Does today's generation "see/understand" TV and movies differently?

[batguy]

Social media cancel-culture? That doesn't exactly give you a representative picture of young people today. It's a sounding board that brings out the ones with the biggest grudges, gripes, immaturity, etc.

It's like watching Rush Limbaugh & Bill O'Reilly shows and then making assumptions about the average baby boomer.

 

[Cephus]

The issue is the response to legitimate criticism and the next generation's desire to define itself.

I realize every generation has to rebel to establish an identity, and people who are new to Star Wars, Star Trek or Dr. Who (for instance) *want* their version to be better than the previous. New material needs to be more shocking, gritty; like Emeril's "taking it up a notch!"

...but the instant anyone doesn't like the new version, and offers legit criticism, they are subjected to a free psychiatric evaluation that is really just attacking the messenger to delegitimatize very true criticism.

This is how the world works now, don't like a criticism, attack with a tangent that the disagree-er hopes gains traction. The best defense is a good offense.

Unfortunately true and it goes for a lot more than TV shows. When someone disagrees, call them a Nazi. Never engage with the criticism to find the truth, yell and scream and try to ruin the other person so that you don't have to feel bad.

It's utterly childish but that's the world that we live in today.

 

[Picard102]

I am almost 40. I'm not particularly "young" by society's standards but I grew up watching the same movies on VHS, and late 80's and 90's television. But I would probably disagree with the assertions that a lot of the media now is dreck. So maybe you need to have grown up watching 60's and 70's TV and film to not have an appreciation for media today? I know I find a lot of TV and Film from that era to be borderline unwatchable, and don't have as much of an issue with modern TV and film as others seem too who may have grown up with that content.

This is how the world works now, don't like a criticism, attack with a tangent that the disagree-er hopes gains traction. The best defense is a good offense.

This thread is a good example of that. We are one page in and we have people calling others names for not agreeing with their opinion.

 

[Strikerkc]

I think it's the same now as it's ever been.

Anything that is essentially "why is the more bad stuff now than before?" is based in the fact that all the old terrible stuff from decades past has been forgotten and dropped from rotation.
Music in the 70's and 80's wasn't better. We just don't play the garbage music from those decades on our 70's and 80's radio stations and playlists.
Same goes for TV. In 2032 we'll be talking about how great tv was in the 2010's, and in the 2040's we'll put stuff from this year on a pedestal.

Just how it goes.

 

[blewis17]

Some great conversation here. I do feel that today's younger audiences see or, better yet, INTERPRET modern TV and film through a much different lens than we did in the 1970s and 1980s. The times affect your worldview; the Vietnam War undoubtedly had strong influences on audiences of the 1970s, as much as it did on the creators of those projects. There was desire to not trust government, to (ahem) REBEL.

The 1980s capitalistic growth of the economy influenced a style of "anything is possible/obtainable", affluence seemed more within reach of the common man. 80s movies by-and-large reflected that.

I agree that a good story is..... well, a good story. How it is presented, and in what particular medium, determines how it will be accepted by the public. My favorite film of all time is the original Star Wars. It is a good, self-contained story. Not to get too Joseph Campbell in this place, but a large part of its success is the underlying Hero's Journey that exists in multiple cultures, throughout many generations. The way Star Wars was presented was groundbreaking due to the pioneering advances in the medium (filmmaking and special effects).

Today's audiences are deluged with entertainment from multiple points of access, and so I wonder if things are less "special"; hence a paradigm shift. For example, Jurassic World: Dominion was released in the U.S. on June 10th. One moth later, it's available for viewing on streaming services.

 

[blewis17]

Unfortunately true and it goes for a lot more than TV shows. When someone disagrees, call them a Nazi. Never engage with the criticism to find the truth, yell and scream and try to ruin the other person so that you don't have to feel bad.

It's utterly childish but that's the world that we live in today.

I agree. Overall, there seems to be a dumbing down of legitimate discourse among multiple fields; it's just faster and more emotionally explosive to be childish with one's response.

As master Yoda said, the dark side is not stronger, but: " No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive"

 

[Psab keel]

Every story now has to be a 12 part epic too. That will certainly dumb down the quality with enough time. How many incredible stories were a single film that didn't demand a sequel or spin off or reboot.l? Tell a great story, but equally important, know when to end it!

 

[Cephus]

Today's audiences are deluged with entertainment from multiple points of access, and so I wonder if things are less "special"; hence a paradigm shift. For example, Jurassic World: Dominion was released in the U.S. on June 10th. One moth later, it's available for viewing on streaming services.

It was also complete garbage.

 

[Psab keel]

Jurassic Park is the PERFECT example of a one and done premise. I don't think the idea warranted any sequels, much less seven, whether that was the novels or the films.

The first one was great! A cautionary tale of mankind's hubris causing the deaths of innocents because he couldn't control his ambition. What a great theme! Action packed, at times scary, at times funny, and full of interesting characters. What a fun movie!

