PDA

View Full Version : Old Horror = New Fantasy



Nateskate
02-22-2005, 01:45 AM
In my mind, old horror movies would not fit into new horror Genre. That's why I'm posting this here.

My favorite all time "Old Horror" movie is "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" Anyone else here remember this classic?

That movie had so many cool scenes and the best Horror actors of all time.

You can comment on the movie, or the question, "Would Old Horror movies fit better in the "Fantasy/Sci Fi" Genre than in todays Horror Genre?

Ali B
02-22-2005, 02:03 AM
Since this movie in particular has aspects of science, then I think it would be sci-fi these days.

Fillanzea
02-22-2005, 04:50 AM
The bottom basically fell out of the horror market sometime in the late 80s or early 90s--I think because of that, a lot of what was marketed as horror before then is now being marketed as "dark fantasy." Fantasy sells better than horror does, nowadays.

Genre's about marketing, for the most part. I wouldn't take such classifications too seriously.

Nateskate
02-27-2005, 10:16 PM
The bottom basically fell out of the horror market sometime in the late 80s or early 90s--I think because of that, a lot of what was marketed as horror before then is now being marketed as "dark fantasy." Fantasy sells better than horror does, nowadays.

Genre's about marketing, for the most part. I wouldn't take such classifications too seriously.

Slasher films gave horror a bad name. It became a slice and dice/nightmare Genre, rather than a Genre of myth and mystery and monsters. Gore and horror became associated. Frankly the best horror movies had very little gore.

Jamesaritchie
03-03-2005, 08:24 AM
In my mind, old horror movies would not fit into new horror Genre. That's why I'm posting this here.

My favorite all time "Old Horror" movie is "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" Anyone else here remember this classic?

That movie had so many cool scenes and the best Horror actors of all time.

You can comment on the movie, or the question, "Would Old Horror movies fit better in the "Fantasy/Sci Fi" Genre than in todays Horror Genre?

I love "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein," but I never considered it a horror movie. I think of it as pure comedy. That's one of the funniest movies I've ever watched. If anything, It's a parody of horror movies.

preyer
03-04-2005, 08:48 AM
agreed, it's a comedy. i never bought into the science-fantasy thing, either, though. i've argued up and down that 'star wars' is science-fiction, *not* fantasy. it's amazing, though: you can proffer the best argument in the world replete with supporting facts and *still* people will refuse to budge off this one, lol.

anyway, sometimes these classifications can actually be a little tricky, like in the case of the original grimm fairy tales, which are full of violence and bloodshed, some of it creating very graphic images. and those were children's stories? lol. to offer an opinion, i think the old horror movies are still horror movies. in not sure what other real context you can think of them as. that said, the original 'mummy' was horror, but the brendan frasier version, i think, is pure action/adventure along the lines of indiana jones.

it's funny: no one in their right mind would consider 'love at first bite' a horror movie, but had you shown that to an audience in 1931, they'd probably be fainting in the aisles, lol. maybe one thing to consider is the era in which the old movies were shown: is it fair to impose our modern 'sensibilities' and 'standards' on those movies? certainly, those movies terrified/inspired generations of writers/artists/etc., and they still have the same elements of modern horror, eh? the one thing i see off-hand that could be argued to call them 'new fantasy' is the supernatural/magickal things about the characters-- and that's different than freddy kruger how?

i guess that leaves only the creature from the black lagoon and the invisible man as the only real horror movies of that era. oh, and jeckel (sp) and hyde. well, maybe frankenstein. perhaps the wolfman, but that's pushing it. dracula and the mummy are screwed, though.

at any rate, i don't believe in politically correctness and parcing genres into fifty sub-divisions. i give 'em 'paranormal romance' and 'historical so-and-so,' but those are the last ones i recogonize as legitimate off-shoots. i honestly think the last thing we need to see is 'vampirical sub-culture/para-historical young adult.' susan powter said it best: 'stop the madness!'

