Why was 70s cinema so based?

Why was 70s cinema so based?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=HfntyB7V08I
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_von_Bagh
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

no jews

The entertainment industry was full of men raised by war.

Based on what?

I was expecting a sci-fi and all I got was a thriller with static camera angles.

Blade Runner all over again. I hate you, Sup Forums.

cause cassavetes

drugs that made you creative but still retaining a sense of logic

They spent less money so there wasn't as much pressure to make major returns. It left more room for trying different things.

Rare

>this pleb doesn't like Blade Runner

I hate children. This is the first generation to uniformly disregard the works that everything they enjoy have been built on, from thinking Biggie Smalls isn't a good rapper to fucking shitting on Ridley Scott classics. Eat a thousand dicks.

is that true?

The old studio system collapsed and directors had more freedom. Heaven's Gate put an end to this in the early 80s.

Ex Machina was Goatkino.

>The fracas had a wider effect on the American film industry. During the 1970s, relatively young directors such as Francis Ford Coppola, Peter Bogdanovich, George Lucas, William Friedkin, and Steven Spielberg had been given large budgets with very little studio control (see New Hollywood). The studios evolved away from the director-driven film and eventually led to the new paradigm of the high concept feature, epitomized by Jaws and Star Wars. However, the directors' power lessened considerably, as a result of disappointing box-office performers such as both Friedkin's Sorcerer (1977) and Cruising (1980), and culminating in Coppola's One from the Heart and Cimino's Heaven's Gate. As the new high-concept paradigm of filmmaking became more entrenched, studio control of budgets and productions became tighter, ending the free-wheeling excesses that had begotten Heaven's Gate.

lol, I didn't expect to get an actual answer when I started this thread, thanks user

They were cheaper
Practical effects
They couldn't rely on digitally touching everything up in post and editing was a fucking chore so there was more responsibility on actors to do a good job
The formula for how to make moviesd and game the boxoffice wasn't so refined so filmmakers had freer rein with less studio interference
Men wore suits and drank bourbon and the only agenda being pushed was mild gender equality and even that was pretty reasonable
Everyone was doped up on the devil weed so they were free associating as balls

also everyone knows girls were more qt in the past

>Men wore suits and drank bourbon and the only agenda being pushed

eyeroll.gif

You are an absolute fucking joke of a human being.

>ugh

80s > 70s desu

HEEEEEEEELLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOO REDDIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>80s > 70s desu

Not at all. 80s movies were the initial onslaught of Hollywood blockbuster popcorn flicks. 70s had real films.

>Blade Runner is Reddit

You're embarrassing yourself.

>This is the first generation to uniformly disregard the works that everything they enjoy have been built on

... so you're trying to say children have never dismissed works from earlier periods. In history. Never once have they dismissed things simply because "THEY'RE OLD."

Only correct answer.

Eh, that's debatable. The first blockbuster was released in the 70's, the first two Star Wars movies as well and a lot of commercially based movies like the first Superman.

You can argue at best that the 70's had less of the big blockbusters that the 80s is known for, but it still had popcorn flicks.

The 70's are still amazing, I just prefer the little Renaissance in movie-making that happened in the 80's. You might refer to blockbusters as not "real films" but the big bugdet blockbusters of the 80's still had real heart and drive and a lot of the real moviemaking that it's previous decades have, it was like the last batch of originality in mainstream hollywood.

The 90's sucked and everything after has just been worse.

Vaguely ridiculous claim considering the OP is westworld. Where the shitty sequel shoehored in a yul brynner as the gunslinger scene because it was the only good thing about the original.

Of course that's not what I'm saying, but every movement from Modernism to the Nouvelle Vague recognised that they had to distance themselves from what had come before to free themselves up creatively, they didn't dismiss it all as shit because they're too fucking stupid to appreciate it.

"new hollywood" started in the 60s and died in the 80s, yo.

Ah, I see your confusion now.

You're confusing creative movements of the past with social media. As for every forward thinking creative individual in a creative movement, there were at least a thousand morons who said/thought things like "books? movies? that's all fake, baseball is real." The difference between now and then is you can see everything those people think.

>The first blockbuster was released in the 70's

Exactly. That's how much of an exciting period it was. It ran the gamut from Dog Day Afternoon and The Godfather, to Star Wars and Jaws. After that major motion pictures were pretty much one thing, and one thing only.

