Quote:
Originally Posted by bungalow
Money. I believe that's the reason you were looking for. And it isn't "movie makers" who are creating these films, it is studio suits. They know what a mass audience does/does not want to see and they engineer films around this. The "director" is practically nonessential (and that also explains the english "director" as opposed to say the french "realisateur" or "metteur en scene", filmmakers in countries outside the influence of Hollywood studios are actually responsible for 'realizing' a film, whereas in Hollywood they simply give direction tailored around what a studio-head wants). There is no creative process there, it is a business model. If that's the sort of cinema you want to infatuate yourself with, fine. But please refrain from labeling filmmakers who genuinely want to express themselves "crappy arthouse."
|
And to maximise profits, they hope to make it as enjoyable to as many people as possible. FWIW, a 'hollywood' movie in that sense doesn't have to be looked down upon/bad simply because they aim at a wider market.
It's probably not the reason they initially wanted to make movies, but I'm guessing a lot of directors want to make something that will appeal to others, not their own desire to create a film.
I don't consider 'breaking the mould' to mean arthouse FWIW. I use the term in a very specific context that doesn't apply to most films.