Jamesaritchie
03-04-2005, 10:16 PM
agreed, it's a comedy. i never bought into the science-fantasy thing, either, though. i've argued up and down that 'star wars' is science-fiction, *not* fantasy. it's amazing, though: you can proffer the best argument in the world replete with supporting facts and *still* people will refuse to budge off this one, lol.

anyway, sometimes these classifications can actually be a little tricky, like in the case of the original grimm fairy tales, which are full of violence and bloodshed, some of it creating very graphic images. and those were children's stories? lol. to offer an opinion, i think the old horror movies are still horror movies. in not sure what other real context you can think of them as. that said, the original 'mummy' was horror, but the brendan frasier version, i think, is pure action/adventure along the lines of indiana jones.

it's funny: no one in their right mind would consider 'love at first bite' a horror movie, but had you shown that to an audience in 1931, they'd probably be fainting in the aisles, lol. maybe one thing to consider is the era in which the old movies were shown: is it fair to impose our modern 'sensibilities' and 'standards' on those movies? certainly, those movies terrified/inspired generations of writers/artists/etc., and they still have the same elements of modern horror, eh? the one thing i see off-hand that could be argued to call them 'new fantasy' is the supernatural/magickal things about the characters-- and that's different than freddy kruger how?

i guess that leaves only the creature from the black lagoon and the invisible man as the only real horror movies of that era. oh, and jeckel (sp) and hyde. well, maybe frankenstein. perhaps the wolfman, but that's pushing it. dracula and the mummy are screwed, though.

at any rate, i don't believe in politically correctness and parcing genres into fifty sub-divisions. i give 'em 'paranormal romance' and 'historical so-and-so,' but those are the last ones i recogonize as legitimate off-shoots. i honestly think the last thing we need to see is 'vampirical sub-culture/para-historical young adult.' susan powter said it best: 'stop the madness!'

I don't really know how I'd classify it, but the original Frankenstein movie scared the bejeebers out of me. I was only eight or nine years old, and when I went to sleep that night I dreamed about it.

Specifically, I dream I built this massive bomb shelter deal to protect myself from the monster. I was inside, bolting the door closed, when I heard a sound behind me. I turned around and the monster was standing right behind me. I woke up screaming.

The Creature From the Black Lagoon also gave me nightmares at that young age, though Frankenstein was king.

I absolutely did not want to go out of teh house after dark for months after watching Frankenstein. Trouble was, as a young lad we had an outhouse. Dark or not, when you gotta go, you gotta go.

I suppose, in the end, if it scares me enough, I classify it as horror.

ChunkyC
03-04-2005, 11:40 PM
Yup. Anything with Vincent Price scared the living daylights out of me when I was a kid. The biggie was "The Fall of the House of Usher."

As for genre-splicing, the original Alien is a perfect example. Is that a sci-fi film or a horror film? Obviously, it can be considered both, but what do you do to describe it to people? No wonder marketers are always coming up with new sub-genres to describe these hybrids.

Oh, and Star Wars as fantasy? I guess a case could be made because of the Jedi element.

Jamesaritchie
03-05-2005, 12:38 AM
Yup. Anything with Vincent Price scared the living daylights out of me when I was a kid. The biggie was "The Fall of the House of Usher."

As for genre-splicing, the original Alien is a perfect example. Is that a sci-fi film or a horror film? Obviously, it can be considered both, but what do you do to describe it to people? No wonder marketers are always coming up with new sub-genres to describe these hybrids.

Oh, and Star Wars as fantasy? I guess a case could be made because of the Jedi element.

Oh, yeah, Vincent Price! I loved the man. One of my favorite actors. But when I was a child he scared me to death.

Funny, but I was sitting here thinking about "Alien," wondering how I'd classify it. I guess I'd call it either science fiction or horror, depending on who I was talking to.

Nateskate
03-08-2005, 01:19 AM
The worst thing was that they only played those old horror movies at 2 and 3 am, when you were exhausted and open to suggestion. I'd sneak downstairs and watch them as much as possible. So, as a kid, you'd be wiped out, and certain there were monsters in the bedroom.

