>tfw you realize that cinema has been dead since the late

>>82120171
The 90s had a lot of great American auteurs though.

>>82120171
C A R R U T H

>>82120171
>tfw OP is a retarded pleb who is oblivious to all the great auters that have made great films since the 80s

File: 1200.jpg (76KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1200x675px

>>82120171
Alternate opinion: The emergence of auteur-driven television is starting to produce work that rivals & surpasses the feature-film medium

Pic related was far better than any film I've seen in years, better than any of Sorrentino's feature-length work

>>82120225
Yes, there are always a few great filmmakers.

But there is no film culture anymore. There are no truly revolutionary directors from different parts of the world making masterpiece after masterpiece and competing with each other. Inventing new techniques and experimenting in daring ways to make film.

Why are you qualify auteur as if it's a mark of quality?

It's not.

You can be a bad auteur.

>>82120383
Sure, but "bad" art still represents an honest point-of-view, and still has cultural/historical value even if it's used as an example of an idiot's worldview.

Entertainment, good or bad, does not represent anyone's honest point-of-view. It represents an attempt to pander to a specific audience. There's no artist saying "this is how I feel," it's a team of producers & artists saying "this is what I think these people want to see."

I'm not saying entertainment is inherently bad or shouldn't be made, I think a healthy culture needs a balance between both. And right now, the artists just aren't getting any kind of budget or distribution. There are still good filmmakers out there, but it seems like they're all stuck with <$5mil unless they decide to do a big studio franchise/reboot. We just need mid-budget films to be a thing again

>>82120171
It's amazing how much better shows are from that era, the stuff coming out today is like made by kids who take the short bus to special film school.
i don't know how /tv/ actually ever goes to a cinema.

File: 1440612637675.jpg (118KB, 627x575px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 627x575px

>>82120229
Yeah Carruth is great.
>>82120346
This is very true too, the mediums have changed. There isn't as much point to create interesting products to feature in cinemas like there used to be, there are so many more mediums for distributing visual art now.
>>82120383
That's true too.
>>82120830
But why? We do in a way have ton of them, they are all the indie flicks that are made for pretentious festivals, or there are streaming-service originals now. There are more mediums to watch and distribute movies now than there was in the 80s and 90s (the cinema was the only one). And these mid-budget films could be more risk than the big-budget blockbusters if the market appeal is unknown; and if anything, mainstream studios don't like risk.

So while I do agree with you, and it would be nice to see more "B-Side" type of mainstream movies, like the Miramax flicks of the 90s, I don't really see it happening anymore, as far as big features distributed exclusively to cinemas. How the consumers acquire and consume such media is compeltely different now, and will continue to change in the future.

>>82120346
Just because there's a few scripts with potential collecting dust that might get made doesn't mean the vast majority of ideas haven't been done already. Now it's all just for shock value and third world immigrants.

>>82121477
>doesn't mean the vast majority of ideas haven't been done already
People have been saying this for all time. You look on past art/entertainment more fondly because you're not sifting through the mountains of cliched mediocrity that were produced & released during those times; you're just focusing on the few great films & books that stood the test of time.

Those films are still being made today. It's pretty rare for any "great" work of art to be immediately recognized for its greatness, it usually takes some time to sink in, find its audience, and solidify its reputation

>>82121461
I don't think the theatrical distribution model is still a good plan for artistic films, either. The reason it worked so well in the '90s is because it was possible to treat a film as a long-term investment. "Quality" was actually worth money, because people actually paid for videos, DVDs, and rentals. It didn't matter if a $40 million film made a profit during a 3-week theatrical run, because it could continue to generate word-of-mouth and additional profit from new audiences on an indefinite home-video run.

That is starting to be true again, as piracy becomes more and more difficult, and streaming sites/"rental" models like Amazon take the place of free torrenting. We're just getting out of a "dark" period where the Internet killed off the home-video market too quickly for another market to take its place.

The wheel's gonna turn again. Audiences are getting bored of rebooted '80s movies and superhero franchises. Studios are getting bored of shelling out money/royalties for other peoples' intellectual property. One day soon it's going to occur to them that they're paying millions for the rights to remake/adapt a low-budget film made 20 years earlier, when they could be making the low-budget original films that will be remade/adapted in the future.

>>82120830
>Entertainment, good or bad, does not represent anyone's honest point-of-view.
This statement reeks of anti-genre elitism imo. A film can be both art and entertainment, lots of talented auteurs expressing themselves through form make entertaining movies.

>>82120171
These days auteurs are now called autists and not allowed anywhere near the creative industry.

>>82122232
I didn't really mean it that way, there's plenty of truly great entertainment out there. I don't think "art" is inherently better than "entertainment," I just think they're two different products with different goals/intentions. A healthy culture produces & consumes plenty of both, it's not great to have too much of an imbalance in either direction

>>82120171
Malick, Villenueve, Herzog, Von Trier would like to tell you to stop watching capeshit, hackson, disney, and such.

>>82122916

Badlands is the only good film Malick did. Herzog is not as good as he used to be. Von Trier is a hack. Villenueve makes boring films.