Support NeoGAF

[Sho_Nuff82]

What demographics are most willing to pay today's movie ticket prices?

Stumpokapow has answered this question for us.

Another point only partly addressed is that for "serious" films, the home box office experience is often superior to the damn-I-spilled-buttered-pocorn-on-my-jeans modern movie theater experience. There's also a contextual aspect - my friends and I wouldn't organize a movie date double/triple/quadrupole date night to see, say, Up in the Air, even though we all ended up seeing it eventually.

 

[swoon]

the home box office stuff is just like the music "oh i'll go to the live show" but both live shows and physical media/download sells are way down as well. that's not the answer to why the box office is declining

 

[Dude Abides]

Your choice of criticism is bizarre. There is nothing wrong with that line, in particular. Cringeworthy?

I am a film buff. I've seen countless classics, and more bad movies than I ever care to remember. I've enjoyed and hated a wide varierty of movies. If you want to get down in the slop, let's talk about Michael Bay, or Emmerich, or any of the other examples of actual bad blockbuster filmmaking. The Avengers shouldn't be in that conversation. It's the exception that proves the rule.

It's a terrible, stupid line in a movie with barely any plot.

Also, while the phrase "exception that proves the rule" is often used in the sense you are using it, that is actually improper and makes no sense. The fact that Avengers is lauded does, however, show how empty and tedious most big releases have become.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

 

[Tobor]

It's a terrible, stupid line in a movie with barely any plot.

Also, while the phrase "exception that proves the rule" is often used in the sense you are using it, that is actually improper and makes no sense. The fact that Avengers is lauded does, however, show how empty and tedious most big releases have become.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

Its a simple line that works. It serves the character. Fury is a no nonsense soldier, and he is speaking plainly opposite Loki's bluster. It also sets up a nice callback joke in the scene where Fury explains Loki's cell.

Beyond all that, it's really an innocuous piece of dialogue to try and make your point.

 

[Freezie KO]

He's right. Pretty much everything that comes out of Hollywood studios is pure infantile garbage.

That said, there are some solid American indies out there. If you can ignore the Manic Pixie Dream Girl retreads that litter Sundance.

Oh well, time to face the fact that Romania has better filmic output that the US.

 

[bro1]

Have you seen how many absolute shit movies have been made since film's inception? Every Jerry Lewis film, every Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, or monster movie from the 1950's have been made to entertain the masses.

This author needs to take off his rose tinted glasses and remember that for every Annie Hall/Godfather, there are also 50 other crappy movies that come out every year.

 

[ymmv]

Have you seen how many absolute shit movies have been made since film's inception? Every Jerry Lewis film, every Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, or monster movie from the 1950's have been made to entertain the masses.

This author needs to take off his rose tinted glasses and remember that for every Annie Hall/Godfather, there are also 50 other crappy movies that come out every year.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=42768677&postcount=58

 

[Stumpokapow]

Another point only partly addressed is that for "serious" films, the home box office experience is often superior to the damn-I-spilled-buttered-pocorn-on-my-jeans modern movie theater experience. There's also a contextual aspect - my friends and I wouldn't organize a movie date double/triple/quadrupole date night to see, say, Up in the Air, even though we all ended up seeing it eventually.

Ebert responded to that, well, not that specifically, but the theatre experience in a circumspect way, in the article I linked earlier:

Schrader had some pointed advice for me: “A veteran film critic—by this I mean you, Roger—should take it on himself by unilaterally abandoning the distinction between theatrical and [long-form TV miniseries, movies, and drama] in year-end best-of lists. All long-form audiovisual entertainment, released on any distribution platform, would be eligible for consideration. The Academy, of course, would regard this as a nightmare. It would downgrade the ‘specialness’ of theatrical films. But this is all happening anyway. Why not get ahead of the curve?”

Why not? It’s tempting, Paul. I could relax before my big eight-foot home-theater screen, and the work would come to me. The problem is, that goes against my grain. A movie is shown in a movie theater, and I like to sit there and see it. That’s how it’s supposed to be. I’m not ready to bowl alone.

"A movie is shown in a movie theater, and I like to sit there and see it." It sounds like an insipid sentence, but he's pointing to the essentially social character of the movie experience. Television is consumed privately and then diffused through the water-cooler (increasingly the virtual water-cooler). Films are experienced in a state of collective effervescence, like a concert or a political rally or a musical or a stage play. The shot glances sideways to others even if you're there alone, the smell, the overwhelming audiovisual components, everything. Even the memories of the drivethrough, of the variety of cars and people and the shared space you occupy. The invisible thread binding us together.

