Danny Boyle is a great person to interview, mostly because he's honest and very knowledgeable. While promoting "Trance," he spoke about adult films and how disappointing it is that the term now refers to porn, rather than movies with complex characters and storylines that deal with adult problems, including sexuality and violence.
He believes that adult films are going away, stating that "Star Wars" started the trend and Pixar has continued it by developing the type of successful family films that many studios are now trying to copy. And while he loves and respects Pixar, he misses the important, difficult films of the 70s.
He goes on to say that you can see proof of this in action films where no one dies and the fact that some of the best writers are now working on TV series, because that's where serious story-telling is still popular.
Question: Do you agree with Boyle that adult movies are going away?
"the best writers are now working on TV series, because that's where serious story-telling is still popular."
He's Absolutely right! Just look at Bates Motel, Hannibal, Game of Thrones, The Americans and even the recent Da Vinci's Demons all those TV shows has more intelligent writings than any films I've seen in the last few years.
I think the problem has more to do with the quality rather than the quantity of adult films. When a "serious" film like ARGO, an average film at best, wins Best Picture, it makes one question if mediocrity has become the accepted norm.
Oh yes! It will really kick off from the 4th episode and I like how Norman's pattern are building up slowly but surely with an intelligent subtlety. And Vera Farmiga is simply excellent and sexy as f*ck. Overall it's definitely the revelation for this year.
In another genre, The Americans is just as good with the typical atmosphere from the cold war with excellent actors and plot.
100% with Danny on this. Serious adult films are being pushed aside for candy ass watered down kid flicks and cheap profit machines that appeal to the lowest common denominator (aka remakes/reboots, found footage crap, Tyler Perry movies). Profit is the only driving force behind the industry today where in the 70s (and somewhat in the 90s) film was more of an art form driven by creativity and expression.
Speaking of television, anyone else watching HANNIBAL? It's been excellent so far, really surprised me. It's smart, dark and twisted. I hope it gets a second season, because so far it's been stellar. It and BREAKING BAD are at the top of my list.
We need another independent movement quick. We need more directors like Soderbergh,Tarantino, and Boyle, who never have been driven by box office returns. These storytellers allow quality to dictate their place in the industry not corporate profits.
On another note, wtf happened to the Scorseses of the industry? You know the directors that used a grander scale and bigger budget but still delivered serious character driven artwork. Directors like Mel Gibson, Stanley Kubrick, Kevin Costner, and Robert Zemeckis all managed pretty big projects that nearly always delivered financially and critically. When and why did those directors become extinct? Did the talent pool just dry up or was there a conscious shift in the industry away from these types of directors. From a financial standpoint it doesn't seem very smart considering these guys made huge profits with there work without sacrificing any critical acclaim. Even the R rated material made big money. So why is Hwood investing so much more time and money now for a lot less quality? This has been haunting me for the last 10-12 years.
"You can't raise a generation of film-goers with adult films."
Oh I beg to differ. Sure my generation had its kid flicks, cartoons, and Spielberg driven adventures but we were also raised by F-bombing gangster flicks (Goodfellas), gun toting one man armies (Rambo/Commando), sexy thrillers (Basic Instinct/Sea of Love/Fatal Attraction), urban gang films (Boyz n da Hood/Menace to Society), and funloving buddy cop films (Lethal Weapon). These films were every bit as influential to our lives as any Star Wars or Indiana Jones film. Help I think its why we tend to cuss so much :-)
Maybe from a major studio perspective, but I feel like that's always been the case. I mean, sure Paramount Pictures released The Godfather back in the day, but Warner Bros. released The Departed just a few years ago, it's just not as noticeable since obviously the studios want their names more attached to their box office hits.
Also, Danny Boyle is thinking on a surprisingly idealistic (naive?) level if he expects studios to be the main pushers behind adult films. I've already seen what could very well be 3 of my favorite films of the year not even halfway through the year yet. And they're all independent productions/releases.
Oh and you know who gave the greenlight to Pulp Piction? Disney. The first movie it greenlit after purchasing Miramax. Studios are mostly bad, but I don't think we should pretend they're any worse than they used to be.
At the risk of sounding like a "hipster", independent art, whether it be film, or music, or even literature/comics, will almost always be of a higher caliber than studio produced art, which most of the time, is direct at profit.
@velocityknown. Well said. Studios do put out smaller, more adult films. But when you're also putting out a huge summer tentpole, your focus is going to be on that, especially if you've dropped $50-$100 million to produce, finance, and distribute it. Adult dramas don't require those types of budgets, and they're also not going to be huge blockbusters most of the time. Studios have to make money, and statistics show it isn't the GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS's of the world that are going to draw audiences to the multiplex. I think the studios, as much as people vilify them, have a good balance between smaller budget human drama films and big budget spectacles. Sure, the tentpole films are more abundant, but that's the nature of the beast. You can't fault them for giving audiences what they want.
Game. Of. Thrones. Complex and mature chess game that changes the rules, where the strongest players have nothing to match a midget, an eunuc or a fragile orphan. And it has boobs. And f*cking Dragons.
Trance is an engaging watch trying to figure out what the twist is going to be because its a bit obvious there has to be one in a film like this That said the payoff isnt clever enough for the rest of the films buildup not a bad film but far frome great.
GoT is great. Mad Men is a superb show that let's us look at these cold characters with large amount of subtly.
Hannibal is great, but that might be bias due to my fandom towards the Harris novels.
I'll even say Doctor Who, a show I'm hoping Boyle would direct an ep of.
For one, I really enjoyed England's and Scott Free very own "welcome to the punch" - great film for a small budget, "Trance" as well.
Hwood produces movies that pay. In the 80s - early 90s it was r-rated action. Now it's comic books (CGI ahoy), but there are still terrific smaller movies to watch.