I can't even remember the shows now. One was Creature Feature, I think.

preyer
03-08-2005, 03:00 AM
ever see 'the raven' with vincent price? it was jack nicholson's first movie. it was just an entertaining movie from what i remember of it. cheesy f/x, but, hey, it's an old flick. love that movie. wish they'd do a remake, but hollywood today would just screw it up with tons of unnecessary cgi. i do, however, attribute my macabre fascination with graverobbers to this movie. i doubt it's possible for me to write a book *without* a tomb raiding scene, heh heh.

Shiny_Penguin
03-08-2005, 03:32 AM
The Creature From the Black Lagoon also gave me nightmares at that young age, though Frankenstein was king.

Oh, you had to bring up the Creature! My uncle had an old film of it (before VCRs) and we watched it one night. I was only about six or seven. What were my parents thinking!

When Alien first came out on video, by chance I saw it at a relative's New Years Eve party. They thought all the kids had fallen asleep, but I was such a quiet kid, I often got overlooked. I was too scared to tell anyone I was there watching. I couldn't watch the Alien movies until recently.

Jamesaritchie
03-08-2005, 01:44 PM
The worst thing was that they only played those old horror movies at 2 and 3 am, when you were exhausted and open to suggestion. I'd sneak downstairs and watch them as much as possible. So, as a kid, you'd be wiped out, and certain there were monsters in the bedroom.

I can't even remember the shows now. One was Creature Feature, I think.

Yes, I remember Creature Feature. We also had late Friday night horror movies with a host called "Sammy Terry," a play on "cemetery." He dressed like a vampire, and had a laugh that could scare a zombie. He scared me more than most of the movies.

Jamesaritchie
03-08-2005, 01:46 PM
ever see 'the raven' with vincent price? it was jack nicholson's first movie. it was just an entertaining movie from what i remember of it. cheesy f/x, but, hey, it's an old flick. love that movie. wish they'd do a remake, but hollywood today would just screw it up with tons of unnecessary cgi. i do, however, attribute my macabre fascination with graverobbers to this movie. i doubt it's possible for me to write a book *without* a tomb raiding scene, heh heh.

I loved "The Raven." My wife and I were just talking about it the other day. But I had no idea it was Jack Nicholson's first movie. I haven't seen it in years and years. I wonder if I can rent it somewhere? I'd love to see it again.

My problem with cgi is that it took often takes the place of good acting and good storytelling.

Shiny_Penguin
03-08-2005, 07:16 PM
I loved "The Raven." My wife and I were just talking about it the other day. But I had no idea it was Jack Nicholson's first movie. I haven't seen it in years and years. I wonder if I can rent it somewhere? I'd love to see it again.

I just searched Blockbuster's site and they have it listed. Comedy of Terrors/The Raven (http://www.blockbuster.com/catalog/DisplayMovieSpecialOffers.action?channel=Movies&subChannel=&movieID=108815&displayBoxArt=true). I think I'll look for it next time I'm there. I love Vincent Price movies.

Edited to add: Of course I just checked their "my store" availability and none of the ones near me carries it.

ChunkyC
03-08-2005, 08:44 PM
*nostalgic sigh*

No-one today carries that sinister elegance that actors like Vincent Price, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing had in spades. The show I remember as a kid was called "Monster Movie Matinee" on Saturday afternoons and they played all those creepy old films. That's where I discoverd Frankenstein, Dracula and the Mummy. (Frankenstein could easily be considered science fiction, I think.)

I was about six when my folks first let me start watching them and those movies totally spazzed me out. I would end up jumping from halfway across the room that evening to get into bed, because I was convinced some scaly arm would reach out from underneath and snag my ankle if I got too close.

