= Jupiter Ascending
What is wrong with movies today?
- Thread starter Fenris
- Start date
If you really think about it, movies started getting worse when they transitioned from practical effects to relying solely on CGI for even the smallest effect. Case and point....the close up of Superman in Superman Returns that was CLEARLY and unnecessarily CGI. Just cause. Not that that was why the movie was a flop, but an example none the less.
Fenris
Well-Known Member
Just as I said, movie studios want to produce movies that will cater to a broader audience... That means fast pacing, lots of special effects, simple plot, hot babes, hot guys, explosions and such.
They cut the script down to the bare minimum, most of the time forgetting to include scenes that could've explained some parts of the movie.
And movies like Transformers are made to cater to kids and adults (who grew up watching the original cartoon). Kids have short attention spans (I blame that on cartoons like spongebob and other worthless slapstick toons out there) so the writers dumb down the script to good guys vs bad guys + a weapon that could alter the balance + hot babe (for the male adults). Honestly, to enjoy Transformers you have to have the IQ of a 6yr old or you're just an incredibly horny dude (for the Megan Fox parts).
My conclusion is: they sacrifice story for fast pacing and special effects to cater to a broader audience making what could've been a great movie into a bad one.
They cut the script down to the bare minimum, most of the time forgetting to include scenes that could've explained some parts of the movie.
And movies like Transformers are made to cater to kids and adults (who grew up watching the original cartoon). Kids have short attention spans (I blame that on cartoons like spongebob and other worthless slapstick toons out there) so the writers dumb down the script to good guys vs bad guys + a weapon that could alter the balance + hot babe (for the male adults). Honestly, to enjoy Transformers you have to have the IQ of a 6yr old or you're just an incredibly horny dude (for the Megan Fox parts).
My conclusion is: they sacrifice story for fast pacing and special effects to cater to a broader audience making what could've been a great movie into a bad one.
I wouldn't say it's just all cartoons and TV, there's plenty of stuff when I was a kid that was plenty terrible that I watched and I turned out fine. I think it more a societal issue now with kids growing up in a day and age where everything and everyone is connected to each other in ways that were dreams of the past. I'm part of the last generation to grow up in a time without the internet; I still remember writing actual letters on pen and paper, I remember when being taught the Dewey Decimal system in school was a big deal otherwise you wouldn't know how to go about the library when you needed to research something, and cellphones where no more than bricks and almost nobody used them.
All that's changed now, dramatically, in just my lifespan, which is comparatively shorter to some others on the board here. What I mean to say is that kids growing up now are more able to absorb information faster and from multiple sources, at once. I'm no doctor but from just observation, I think this progressive societal conditioning is the progenator to the rise of ADD/ADHD among the youth. Because there's so much information to take in from so many different sources, it's only natural then for people now to have a harder time focusing on one thing for any length of time. If your big tentpole movie is targeted for the young demographic, it's only smart business to tailor your film to meet their tastes, despite what a detriment it might be to the film overall. If it makes a good return, who cares what anyone thinks? It's the nature of the beast, now.
Again, to reiterate, this doesn't mean that good "adult" movies still aren't being made. It's just fewer are made and many are drowned out in the noisy crowd of the big blockbusters. Considering that so many of these movies are now compartmentalized to fit in with seasons of the year; summer movies are starting earlier and earlier, now. At this rate, I wouldn't doubt that we're gonna start seeing these big movies almost all year round in the near future.
All that's changed now, dramatically, in just my lifespan, which is comparatively shorter to some others on the board here. What I mean to say is that kids growing up now are more able to absorb information faster and from multiple sources, at once. I'm no doctor but from just observation, I think this progressive societal conditioning is the progenator to the rise of ADD/ADHD among the youth. Because there's so much information to take in from so many different sources, it's only natural then for people now to have a harder time focusing on one thing for any length of time. If your big tentpole movie is targeted for the young demographic, it's only smart business to tailor your film to meet their tastes, despite what a detriment it might be to the film overall. If it makes a good return, who cares what anyone thinks? It's the nature of the beast, now.
Again, to reiterate, this doesn't mean that good "adult" movies still aren't being made. It's just fewer are made and many are drowned out in the noisy crowd of the big blockbusters. Considering that so many of these movies are now compartmentalized to fit in with seasons of the year; summer movies are starting earlier and earlier, now. At this rate, I wouldn't doubt that we're gonna start seeing these big movies almost all year round in the near future.
glunark
Sr Member
Two points.