>90s sucked
>Goodfellas
>Pulp Fiction
>Jurassic Park
>The Matrix
>Terminator 2
>Fargo
>Fight Club
>Reservoir Dogs
>Boogie Nights
>The Thin Red Line
>Scream
>Dazed & Confused
>Unforgiven

>You're confusing creative movements of the past with social media.

Actually no, I'm conflating what I responded to with Lil Yachty, but that's beside the point!

The 90s were the last truly creative decade. Screenwriters like Joe Eszterhaz and Shane Black made millions by selling R-rated original scripts.

Wow new Westworld is fucking retarded

There was no real "formula" science as there is now.
now a days, everything is boiled down to the letter.
When the marketing releases, what sites get the most traffic and what traffic do they get. What level of exposure do we want. Do we want a 'leak' and pretend to act all outraged?

Actors arnt bankable anymore. IP's have replaced that. Back in the day, they could take a risk on strange and new stories because X and Y were in it. Those actors alone would ensure that it atleast made its budget back. Now a days, theres no bankable stars. When's the last time anyone rushed out to see the newest ____ ____ movie. The closest to that that modern cinema has anymore would probably be expendables, which was sold as the dream cast of old action stars. So now they have to go with well known IP's.

Tv also fucked everything up
Westworld, walking dead, black sails, game of thrones, etc. Huge profit machines with big budgets that rival that of the movies. Before there was "syfy channel original movie" levels of quality (or CW budgets) there was TV budget and movie budget. Same thing goes with stars. There was TV stars and Movie stars. Every now and then you got a cameo or even a huge budget series from a well known movie actor, but more often than not, the only steady movie stars on TV shows would be the older ones looking for work still, or taking easy roles for side cash (charlie's angels sorta deal). We are now preparing for the season finale of a show with anthony hopkins and ed harris whos budget is larger than most movies released this year.

theres obviously more reasons, but mostly studio heads fucked with the formula so god damn much that its now less "pinch of A, dash of B, a spoonful of C and a helping of D" for profit and more "We need 1.2354 cubic cm's of A, 3.13321 fractions of an oz of B" to profit and a heavily blurred lines of what use to be black and white.

There's always been stupid celebrities saying stupid things.

Jews have been involved in the movie business since its inception, so no that is not true.

There's standout gold in every decade, if we pick just the best, we can say that every era was great and influential.

My main point is that Hollywood started to really get cynical around the 90's, while profits and returns were always everything, movies got more expensive, and eventually it all became high-investment projects, leading to smaller and smaller risks. Which didn't really start in the 90s, I suppose, but it definately started to change things for the worse there.

I guess jotting it all down to "the 90's sucked" is a bit hyperbolic, maybe it's best to agree with and you, because in the end there really was some fantastic stuff in that decade.

>Tv also fucked everything up

There is good drama on TV with decent writing.

>there was TV budget and movie budget. Same thing goes with stars. There was TV stars and Movie stars.

Lot of creative people have gone to TV as there is more creative freedom than in movie business. Big guys in movie business today are like Michael fucking Bay. You could call him competent, but he is by all means a drone for bean counters on accounting part of studio.

TV has had money in past as well. For example pilot episodes of Star Trek spinoffs were all mid to high budget Hollywood movie level.

Let me guess. Virgin?

>The first blockbuster was released in the 70's

And it wasn't created to be a blockbuster. It was only after that Hollywood started producing stuff aiming for that kind of success.

What's interesting is that 90% of today's A-listers are actors who became big stars in the 80s or 90s (Will Smith, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, DiCaprio, Clooney). In the past 15 years Hollywood tried to make several actors new leading men (Josh Hartnett, Taylor Kitsch) but after a few years gave up on them when they failed to live up to the hype.

is there anything more comfy than soylent green?

>eating that meat and jam with your old man friend in a cramp apartment filled with books

comfy

don't forget the veggies

the best part is that the exploitation crap is still 100% more enjoyable than today's crap that is sold as serious shit

Hollywood was willing to fund independent projects and allow greater directorial control. Also pervasive nihilism and violence after the end of Vietnam and the failure of the hippie generation. Everyone was lost and disenchanted.

Star-power became a thing because audiences had no way of knowing if a movie would be good or not, so they trusted "stars" to not make shit movies.

So trying to force new "stars" with shit movies, in a time when people have a ton of tools at their disposal (or did) to determine of something is shit or not, was just plain silly.

