A note to all American film distributors...

DrPaul wrote: Chewing on your food for thought, it might interest you to know that the foreign-born population in the U.S. was about five percent in 1975 and is now more than 12 percent. And that is just the legal immigrants. We also have more than ten million illegal immigrants here right now. That's another three percent. Do you think there's a chance that might have something to do with a 'slightly' declining literacy rate, rather than accusing a whole country of being lazy?

I was hardly accusing the whole country of being lazy... I am stating that modern culture is responsible for a lack of drive to learn because of so many modern distractions. I would've though this was an obvious point, with any country. But I do understand my analysis is very presumptuous. But it is also very presumptuous to equate the decline of literacy to the increase in foreign citizens.

While on statistics; Australia's foreign-born percentage was 22% in 2001 (much higher than the US), and is now in excess of 26% ...yet our literacy rate is still increasing. Now, entertaining your idea that it has nothing to do with laziness, what could it be that makes the USA so special when Australia has more than double the amount of immigrants living in the country?

A lot of your complaint seems to center around the U.S. audience's lack of enthusiasm for subtitles. Don't blame the viewer! Subtitles are not the way films (talkies, anyway) were intended to be seen (with the possible exception of Mel Gibson's "The Passion.") Subtitles greatly detract from a film's presentation.

I agree, subtitles are not how film is meant to be seen... but they are a valuable tool giving people access to many more films, and cultural perspectives. You're right about the US being a huge market for films (the worlds biggest)... so imagine how many films the US exports to other foreign speaking countries. In fact, there are many foreign countries who screen English spoken US films than local films. And they have to read subtitles for pretty much every film they see. So if they can do it, and accept it for almost every film, why can't the US viewers do it for a few films once in a while?

On a related subject, I b-tch around here quite a bit because of the general lack of enthusiasm for text adventures. You guys all seem to only want graphic games because text-adventures are too hard. If I'm not mistaken, I think you are one of those in the anti-text-adverture camp. How do you square that with your criticism of the lazy U.S. audience? I don't mean to be confrontational here. I'm just trying to make a point about preferences with text and entertainment.

Now, in and attempt to square my comment with text adventures, it is a matter of technological advancement that has seen people evolve into liking more visually stimulating games, not cultural preference. I too played text adventures when they were the base medium for entertainment, but as the technology developed, so did my tastes. That's not to say I don't have fond memories of text games... I just chose not to engage in them anymore. Now comparing this to cinema, I could understand if the rest of the world was lagging behind the US technologically in the film scene (thus being like a text adventure being released today), but they are not (LOTR was made almost entirely by New Zealanders). The only difference with a lot of foreign films is that they are in another language. And to compare subtitles in a modern and technologically cutting-edge film, to a text adventure which has nothing new to offer technologically does not match up. It's just like saying that the reason people don't want to watch foreign films is because their production values are 20 years old... which is not true.

Well, it's our market, isn't it? I understand your frustration. Believe me, I do. But the solution is not to blame the customer. If you want to compete in the American Market, you have to cater to the American customer. It's as simple as that.

For instance, an American producer sees a foreign film that has that something special. A new idea, a new twist, a great plot. You could bring it here for a limited distribution and *maybe* make some profit - if you're lucky. Or you can spend a few million bucks on a remake, and make 50 million. Let's see...make a little money?...make millions?...duh?

Movies cost a lot to make and they also cost a lot to distribute. The U.S. market is huge and it expects to be catered to.

Why? Because they can.

Yes it is your market... and I understand that if you guys don't like films from other countries, that your choice. But stealing is a whole other ball park. Just because Hollywood distributors have the money to buy anything they want from overseas, it does not give them the right to fail to acknowledge the people who worked so hard the make the original idea a reality in the first place. And it is just as bad to be a viewer and ignore that fact. I would have nothing to complain about if the US remade films (to make the ideas more culturally accessible to Us audiences) AND gave due credit to the original creators... but they don't. They buy up the idea and sell it as their own. That's just plain wrong.