When he says he's not ready to "bowl alone", he's referencing Putnam's seminal "Bowling Alone", which talks about the decline of social capital and social experiences in America. Putnam's thesis is controversial and there are counterexamples, but this is not one. We are moving from doing things together in a shared public space to doing things apart or alone or in ad hoc groups that we choose. We're no longer bound together by this shared cultural expectation and thread and the touchstones that made the films of old reverberate. Insofar as there's any cultural force driving us together for film, it's unfortunately advertising and merchandising, which is more shameless and pathetic than ever.

I agree the home experience is more enjoyable and makes more sense, especially for stuff like Up in the Air... and I'll readily admit I think TV is the superior medium and has been for a while before Ebert wrote this... but even still I think there's a cultural loss if the idea of the public, shared experience declines.

 

[Devolution]

Honestly there's just as much Bowling Alone in the theater unless you get great crowds or barely any people there. People talking about something else, they don't pay attention, they're on their phones, and or they're chewing loudly. Unless it's like IMAX, crazy loud and phones are put away I'm constantly losing immersion.

 

[Tobor]

Paul Schrader is exactly right.

In this age, why is distribution method still the deciding factor for award eligibility?

 

[Dude Abides]

Its a simple line that works. It serves the character. Fury is a no nonsense soldier, and he is speaking plainly opposite Loki's bluster. It also sets up a nice callback joke in the scene where Fury explains Loki's cell.

Beyond all that, it's really an innocuous piece of dialogue to try and make your point.

Speaking plainly by continuing the cliche metaphor? There's no reason to say it since he knows Loki is there with bad intentions. Nor is it necessary for the call-back, since Loki had already introduced the line. It's just bad dialogue in a badly-written film.

 

[Loxley]

Yep, because before the 2000's came along, every other movie made was a critical and commercial masterpiece, directors/writers/producers were all savants, and Hollywood was a bastion of artistic and creative freedom. Then those damn digital effects and super-heroes came along and fucked artistic integrity right up the ass, am I right? Man, I remember when there were no bad movies or movies that were clearly cash grabs, those were the days.

I feel like articles like this are written every year, when some critics get caught in this weird purgatory called "summer" where they completely forget that the rest of the year is filled with wonderfully unique films (like Moonrise Kingdom, The Master, Looper, Cabin in the Woods, etc). But hey, it's 2012 and clearly people can't do anything but let everyone know how displeased they are with where the American film industry currently is.

 

[Tobor]

Speaking plainly by continuing the cliche metaphor? There's no reason to say it since he knows Loki is there with bad intentions. Nor is it necessary for the call-back, since Loki had already introduced the line. It's just bad dialogue in a badly-written film.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. I'd like to hear some more examples of what you consider bad dialogue, but this isn't really the thread for it.

 

[JeTmAn81]

I don't think it's a bad thing for a movie to do nothing more than entertain. The Avengers did that, and it did it very well.

 

[Karakand]

People who read nothing by YA literature lose the conceptual ability to read and digest books.

This literally happened to someone in Book-GAF last month.

Quoting this post was not an endorsement of Adorno.

 

[JB1981]

He may have some good arguments, but his opinion on Gladiator is extremely off base .

I love Gladiator but his criticism of the action direction, shot selection and editing style is spot on IMO.

 

[MattKeil]

Not at all. Movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark were popcorn flicks, and Raiders is so much better than The Avengers it's not even funny.

Actually Raiders is one of the few popcorn flicks I would put above Avengers, and I would definitely put Avengers in the same league. They're two of the all-time greatest action pictures I have ever seen, and I have seen a whole lot of action pictures.

I agree with the sentiment in the article but not many of the examples. Inception and Gladiator in particular come off like he just wasn't paying much attention to them rather than highlighting actual flaws. I have a hard time believing he couldn't come up with some more egregious films to use as illustrations, but I suppose he was intentionally going after two movies that people like to hold up as "modern cinema doesn't totally suck" exceptions. Bad call. His Pearl Harbor example is great, and I do think Michael Bay shoulders a fair amount of the blame for the trends the article is calling out.

He's right, though, in the sense that you can go back today and watch something like The Godfather and realize that they quite literally do not make them like that anymore. Hell, for a perfect supporting example he should have gone to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which when contrasted with Raiders of the Lost Ark pretty much makes his points for him. Gone are the days when even filmmakers like Spielberg would drag a small army down to a jungle and carve out an action scene, come hell or high water. Instead you're stuck with greenscreened on-set car chases that take place entirely in the foreground.