The frog-in-a-blender gore-fests that pass for horror today absolutely suck by comparison.

preyer
03-09-2005, 03:48 AM
one of the effects horror movies had on me when i was a child was i couldn't sleep with any limbs hanging off the bed. i also developed this fear of falling asleep with my arms or legs crossed, lol. that's a weird one, though.

just watched an old VP movie the other day, 'twice-told tales,' made in '63, the same year as 'the raven.' VP certainly was a busy man in his career. then again, he didn't have to exactly study-up on most of his roles, lol. 'TTT' was three hawthorne stories. the stories themselves were really good, but the acting was laughable and the effects even worse (except for the house of the seven gables collapsing, which was kinda impressive considering the time).

ya know, a lot of these movies could be remade into really creepy flicks. problem is, hollywood remakes one and it turns out to be 'the house on haunted hill,' an absolutely horrible remake. how many times do the romero's and the raimi's have to prove you don't need a huge budget and big-name actors to scare the hell out of people? i think it was 'the house on haunted hill' that had liam neeson in it, and the only thing scary about that mug is his overrated acting.

Jamesaritchie
03-09-2005, 05:39 AM
one of the effects horror movies had on me when i was a child was i couldn't sleep with any limbs hanging off the bed. i also developed this fear of falling asleep with my arms or legs crossed, lol. that's a weird one, though.

just watched an old VP movie the other day, 'twice-told tales,' made in '63, the same year as 'the raven.' VP certainly was a busy man in his career. then again, he didn't have to exactly study-up on most of his roles, lol. 'TTT' was three hawthorne stories. the stories themselves were really good, but the acting was laughable and the effects even worse (except for the house of the seven gables collapsing, which was kinda impressive considering the time).

ya know, a lot of these movies could be remade into really creepy flicks. problem is, hollywood remakes one and it turns out to be 'the house on haunted hill,' an absolutely horrible remake. how many times do the romero's and the raimi's have to prove you don't need a huge budget and big-name actors to scare the hell out of people? i think it was 'the house on haunted hill' that had liam neeson in it, and the only thing scary about that mug is his overrated acting.

The original "House On Haunted Hill" scared me about as much as any movie I'd seen up to that time. The remake was just as bad as the orginal was good.

preyer
03-09-2005, 09:57 AM
there was another movie that was released around the same time that i'm always cornfusing 'thohh' with, but it was just as bad, if not worse. how it's possible to screw up a movie featuring catherine zeta-jones as a nymphomaniac is beyond me.

i grew up on a lot of schlock, friday the 13th, freddy, etc., type of stuff. so the older movies really had to be tight for me to be interested in that stuff, eventho i realized i was watching a better movie. that's why i'd so much like to see quality remakes of those old classics. hell, the creature could be a scary damn movie today if it wanted to be. raines, legosi, karloff... yeah, classic actors... who can't act by today's standards. *preyer ducks for cover* in other words, their stage acting really comes through in most cases.

i'm not sure how many hammer films i'd want to see redone off hand (if i want to see hammer stars at their best, i'll pop in some star wars movies, heh heh).

my latest big disappointment was 'van velsing.' jeez, what's wrong with hollywood? why can't there be any actually scary scripts made anymore? do we constantly have to rely on low budget productions like 'project greenlight' to see a filmmaker attempt to be scary in earnest without worrying what some soccer mom is going to think?

of course, the old movies relied more on fear induced by what wasn't shown than what was, which doesn't work as well now as it did then. something else i think has changed greatly is the helpless woman, who, i take it, was generally hired for her bouyant qualities and loud decibel ability. there aren't quite so many damsels-in-distress now. maybe there's just not quite so many hot-house flowers around as there used to be. (jamie lee curtis was the last great screamer, imo.)

kind of an aside, i've got a friend who used to own a video store. i asked her what kind of movies rented the best, figuring on the new releases. when she said it was the porn that paid the rent, i was hardly shocked, lol. but, then she said what made her money was the cheesy b-movies, the worse the better, horror being on top of that list. go figure. years later, i sold her stock of movies at a flea market, and i was just as likely to sell 'gator bait' as i was a 'quality' movie like 'rainman.'

