Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarko
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.
|
But the general public has awful taste in film just like they have awful taste in music. It's incredibly difficult for a film with this demographic in mind to not be awful.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Sure, they want it to appeal to others because they want to make money. And the majority of directors working in Hollywood are, like I said, only tangentially involved in the creation of the film. They are usually hired by a studio-head (who usually retains strict final-cut authority over a film) to direct a script selected by a studio-head with actors selected by a studio-head to be edited by an editor selected by a studio-head and the primary concern throughout all of this is $$$. This is not conducive to good filmmaking.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Maybe you could define the context then?
Zarko 
Threaded Mode