TV/Movies Megathread

[11B4V]

I can agree with your definition of revisionist, but not how you apply it. IMO your off in your application of it here.

My "theory" is that for some reason Hollywood can't really churn out successful non-revisionist Westerns and be successful with them (all the big hits are revisionist films like Unforgiven, Dances With Wolves, True Grit, Django Unchained...), while it can churn out pretty straightforward stuff in other genres and be successful. Horror films haven't really changed their genre structures since the 1950s.

That's because they are bullshit. There is plenty of hard research data that says so. IMO people want see what it was genuinely like.

There are some very good books on the subject of the west. Some very good character studies of well known and lesser know personalities. You should maybe start there in understanding the old west as opposed to the 50's movie genre. Unforgiven is not revisionist in as the 50's western were never really an accurate portray at all. Unforgiven would be closer to actual reality. Therefore revisionist to the 50's BS....yes. Not revisionist to actually how the west was.

Moral ambiguity? That essentially defines that period.

[garbon]

How is he off in his application? The revisionism is in relation to the film style of Westerns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Western

[11B4V]

You don't have to dig very far or too deep either. I would recommend;

Alias Frank Canton

Deadly Dozen: Twelve Forgotten Gunfighters of the Old West, Vol. 1 thru 3
by Robert K. DeArment

[11B4V]

How is he off in his application? The revisionism is in relation to the film style of Westerns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Western

I can agree with your definition of revisionist, but not how you apply it. IMO your off in your application of it here.

My "theory" is that for some reason Hollywood can't really churn out successful non-revisionist Westerns and be successful with them (all the big hits are revisionist films like Unforgiven, Dances With Wolves, True Grit, Django Unchained...), while it can churn out pretty straightforward stuff in other genres and be successful. Horror films haven't really changed their genre structures since the 1950s.

That's because they are bullshit. There is plenty of hard research data that says so. IMO people want see what it was genuinely like.

There are some very good books on the subject of the west. Some very good character studies of well known and lesser know personalities. You should maybe start there in understanding the old west as opposed to the 50's movie genre. Unforgiven is not revisionist in as the 50's western were never really an accurate portray at all. Unforgiven would be closer to actual reality. Therefore revisionist to the 50's BS....yes. Not revisionist to actually how the west was.

Moral ambiguity? That essentially defines that period.

[Liep]

The End of the F****** World

Nice little series even though every character is unlikable and doing stuff that makes them [spoiler]unlikable and/or gives them a little redemption[/spoiler].

[Admiral Yi]

You're really missing the point Before.  The revisionism is in relation to previous filmmaking, not to history or reality.

[11B4V]

You're really missing the point Before.  The revisionism is in relation to previous filmmaking, not to history or reality.

No, I got his drive. But folks don't want to see b.s. 50's style western, if they did Hollywood would be making them. Instead they go for the more accurate portrayals or the assburger shitfests like Django Unchained or Hateful Eight, or Quick and the Dead.

[Admiral Yi]

Bolt of inspiration!

Don Quixote as a Western!

If it ever makes the screen I get a credit, any credit Celery.

[PDH]

Bolt of inspiration!

Don Quixote as a Western!

If it ever makes the screen I get a credit, any credit Celery.

Call it Donkey Hote

[celedhring]

You're really missing the point Before.  The revisionism is in relation to previous filmmaking, not to history or reality.

Yeah. I'm not using revisionism as applied to the historical facts depicted. You get revisionist movies in genres that are not depicting a real setting and thus can't be more or less realistic. Think the many versions of the Count Dracula story.

Obviously the way the US collectively sees the Old West is different in the XXIth century than in 1950, which probably plays a big part in why we get the westerns we get. On that regard Before has a point. But I'm not sure a thirst for realism is the driving force here. Can you really call Django Unchained a realistic film? In truth, "realism" in Hollywood peaked in the 1970s. Hollywood films - in general - are way less realistic now.

[garbon]

Instead they go for the more accurate portrayals

That seems mighty generous

[11B4V]

Instead they go for the more accurate portrayals

That seems mighty generous

As compared to the 50's style...yes.

[11B4V]

You're really missing the point Before.  The revisionism is in relation to previous filmmaking, not to history or reality.

Yeah. I'm not using revisionism as applied to the historical facts depicted. You get revisionist movies in genres that are not depicting a real setting and thus can't be more or less realistic. Think the many versions of the Count Dracula story.

Obviously the way the US collectively sees the Old West is different in the XXIth century than in 1950, which probably plays a big part in why we get the westerns we get. On that regard Before has a point. But I'm not sure a thirst for realism is the driving force here. Can you really call Django Unchained a realistic film? In truth, "realism" in Hollywood peaked in the 1970s. Hollywood films - in general - are way less realistic now.

Have you ever seen The Grey Fox? Worth a watch if you can find it. Not a 50's style, but good nonetheless.

[11B4V]

You're really missing the point Before.  The revisionism is in relation to previous filmmaking, not to history or reality.

Yeah. I'm not using revisionism as applied to the historical facts depicted. You get revisionist movies in genres that are not depicting a real setting and thus can't be more or less realistic. Think the many versions of the Count Dracula story.

Obviously the way the US collectively sees the Old West is different in the XXIth century than in 1950, which probably plays a big part in why we get the westerns we get. On that regard Before has a point. But I'm not sure a thirst for realism is the driving force here. Can you really call Django Unchained a realistic film? In, "realism" in Hollywood peaked in the 1970s. Hollywood films - in general - are way less realistic now.

I can't go with that. Not trying to start an argument. I'm not talking about movies like Django Unchained and the like.

For instance, I recently watched Zulu and Zulu Dawn again. This was after reading some very hardcore books on Rourke's Drift and Isandlwana. The movies are laughable. Though Zulu at least tries.

[jimmy olsen]

Disagree.  Mohicans and Revenant were not Westerns.  They're Daniel Boone/Davey Crocket wilderness/frontier movies.

Westerns can start from 1849, when you had the gold rush, but really shouldn't start until 1865, when Quantrill's raiders went outlaw.  Then they end around 1880/1890, with all the railroads laid, all the Indians pacified, all the homesteads homesteaded.  Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid are a perfect marker for the historical end of the Western.

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly is one of the best westerns ever and it's set during the civil war.