Jamesaritchie
03-11-2005, 08:12 PM
there was another movie that was released around the same time that i'm always cornfusing 'thohh' with, but it was just as bad, if not worse. how it's possible to screw up a movie featuring catherine zeta-jones as a nymphomaniac is beyond me.

i grew up on a lot of schlock, friday the 13th, freddy, etc., type of stuff. so the older movies really had to be tight for me to be interested in that stuff, eventho i realized i was watching a better movie. that's why i'd so much like to see quality remakes of those old classics. hell, the creature could be a scary damn movie today if it wanted to be. raines, legosi, karloff... yeah, classic actors... who can't act by today's standards. *preyer ducks for cover* in other words, their stage acting really comes through in most cases.

i'm not sure how many hammer films i'd want to see redone off hand (if i want to see hammer stars at their best, i'll pop in some star wars movies, heh heh).

my latest big disappointment was 'van velsing.' jeez, what's wrong with hollywood? why can't there be any actually scary scripts made anymore? do we constantly have to rely on low budget productions like 'project greenlight' to see a filmmaker attempt to be scary in earnest without worrying what some soccer mom is going to think?

of course, the old movies relied more on fear induced by what wasn't shown than what was, which doesn't work as well now as it did then. something else i think has changed greatly is the helpless woman, who, i take it, was generally hired for her bouyant qualities and loud decibel ability. there aren't quite so many damsels-in-distress now. maybe there's just not quite so many hot-house flowers around as there used to be. (jamie lee curtis was the last great screamer, imo.)

kind of an aside, i've got a friend who used to own a video store. i asked her what kind of movies rented the best, figuring on the new releases. when she said it was the porn that paid the rent, i was hardly shocked, lol. but, then she said what made her money was the cheesy b-movies, the worse the better, horror being on top of that list. go figure. years later, i sold her stock of movies at a flea market, and i was just as likely to sell 'gator bait' as i was a 'quality' movie like 'rainman.'

You'd better duck. I think those old actors were far, far better than any of today's actors. One of my biggest complaints about current movies is that it seems no one can act worth anything.

I also think fear induced by what isn't shown works as well now as it ever did, and probably better. It's just that it isn't being done because special effects for the nose picker crowd have taken over.

The closest I've seen to a throwback movie in recent years was "The Ring." Darned little, if anything, was shown in it that wouldn't have been shown in an old horror movie, and it's the only move in recent years I've seen that actually scared adults.

There just isn't anything frightening about showing the horror. Gross, yes, but not frightening.

preyer
03-12-2005, 01:15 AM
weren't most of the classic baddies stage actors, and a few leftover from the silent screen era? both seem to be a bit more exagerated on the screen. it's rather subjective, but i and i'm guessing quite a few others see the differences in performing styles, at least in this genre, at least what was/is considered 'good.' were they 'far, far better' actors? hardly. not by today's standards, which is the point. i'm not talking about b-movie actors here. this isn't saying that tom hanks is a better actor than spencer tracy. at the same time, it's hard to find an A-list actor in a good horror film nowadaze.

i agree that what's not shown is often scarier than what is. at the same time, i want to see the monster at least in the end. a lot of times people forget that the hannibal lector character in 'silence of the lambs' got less than 16 minutes screen time. likewise, the original mummy only showed the mummy briefly, too (the first scene with the mummy i think you only even see his dragging bandages as he leaves a room). 'horror' today doesn't necessarily mean scary things as much as blood and guts. that's okay, i guess, though i don't think it's meant to be scary, really. the 'day/dawn/afternoon/midmorning/late night/whatever of the dead' was pretty scary in the day, and the better ones still hold some suspense. even 'shaun of the dead' had some suspense.