1: Noone sets out to make a bad movie.
2 Bad movies have existed for as long as movies has existed.
Thinking that movies are worse now then when we were kids is like thinking crime is worse now.
Also at the end of the day, liking a film is all subjective, your classic could be my bag of ****e, and visa versa.
1: Noone sets out to make a bad movie.
2 Bad movies have existed for as long as movies has existed.
Thinking that movies are worse now then when we were kids is like thinking crime is worse now.
Also at the end of the day, liking a film is all subjective, your classic could be my bag of ****e, and visa versa.
People who always complain about lack of good movies these days need to actually start watching more new movies. Perhaps beyond franchises and big movies.
Yes there are bad, mediocre, good and great franchise/big budget movies too. But the way people complain about modern movies and mostly around the topic of big budget movies, seems like they aren't giving any consideration to the smaller good movies in general.
Yes there are bad, mediocre, good and great franchise/big budget movies too. But the way people complain about modern movies and mostly around the topic of big budget movies, seems like they aren't giving any consideration to the smaller good movies in general.
Fenris
Well-Known Member
Oh, I'm just complaining about the mainstream, big movies. You know, the Marvel, DC, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc...
Surprisingly, the movie I didn't have high hopes for was the one that I really liked for last year, Guardians of the Galaxy.
There are a lot of good movies out there, I'm sure.
Surprisingly, the movie I didn't have high hopes for was the one that I really liked for last year, Guardians of the Galaxy.
There are a lot of good movies out there, I'm sure.
You pay you're money and you take your choice. Some films I will see on the day of their release because I want to see them. And often the people who are with you on day one are fans as well, so it creates a better experience. The atmosphere for "GOTG" was fantastic. And I feel paying top dollar for a great film rewards the studio. If I'm uncertain I'll go off peak if I can. In "KIngsman's" case it was simply the weather held me up, but there were still a few in and everyone laughed in the right places ( even if some of them seemed terrible wrong to laugh at!)
Sometimes I won't post my opinion on a film if I think it'll effect the impact undeservedly.A case in point might be "Ex Machina". If you are expecting a terminator style actioner with a hot female robot DO NOT go see this film!!!! I thought it was a thought provoking and quite claustraphobic thriller that plays tense mind games with its very small cast. Its main theme was nothing too original by the genre standards but the way it was directed was. The effects were outstanding, though limited to the depiction of the "robot" build not endless CGI action pieces, and the actress that played her did wonderful work . Also the very good news is the two SW VII actors in it are great, Oscar Issacs particularly is almost unrecognisable. I doubt it will make a huge box office though and will likely get some negative reviews from people expecting a very different kind of film. When I think of how this dealt with human beings and their respounce to their creations and think about the similarly themed "Westworld" I smile at just how far films have actually come.
Plenty of great films out there. its just that often people won't pay to see them these days during release and wait for the likes of Netflix or Amazon. And by then the discussion party is mostly over
Sometimes I won't post my opinion on a film if I think it'll effect the impact undeservedly.A case in point might be "Ex Machina". If you are expecting a terminator style actioner with a hot female robot DO NOT go see this film!!!! I thought it was a thought provoking and quite claustraphobic thriller that plays tense mind games with its very small cast. Its main theme was nothing too original by the genre standards but the way it was directed was. The effects were outstanding, though limited to the depiction of the "robot" build not endless CGI action pieces, and the actress that played her did wonderful work . Also the very good news is the two SW VII actors in it are great, Oscar Issacs particularly is almost unrecognisable. I doubt it will make a huge box office though and will likely get some negative reviews from people expecting a very different kind of film. When I think of how this dealt with human beings and their respounce to their creations and think about the similarly themed "Westworld" I smile at just how far films have actually come.
Plenty of great films out there. its just that often people won't pay to see them these days during release and wait for the likes of Netflix or Amazon. And by then the discussion party is mostly over
Solo4114
Master Member
I find that, while I still have a taste for the best of the "big budget" movies, I just take a very dim view of most other "big budget" films that are attempting to catch my eye (but failing). I can certainly enjoy a wide range of films and television, but within that particular genre (action/adventure/comic-book/blockbuster style films), the ones that get made seem to be fairly craptastic more often now.