Why? because you can... you are exactly right, and that is the kind of mentality that gives me such impressions of the US viewer market, despite there still being an intelligent minority (such as yourself).

-Cub. =o)

Now, entertaining your idea that it has nothing to do with laziness, what could it be that makes the USA so special when Australia has more than double the amount of immigrants living in the country?

Well, it depends a lot on where your immigrants are coming from, your immigration policies, your country's general attitude regarding assimilation of immigrants and how one defines literacy. I don't know about any of these things in Australia. I know that the U.S. receives a large number of non-English speaking immigrants. We also have many policies which promote cultural diversity and multilingualism which tend to preserve the immigrant's native language instead of encouraging them to learn English. Yet we define literacy as the ability to read an write English. This may or may not be different than your situation in Australia and may or may not account for the difference.

So if they can do it (read subtitles), and accept it for almost every film, why can't the US viewers do it for a few films once in a while?

The simple answer is, we DO do it. But I'm afraid you have an unfortunate misconception about the U.S. It maybe wouldn't hurt if you spent a little more time here before being so quick to criticize and condemn.

Just off the top of my head, here are a 'few' subtitled films that I've personally seen recently - not on DVD but on the big screen at the theater:
CJ7, The Kite Runner, The Orphanage, The Namesake, Pan's Labyrinth, The Valet, Curse of the Golden Flower, Day Watch, Dragon Wars, The Good German, Other People's Lives and The Host. In addition to these, I have also recently seen *several* other foreign produced films, particularly from England, Belgium, Australia, etc., that were not subtitled because they were in English. And these are just the films I've seen. We get lots of other foreign films but I just don't see them all. Your assumption that the U.S. doesn't screen these films is simply incorrect.

Now, in an attempt to square my comment with text adventures...as the technology developed, so did my tastes...Now comparing this to cinema, I could understand if the rest of the world was lagging behind the US technologically in the film...It's just like saying that the reason people don't want to watch foreign films is because their production values are 20 years old...

Basically, you're saying that it's ok to reject text adventures in favor of the more advanced graphic game technology because the technology is better. If we accept that, then we also must accept that it's ok to reject silent-picture technology in favor of talkies. But, in a substantial way, subtitles effectively send modern, productions back to the era of silent film. But at least silent films had the sense to stop the action while showing the subtitles so that you didn't have to miss the nuance of the actor's performance. Face it. Subtitled films are not as enjoyable an experience as in one's native language. So it's hard to fault someone, who has an overwhelming number of native language choices, for not choosing subtitled films. Yet, we still watch subtitled films as I've demonstrated above.

The U.S. is simply not the cultural wasteland you seem to imagine it to be.

But stealing is a whole other ball park. Just because Hollywood distributors have the money to buy anything they want from overseas, it does not give them the right to fail to acknowledge the people who worked so hard the make the original idea a reality in the first place....I would have nothing to complain about if the US remade films (to make the ideas more culturally accessible to Us audiences) AND gave due credit to the original creators... but they don't. They buy up the idea and sell it as their own. That's just plain wrong.

My problem with this rant is that you present it as a universal statement. You imply that all U.S. remakes of foreign films are stolen, and that credit is never or rarely given to the originator. That is an absolutely false statement.

I don't have a list of every U.S. film that was ever based on an original foreign film, but I do know that I have personally and often seen such statements in the credits to the effect that the film was based on some other named film. So if you mean to imply that American producers never give such credit, that is incorrect. I can't tell you how common or uncommon it is to not give credit, but I know that I have seen credit given many times and I often try to track down the original and view it.

Summarizing my long and boring post:
1. The U.S. is not a cultural wasteland nor is it cut-off from the rest of the world.
2. We do indeed get foreign and foreign-language films here.
3. We do indeed give credit to original sources - although some may err.
4. Given a choice, it is natural for people to prefer films in their native language.
5. We have an overwhelming choice of English language films to choose from - more than most people can possibly see.
6. It is not unreasonable to expect that foreign-language films will comprise only a small fraction of our film market.
The only reason I'm making a big deal here is because you were insulting my country. I'm sure that if I ever insulted Australia you would also rush to its defense. But I wouldn't do that. I like Australia.