What's the theme of the subsequent movies? Dinosaur action! New and improved digital effects! Money!!!!!! Look everyone, we didn't learn anything from the previous 20 movies! Let's just keep playing God and try to bring dinosaurs back to life in the modern era! Everyone in those movies is an idiot. If they didn't learn by the end of the first movie to just leave well enough alone then every single character who thought it was still a good idea deserved to die. Morons.

 

[batguy]

I gotta disagree about JP being a single-movie premise.

Have you ever read Crichton's book version of 'Lost World'? It was somewhat different from the movie and it had scientific messages. Recreating the dinos & plants was not enough to reconstruct the whole ecosystem they were once in. The modern dinos were never parented by original dinos and they didn't repeat the same patterns & raise their new babies like they should have. Etc. And there was more in the orignial JP book too. There is more to say about the subject of cloning extinct animals than what the Spielberg movie covered in 1993.

Even aside from that, some premises make great action movies and that's okay. Should they never make another earthquake or tornado movie unless they can find something scientifically fresh to say about the subject?

Dinosaurs running wild in the modern world is an awesome premise for a franchise, period. It looks disappointing right now because they aren't delivering adequate quality.

 

[Psab keel]

I never read the books so I can't comment on them specifically. I was commenting more on the film franchise. I saw the original in the theater a few times and on home video a few times after. I really enjoyed it. I saw the second one (I can't even remember the name) and it was awful. I tried watching the first one with Chris Pratt and it was so bad the Mrs. and I shut it off about twenty minutes in. I was rooting for those two kids to get eaten by the dinosaurs. lol I haven't seen any of the others because they just don't interest me enough to bother giving them a shot. Though I would watch a spoof where the dinosaurs win and eat everyone in hilarious ways or a live action DinoRiders because both would be hysterical. That would be super entertaining!

I just don't get the appeal of seeing dinosaurs running rampant in the city streets (because it's been done to death with other monster movies) if we're supposed to take it seriously, or even on a remote island trying to reopen the original park. I just don't care. Clearly there's a market for these movies and they can make whatever they want. Same with disaster movies. Though I think both genres are always the same and offer very little in the way of any new types of thrills or interest, regardless of any new scientific discoveries. You yourself said the films have lacked quality, so what good have the endless sequels done other than to water down an interesting premise, especially if the books have far more to offer and they stray so far from the source material?

Disaster films are even worse. Roland Emmerich has built his entire career on making and remaking the same movies, only changing the type of disaster. That's one genre of movie I can do without. The dead beat dad needs a worldwide catastrophe to reconnect with his children or his ex wife, or both, despite having been a deadbeat for years and one situation corrects his errant ways. If crisis is averted they all reunite and no one has any lingering resentment towards him that had built up prior to the disaster. If the world ends, at least they can die as a family or with a shred of dignity, knowing they love one another. They are all the same. Monotonous slogs. Ugh.... lol

 

[batguy]

Any genre will seem worthless if it's only getting worthless content. I don't think that really says much about its potential.

 

[pengbuzz]

Disaster films are even worse. Roland Emmerich has built his entire career on making and remaking the same movies, only changing the type of disaster. That's one genre of movie I can do without. The dead beat dad needs a worldwide catastrophe to reconnect with his children or his ex wife, or both, despite having been a deadbeat for years and one situation corrects his errant ways. If crisis is averted they all reunite and no one has any lingering resentment towards him that had built up prior to the disaster. If the world ends, at least they can die as a family or with a shred of dignity, knowing they love one another. They are all the same. Monotonous slogs. Ugh.... lol

On that note: for some weird reason, I like disaster movies where the world actually ends. Not just "everything on the planet is gone", but the planet itself crumbled into tiny bits and those bits scattered throughout space. Continents broken to pieces and just floating around where the planet used to be...that sort of thing.

Or, in a gif:

 

[pengbuzz]

double post

 

[CB2001]

On that note: for some weird reason, I like disaster movies where the world actually ends. Not just "everything on the planet is gone", but the planet itself crumbled into tiny bits and those bits scattered throughout space. Continents broken to pieces and just floating around where the planet used to be...that sort of thing.

Or, in a gif:

View attachment 1598580

Ah, so you're a HHGTTG fan!

 

[Psab keel]

Any genre will seem worthless if it's only getting worthless content. I don't think that really says much about its potential.

Some premises and genres are pretty limited though. There's really only so much you can do with a disaster movie before it feels depressing or monotonous. Don't look up was somewhat funny and then depressing. This is the End was bleak and then bizzarre. Independence Day, and every other Emmerich movie is the same. War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise was meh. So change the disaster from aliens, to volcanos, to a new ice age, but it doesn't do much for me. I can see potential in lots of stories, thus my frustration with so many of them because it's squandered. Then again people find value in different things so a disaster movie or Jurrassic Park 72 may appeal to them. They just don't appeal to me.