'the ring' was definitely a throwback. a great, tense movie. one of my all-time favourites is 'poltergiest,' another don't-see-'em til the end. i like the slasher flicks, too, but they're not scary to me. i think you *can* get away with showing the horror in a few flicks, 'the exorcist' (sort of) and 'alien' spring to mind (both perfectly acted). granted, you don't want to see it every five minutes, but it's rather like a mystery-- sometimes it works if you know from the start who the killer is, sometimes not. of course you've got to have both styles to keep things fresh.

i watched 'saw' last week. don't bother. not scary. it had a twist in it that was interesting, but, i don't know, it just lacked suspense to me. i missed 'the grudge,' but my wife said that was good. she's too easy on movies, though. i'd seen one awhile back with andy serkis in it that was pretty good. i wish i could remember the damn name of it, but it was about a lost group of WWI brit soldiers who find a haunted german trench. pretty good. i think they made a sequel of sorts to it, this time WWII. i'd remember the name were it not pretty generic.

i thought 'se7en' was a pretty good movie, too, though i'm rather loathe to classify that as horror. i wouldn't argue it, but it's just more suspense to me. some movies walk a fine line, eh?

fallenangelwriter
03-12-2005, 09:41 PM
"The Ring" was pretty scary and seemed quite interesting at first, but about halfway through i realized that it made no sense, and by the end i was disgusted by the senseless plot.

BlueTexas
03-12-2005, 11:30 PM
I didn't think The Ring was scary until the very end. But the Grudge...very suspenseful. It made my "horror movies don't scare me" husband want to sleep with the lights on that night! I hear the original Japanese version was better, but I've yet to see it.

CACTUSWENDY
03-12-2005, 11:44 PM
:Wha: And the first time i saw King Kong as a little kid.....sigh....I almost wet my pants...(I was very young)

:faint: To me horror is what nightmares are made of, and the 'Shinning' did the trick for me. Pet Cemtery was a mind wacker also. Horror to me is a mental thingy. I never got into the slash and gore junk very much. Took all the imagination out of it and my mind can come up with alot better horror all by it's self. I think human nature loves the scare factor and each age group has a different level of' 'need' for it. What other creature on this planet wants to be scared out of their wits?

fallenangelwriter
03-13-2005, 10:35 PM
ROFL

normally i don't make fun of typos, because i make enough of them myself, but "The Shinning" created interesting mental images.

preyer
03-13-2005, 11:46 PM
the 'shinning' didn't help bart simpson out much, and definitely didn't do ol' willy any favours.

Nateskate
03-17-2005, 12:49 AM
*nostalgic sigh*

No-one today carries that sinister elegance that actors like Vincent Price, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing had in spades. The show I remember as a kid was called "Monster Movie Matinee" on Saturday afternoons and they played all those creepy old films. That's where I discoverd Frankenstein, Dracula and the Mummy. (Frankenstein could easily be considered science fiction, I think.)

I was about six when my folks first let me start watching them and those movies totally spazzed me out. I would end up jumping from halfway across the room that evening to get into bed, because I was convinced some scaly arm would reach out from underneath and snag my ankle if I got too close.

The frog-in-a-blender gore-fests that pass for horror today absolutely suck by comparison.

There was a different art to movie making. They didn't have hi tech effects. So, you were forced to construct something based upon character. What they were good at was portraying tormented sympathetic characters, like Lon Chaney's wolfman.

preyer
03-17-2005, 01:50 PM
that's true. standards change, especially once attitudes become more relaxed (or at least more graphic depiction is allowed), social commentary alters, f/x get spiffier, and budgets get larger. too, an audience's tastes becomes refined. it's nice now to be at least able to one or the other, while back then they were a lot more limited. we're a lot more sophisticated now, too: i watched 'the house on haunted hill' this morning, and while pretty enjoyable, there were plenty of plot holes and logic issues to be distracted. i think we expect things like that to be shorn-up today. if it's not, we'll point the problems out in a minute on the internut.

