Sunday, June 30, 2013

When Hollywood Ran Out of Ideas

The chart is very telling and confirms what I intuitively knew was happening.

I do have an OUTSTANDING fiction book that I intend on writing and would make for a great movie (and no, I'm not just saying that, it would be an instant blockbuster), but it will have to wait for the day I am independently wealthy on economics and non-fiction books that I can afford the time to pursue such a leisurely pursuit.

Regardless, what Hollywood is suffering from is the precise, exact same thing government is suffering from -

talentless individuals.

I've cited this before, but worthless people with no intention, desire, work ethic, let alone, ability flood the government, public sector, non-profit, and (naturally) art world. 

Who declares a poli-sci major?

A lazy egomaniacal 17 year old.

Who declares a journalism major?

A lazy, but still egotistical, 17 year old.

And who declares a "film major?"

Again, an equally lazy, talentless 17 year old who doesn't like math.

Mark my words - in the future the TRUE masterpieces and blockbusters will come from people who did NOT study the arts, but rather studied life and lived it.  They will not be spoiled suburbanite brats whose parents paid for their hobby to major in "theater."  They will not be the adult-children whose parents made large donations to art museums to have their 45 year old child's crappy art put up in a display.  They will be the truck driver who had a lot of time on the road to think about (and pull from his personal experiences) a truly great work of art.  They will come from the security guard who has the time to ponder and hammer out a great plot.  They will come from the 80 hour a day workaholic who gets laid off and channels his/her energies towards some creative production.

It will never, and I mean, NEVER come from the hipster-infested coffee shops and cafes of conformists and intellectual weaklings who rely on government subsidy.

9 comments:

The Great and Powerful Oz said...

Theatre is a fun hobby. I used to be involved in the tech side until it became obvious that single white males are not welcome.

Anonymous said...

I totally agree about the films and you've heard me say it before. but seeing it in a chart was still shocking. I disagree that For Your Eyes Only was a sequel since nearly every Bond film can stand alone. but it is an adaptation. many adaptations add value.

I disagree about actors being talentless.the current stars make acting look incredibly easy because they are, for the most part, so good. remember that there is a lot more competition to become an actor than in the 1950s. our modern equipment also shows much more detail, and facial expressions have become much more important. if you compare modern actors to revered hero's of the silver screen in days past, it becomes clear the old generation wasn't as good. they were often trained on stage where voice is abnormally projected and body language must be exaggerated. perhaps the old folks MIGHT have been better than they were with better equipment.

Anonymous said...

I'm mildly offended, because I am neither lazy, nor egotisitical. But I was a Poli Sci major, doubled with TV Production (Journalism) and went on to get a Masters in Econometrics.

I'll admit, I started as a Physics major (back in 1980), but found it boring. Challenging? Sure, but it didn't spark any interest.

I found Poli Sci stimulating, the discussions were enlightening and engaged. I do regret being a Poli Sci major and not a History major, but that's a minor differentiation. I usually tell my boys that History is better because Poli Sci is history saddled with massive amounts of ego-driven opinion. History has massive amounts of opinion baked in, but facts are facts and if you are astute, you can read between the lines and get real value.

I've been very successful in my chosen career path, and I've learned that my father was right. College is about education, not getting a job. I focused on my Liberal Arts Core, and because of that I am more well informed than 90% of the people who graduated with me.

My son just finished his first year at college. I suspect he will choose Communications as his major, because his speaking skills are amazing. I've told him to, as I did, focus on his Liberal Arts Core, which will only enhance any other major he chooses.

His ability to pursue a STEM-related degree is limited since his math skills are not up to snuff. My second son, heading to college in another year, may pursue Engineering because he is in the top 10% for Math related skills.

I am not a fan of modern college education. It is more about socializing, working out (ever see the new recreation centers these universities are spending money on?), and generally laying about for 4 years. Maybe you head off to another country for a semester or a year.
I've made sure both my boys will travel abroad. It's an essential part of education, particularly if all you're doing is going to college to party. At least see other parts of the world.

However much disdain I have for the modern college experience, I fault the modern public school system for killing the initiative in kids today. As a private high school grad, I entered college with interests and ambition.

Today, kids leave high school with a "meh" attitude. Few have hobbies, few have interests. They are forced into extracurriculars they could care little about in high school, and as a result have a diminished interest in actually volunteering or even caring. It's assumed that they whatever needs need to be met will be met because others will be forced to deal with those needs, as they have.

Lance Bowman said...