 

[-Eddman-]

I enjoy superhero movies as much as good indie "deep" films. The same with music, i can enjoy Gangnam Style and some obscure finnish black metal act. The same with food, I like cheap fast food and the best gourmet dishes.

I do agree that more people should educate themselves to enjoy complex forms of art, but it's not mainstream entertainment's fault that this is not currently happening.

 

[charsace]

He has a point. At one time movies like Paths of Glory, Apocalypse Now, and Planet of the Apes were hollywood blockbusters. Most blockbuster movies now are just big and simple.

 

[jett]

Although i enjoy some dumb blockbusters, the article really does raise good points. Stump's Ebert quote also gives something to think about.

He has a point. At one time movies like Paths of Glory, Apocalypse Now, and Planet of the Apes were hollywood blockbusters. Most blockbuster movies now are just big and simple.

I wonder if it really is Hollywood's fault or the moviegoing public. Master and Commander, a quality napoleon wartime epic blockbuster that treats its audience with the utmost respect failed at the box office. I think that's the last time Hollywood attempted a big budget production of the sort you mentioned.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I wonder if it really is Hollywood's fault or the moviegoing public. Master and Commander, a quality napoleon wartime epic blockbuster that treats its audience with the utmost respect failed at the box office. I think that's the last time Hollywood attempted a big budget production of the sort you mentioned.

It's both, just as it's both in gaming and other mediums experiencing this kind of big budget homogenization and shrinking. But ultimately it's much easier to criticize one person or one company that makes a specific decision, especially for such a crass reason as profit (although that's the point of a corporation!), than it is to try to unpack complex audience reaction or patronize dumb audience members.

Also, and call me conservative here, but elites have a privileged position in society. They make calls that impact a lot of people. And they often have the choice between challenging the public to be better, or playing to the public's worst instinct to pacify them. This comes up in politics as well as in the creative arts. I'm not saying I don't understand why they do the latter, but I wish they'd do the former more often.

 

[Tobor]

He has a point. At one time movies like Paths of Glory, Apocalypse Now, and Planet of the Apes were hollywood blockbusters. Most blockbuster movies now are just big and simple.

These are probably not the best choices to illustrate the point. Paths of Glory wasn't a Blockbuster. Apocalypse Now, while a big hit, still helped end the New Hollywood movement. Planet of the Apes quickly descended into a cash in franchise just like we see today.

 

[King Mystery]

Inception is entertaining because it's basically a heist movie, except they aren't stealing anything. It's like they're trying to break into the vault to put money inside. :mind explodes:

 

[RealDeadOne]

The difference today is that Hollywood realized that it doesn't matter how good the RT score of a movie is, as long as they have enough trailer-worthy moments to get people to come into the theater and leave saying "that was badass". People didn't get stupider, Hollywood got smarter.

 

[ctrayne]

.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Looper

 

[Trent Strong]

Gladijator is a Hollywood spectacle of the kind they've been doing for almost 100 years. There is nothing newly ruinous about it, and almost everyone enjoys it. Not only that but the CG he is complaining about let us explore Ancient Rome and the movie was chock full of brilliant characters and actors. What a weird film to bring into his rant. If he'd simply said Transformers or Battleship he'd have a point. But I agree with him about Inception, not tht it was bad, but that it was the worst realization of dreams I can recall, in a movie about dreams. Should have been about something else, like drugs or hypnotism.

His problem with Gladiator was just specifically the quick-cut, shaky cam action scenes. They have not been doing those for 100 years.

 

[Synth_floyd]

Have artsy, mature movies ever really consistently made money? Hollywood is a business with one purpose: make money. Blockbuster schlock is what sells. The guy is acting like the studios have some kind of responsibility to put out "better" movies than whatever currently brings in the biggest box office.

 

[Trent Strong]

Your choice of criticism is bizarre. There is nothing wrong with that line, in particular. Cringeworthy?

I am a film buff. I've seen countless classics, and more bad movies than I ever care to remember. I've enjoyed and hated a wide varierty of movies. If you want to get down in the slop, let's talk about Michael Bay, or Emmerich, or any of the other examples of actual bad blockbuster filmmaking. The Avengers shouldn't be in that conversation. It's the exception that proves the rule.