anyway, i caught the last part of 'project greenlight' today. this time they're making a horror movie. wes craven is involved which is cool, although i've never been scared by his movies. his movies usually entertain me, but they just aren't that scary for some reason. at any rate, a preview for the next episode shows them in a meeting discussing the script they all agree has major problems. i thought it very interesting when one of the producers, i believe it was, or one of the basically non-creative guys, said 'i don't care how many writers it takes as long as we get a good script,' while talking about rewrites and perhaps getting other writers in to doctor it up, i suppose was his meaning.

i found that a very interesting and telling statement (which was paraphrased, btw). here's your average hollywood type wanting to make a good movie (contrary to popular belief, i think hollywood *wants* to make good movies) and his method for accomplishing this is 'bring in more people.' i don't think i agree with this as anything other than a last resort, and this guy seemed quick to say that to the two writers they already had who'd written the flawed script. script doctors are one thing, as i understand them, because they're there to fix what's wrong (carrie fisher i hear is a great script doctor), but i believe once you start sharing your vision with more and more people, your vision gets muddied and vague and basically raped and bastardized at worst.

i think it's telling that the notion comes from supposedly one of the non-creative guys. i understand producers needing to be involved, but maybe they should keep their hands out of creative cookie jars, eh? i mean, i wouldn't walk into the accounting department and start telling them how to do spreadsheets. even bad directors have their own artistic vision, and certainly the writers do, and obviously producers think they're helping, but i question the value of giving too much help and making it a committee. by these standards, maybe we should all be amazed that *any* decent movies are *ever* made. then again, i abhor focus groups dictating what works and what doesn't. that just makes things as generic as possible to appeal to the masses, definitely not an artistic vision realized.

oh, i'd have profound difficulties in a hollywood situation, lol. i've dealt with too many bosses who never did my job yet somehow, by some innate virtue divinely inspired, they *always* knew how to do my job better after five minutes of observation resulting in sweeping changes that ultimately are ineffective. that producer saying to the writers to get the script fixed or he's bringing in other writers, well, that's just bullying and poor leadership, imo. if your first instinct is to threaten your talent, good gravy, man, what the hell's the matter with you? the implication is there to begin with, which is stressful enough without it expressed outright, no?

recently, i took the buy-out my company offered. i was a factory worker, a pretty good one, at that. the job i did was the one no one else wanted because it was hard and you did it alone. my last few weeks there, my output was less than spectacular (whereas i was considered the pinnacle of what i did), but i still did my job. but because i stopped doing half of the next shift's job, too, my boss started yelling, literally, at me and threatening to take me off the job if i didn't start producing more. i actually laughed in his face when he did this and would say, 'okay, do it. think i care? you're only hurting yourself if you do.' naturally, he didn't follow through on his threats, but the idea is i'm too old to put up with that crap, especially from a guy who walks around with a clipboard all day. so, no, some producer threatening me with replacement wouldn't work with my personality. i know how i am and the first words that would tumble out of my mouth would be 'first of all, you don't talk to me like that. don't you dare threaten me. second, go ahead and replace me then. you're going to wind-up doing it anyway, jerkass.' i just can't play these games anymore with people, for better or worse, especially when i'm already the type of person willing to go the extra mile... up until someone decides to be a dumbass with an unwarranted attitude.

so, no, i wouldn't do well in hollywood. i know that. but, i can see, too, where there are parts of it that are run by the wrong people with poor management skillz. it seems to be exactly how delphi is run, a place that would otherwise fall flat on its face where it not backed with billions of dollars to keep it up. the inability to change their own basic structure is a major key that holds them back from stellar success. the entrenched way of doing things gets them by, but it's not superior, and it's half luck both industries aren't completely bankrupt by this point. they'll be the first to say, 'garbage in, garbage out,' and i agree with that. what's wrong with the application of that, though, is they go from the ground and up rather than the top down.

like i said, it's a minour miracle any hollywood production is effective. your cinema history shows time and time again how the least amount of intrusion results in your highest yield. in my real-life experiences, this bears out to be true. hollywood, it would seem, still has a lot to learn about extracting the best performance out of its talent.

and what it takes to make good movies.

(rant over, lol.)