CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Movies › Total film or Hollywood?

Total film or Hollywood?

Started by Justin Patel · · 👁 3 views · 7 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Justin PatelRichard Hernandez13Robert Cooper41silentpuma25fadedsailor932A
Justin Patel Justin Patel Active MemberOP
117 messages
joined Sep 2003
#1 ·
I'm not sure if any of you have ever actually held either of these two film magazines in your hands, but I'm curious—if you have, which one do you think is better? I'm currently in New York City and just picked up their total film; they look identical, even down to the cover... well, they will be once the spring edition hits the stands. So, I'd say I'm giving the edge to Hollywood since it feels more authentic.
Richard Hernandez13 Richard Hernandez13 Regular
269 messages
joined May 2004
#2 ·
Total film covers nothing but the mainstream Anglo-American circuit. It’s all big blockbusters and very little actual substance.

Hollywood—honestly, the graphic design is just a disaster (it's an absolute eyesore). The writing feels weak too; it used to be much better back in the day, but now it seems like it's mostly just anonymous filler.
Robert Cooper41 Robert Cooper41 Member
47 messages
joined Dec 2002
#3 ·
I mean, if you’re already hanging around New York City, why not just pick up a copy of Sight & Sound, or maybe grab some American versions like Film Comment or Film Maker?

A few years back, there was this fantastic American magazine called Neon—it had such engaging perspectives, those wonderfully eccentric deep dives into "cult" classics, and gorgeous vintage posters... but unfortunately, it didn't stay around for very long. 😁 😁

PS. And look, regarding the subject at hand, I did actually flip through both of those magazines I mentioned... and I wasn't exactly blown away (to put it mildly 😁). Total film and the original edition feel way too "straightforward," nothing more than glorified propaganda pieces without any real backbone or opinion, and frankly, I can barely even remember what Hollywood used to be like. 😁 🙄
silentpuma25 silentpuma25 Member
23 messages
joined Apr 2003
#4 ·
Honestly, Hollywood feels kind of amateurish and exhausting sometimes, whereas Paramount Pictures is just full of gorgeous stills and decent little write-ups—plus they actually have a solid lineup of American writers who don't just copy-paste everyone else's reviews—so yeah, I’d say Paramount Pictures is the better pick
even if my absolute favorites used to be the Nomads and their... let's call them "highly objective" obsessions 😁
Richard Hernandez13 Richard Hernandez13 Regular
269 messages
joined May 2004
#5 ·
silentpuma25 said:...even if my absolute favorites were the Nomad crew and their (cough) very "objective" obsessions (cough) 😁

Speaking of Nomad—Joseph Viskovic used to write for them (he actually put out some pretty solid pieces over in Hollywood, too).
Now that Nomad is gone, does anyone happen to know if he’s still writing anywhere else?

Paramount Pictures is honestly such amateur hour; I honestly have no clue how they've managed to stay afloat in the market all these years.
😕
fadedsailor932 fadedsailor932 Active Member
101 messages
joined Oct 2004
#6 ·
...I'm definitely voting for Paramount Pictures. Hollywood has honestly gone downhill lately... Sure, they mess up sometimes, but it seems to be happening more often than not. It's not like Paramount is perfect or anything, but they actually cover all the big mainstream hits, plus they throw in some cool extra stuff (like that great piece on "film thieves" in the last issue). So, if you just want the basics👍

You should also consider Comcast, which comes out once a month (some video rental places even give it to members for free). It gives you a quick rundown of all the new DVDs and movies coming out... Nothing fancy, but at least you know what's hitting the shelves that month....
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#7 ·
I’m buying both, honestly. I totally agree that Hollywood has gone downhill—especially when you look at how they used to write actor profiles versus how they do it now. It feels like any average journalist can churn out a piece these days, regardless of whether they actually know a thing about cinema or if they're just scraping info together. On the other hand, Paramount Pictures has incredible imagery; visually, it puts Hollywood to shame, though visual flair was never really Hollywood's strongest suit anyway. That said, my heart stays with the good old days of Hollywood, back when the real experts were still calling the shots. 👍
Richard Hernandez13 Richard Hernandez13 Regular
269 messages
joined May 2004
#8 ·
Honestly, we only have a tiny handful of truly talented film journalists here in the States. Everything just seemed to go downhill once the internet took over, because now any random person can just scrape half-baked information off some website and call it news. On top of that, editors at most major daily and weekly newspapers tend to treat film journalism like it’s nothing more than celebrity gossip—you know, just endless coverage of who’s getting married, who’s splitting up, or who’s out there making headlines for being high or drunk on set... just that kind of nonsense.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads