenwriting to Story to the Writer's Journey all try to identify the genie in the bottle.

These books do provide a basis for good practices in screenwriting.  For instance, they remind a writer to not linger too long in their introduction of the characters and the situation.  They provide guidance on moving the plot forward, and ideas for creating dynamic story beats.  These are positive guidelines to follow.

However, somewhere along the way people started taking these books as rules rather than guidelines.  Rather than suggesting that the screenwriter shift into the second act before the audience gets bored, the screenwriter is now required to move onto the inciting incident by page 15, no exceptions!  Rather than the third act being a point at which the characters focus on their goals, it MUST follow the lowest point of their lives, where they were worse off than when they began the story, and the antagonists must now move in on them.  NO EXCEPTIONS!

Let's put 2001, A Space Odyssey to this test.  The opening of this movie, which is widely considered a classic, even by those who swear by the formulas, follows a group of apes, none of whom are main characters in the rest of the movie.  We get an entire story about them, and how they discover the monolith, which takes us into the main part of the story.  This story does involve the character getting into a worse and worse situation until things are really bad for him.  But he's still reaching his goal, and no conscious villain is closing in on him.  Ultimately, he doesn't have a dramatic ending where his heroic action saves or destroys the day.  He experiences something that speaks to the existence of humanity.

This movie fails the formula test in every way possible.  Hell, even Star Wars would fail as it doesn't introduce its main character until nearly 20 minutes into the film; a major taboo in screenwriting formulas.

But somewhere along the way, I believe in the mid to late '80s, the industry became populated by people who saw these formulas as indispensable.  This belief has permeated every nook and cranny of the industry.  Not only do producers believe in the formula, but so do their assistants, (who must if they want to keep a job,) and executives and agents and people who run film festivals, and people who decide what gets accepted into festivals.  In short, the gatekeepers to the industry all worship the formula, and anyone who does not conform is kept out.

And thus, films have become very homogenized because filmmakers are not allowed to do anything different if they want careers.

The Hypocrisy of the Academy Award Popular Film Category

This year the Academy Awards tried to add the popular film category; an attempt to appease viewers that ultimately got mocked and failed.  This category is widely seen to have been added because of two things: the popularity of Black Panther, a bandwagon upon which the Academy wanted to jump without actually considering it for best picture, and lower ratings of the show in general.

I'm actually not going to talk about whether or not Black Panther deserves to win, or even a nomination.  It was a very good movie, and it also had some glaring flaws.  Most of all, though, the whole subject of its merit brings out the absurdity of what a "best picture" is.  Can we really declare a single movie to be the best when there are so many genres and styles?  Isn't it like comparing apples and oranges to a degree?

But what I find particularly ludicrous is the hypocrisy that created this apparent need for a popular category.  The idea that something popular needs a separate category from best implies that if something makes a lot of money, it is inherently inferior to something that doesn't make a lot of money.  While certainly the motivation for wealth can be separate from the motivation for art, the idea that something that is popular can't be great is the very wrongful thinking that caused Hitchcock to never win a regular award, and why one eluded Spielberg for so long.

But what of you, Academy Awards?  Isn't the major reason why you're doing this so you keep your audience?  We all hear you every time you complain that the audience numbers are shrinking.  If the Academy Awards really believed that art and commerce are so separate, why are they so concerned with their own ratings?  It seems to me that if you're going to frown upon popular films that make money and smugly hold films that don't on a pedestal, then you shouldn't be so concerned about your own wealth.

But if ratings are so important, maybe stop looking down on those producers who are literally doing the exact same thing as you.