In the age when Roger Deakins goes digital and moviemaking gets cheaper - studios will go more expansive both in scale and price - that's how they survive. It doesn't mean that smaller movies will die - if anything they get more sources of revenue (Zach braff crowdfunded his joint in 4 days for f*cks sake).
It's simply another age, and it promises more whir, but also more gems (IMHO).
Ha! Ha! This coming from the most juvenile adult director out there, whose shallow films rely more on MTV editing and punchy soundtracks than anything of substance. I don't like any of his films. He should direct videos for One Direction.
Well, the academy nominates everything from low budget, independent human dramas to big budget studio blockbusters. The big hit films rarely win Best Picture, and their nomination in that category is usually a token vote (especially since the category expanded to the stupid amount of 10). These award shows are, really, superficial fluff. But they shine a spotlight on smaller films and the new voices in cinema, which would go largely unnoticed by the general public. They can also give a much needed box office boost. And I know Boyle didn't seem to mind these award ceremonies--he trotted those goddam kids out on any state he could find during awards season.
My point is that Boyle is talking about the movie market, what goes into theaters, and NOT what the Academy nominates.
Yeah, Argo won best picture, and perhaps it's arguable it didn't deserve Best Picture (the wealthy, talented people empowered to vote emphatically disagree), but Boyle isn't talking about Argo. He's not talking about The Artist. He clearly says "the Pixar-ification" of the theatrical marketplace. The Academy has nothing to with the topic, and as Boyle has been nominated and won a few times himself, I would think he, if he had to choose, would side with Argo than all the computer-generated techno-color pop-cultural trash people rush to see, like MIB3 and Iron Man 3 and Brave.
THAT'S what he's talking about, not the Academy, but you took the article's topic as a means to bash Argo, to the crowd's applause, and no one, including and especially Boyle, is talking about that film, or the Academy.
And naturally, it takes me of all people to point that fact out...
And I certainly agree with Boyle on Star Wars. I've said the same thing, that Star Wars was a turning point in cinema, where genuine realism and though-provoking, mature "adult" films get way-sided by colorful, juvenile cartoons made for inane adult children.
One only has to look at the second Star Wars trilogy to wonder what grown, mature, serious man would WANT to watch that infantile trash...
I used ARGO because it was a "serious, adult film", the exact kind that Boyle says isn't getting made anymore. I brought up it's Best Pic award to question the mediocrity of said "adult" films that are being made these days. I further used the Academy nominated films to show that his Pixar-ification theory doesn't hold up in that circle, as the most nominated films are the "serious, adult" kind. I know what Boyle is talkng about; I only segued into a tangent point with "award season" films.
@Biz. I watched the pilot. I'm on the fence as to whether I want to continue. It didn't hook me initially. But some are saying by the 3rd or 4th episode it takes off. I will probably give it a few more episodes. Go watch HANNIBAL, though. It's excellent.
Fine, but MY point is you dragged the Academy into a discussion that had really nothing to do with the Academy. Boyle wasn't talking about the Academy, he was talking about the popular film market.
And I'm sure Boyle is aware Argo is a serious film, and I'm sure he's aware the Academy doesn't nominate films like Transformers to the Best Picture category, which is why I still don't understand why you mentioned it. But as you said, you "segued" into a "tangent", which only underlines my complaint there's never any on-topic intelligent discourse here.
But bashing Argo did get some crowd appeal. Not sure why. What were they supposed to choose? Zero Dark Thirty? A film that almost glorifies torture? Yeah, right.
"I brought up it's Best Pic award to question the mediocrity of said "adult" films that are being made these days"
Argo being mediocre is your opinion, but again, the people who vote, the only people who get to choose, thought otherwise, and fact of the matter is, I could go back in time and choose twenty Best Picture films and wonder what the f*ck the Academy was thinking.
More importantly, these elite voters make, produce, whatever movies, they're in the business, and it's their choice, so we can sit back and criticize them and say oh that one's "mediocre" but at the end of the day, it's the Academy's game, and for every person such as you, there's ten that thought Argo was pretty f*cking great (96% on RT, btw).
In short, your opinion, and mine, doesn't mean d*ck in a game we don't, can't play.
Mink, you can't sit here and tell me you have never veered into a tangent or gone off-topic. You have. I have. We all have. And a lot of times, they lead to other interesting points and ideas. I don't know why you are so focused upon that one comment.
Probably because it led to everyone talking about everything other than what Boyle was saying, but that's what happens around here. The herd mentality. Someone says something, usually stupid and/or infantile, someone then does a Kool-Aid man "oh yeah!" and then the entire conversation is way off-topic.
In this case, Boyle was talking about the theatrical market going the Star Wars route, the Pixar-ification of film,; you then used that a transparent segue into bashing Argo knowing the mindless, unruly crowd would happily fist-pump to trashing the Academy's choice (as if you or anyone on here is anything other than pocket lint to the people charged with voting, as if they know you're alive much less give a f*ck what you think about their nominations), and then the crowd predictably started talking about the Academy's nominations, or f*ck me, television, neither of which has sh*t to do with what Boyle was actually saying.
Then again, I didn't watch the video, so maybe Boyle was chattering away about Argo and Games of Thrones, but let's face it, neither Game of Thrones, nor Dexter, nor much of what you folks call "quality television", is the serious, mature film Boyle appreciates, either.
And yeah, I go off-topic, but no one cares. I could sit on here all day jabbering about picking my nose and no one would change the conversation to nose-picking.
Pretty sure the synopsis for either A New Hope or The Empire Strikes Back isn't "boy deals with death of aunt and uncle". Seems to me there was a HELL of a lot more going on two seconds after their bodies hit the ground on Tattoine.