*Does his Flexo-impersonation* Pffff... Australia. Who needs'em!? Colony of rapists, thieves and killers! HAHA!! Just kiddin'! You guys are great!

-Fred

DrPaul wrote:Summarizing my long and boring post:
1. The U.S. is not a cultural wasteland nor is it cut-off from the rest of the world.
2. We do indeed get foreign and foreign-language films here.
3. We do indeed give credit to original sources - although some may err.
4. Given a choice, it is natural for people to prefer films in their native language.
5. We have an overwhelming choice of English language films to choose from - more than most people can possibly see.
6. It is not unreasonable to expect that foreign-language films will comprise only a small fraction of our film market.
The only reason I'm making a big deal here is because you were insulting my country. I'm sure that if I ever insulted Australia you would also rush to its defense. But I wouldn't do that. I like Australia.

I will reply in a summarised version as well:

1. I never said it was a cultural wasteland, I said the mainstream was in a dire state. I am just as sure as you are that you guys receive a good number of foreign films that a lot of folks like yourself enjoy, but I am not talking about you. So I agree, it is not a cultural wasteland, but can the same be said about the mainstream? Come back to me with this point again when "Meet The Spartans" is no longer your current #1 box office seller, and I might find it easier to agree with you.

Although I agree my comment about reading subtitles once in a while was not very well thought out. So let me rephrase that: Why is there such a stigma against reading subtitles on film, when most other foreign speaking countries have to do so in order to view the abundance of US exports? I know English is a preference (and an abundance, more so in the US than anywhere else when it comes to film), but if foreign films are still as common as corn flakes as you say, then shouldn't US residents be a little used to it by now? Or at least enough to not require a remake? No, not at all... you know why? Because of the industry trends: if you refer back to my original post, I said it was not so much the viewer's fault in this case, so much as it is the distributor's fault for not having faith in people's ability to appreciate a foreign language film in its original form, which has no doubt allowed people to become less accustomed to having to deal with subtitles, and this trend has grown over the past 10 years.

2. Really? I thought the US was just a cultural wasteland?

3. By the same token that I take you as a intelligent person, do the same for me an understand that I have done my research too, and know that is a VERY high percentage of foreign films which have been stolen by Hollywood, and the cases have been dismissed. And the way I see it, remaking a film and doing it badly is just as bad. I do agree with you, some films get a mention, if you watch the credits carefully and maybe squint... but it is usually the online community, or the reviewers who have to point it out most of the time.... or in this case Demonlawyer as well.

4. Never stopped agreeing with you there.

5. Hence why I said the US is the biggest producer and exporter of them in the world. another reason why so many more people are probably not used to reading subtitles, fair enough.

6. Once again, I already agree.

Take it personally, or not, I am not talking about people like yourself. My gripe is with (and never hasn't been) the current mainstream trends in modern cinema, that have influenced the high-end commercial market in such a way that there is a growing lack in interest for foreign culture in films as a result of the aversion to subtitles. I totally respect your position amidst all this, but the trends are there within the majority, whether you are part of it or not.

And I have no shame in admitting that in my opinion (and I have said this before, hence why I am moving to Japan) the Australian film industry is one of the worst in the world (for different reasons). So say what you will in return, I will most likely join your argument. lol ...would you like me to start you off?

Also, there is a difference between a false statement, and a statement that is true in some instances. i.e. to say that my statement about the theft of ideas (or some of my other points) is a false statement does not make much sense, considering I have already proven it to be true. I think you are more concerned about the way I phrased it, in which case it is still an accurate statement, but does not apply to every situation.

And no, I am not insulting your country, and everyone who resides there in general. I have an issue with the film distributors (as stated in the thread title) and subsequently; the mainstream viewer... but then again , speaking of the latter, I asked more questions as to why things were as they were, than I made judgments (which I did make, I will admit).

