Scorsese Calls Blockbuster Films "Theme Park Films". Are Hollywood Putting Quantity over Quality ?

For a good while, People (Most notably film buffs) have complained over Hollywood's latest approach to business when it comes to cinema. It has invested more in franchises and box office, rather than the passion and  ideas. Of course, many people are oblivious to this and still stumble off to the cinema to get warped into the same old shit every week. But now one notorious filmmaker has made his voice known which has now drawn my concern back to Hollywood.

Martin Scorsese is arguably one of cinema's most beloved directors. From films like Taxi Driver to Shutter Island, he has created characters, stories and iconic moments and lines of cinema that will never be forgotten. His new film Hugo will be released in British Cinemas this Friday (I don't think I'll see it.) and during an interview with BBC News, he says that Hollywood needs to have an alternative to what he calls "Theme Park Films" that can dominate in the box office.

If you read the actual interview, Its not actually an attack against Hollywood, but in all fairness in honestly, you know that Hollywood these days are more greedy than they have been in yester years. Yet, the majority of people do not see that. Maybe its because they do not understand the industry, or buy in the lie ? As a film buff myself, I have been open to the fact that Hollywood's standard has swapped over. In the 80s & 90s, it seemed that the industries were more about impressing audiences and gaining the riches later, but now its 2011 and the roles have reversed. They want your money first and care less about impressing the audience, hence the stale franchises which require less thought than figuring out what one plus one is. Its not that I like these franchises, but its that when something becomes a runaway success, you get five other different versions of the same idea the years following which let's face it, aren't as good or popular as the original success.

For Example...Twilight.

When Twilight first hit our screens in 2008, it became huge and rival Hollywood studios were surprised and jealous of the possibility of a smaller studio with a mega money hit. So they took the vampire themed film and tried new things with it, but thus nothing became as successful without owing something to Twilight. Despite the fact that Twilight owes a lot to other vampire themed films and shows (Angel, Blade and Dracula himself.) it added a new twist to the genre of vampires. Twilight isn't universally loved as it has also gained a reputation of hate among st the male demographic.

Comic Book Franchises have also been big money makers, in exchange for little thought process. The Amazing Spiderman for example hasn't even been released yet and already has a sequel being written for 2014. Well, haven't Hollywood thought of the possibility of the film flopping. Well this is Spiderman we are talking about, so of course it won't flop. But the idea is now that Hollywood are planning ahead of time and believe that this film will make millions and millions and are green lighting endless sequels before even the first film makes it on screen, or is let alone finished.

Its also lazy doing sequels. Sequels really should only be done If A) audience really demand a sequel and aren't given one that don't want or B) One part of the story is told and there is still more of the overall arc left to be told. Think The Lord Of The Rings, Star Wars and Kill Bill. Sequels to them were necessarily to tell the whole story in multiple films.

Scorsese, Nolan, Spielberg, Tarentino as well as many others are directors who have fought or are fighting the system standard by doing other projects and not being dragged down or basing their career on franchises. Spielberg created franchises and with Nolan, despite his popularity as a filmmaker rising because of Batman, he had already gained a cult audience as did Tarentino with their early films. Zach Snyder is a filmmaker who relies on Comic Books and a Horror Remake to bring his film making career to life. Uwe Boll relies on video games and Michael Bay relies on his hollywood buddies.

My point being is that the backstage politics of Hollywood film-making has become sour and greedy. In the early years, Hollywood cared about its audience and made films for them instead of to them. Today, its the opposite. The audience are the sheep that continue to have their minds warped of the same lazy standard crap that Hollywood cannot be bothered to give them. Hollywood don't want to stand up and be original. It requires work. They want something for nothing these days.

Hopefully filmmakers can stand on their own two feet, resist the caves of Hollywood and be the future Scorseses, Nolans and Tarentinos of this generation.