While it's absolutely true that every era has had its share of lousy, formulaic films, my sense is that things have shifted in the modern era, thanks to ever more granular information that companies can glean from social media and other data mining, and an ever stronger impulse to just go with whatever brings quick cash in. Maybe I'm only seeing it clearly now, but there seems to be a far, far more cynical approach to making and marketing these types of films, and much of it seems to carry an undercurrent that assumes the audience is chiefly comprised of low-grade morons. I want to believe that people want better than what they're getting and are simply "settling" for what's produced, but the simple fact is that, settling or not, they're still paying, so all the industry sees is a continued path to quick cash.
That said, I do think that I can be a bit harsh on the industry, and that projects which are legitimately risky -- even in the big budget arena -- are being made. Guardians of the Galaxy was a HUGE risk. NOBODY knows that team. It's a bit-player in the comics industry. I mean, yeah, hardcore comics fans know it...but hardcore comics fans aren't what's driving Marvel Studios' releases. The real beauty of Marvel's films, though, is that -- while they don't slavishly follow the comics the way many fans might want -- they do a fantastic job at paying respect to their source material while simultaneously appealing to a broader audience and generally being just entertaining films even if you stripped out the IP (which is always my test for what makes a good movie in these genre films -- can it stand without the benefit of the IP).
Other films like, say, John Carter and The Lone Ranger were BIG risks for Disney. Make no mistake, while these are "known" properties, they're extremely difficult to adapt to modern audiences and I commend Disney for even giving it a shot, regardless of the end product (which, in both cases, I thought was far more entertaining than the reviews made them out to be...although at best, it was more along the "Eh, not bad" line).
I think within the genres, the biggest "problems" are that the studios assume that all you have to do is slap an IP on an otherwise crappy film, and you're done. And while, yes, that can make money, it's pure laziness. And there are good films out there -- good, IP-based films, I should say -- that show you can respect your source material, revive or reuse an IP, and still tell a damn fine story. It's just that a lot of franchise films don't seem as interested in that, in some degree. Like, the new Star Trek films, in my opinion, are generally entertaining films. They just aren't Star Trek films to me, and the veneer of the IP is largely pointless. I'd probably enjoy them more if they weren't called "Star Trek," because I wouldn't be unfavorably comparing them or rolling my eyes at the "shout outs" to the original material. So that's a failure of respecting source material. Other films like anything Michael Bay has any connection to seem to spit in the eye of the audience in so many ways that it makes me angry at the audience for going to see these films and not recognizing that Bay has such utter contempt for his customers. I mean, I really get the sense that Michael Bay hates film-goers. Either that, or he's emotionless and simply produces films comprised of elements that seem to jack directly into audience's mental pleasure centers, chief among them: explosions and slow-mo pans of cleavage.
While it's absolutely true that every era has had its share of lousy, formulaic films, my sense is that things have shifted in the modern era, thanks to ever more granular information that companies can glean from social media and other data mining, and an ever stronger impulse to just go with whatever brings quick cash in. Maybe I'm only seeing it clearly now, but there seems to be a far, far more cynical approach to making and marketing these types of films, and much of it seems to carry an undercurrent that assumes the audience is chiefly comprised of low-grade morons. I want to believe that people want better than what they're getting and are simply "settling" for what's produced, but the simple fact is that, settling or not, they're still paying, so all the industry sees is a continued path to quick cash.
That said, I do think that I can be a bit harsh on the industry, and that projects which are legitimately risky -- even in the big budget arena -- are being made. Guardians of the Galaxy was a HUGE risk. NOBODY knows that team. It's a bit-player in the comics industry. I mean, yeah, hardcore comics fans know it...but hardcore comics fans aren't what's driving Marvel Studios' releases. The real beauty of Marvel's films, though, is that -- while they don't slavishly follow the comics the way many fans might want -- they do a fantastic job at paying respect to their source material while simultaneously appealing to a broader audience and generally being just entertaining films even if you stripped out the IP (which is always my test for what makes a good movie in these genre films -- can it stand without the benefit of the IP).