I get what you're saying though. Someone may feel for example, that all horror movies are the same when I can see loads of potential in the genre and subgenres it produced. Everyone's tastes differ and what appeals to me may be a bore to you. What it always boils down to for me is the writing. That's always been my contention with so much of the content produced today. If something is well written, no matter what the subject matter, I'm likely to give it a chance.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

One honest thing I have noticed is:

• Movie quality has severely sunk over the past 15 years or so as studios must market more expensive films to the lowest common denominator: the global market. Thus sequels, reboots, endlessly repetitive MCU movies, etc. that have universal appeal and recognizable branding. No risks are happening at the cinema.
• Non-Network Television Quality—overall--has never been better than it is now. Anyone who honestly believes that we had a lot more quality TV shows over the past 40-50 years is dramatically mis-remembering things. Go back and try to re-watch Lost in Space, The A-Team, Knight Rider, Airwolf, The Bionic Man, The Bionic Woman, Starsky and Hutch, Chips, Riptide, Alice, Gilligan’s Island, Happy Days, The Fall Guy, Mork and Mindy, Three’s Company, The Love Boat…most of these shows are utter crap and we know it. Only a few decades-old shows are still watchable , have stood the test of time, and are designated as true “Classics” such as I love Lucy, The Honeymooners, Mission: Impossible, Star Trek, Twilight Zone, Star Trek: TNG, Star Trek: DS9, M*A*S*H, The Outer Limits, Night Gallery, etc.

People complain that TV is utter crap now and was soooo much better years ago, but I have to disagree. There is a lot of great television out there, made within the past decade or so, with excellent writing, acting, production quality, etc.: Nu-Battlestar Galactica, Mad Men, For All Mankind, Severance, Stranger Things, Handmaid’s Tale, The Sinner, Ozark, etc. These shows blow most of the television made in the prior 40-50 years out of the water and I’m not just talking about production quality…I’m talking about writing, acting, and just overall quality.

Movies on the other hand…they are definitely in terrible shape. I have only seen ONE excellent and memorable movie in the past 2 years, and that was the most recent version of Dune.

 

[Krieger]

I watched Monsieur Verdoux yesterday for the first time. The movie took a great risk, and the rest is as they say, history.

I can imagine Hedda Hopper in this era giving her readers and interested parties the full treatment on this movie beyond print, since we all know print is no longer a thing.

That said, some would also say the movie is ‘old’ - and by some miracle, so am I

Time has a way of showing us things through a different lens. In the end, my interests are simple, so I watch and read what interests me, and try with the few hours I have away from a computer console, to learn how to garden as a hobby, since I realize there is more to growing flowers than just adding water.

All the content going out now is truly a window of this time, so I take it as it comes. One persons like is another persons dislike, as with Charlie Chaplin’s movies.

 

[Cephus]

One honest thing I have noticed is:

• Television Quality—overall-has never been better than it is now. Anyone who honestly believes that we had a lot more quality TV shows over the past 40-50 years is dramatically mis-remembering things. Go back and try to re-watch Lost in Space, The A-Team, Knight Rider, Airwolf, The Bionic Man, The Bionic Woman, Starsky and Hutch, Chips, Riptide, Alice, Gilligan’s Island, Happy Days, The Fall Guy, Mork and Mindy, Three’s Company, The Love Boat…most of these shows are utter crap and we know it. Only a few shows are still watchable , have stood the test of time, and are designated as true “Classics” such as I love Lucy, The Honeymooners, Mission: Impossible, Star Trek, Twilight Zone, Star Trek: TNG, Star Trek: DS9, The Outer Limits, Night Gallery, etc.

Disagree. The problem that we see is that a lot of people lack the capacity to watch things IN THE CONTEXT of the time they were made. I just rewatched both Six Million Dollar Man and Bionic Woman and, IN THE CONTEXT of their time, both are still very enjoyable. You can't compare the writing or the effects to modern efforts because they weren't made in the modern era. They are 50 year old shows. You have to be able to look at them with 50 year old eyes and they're just as good as they ever were.

In another 50 years, people are going to look at what is considered good today and not be very appreciative. Just taking these shows and looking at the structure, they just don't stand up. "I like it now" isn't the same thing as "it's objectively good".

 

[Captain Dunsel]

Disagree. The problem that we see is that a lot of people lack the capacity to watch things IN THE CONTEXT of the time they were made. I just rewatched both Six Million Dollar Man and Bionic Woman and, IN THE CONTEXT of their time, both are still very enjoyable. You can't compare the writing or the effects to modern efforts because they weren't made in the modern era. They are 50 year old shows. You have to be able to look at them with 50 year old eyes and they're just as good as they ever were.

In another 50 years, people are going to look at what is considered good today and not be very appreciative. Just taking these shows and looking at the structure, they just don't stand up. "I like it now" isn't the same thing as "it's objectively good".

I refer you back to my post #9 in this thread.