This is actually pretty funny. Right now I'm trying to make a redpill film criticism blog and I didn't even read the article, but I wrote on similar to it. http://palefacefilms.blogspot.com/2013/06/why-arent-there-any-more-movies-stars.html
I personally think the lack of movie stars comes from the fact that we live in this androgynous society that punishes gender roles, yet gender roles are what make good movie stars.
I used to be a film major before I saw the light, and in all honesty, they are the most talentless, selfish, laziest pieces of shit you will ever meet. Before I even went to college I would read up on every single interview, watch every single historical film, every piece of criticism. Yet it doesn't matter to these guys, if you don't like Jean Luc Goddard or whatever pretentious Marxist, then you are an idiot. Nevermind the fact their short films have no narrative, story, or character. They honestly have no talent and I think that the manosphere needs to show up these talentless hacks.

Anyway thanks Captain for your advice, and I really dodged a bullet, going to join the Navy and get into computer science. You really did good for me and I always tell people to watch your youtube video on worthless degrees and it's changed alot of lives. So again thanks

Anonymous said...

My first comment was regarding the broader topic of education, which seems to represent the center of all you write, justifiably so.

With regard to the issue of Hollywood, since this is the field I am currently working (media, TV, digital), I can say that the forces which have caused the system to come crashing down are multitudinous. While it's true the Hollywood Liberal Elite has done themselves no favors, the factors which people like you and I appreciate, entrepreneurialism and technological advancement, have done massive amounts of damage to the core of the business simply because those running businesses spend more time fighting off change rather than embracing it.

When was the last well done, popular, movie with a strong plot and good character development?

I'd argue that the recent shift in the Bond franchise is about the closest you'll get. It's not that great movies aren't being made, but Hollywood is spending more time avoiding good writing and trying to hang their hat on the star system (such as it exists today) and blockbuster effects.

I recently visited the Disney studio lot when Johnny Depp was there. Apparently his only job that day was to sit and have different shots of his head taken so they could do computer wireframes which would assist them in their computerized SFX for "The Lone Ranger"

Johnny did quite a bit of work, and quite a bit of acting, for this particular movie, I'm sure. But in days of old, these actors earned their keep by actually working, rather than sitting in a chair as their heads were scanned.

This isn't a bad thing, mind you. Just an indication of how far technology has come. The original Arnold Schwarzenegger was able to play a key role in the recent reboot of "The Terminator", in all his 1980's glory, thanks to digitization.

If the actors can be resurrected and recombined with digitization, then there will be a time, very soon, when they won't really be needed at all.

Don't think they aren't aware of this.

Expect the actors union to take a stronger stance on the amount of actual screen time actors will get.

I wonder how "World War Z" got so many extras to play the zombies? Must have cost them a fortune....

Anonymous said...

I'm more with (albeit devout lefties) Spielberg & Lucas in that the Hollywood system is collapsing, and predicting that PPV and direct-to-stream will be the new release mechanism. And also relying more on indie distribution since now it's much easier to get release through things like Youtube and internet music sources. The Lizzie Bennet Diaries was released on Youtube and was a lot more enjoyable (and better acted) then most non-action fare I've seen in the last couple years.

archerfisher21 said...

Little harsh about poly-sci majors, aren't you? It's a government/law/law enforcement type major, yeah...

Those smart people who don't avoid math, who go into engineering, science, information technology--great. You guys did well, you took the hard subjects.

But guess what? Its people like me and my lazy fellow poly-sci majors who end up as those cops who make the choice to arrest/harass people who open carry, or act like a civilized person and speak/deal with them politely. We end up as those cops who either beat people senseless on the streets, or we do the right thing.

We end up as those lawyers who either decide to sue frivolous, or keep it decent. We end up as those DA's and ADA's who decide whether to prosecute people who break idiotic, unconstitutional laws like that NY law banning holding more than 8 rounds in a mag.

So, don't you want GOOD people to go into that? Smart people, with common sense, like the folks on here? What happens if you advise all your decent friends, and have them advise all their decent friends, "Only lazy assholes go into law/politics/law enforcement?"

Then by default, if no good people go into those professions, then only lazy assholes do. And in our society, we need to improve the ratio of assholes:good people who are in those jobs. Because just as STEM people improve medicine, roads, buildings, etc--those poly sci people go into jobs that either help our society stay free and better, or they're assholes who help ruin things for everyone.

Jorge Gonzalez said...

"They will be the truck driver who had a lot of time on the road to think about (and pull from his personal experiences) a truly great work of art. "

That pretty much describes James Cameron

Anonymous said...

Only partly true.

If you want the book to be published as a paper edition then the major publishing houses are staffed by those very people that you rail against. They have an extremely biased and left wing, right on, politically correct orientation and the draft would not be read.

As an example, in the UK where Red Squirrels are being driven to extinction by the introduced Grey Squirrel, one of my friends wanted to write a childrens book about how a rd squirrel managed to survive and set up home in a new forest. racist, apparently ...

So you either self publish and have low to minimal sales or publish it in an electronic format and bypass the system altogether.

The uniformity of the type of novels in "The Best 50 Top Sellers" list should convince you of the truth of that.

Phil B