On a side note, judging by the level of engagement you have expressed in this post, it certainly has got you talking again. See, where would this board be without me and my controversial mouth! (god, I sound like Eminem!)

-Cub. =o)

P.S. Fred, that's a nice looking camera, may I take a look at it?

What got me was The Departed. When I watched it, it seemed oddly familiar. Then it dawned on me that it was a remake of a Hong Kong movie Infernal Affairs, which is MUCH better.

Okay the remake has Leonardo Di Caprio, Jack Nicholson, Scorsese etc etc in it but why did that version get an oscar when the original didn't? And what really got me is that they didn't even acknowledge it.

And The Assassin - the french version was brilliant.

Though to be fair, I wouldn't have seen the french version if I hadn't heard the hype about the American version, so I guess it has some benefits.

And let's face it - the budgets are better and the bangs are bigger

Camera?

-Fred

I think we're finally getting a lot of common ground here. I hope you're finding this discussion enjoyable. Time-consuming, but enjoyable.

Items numer 4, 5 and 6 (which we both agree with) pretty much explain why subtitles are not very popular, so I don't see that we have any disagreement there.

Also, I think your statement,

Why is there such a stigma against reading subtitles on film, when most other foreign speaking countries have to do so in order to view the abundance of US exports?

pretty much answers its own question. They have no choice. I have little doubt that if those same countries cranked out a sufficient abundance of good-quality native films, they wouldn't watch subtitled imports on such a grand scale either.

You are correct that the issue I was taking with your "false" statement was based on the phrasing. I said that you presented it like a universal statement, i.e., always true. Basic rules of logic require only one contrary example to rule a universal statement false. I didn't try to argue that your statement wasn't sometimes true. I was only saying that it was wrong to imply that it is always true. I don't think we have any disagreement with that either.

I understand that your gripe is with mainstream trends. Independent films are more-or-less out there to make a statement or to show-off one's art. Mainstream films are produced, first and foremost, to make money. It's a business. A BIG business and, believe it or not, driven by perceived demand. Hollywood releases its films worldwide and its non-U.S. receipts are usually on parr with their U.S. receipts. So you can't even blame the U.S. viewers. It's like that all over.

Come back to me with this point again when "Meet The Spartans" is no longer your current #1 box office seller, and I might find it easier to agree with you.

The box office stats don't show MTS to be the current #1. It isn't even in the top ten. So I coming back to you. The Spartans actually ranked fifty percent higher non-U.S than it did in the U.S. So I guess you guys liked it more than we did. Personally, I can't think of a single movie (and I've seen thousands) that was as bad as Meet the Spartans.

As to the idea of stealing someone else's work, I know that you know that I don't condone stealing either. However, I think that the issue can be quite a bit more complicated than you present. First of all, any author will tell you that stories are a dime-a-dozen. Everyone and his brother has a great idea for a story. The difference is in the telling and that's what separates the men from the boys. That is just as true (if not more so) with film, as I'm sure you well-know.

For example, Roger Corman directed Masque of the Red Death in 1964. Then Larry Brand did it in 1989. There was Alan Birkinshaw in 1990 and Jeroen Jaspaert in 2000. Finally, low and behold, our own Cubase released one in 2008. Same story all around, but different tellings, different cinematic styles, entirely different films. You of all people know that a re-do of another film can be an entirely different entity. Of course, this is an extreme example, and it gets more difficult to judge when the similarities are stronger.

The point I'm trying to make here is that it is not always the case that a remake is an out-right theft or a violation of a copyright. It is not surprising that these things will go to court and that sometimes the remake will prevail. Sometime the remake should prevail, sometime not and sometimes the courts err.

Is nothing sacred? There was a 1998 remake of Hitchcock's 1960 classic, Psyco. The remake even shot the shower scene *exactly* as Hitchcock did it. Still, an entirely different movie. I can see no reason to EVER do a remake of a Hitchcock film. Explain that and you've explained a lot. Good or bad, remakes happen and they are likely to be controversial.

DrPaul wrote:

Come back to me with this point again when "Meet The Spartans" is no longer your current #1 box office seller, and I might find it easier to agree with you.

