In this threadShirley Ujest said about Starsky & Hutch:
Now, this isn’t meant to be a pitting of Madame Ujest’s opinion, but I do wonder whether people are becoming less and less capable of enjoying empty, wholly visceral movies. I know I can. Should I be considered an idiot or a ‘mullet’ because I enjoyed S&H or Starship Troopers or because I don’t particularly mind senseless violence in the movies?
Are we getting too discriminating? It seems to me that everyone would be better off if they were more capable of just sitting back and watching a shallow movie on its own terms. Shallowly.
I don’t think that people are expecting too much from movies nowadays, but I agree that, in general, movies aren’t any worse than they used to be. It seems that way, sometimes, because hardly anyone talks about the big stinker screwball comedies of 1947. They existed. And while old westerns may have had a smaller bodycount, less rock on the soundtrack, and no explosions, they could be just as simplistic in plot and character as today’s action films.
There’s nothing wrong with empty “popcorn” flicks that are entirely silly gag or action driven, as long as you can appreciate more sophisticated films on occasion. There is something wrong with you, however, if you liked the cinematic act of bukkake that was Starship Troopers.
No, the mere fact that those “crapfest” movies make money shows that not all of us have to have deep, life-affirming experiences when we go to the movies. There’s a certain subset of people who thinks anyone who enjoys something they find stupid is also stupid. I like Shirley Ujest, but I can’t agree with her opinion that we’re idiots if we enjoy shallow movies.
I don’t like stupid movies, so I don’t watch them. Bathroom jokes and cheap innuendo aren’t funny to me so I go to the local independent theater. It’s my preference. I don’t think my expectations are too high.
That said, if you like Starsky and Hutch or Charlie’s Angels, more power to you. I wouldn’t assume you’re stupid because you like that kind of thing. I’ll never see what the attraction is, but that’s just me.
I think the biggest problem in Hollywood is the “get on the bandwagon factor”. Spiderman make a ton of money at the theater and every Marvel property from Scarlet Witch to Fantastic Four is being sold to a studio for production. Remember Deep Impact and Armageddon? Volcano and The Core? The Passon of Christ is a big hit and we are likely to get a ton of religious period pieces. Hollywood needs to find an original script, assemble a talented team of actors and film the stupid movie. This happens from time to time, then the original idea is copied 20X over.
The next largest factor is the reliance on special effects. Remember when the effects in Jurrasic Park wowed you in the theater? So many directors have overused effects since that time, that if they don’t do them just right, they look bad and take away from the movie.
I think that most comedies lately have been terrible. The script writers seem to have tired of writing new material.
My honest impression is that movies today are actually quite a bit better than they were fifteen to twenty years ago. The general calibre of movies in the 1980s wasn’t as good as it is today. There were lots of great movies, of course, but the bad ones were quite a bit worse than the bad ones today, and a lot of movies look really bad now that looked good then. I watched “To Live and Die In L.A.” a few weeks ago and couldn’t believe how crappy it was.
I think movies today are as good as they’ve ever been, just as good as they were during the high point of the 1970s. Sure, they still make crap, but they made crap then, too.
Are we too discriminating? I think the SDMB tends to draw a lot of posters - I don’t include Shirley Ujest here, since I have not read the original comment - who get an ego boost out of talking about they they are so much smarter than the Unwashed Masses and the proof is in that they hated “Forrest Gump.” How hating a movie makes you smart I don’t know, but it seems to be a common argument. But that’s no different from someone saying they’re a genius and everyone else is an idiot because they like P.J. Harvey while everyone else like Britney, or what have you. But that isn’t necessarily reflective of the general population. In general, I think most people CAN enjoy a mindless, pure-fun movie on its own merits. Of course, some mindless movies are good, and some aren’t so good.
I like all movies. Last week I went and saw Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Eurotrip on the same day. My favorite movies are Zoolander, The Battleship Potemkin, Igby Goes Down, and Sense and Sensability. The only reason I mention all that is proof. I really enjoy every type of movie.
What’s the point of all that? I’m in film school which basically means that I can never tell anybody what type of movies that I enjoy. If you don’t like Darren Aronofsky you’re some sort of idiot. If you don’t like Darren Aronofsky and you DO like Steven Spielberg you shouldn’t technically be able to walk upright. It’s kind of tiresome. I think it’s a good thing if you have the ability to enjoy a wide variety of things. That’s more of a rant than anything, I guess.
As for the question? Nah, movies aren’t getting worse. If fifty years nobody will remember movies like Charlies Angels or Hulk (I don’t expect) and all we will have is a series of oscar winners and oscar nominees. That’s my guess. In a few generations this will be the golden age of film.