>the failure of the hippie generation.
How many people really thought that the hippies would bring us to the next stage though?

all the hippies
they were the ones in the arts who became disanchanted

Back in the late 60s and early 70s most people were high and couldn't think rationally

>Star-power became a thing because audiences had no way of knowing if a movie would be good or not, so they trusted "stars" to not make shit movies.
>So trying to force new "stars" with shit movies, in a time when people have a ton of tools at their disposal (or did) to determine of something is shit or not, was just plain silly.

As if communication didn't exist before social media and there was also movie critics in news papers with far less astro-turfing. Now a critic or a fucking blogger might be easily blacklisted lose access to media he supposed to make critique of in name of marketing. Shit like journalistic integrity.

Let me guess, Roastie?

Audiences had really become disenchanted with standard Hollywood fair and were definitely more receptive to movies that weren't morally clear cut, had tidy/happy endings, etc.

Flawed protagonists, ambiguous messages, lack of closure, etc. Movies that were character driven, not plot driven. These were the hallmarks of the decade. Of course that all came to a screeching halt with the 80s with the new American moralism. Suddenly everything had to be clear cut again, that's the bad guy, that's the good guy, this is the moral of the story.

Leonard maltin is a good example of why people never really trusted critics. There was only less astroturfing because there were fewer mediums to astroturf.

>Hollywood was willing to fund independent projects

... taking hollywood funding by definition makes projects no longer independent...

>Men wore suits and drank bourbon

This is some le wrong generation talking right here, but in the clueless fedora way. The 70s, especially in cinema, were known for everything but fucking suits and bourbon.

Before the early 00s, there were about a dozen professional film critics who all wrote for major newspapers and magazines. Now you have over 200 film critics, 90% are amateurs who write for internet blogs.

It's not, 70s are the most overrated decade. Self-indulgent drivel with ugly washed out cinematography

It's also when the downfall of Hollywood began, thanks to Spielberg and Lucas

What does that have to do with film finance?

More than spending less, a big part of the returns were covered when they selled the films to the theaters, thus they had more room to try new things.

>about a dozen professional film critics

Even only counting major national media outlets there were more than a dozen professional critics. Then add in all the local/regional media outlets and the number goes even higher.

>Leonard maltin is a good example of why people never really trusted critics. There was only less astroturfing because there were fewer mediums to astroturf.

Back in the day critics were professionals, you could also get to understand their taste and how it compares to yours. Now they are at best semi-professional bloggers. Bloggers are disposable, no preview copy if they do honest reporting. Internet in many ways has utterly killed journalism with clickbaits.

>critics were professionals

We're talking about leonard maltin here.

Home video wasn't a thing yet and TV syndication was just taking off, so movies had to stay in theaters longer in order to make their money back. That means movies had to rewatchsble, not disposable.

Are you seriously trying to picture the 70s as a golden age?. The 60s dreams were dead, they were cynical and paranoid. It wasn't a good.
The 20's were the true golden age.Post WWI ,pre Depression . Maybe the 50's come close.

You're forgetting something huge - PIRACY. Sup Forums always hates this argument, but the death of the home-video market had a very real impact on the production of mid-budget original films, especially adult dramas and auteur-driven projects.

Why? Because a feature film is no longer a long-term investment. If it doesn't make its money back in the initial theatrical run, it never will. That wasn't the case until the mid-2000's, there used to be many films that would flop in theaters and then become bona-fide financial hits in the following years.

These were your Fight Clubs, your Boogie Nightses, your Sex, Lies, and Videotapeses. Films that have no immediate blockbuster appeal that you can sell in a trailer, the appeal comes solely from the QUALITY of the writing, direction and performance. Films like that take time to reach an audience, the success of the film grows out of word-of-mouth more than advertising.

In today's feature film market, that's a recipe for guaranteed failure unless you're sticking to an ultra-low budget, which today's "auteurs" pretty much have to. There isn't time for word of mouth to make any impact in a four-to-six week theatrical run. The only films that can survive in this market are the kinds that draw an audience based on the title alone. And at that point, quality is completely irrelevant. There is absolutely no incentive to spend extra time and money perfecting a "good" script, "good" special effects, because it's been proven time and again that this makes no impact on the film's box office performance. It WOULD make a huge impact on a film's home-video longevity, but once again, that just isn't a thing anymore.

And all your assertions are summarily countered by Roger Corman.