The box office stats don't show MTS to be the current #1. It isn't even in the top ten. So I coming back to you. The Spartans actually ranked fifty percent higher non-U.S than it did in the U.S. So I guess you guys liked it more than we did. Personally, I can't think of a single movie (and I've seen thousands) that was as bad as Meet the Spartans.

Well it may not be #1 anymore, I'll give you that... but my comment was more of a cynical dig for driving my point home in regards to terrible mainstream trends. However, it was still definitely #1 in Late January when it was released:

http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/?region=u ... 2008-01-25

...which is bad enough as it is. But come to think of it, I don't ever recall seeing it up on the cinema boards during its release period, and by that same token I don't think it did as well here at all.


You are right about Hollywood being a big business, and so I agree that it is bound to run like one too. Which is kind of the way the music industry is going. And you can either kick up a stink about it (like me), or accept it and quietly stick with what you like (like yourself). I guess it is by this same token which makes us different... but of course you've seen your fair share of films, and I am trying to discover my niche in said industry, so it's no wonder our frames of mind are different. None are wrong, just approached differently... thus enabling us to discuss it in this fashion.

But I must say, you got me on your point about Masque. Bam... headshot! lol

I envy your ability to somewhat throw caution to the wind and just accept that nothing is sacred. For me, someone who is on the brink of the proverbial "make or break" stage of a budding film career, it's a lot harder to accept what you have probably already come to terms with. Looking ahead, I see the most cut-throat and bastardized industry and it really grinds my gears! Accepting it for what it is to me would be like selling out, and that would be the death of any hope of bringing something unique to the world of film. I refuse to just give in, and forgive me if in the process of doing so I shake my fists a bit too hard. But it's hard not to do so when even Metropolis; probably one of the most important films of all time, is getting raped by the industry.

Lastly: Yes, I am enjoying this discussion. I find it hard to take anything personally anymore and am always open to opinions, criticism and of course resolution.

-Cub. =o)

What camera?

-Fred

Wow...

Cub & Doc you guys are really passionate about this Film stuff, aren't you???

Fred Buer wrote:What camera?

-Fred

An old convict joke mate. When in Australia hang onto your cameras... we're all crooks.

-Cub. =o)

but my comment (about Meet the Spartans) was more of a cynical dig for driving my point home in regards to terrible mainstream trends.

I hear ya and I'm 100% with you on that. Don't get me started on modern mainstream culture.

But come to think of it, I don't ever recall seeing it up on the cinema boards during its release period, and by that same token I don't think it did as well here at all.

As sorry as I was to see MTS listed as number over here, I am equally sorry to report that the Feb 28-Mar 2 Australian Box Office also shows MTS as #1.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/austr ... k=9&p=.htm

The only way I can explain it is that people probably thought it was going to be something clever like the Scary Movie parodies (the reason I went). Man, was I ever wrong!

and you can either kick up a stink about it (like me), or accept it and quietly stick with what you like (like yourself). I guess it is by this same token which makes us different..

Not so different really, just displaced in time. I spent many years tilting at windmills for the same cause, as a graphic artist and an aspiring film maker. During my years as a commercial artist, it didn't take long to notice that, when I submitted designs, the paying customer *always* chose the worst one - and the customer is always right. When I tried to break into film, which is a much more expensive undertaking and even more reliant on the person paying the bills, it is even more true. It became clear to me that I couldn't make my living that way without constantly prostituting myself, so I quit art altogether and went back to school to become a Physicist.

Let me say, however, that I have the highest respect for anyone who can stick it out and produce a feature film or a substantial short (like your Masque). Even a bad film is no mean feat and a good one is an incredible achievement.

My advice is not to put too much energy into fighting the good fight, because it will eventually drain you. Change what you can, and come to terms with what you can't.

I know no camera...

Okay, I'll stop now. However, I'd like to add that I'm norwegian. We make some quality films in our country, and I still like watching the english stuff, preferably without the subtitles.

-Fred