People always seem to think that the current scene for whatever art is the worst in history. It’s understandable since the dreck is discarded and usually forgotten.
Though I’ll admit that when I see ads on TV for “The Swan,” I really fear for civilization.
What we need are more good bad movies. The same middlebrow audiences that are content to enjoy CGI ubber alles will disparage clever but low budget bad movies such as *Freddy Got Fingered[i/] or Kung Pow - Enter the Fist. Discrimination based on taste is meaningless. However, discrimination based on how much money the producers threw at a stupid idea is valid.
And as for classics: sure, everybody gushes about the Shakespearean antecedents for Forbidden Planet, but deride Robot Monster becuase all the producers could afford is a gorilla suit and a diving helmet. Never mind that its dialog has a lot of great commentary on the nature of totalitarianism.
It’s not bad movies that are the problem. It’s that the money wasted on a few blockbuster bad movies could be better spent on dozens of smaller yet exsquisitley shitty movies, allowing for a higher rotation rate on grind house screens all across this great nation.
I might not know much about the movie business, being the modern-day equivalent to a hermit or mountain-man, but it seems to me the “movies” as they were once know, no longer exist! (for the most part, with some exceptions) What “Hollywood” is foisting on us are nothing but feature-length videos, info-mercials, product placement/marketing tie-in opportunitys I would swear that the sole purpose for damn near everything Disney has put out in the last 2 decades is to sell toys, happy-meals and video cassettes. We are queing up and forking out big money to watch commercials!
Consider my all-time, most-hated “still-pisses-me-off-that-I-paid-to-see-and-still-want-my-money-back-years-later” film* The Blair Witch Project. This was not a movie. This was not entertainment. It was mearly the last stage in a marketing campaign and the point of collection of your money. We were duped! I’m still pissed about it! In my opinion, the movie industry is just a huge game of Three Card Monty.
This thread has made me happy.
Another board I’m part of tends to have people that enjoy only the “higher/better” forms of music and film. It gets old the 50th time you’ve seen someone trashed because they made the mistake of mentioning they like _____.
Another factor to think about is the money aspect. Going to the movies at this point is darn pricey. If I am dropping 2 or 3 bucks on a rental that turns out to stink, no big deal. I drop 20 or 30 (assuming a date and snacks) on a bad movie, I am more apt to feel taken advantage of and insulted.
Part of the reason I left a group I’d been a part of for years was the snobbery. EVERYTHING that came out sucked. They had numerous threads on how the LotR movies SUCKED!!!1! and how the books were so way better and anyone who disagreed would be flamed and shouted down. When it got to the point that I dreaded movie releases because of the whining and flames, I knew it was time to leave.
What you’re failing to grasp is that an ‘all-CGI, no-plot’ movie osually succeeds at its primary goal - to be pretty eyecandy. And pretty eyecandy is entertaining in its own right.
Crap like Freddy Got Fingered fails at its primary goal - to be funny. An unfunny comedy has no redeeming features.
One thing I like about the SDMB is the sheer eclecticism of tastes represented. Death Race 2000 resides proudly on my DVD shelf, but I also really like Endless Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which I just saw.
Exactly! I’d watch an action movie every week if all of them were as much fun as, say, The Last Boy Scout.
Yeah, but no one would care if it wasn’t a decent movie.
The gorilla suit is just a great hook. This “commentary” doesn’t save it from being a horrifically stupid movie, sorry. The last seven people on Earth living like a mile away from the cave where the alien lurks, that alien who killed off the rest of the planet? Yeah.
Are you kidding me? Expect too much? We just sit back and consume while they shovel the crap at us. I don’t know how we could expect any less.
And what do you care if someone throws out the word idiot? I think the people who lapped up Charlie’s Angles are idiots too. But I don’t mean that specifically or literally, nor do I think those who also use it mean it that way. The list of people who enjoyed it include my girlfriend and one of my best friends. I think they are sadly deluded, but hardly idiots. It’s a rhetorical device, don’t take it personally. Why so defensive?
I don’t think movies are getting any worse.
I think there are a ton more movies per year than before.
Thus, you get the normal distribution as before, but you get like 10 times as many bad ones.
I do not see many movies. I prefer sci-fi, fantasy and dang funny (my idea of funny, which is a goofy/wierd, huh? kind of funny) movies with little gore.
So I tend to see few movies.
I really think lots of people just have too much time and/or money on their hands and need something, ANYTHING to do. So they spend their time and money on movies or TV. So they go see a bad movie. Shrug. And go see the next bad one again.
where the alien lurks, that alien who killed off the rest of the planet? Yeah.