For every decent mid-budget movie that was hugely successful thanks to home video, prompting more of it to be made, there were literally thousands of straight-to-video garbage titles pumped out only because blockbuster would buy thousands of copies.

Not to mention fucking austin powers.

>you could also get to understand their taste and how it compares to yours. Now they are at best semi-professional bloggers.
How does that invalidate knowing their tastes? If anything, a blogger that writers more often on more subjects outside of their paid articles gives you more opportunity to get to know them and how they view the artform. But you think having a paycheck depend on your writing makes an opinion more sincere?

In the 70s there were almost zero marketing. They didn't need it because people went a lot the movies regardless. That's why the star system worked as well.
Then the people of Jaws thought it was a good idea to make TV spots, and it paid off immensely. And a few years later video came along and that was it.

Creatively the 70s were a golden age because the Hays code was abandoned in 1968, which led to more artistic freedom and realism in movies.

Right - there was a window open for long-term financial success, many people took advantage of this opportunity, and it spawned a small pile of great films and a huge pile of crap. Now that window has closed, and both the great films and the crap films are much, much, much cheaper.

No one doubts bloggers are sincere. What's in doubt is the idea they have any idea what they're talking about, as most take less than zero effort to validate their positions.

Just saying, people legitimately thought the love guru would be a breakout home video hit as well.

Directors had control over their projects

that's not cinema, that's a movie

It was much more than that. The 60s cultural revolution, a huge audience of baby boomers desperate to be spoken to in film, young filmmakers being openly influenced by foreign films for the first time since the 20s, the Vietnam/Watergate/recession/post-hippie era cynicism bringing new attitudes to the mainstream, the collapse of the studio system leaving producers looking for anything that could sell.

It was a perfect storm, and most importantly it happened when film was still culturally relevant. Every post that says "if hollywood collapses again we'll get New Hollywood Redux" fails to understand that movies are dead culturally and tv and the internet killed it.

You aren't saying anything, unless you think he's implying home video hits were inherently good or inherent at all.

youtube.com/watch?v=HfntyB7V08I
i don't know, you tell me

What does the death of the home video market have to do with piracy? Blockbuster killed the original independent home video market, and then their late charges and Netflix killed the home video market for good.

Unlike with music during the years when it was the wild wild west, not a lot of people pirate movies. The problem for the music industry was that the people pirating their product were the ones that used to buy it (young people) and piracy could totally satisfy their needs. That wasn't/isn't the case for movies. A huge portion of Blockbuster's business used to come from families - do you think all those moms and dads started pirating movies instead?

One of the most comatose movies I gave ever claimed to appreciate

>Joe Eszterhaz
>TV has more creative freedom

If you still believe that you haven't been paying attention to HBO programming in the last 5 years. The writing quality and genre diversity has collapsed. Their programming has gradually collapsed into a conceptual singularity of generic shows approximating The Walking Dead's production style and story format with some sort of 'genre' twist. They are completely reliant on the 'high-class' veneer of HBO's good reputation as a sponsor of creative show writers with unconventional ideas, but the sheen has worn off.

I'm saying confusing home video as some sort of legitimate factor in movie production at any time, simply because a small handful of movies achieved breakout success thanks to the home video market, is a gross over simplification of the issues.

>A huge portion of Blockbuster's business used to come from families - do you think all those moms and dads started pirating movies instead?
Have you considered that in the 20 years since digital piracy has taken off in the mainstream consciousness, the generation of young early-adopters who put the fear of god into the music industry in the 1990s are approaching the age at which they are likely to have kids and start a family?

When the much larger generation of V1-Newfags who make up the median age of this site now start hitting child rearing age in 5 or so years shit is really going to hit the fan for them.

no hays code

Blockbuster still exists in Alaska. It's not really relevant to the discussion, I just think it's amusing.

But it was a legitimate factor. Since the beginning movies had much longer shelf lives than they do now, either through slow roll outs, re-releases, home video, or just staying in theaters more than 2 months. Now success is determined almost solely by opening weekend. If it bombs week 1 its DOA, there is no chance to get it back. Having such a narrow window to make a profit justifiably puts every producer in a position to be less adventurous

the vast majority of the braindead assholes you're trying to say will destroy everything with their evil yar-de-har ways thought piracy ended when napster got shut down and think if their smartTV can't play the file then its a virus.

Not cultural marxism yet in USA in full force because USSR have them controlled to their propaganda setting, not free and uncontrolled as they are now there.