Other films like, say, John Carter and The Lone Ranger were BIG risks for Disney. Make no mistake, while these are "known" properties, they're extremely difficult to adapt to modern audiences and I commend Disney for even giving it a shot, regardless of the end product (which, in both cases, I thought was far more entertaining than the reviews made them out to be...although at best, it was more along the "Eh, not bad" line).
I think within the genres, the biggest "problems" are that the studios assume that all you have to do is slap an IP on an otherwise crappy film, and you're done. And while, yes, that can make money, it's pure laziness. And there are good films out there -- good, IP-based films, I should say -- that show you can respect your source material, revive or reuse an IP, and still tell a damn fine story. It's just that a lot of franchise films don't seem as interested in that, in some degree. Like, the new Star Trek films, in my opinion, are generally entertaining films. They just aren't Star Trek films to me, and the veneer of the IP is largely pointless. I'd probably enjoy them more if they weren't called "Star Trek," because I wouldn't be unfavorably comparing them or rolling my eyes at the "shout outs" to the original material. So that's a failure of respecting source material. Other films like anything Michael Bay has any connection to seem to spit in the eye of the audience in so many ways that it makes me angry at the audience for going to see these films and not recognizing that Bay has such utter contempt for his customers. I mean, I really get the sense that Michael Bay hates film-goers. Either that, or he's emotionless and simply produces films comprised of elements that seem to jack directly into audience's mental pleasure centers, chief among them: explosions and slow-mo pans of cleavage.
Cephus
Master Member
I don't know that it's even quick cash, these movies cost such an absurd amount of money that they have to be a blockbuster to even stand a chance of making a profit (yes, we know Hollywood movies don't ever make any money thanks to creative accounting, but still...). Maybe instead of paying big name actors millions of dollars and spending millions more on CGI effects, if they'd just focus on making good movies that would appeal to a wide audience, they'd be more profitable. This "bigger and better and louder" nonsense that Hollywood has been doing for years has diminishing returns after a while. You don't have to keep topping yourself to be profitable.
But that's really part of the problem, most people don't give a damn about the comics, they just want to go see a good movie and GOTG was a good movie, whether anyone knew anything about the comics or not. Most people who went to see that movie have never read a GOTG comic, nor will they ever read a GOTG comic. This is something that Marvel and DC and all the other companies that exist more to sell licenses to their characters than actually make good comics need to figure out. It isn't about their licensed properties, it's about the quality of the films. The majority of people who see an X-Men movie have never read an X-Men comic, the majority of people who see a Batman film have never read Batman. It just doesn't matter. Now I agree that Marvel Studios does a good job of riding that middle line, they make good movies that are good movies without knowing anything of the source material, but they also throw in enough easter eggs to keep the geeks happy too. That's why their films are so successful.
I get tired of people trying to "adapt" things to modern audiences. Either the movie works or it doesn't. If it doesn't work, they shouldn't make it. If they were going to make John Carter, they should have made John Carter. What they made wasn't John Carter. The same goes for Lone Ranger. They did not make a Lone Ranger movie. They're not going to make a Ghostbusters movie. So many of these films are just cash grabs, they think they can make some money with some property they own so they make it, not having the slightest idea what made the original so good, and are shocked when it all falls apart. I'm surprised they haven't tried making an updated Citizen Cane with CGI sled-racing or something. Hollywood doesn't have the slightest idea what makes a good movie most of the time. They just want money.
But that's really the problem with so many modern movies, not only do they not respect the IP, they don't even understand it. They don't look at the property and figure out what made it so popular and then keep those elements, they throw it all out the window, make some CGI fap-fest and slap a name on it and think it will make money. That's where you get the Michael Bay's of the world, who just make movies with tons of CGI and lots of explosions, with no plot and no purpose other than to make a bunch of money at the box office, and unfortunately the worldwide movie viewing audience is generally stupid and they fall for it. Of course, that's why the studios hire Michael Bay, because he makes films that people will go out and see and pay tons of money for. That's all the studios care about, after all. They get their money and art is an afterthought.
gothic
Sr Member
I dont think its a lack a good films just a lack of imagination and thought from the studios in particular when new directors want there own spin on an existing film/franchise for example
1, PUNISHER, PUNISHER WAR ZONE film moves forward the actor changed no problem but they change the whole back story ? it serves no purpose
2, THE THING, THE THING (prequel) that had bigger plot holes than the hole they found the spaceship in, did they not watch the first one ?
