Do people really want New Hollywood 2.0, is that really going to help the industry?
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
Do people really want New Hollywood 2.0, is that really going to help the industry?
Do people really want New Hollywood 2.0, is that really going to help the industry?
|
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
They're already doing that with all the racemixing troony shit and ugly actors and ugly actresses
>troony shit
What New Hollywood films did you watch, unhinged schizophrenic/pol/tard? Because I don't remember race mixing trannies in 2001: A Space Odyssey
who considers kubrick "new hollywood"?
Because he made films during the New Hollywood era? He's the most important, acclaimed and famous director from that era who helped push film as an art form. His films, like 2001, Barry Lyndon and A Clockwork Orange could only have been made in the context of that era and studio's lax control over film production
jesus christ you're moronic, you've never seen a new hollywood film in your life
Ah, okay. So you're baiting then. Good, thanks for making it obvious. I thought you were serious for a second.
I'm not that anon and I'm serious. New Hollywood films have a very distinct style to them regardless of genre, you'd know if you ever saw one.
No they don't kek, what makes Bonnie and Clyde anything like the Godfather or Taxi Driver like Easy Rider? What makes Deliverance anything similar to Bullet? Or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest to Chinatown? Halloween compared to the Exorcist? Those are staples of New Hollywood Cinema and they have a very distinct style unique to the director, not the genre. The fact that you even refer to it as based on genre is ironically more telling that you don't know anything about New Hollywood, since it was famously an auteur driven era. Kubrick fits into that era because his films were considered auteur and broke from the traditional wisdom of Hollywood films following a conventional narrative. His films are s part of that canon, any New Hollywood book, including the OP image's book, is going to include Kubrick. Some contrarian homosexual on Cinemaphile isn't going to change Kubrick's placement in that pantheon of directors of the New Hollywood era. I don't know what the frick kind of point you're making by claiming that style in New Hollywood was uniformed, because it really fricking isn't. There's a huge difference between Francis Ford Coppola's style and Roman Polanski. Or Martin Scorsese's style and Milos Forman.
>Bullet
Oops, I meant Bullitt
This. homosexual normie 4chuds always think of the 70s when New Hollywood is mentioned when in reality it started in the 50s.
>Expecting posters on Cinemaphile - Television and Film to be interested in television and film
Kubrick is new Hollywood you ignorant homo. "New Hollywood" era started in the 50s, not the 60s like you normies think. New Hollywood meant "runaway" productions. Meaning they took production away from studio sets to the locations. It started with the resurgence of United Artists and actor-producers like Burt Lancaster. Directors who are known as new Hollywood are Stanley Kubrick, Sidney lumet, Arthur Penn, Mike Nichols, Richard Brooks etc. SK is the most successful and popular of the pack. You 4chinners are too moronic, have never read books but skim thru some wikipage and think you know everything.
>Kubrick is new Hollywood you ignorant homo.
> Directors who are known as new Hollywood are Stanley Kubrick, Sidney lumet, Arthur Penn, Mike Nichols, Richard Brooks etc.
NTA but not really. Despite your overconfident Wikipedia illusion of competence, most ppl associate the concept to the late 60s/70s directors: Scorsese. Coppola, Schrader, Friedkin etc
No one thinking of Kubrick's bests are thinking of his 50s low budget films, they think of his 60s-70s KINO
Sure, but New Hollywood as we usually think of it includes mostly the group of 1970s newcomers I mentioned above. Besides their grittier approach, even their production values were very specific compared to Hollywood's previous output.
In 1957, at 29 yo, Kubrick was already considered a genius after Paths of Glory's release.
All that information was from a book I read ages ago you baboon. Not that I need to prove anything, but didn't even have to open a tab for wiki or google to write that comment down you ignorant low IQ fool. No one gives a shit what you think new Hollywood is or should be homosexual. In the context of the op image which is a European publication, SK is new Hollywood. The directors names that you ratted off half of which I know you had to look up on wookipedia, came much later and worked for giant studios. Their giant flops was what caused the downfall of the era. Don't even bother replying frickface.
Your foaming at the mouth stickler attitude screams midwit. Fact is, New Hollywood is mostly linked to the 70s US directors.
learn to read hrt brain, OP wasn't talking about then, he was talking about the growing chatter about "Saving Hollywood" now. ie: New Hollywood 2.0. The pic in OP is "New Hollywood 1.0"
So few people are going to cinemas now they're trying to bait people back with older movies, either for older audiences to revisit "better times" or allow zoomers that "first time experience" that they missed (israelite seeing ALIENS or ALIEN in the cinema).
"Remember when we didn't actively hate you? Please help us pretend we didn't try to replace you with the non-existent Diversity Audience."
Take less meds, goop brain.
>What New Hollywood films did you watch
More than you. Dog Day Afternoon's whole plot is based around a trans relationship.
And 2001 was Transhumanist, peanut dick.
One day the earth in California will quake, the forests will burn, and the rivers will run dry for the last time. Then finally Hollywood will end.
That happened to us last fall. We are still here.
Yes, it was one of the only times that filmmaking was treated as an art by everyone involved in it, and that's why so many timeless kinos come from the era.
It was because of that attitude that new Hollywood folded and the likes of Jimbo Cameron and Walter Hill became the defacto influential voice even to this day. Blockbuster filmmaking was always better than art at making money.
It would definitely be a massive improvement over capeshit.
Why do they put all their eggs in one basket with $200 million superhero movies when they could fund over 100 smaller budget productions and give new talent free range to do what they want? It's called throwing shit at the wall until something sticks with audiences. When that one thing sticks, give the director a slightly larger budget and let them go again. Rinse and repeat.
"new hollywood" was just ~~*business people*~~ capitalizing off the newly loosened public moral standards. DO NOT RESUSCITATE
https://www.brighteon.com/3260c0c4-070c-4b6f-96c0-e65725407833
And they made kino like Chinatown and Taxi Driver. Your point? I would say the Marvel movies today are extremely moral. That's why they are boring and push the homosexual agenda.
People yearn for return to traditional values. Weimar Germany 2.0 is getting tiresome for most.
Yes, I would like to watch real movies again
They need to give reactionary incels on Twitter big budgets to make whatever movies they want if they want to save cinema
No, I’m not “being ironic”
>reactionary incels
i’m in
>on twitter
i'm out.
>New Hollywood 2.0
That's a meaningless concept. Hollywood's collapsing because it replaced a well-tested template of entertainment/beauty/technical mastery with shitty lecturing/ugliness/diversity hiring.
Shit's more by-committee than it's ever been and unlike the indulgent boomers of New Hollywood modern young people aren't being given money to throw around at whatever they feel like.