What year do you think it is that people even remember napster let alone have it influence their view on piracy?

Disney constantly re-re-releasing it's staple properties every decade and churning out straight-to-video garbage that specifically targeted children too young to know better does not mean the home video market was anything but a minor source of income.

Hell, jodoworski became as huge as he did specifically because of how utterly mad his movies were/are. So the idea producers will start thinking "THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE MONEY IS TO DO EXACTLY WHAT EVERYONE ELSE DOES" is pretty absurd.

I'm not the one who tried to say piracy has been mainstream since napster.

>the average 25-35 year old thinks any file that can't play on their SmartTV is a virus
>the average 25-35 year old even using a smartTV as a file reader to begin with

I think you must be an actual old man who is too disconnected from the experience of the rising generations to have a real gauge the technical aptitude of the future 'dumb schlubs with kids and a credit card', or their familiarity with modern file sharing practices.

Man I don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Nobody is talking about cheap direct-to-video films, I don't know why you keep bringing that up. Video was not a guarantee for a second income but an opportunity. "We can do X in theaters and maybe Y in video, then we're in the black" sort of mentality. Now it's only X, and X is much smaller than ever before because it's being spread so thin.

Jodorowsky got huge because his movies toured arthouse and midnight movie circuits for years before home video made his "mad" movies accessible to everyone else. He would be a poster child for the kind of small and slow success that took time to reach a specific audience, the kind of success that is vanishing these days specifically due to the lack of a concrete home video market that created it

I think you don't know any actual 25-35 year olds.

>hey we're talking about the home video market, not what 99.9% of home video market revenue was

... stellar

Who are you trying to convince here bud? Nearly everybody I know is in that age range. What man existing today can survive into their 30s and remain functional enough in society to attract somebody willing to have their children, yet be too incompetent to ever learn basic shit like file extensions and media playing software?

There has to be a balance between the director-driven production of the 70's and the marketability/profit-incurring aspect of 80's blockbusters.

We don't always need explosions or special effects to raise tension or make an exciting scene. Remember the getaway sequence in Drive? You could actually feel the apprehension of the robbers being caught.

Well, the reality is that television is absorbing all the creative talent, leaving the movie industry full of yes-men and suits.

I don't even watch movies anymore, I've got a backlog of about 300-400, taking up nearly 12 tbs on my server. My television server is even bigger, and is used far far more. I enjoy the fact that I can get original and creative programming on television, and quality storytelling, something which the movies lack overall.

>How does that invalidate knowing their tastes? If anything, a blogger that writers more often on more subjects outside of their paid articles gives you more opportunity to get to know them and how they view the artform. But you think having a paycheck depend on your writing makes an opinion more sincere?

Stable paycheck usually means that they don't rely on freebies handed out by marketing people. News papers, magazines, tv-stations and radio stations usually enforced some standards on their journalists. Ethics, education and shieet. Internet has fractured entire media landscape on every possible way. Old media was more consistent, even their standards have pretty much collapsed in last couple decades. Internet allows all sorts of niche safe spaces to form. When you run into a review made by a random blogger, you haven followed his or her blog you have absolutely no idea if reviewer is fan of a obscure genre, überfanboy of lets say 70's nunsploitation softcore porn or something. If blog is prominent it might appear on rotten tomatoes or other review aggregates.

It's same shit in every country. There used to national and local levels on almost all sort of media, with exception of magazines, those are almost always national or international. A journalist or critic usually started their careers on local level and worked their way up the pyramid. Leaving a long body of work. A prominent blog can literally disappear overnight. Also critics that specialized on a single genre were almost always limited to film magazines, major critics in major newspapers couldn't afford to specialize too much. If a mainstream media movie critic fucked up everything constantly, some people could write angry letters to editor, so they had maintain some standards.

Here is example of a heavy weight critic of past.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_von_Bagh

Compare that to most prominent movie bloggers.

The 70s were incredible. It's as if European storytelling crept into Hollywood, then as you say, was overrun by black and white binary tales.

Same here. I only go to the movies if my buddies want to go out and I don't feel like staying cooped up in my apartment.

I've been watching tons of 70's and 80's films lately than modern stuff. Just don't have any interest in contemporary titles until they come out on cable.

yeah, exactly. If I sit down to watch a movie, it sure as shit isn't anything Hollywood queefed out in the last 10 years