contact us

Use the form on the right to contact us.

You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right.


123 Street Avenue, City Town, 99999

(123) 555-6789


You can set your address, phone number, email and site description in the settings tab.
Link to read me page with more information.


Here's where you'll find things that annoy me and things that I feel like ranting about.

Journalblog (July 8, 2015) - Random Thoughts on Hollywood

JJ Mortimer

We can bitch and complain as often and as angrily as we like, but Hollywood isn't going to change the way we would like it to change.  Adapt would be a better word - adapt to the consciousness of American audiences who actually care about the quality of the films they experience, and are drooling at the opportunity to experience something new again.  Which isn't to say we don't get some original ideas once in a while.

Every year there are bad films and good films.  There are the occasional instant classics and a handful of atrocious, god-awful messes that are so bad we can't forget about them.  And that's part of the problem - we tend to remember the giant disasters more than the films that actually touched us and moved us emotionally in a positive light.

As the years go on, people will remember how there were three abortions that were called sequels to the first (and entertaining) Transformers film - each one more expensive and than the last, and more bloated than a whale that's been stewing in the sun for three days.  People remember the needless reboots, remakes, rehashes and sequels too many years removed from their predecessors for anyone to give a damn about, because these films are jammed down our throats through marketing that makes us believe we NEED to see this probable piece of shit and pay to have its streak marks stained on our brains.  Yet the reason these terrible films are made is because, more often than not, they are making their money back.  And their name value means everything.

Each major studio usually has a limit of how many giant, over-$100 million dollar-budget films they can make.  They also have a number of moderate-budget films, as well as a number of low-budget films they can green light within their budget.  It's a business, we get it.  But, in my heart and soul, it's been many, many years since the majority of the big budget films that were made had the care of the audience in mind.  The dollar is the bottom line, and even if a writer/director has his heart in the right place, the business suit-wearing executive, with a bow tie so tight around his neck that he forgets what role a producer is actually supposed to take in the creative process, will dip his balls in so deep into the production that the spawn will be nothing short of demonic upon our viewing eyes.  Yes, many executives fuck their movies, usually metaphorically (although it wouldn't seem out of the question to think that some of these assholes fuck their movies physically).

That's the problem with our major source of visual entertainment.  With the movies we spend the most money to see, we are mostly (not always, to be fair) given the "creative outlook" of a non-creative studio executive with a bag-full of "no" to any sense of outside creative judgment, and a dick-full of "yes" to his own personal, perverted needs.  This is why those smaller films, the low-budget features, will be the future of what we see and remember as we go on in our movie-watching lives.  The less money we spend on that which we KNOW is going to be terrible, the less likely those films are to be greenlit.  Once in a while, we are graced with executives who listen to their creative partners - Kevin Feige at Marvel Studios is a perfect example.  But, for every Feige, we get a half dozen revolving door executives behind the scenes a needless reboot, all of whom don't have the balls to allow the hiring of physical creators and extra pre-production time to implement the details we loved back when movies actually felt "hand made", and not addled with computer-generated effects in every single frame of digital celluloid.

Now you understand that for every film I decide to go off on an angry, expletive-filled rant about because of its obvious laziness when it comes to the creative allowances of its production, there is at least another film I will love mainly based on its producer(s) actually allotting time to shoot the film on FILM, create monsters with puppetry and animatronics (with CGI used only when necessary, and sparingly), and stimulate more than just our eyes and ears, but also our brains and hearts.  Speaking of hearts, no more CGI blood sprays, Hollywood.  That's seriously and literally (not figuratively) the laziest visual effect choice in the history of modern cinema.

That's why I propose, in the most simplistic of fashions, that of all those films each studio green-lights, they should all take a chance at allowing at least one of the more-than-moderately budgeted films to be creatively handled by those who are hired to be creative.  No producer input, but given the money to create a film with the hearts of the audience in mind.  Allow a director to hire people from the "hands-on" departments that have largely gone out of business.  Give a few extra months of pre-production AND production time to make a film that doesn't feel rushed or canned, which in turn could create more jobs for people in construction, fabrication, tailoring, makeup, prosthetics, masonry, woodwork, transportation, robotics, etc., instead of going to a room-full of nerds who are probably bored and many days past giving a shit about what the movie is actually about.