3, SUPERMAN, back to the beginning again, between all the films and tv series im sure we know how it started. and can someone have the imagination to think of a villian other than lex luther.
4, SPIDERMAN, the story moves forward and.....were back to how it all started.
5, STAR WARS, to me there is 4,5,6 and 1,2,3 were full of C.G.I and nonsense characters that dragged the story along.
6, THE FANTASTIC FOUR, story moves forward then..........new film starts from the begining.
the marvel series has been good so far IRON MAN, THOR, THE HULK, CAPTAIN AMERICA have had there own movies and tied in with the AVENGERS. I love films but feel cheated when they dont have the imagination to move forward and C.G.I is a tool not the whole toolbox practical effects are amazing and saves actors talking to a tennis ball on a stick.......................rant over
1, PUNISHER, PUNISHER WAR ZONE film moves forward the actor changed no problem but they change the whole back story ? it serves no purpose
2, THE THING, THE THING (prequel) that had bigger plot holes than the hole they found the spaceship in, did they not watch the first one ?
3, SUPERMAN, back to the beginning again, between all the films and tv series im sure we know how it started. and can someone have the imagination to think of a villian other than lex luther.
4, SPIDERMAN, the story moves forward and.....were back to how it all started.
5, STAR WARS, to me there is 4,5,6 and 1,2,3 were full of C.G.I and nonsense characters that dragged the story along.
6, THE FANTASTIC FOUR, story moves forward then..........new film starts from the begining.
the marvel series has been good so far IRON MAN, THOR, THE HULK, CAPTAIN AMERICA have had there own movies and tied in with the AVENGERS. I love films but feel cheated when they dont have the imagination to move forward and C.G.I is a tool not the whole toolbox practical effects are amazing and saves actors talking to a tennis ball on a stick.......................rant over
Good article. It really does sum up the current state of Hollywood.
The film execs know that the average moviegoer sees 5 to 6 fims a year - they are vying for your business with dozens of offerings, competing with quality television and online content. In the past, where there were only a few very big budget movies a year, a failure of one of those films wasn't financially catostrophic to the entire industry, but maybe put a single studio out of business. Now, there are so many $150 million plus films that a string failures at the box office will burst the big budget bubble in a huge way. It won't affect just one studio but the entire film business.
Riceball
Master Member
Exactly! I think that people here are forgetting one thing, the studios aren't in the business of making movies, they're in the business of making and money and movies just happen to be the means of making that money. It's the same with pretty much every industry, they're in business to make money.
Solo4114
Master Member
True, but at the same time, I think it's fair to criticize what Hollywood is producing to make its money. While it's true that Hollywood doesn't as a whole need to rely on the attitudes of a bunch of prop nerds on a web board, they do need to manage their customers. When there's enough noise out there that people are getting tired of endless reboots/remakes/reimaginings and branded properties, the industry needs to wake up and recognize that it needs to start shifting its approach somehow. And sure, the counter-argument is "Yeah, but this stuff keeps making money," but you can't rely only on what works today -- you have to have at least an eye to the future, and an understanding that your formula won't work forever. Right now, the formula is "Find an IP and lacquer it overtop your story to make your story familiar and marketable to audiences." This formula has proven more reliable than, say, focusing on particular stars as box-office draws, or focusing on particular genres and formulaic entries into those genres, because it's a lot more adaptable and the concept of "use an existing brand" is broader than a single genre. But even so, people are noticing that there are a TON of remakes and reboots, and they're getting annoying. It's working fine today, but it's not going to last forever.
Ultimately, I think the biggest criticism I have is not of the formulas used by Hollywood, but rather of the laziness often exhibited in the use of said formulas. We've seen terrific branded properties, we've seen mediocre ones, and we've seen crappy ones. To me, the problem is -- and it's a perpetual problem in Hollywood -- the belief that a formula alone is all you need (or at least, that's how it seems much of the time). Sure, Hollywood is in the business of making money, but that doesn't need to come at the expense of telling a good story. Moreover, I think a good, well-told story actually will make you more money than anything else in the long run. The difficulty is that it's a LOT harder to make a GOOD movie than it is to just throw together formulaic crap.
