The UK does it best
Superior acting , terrific story , this makes me proud to be from the UK .
shareYou do realize Stanley Kubrick is American right? Only the actors were British. American films are far superior to British.
sharethe yanks have more money to back more lavish films, but the Brits are forced to be more creative with less resources.
I worked for Amblin---the conditions were terrible.
I would disagree with that statement, both countries have produced some very creative films over the years, but quite honestly, America takes the cake at almost everything, the only thing the Brotish have in film that America hasn't done better is a quirky satirical comedy as good as Holy Grail, but to say that makes the British more creative when America has films like Pulp Fiction, 2001, the Matrix, and many other incredibly creative films is just wrong.
sharethe films you mention are the exception rather than the rule, over a long timespan------2001 came out in 1968: everyone who follows current trends knows that todays' Hollywood in general is adverse to taking real risk, which is why so many films are updates of established properties: right now we have Star Trek/ the BFG/ yet another Ice Age sequel, recent films are updates of old ideas like Jungle Book, Dads Army/Planet of the Apes/ Batman-Superman etc, all of which have a built-in, 'safe ' audience.
This approach is not exactly creative, it is over-safe recycling because movie-making is so expensive.
The technology today is much improved, but most original ideas are probably rejected by Hollywood, in favour of remaking established themes that already have a household-name proven track record.
It makes for bland films, and because the UK usually has smaller budgets to work with, they can afford to take more of a risk.
In the 60s, there were many more risks taken in new releases, [even by Hollywood] and less reliance on updating established properties.
While you are full of examples of uncreative Amerocan movies, you have yet to mention a Brotish movie that is any better, and you are mistaking American films for Hollywood films, when the two are very different. You're right that Hollywood tends to produce a bunch of unoriginal movies with nothing but money on the mind, although there's usually about 5-10 movies a year coming out of Hollywood that are good and original enough to justify its existence, like edge of tomorrow a couple years ago and inception a few years ago, But to say that America as a whole is unoriginal because Hollywood is is just false, especially when there are movies like the hateful 8, the revenant, Mad Max fury road, and many other good, original movies coming out of independent American studios.
I think as time goes on, and films become ever more expensive to produce, the results are becoming ever more mindless in spite of the superior technology we see today. Films that are [in my view] more original like Blade Runner never made a lot of money on release because they are ahead of public taste and not surprizingly, Hollywood will avoid this sort of expensive risk.
I think Hollywood expertise is the best in the World [the finincial resources certainly are] however I have worked in a Hollywood-backed studio [Universal Pictures/ Amblin] in London which was run by American Producers, and going by what I experienced, the people running the studio [s] are in many cases just operating a sausage-factory treadmill, with the bigger the studio, the more factory-like the outlook.
I was not impressed with what I saw at Amblin.
All modern studios are not as bad as this of course, but the more money involved, the more mindless and over-safe the end result.
British backed films cater for their own quirkier market, not aimed at a global market like the American studios.
There is a certain style the English do best - I would say Trainspotting is one of them. Its hard to put your finger on what it is - but its something.
shareMad Max Fury Road?
Wait a second. According to you, Clockwork Orange and 2001 are American films just because Kubrick directed them even though they're British/American films but Fury Road which was a 100 percent Australian crew made film, and partly funded by them you want to label as American because it was distributed by Warner Bros? Your attempt at a fair debate on this subject is pathetic. Oh, and Village Roadshow is actually an Australian production company not an independent American studio.
"America takes the cake at almost everything"
LMAO.
"America has films like Pulp Fiction, 2001, the matrix..."
Oh wow. Sticking purely to creativity, Britain has films like Trainspotting, Four Feathers (where would the big budget epic be without this), Thief Of Baghdad (the first to use blue screen), The 39 Steps, Get Carter (A huge influence on Tarantino's career in the first place), A Matter Of Life and Death.... Not bad for a much smaller island. In fact, without the likes of David Lean and Presburger and Powell you wouldn't have had the most prolific Americans like Kubrick, Spielberg, Coppola, Scorsese, and Lucas in the first place. Not to mention the fact that American action movies have been ripping off everything that the British crews/stuntmen/ filmmakers did in those 60's/70's James Bond films ever since. And look at the creativity of those Hammer horror films with very little money.
Oh, and it was a British crew who were responsible for those revolutionary special effects in 2001, and it was based on a British novel in the first place.
Nonsense. The UK is every bit as rich a country as the US. Come up w/a better excuse for your much weaker film industry. And, remember, the US's film industry has dominated since nearly the existence of motion pictures and from a time when the US wasn't as rich as the UK.
shareHollywood and entertainment is one of the USA's biggest exports, and more serious money is poured into investing in big-budget films.
This level of investment has never---and does not, today------been the way the UK make films, they are more industrious and creative in the music business instead of the film biz.
Hollywood puts out many films with budgets of 100- 200 M Dollars ----I challenge you to name me ONE British-funded film ever made in the UK or anywhere else that had that level of financial backing.
Germany were easily on par---or even ahead of---the USA film industry in the 20s/early 30s but their Industry never recovered from the War.
"Nonsense. The UK is every bit as rich a country as the US"
Bollocks.
"Come up w/a better excuse for you much weaker film industry"
In the UK, stupid I know, but we care more about silly things like Healthcare for everyone than making movies.
"The US's film industry has dominated since nearly the existence of motion pictures"
And who was responsible for making the motion picture industry in America as big as it was? A certain Charles Chaplin. You're welcome. And for your information, the much smaller and lesser funded British film industry was right up there (pre-world war two) with Hollywood with films like Four Feathers, The 39 Steps etc but it naturally took a beating with the bombings Britain took and the economy afterwards. Only Pearl Harbour was attacked during WW2 and you had draft dodgers like John Wayne keeping the Hollywood film industry alive through those years.
[deleted]