I have to agree with him. That was a groan inducing line, poorly delivered.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

He may have some good arguments, but his opinion on Gladiator is extremely off base .

I love some Gladiator, to be sure, but he's spot on with with most of the action in Gladiator. I hated the way it was filmed and edited.

 

[squidyj]

I can't say I'm particularly fond of the way he keeps harkening back to digital as a watchword for everything that hollywood is doing wrong.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

I can't say I'm particularly fond of the way he keeps harkening back to digital as a watchword for everything that hollywood is doing wrong.

For reference, our first digital matte composite was the scene at the end credits of Die Hard 2 back in 1990, with the backdrop of planes at the airport. Though the matte itself was still done traditionally.

 

[Tookay]

Yep, because before the 2000's came along, every other movie made was a critical and commercial masterpiece, directors/writers/producers were all savants, and Hollywood was a bastion of artistic and creative freedom. Then those damn digital effects and super-heroes came along and fucked artistic integrity right up the ass, am I right? Man, I remember when there were no bad movies or movies that were clearly cash grabs, those were the days.

These kinds of posts drive me insane, reducing everything to some strawman.

I may not agree with the examples the author uses in the article, but I think it makes a pretty effective argument that - barring some minor exceptions - Hollywood has been on a numbing decline this last decade. Even the dumbest blockbusters of 30 years ago had more to say or at least communicated action in a more effective visual language (through an awareness of spatial continuity) than the current crop of meaningless tentpoles.

 

[Reuenthal]

Let's pick a studio at random from the ones which are behind some very notable comic book films (production or co production in some cases if I did not notice it might be distrubution only, taken from this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Warner_Bros._films and me selecting films that I thought were good. Interestingly the list would probably be bigger if we include films they financed that could be as good and were quite different from the genres that are related to murder of Movies)

Warner Brothers: A.I, Training Day, Hearts in Atlantis, Ocean's Eleven, Insomnia, Matchstick Men, Mystic River, The Last Samurai, Before Sunset, Alexander ( a failure but I will mention it if only for the kind of film it was), The Aviator, Million Dollar Baby, Corpse Bride, Goodnight and Good Luck, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, North Country, Syriana, Firewall, The Departed, The Prestige, Flags of our fathers, The Fountain, Blood Diamond Good German, letters from Iwa Jima, Zodiac Michael Clayton, I am Legend, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (I think this film is bloody awful personally but it was the kind of attempt that is quite different than comic book adaptations and it has received accolades), Gran Torino, Slumdog Millionaire, Where the Wild Things Are, The Blind Side, Invictus, The Book of Eli, Inception(And no Inception is a film with good characters, and just because the plebs like it, as some complain, and is directed at them as well, is not less good.), The Town, Born to Be Wild, The Artist and perhaps others because at this point is where i get lazy.

Now between that list you could add V for Vendetta, Matrix Relloaded, Batman Begins, Dark Knight, Dark Knight Rises, Green Lantern, Harry Potter films. I don't see a murder here, more like a coexistance between films that sell a lot and others which are more dramatic and sell less but still get made.

As I already knew from the various list of so many films each year there are a shitload, shitload number of good films. So go and watch them the 2000s will more than satisfy you in quantity and quality and there is quality in different genres as well despite the comic book adaptations existing.

As for blockbusters: I think we have Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Pirates of the Carribean films, Gladiator, The sequels of the Star Wars prequels,Transformers films, X-men trilogy and X-men last stand. Dark Knight trilogy. Incredibles, Iron Man, Finding Nemo, Avengers, Matrix Sequels, Spiderman trilogy, Star Trek, The Bourne Trilogy, James Bond films, Watchmen, V for Vendetta, 300.

Now as far as this category of film there is a bigger domination of certain types of films but there you still find some quite good ones. And you don't have to watch these films necessarily, there are plenty more films to satisfy those looking for something different than that or drama.

 

[Fëanor]

That was a pretty interesting article and I agree and disagree with certain things. I still think there's plenty of space for both simple Hollywood films and innovative cinema.

Did anyone watch The Story of Film: An Odyssey?

I feel that's a required viewing if you like Cinema and out next month on dvd only, so sad. Oh well.

 

[JDSN]

Ive always hated the expression "Whats at stake?" from the guys at Red Letter Media and this is no different. Just because stuff isnt implausible doesnt mean theres nothing at stake.

His problem with Gladiator was just specifically the quick-cut, shaky cam action scenes. They have not been doing those for 100 years.

But they have being doing it for the last 50 or so.