Future of good movies is grim due to kids and teens

[JUMBO PALACE]

Once they get older and mentally mature a little MAYBE some of them might develop enough intelligence and insight to appreciate a good plot and some character development. I'm a senior in High School and I'm shocked at the lack of maturity and general comprehension of most people. My class was watching Schindler's List and one girl had to ask which people were the Jews. Anyway, most younger kids don't have the attention span to care about plot yet. Give it some time.

 

[Hallow'sEve]

Well I guess the future of the human race is doomed and your life is now meaningless, better kill yourself, you're taking up space.

 

[brainfreeze215]

The kids and teens who love bad movies today will grow up to be the adults who love good movies in the future. And it's true that they may never know who our favorite classic film makers are today, and brace yourself for this part, that's ok. If no one ever replaces the classics, then film will stagnate and never evolve and die out like Vaudeville. In the words of Bob Dylan, the times, they are a-changin'.

If we hold onto the past and assume that no generation's pop culture will ever be as good as ours, then we're acting like old people. I don't want to act like an old person.

 

[Caligulove]

The same thing happened to me at that age, and for you at that age, whether or not you realize it.
And look how you turned out, I look at how I turned out.

Kids around that age are fucking crazy a lot of the time because so much of them is changing (AHH HAIR IN STRANGE PLACES! ONLY LINKIN PARK UNDERSTANDS ME!)

Pretty soon theyll get through most of high school (or definitely in college) theyll mellow out, might smoke some weed, get laid and look at their life and the world in a better light.

 

[Icehearted]

I'm a bigger fan of blaming cash grabbing panderers disguised as artists rather than the market to which they're pandering. Sure, money talks, but if people that made good cinema or at least know how to showed some integrity we'd see less fluff in our fiction.

As a kid from the 80s, I remember thinking that movies were on a downward spiral, and sadly I was right, but some greats still shine, like Spielberg, Eastwood, Burton, and the 'younger' guys like Tarantino or Rodriguez.

It is all relative, and some have their strengths and weaknesses, but if you think it's bad now, just wait till you're older and you've developed more discerning tastes. I guarantee the crap we see these days will look like masterpieces by comparison.

 

[QuickDEMOL1SHER]

Dude, movies are part of the entertainment industry.
Not the critical word there. ENTERTAINMENT!!! A movie shouldn't have to be high art in order to be enjoyed.
I mean, the new G.I. Joe movie sucked in terms of art, acting and story, but you know what? It was entertaining as hell. Some parts of it being entertaining BECAUSE it was so lowbrow.
Just enjoy it.

 

[floppylobster]

I am in my last year of High School. For volunteer work hours I teach high school and middle school classes (yes it is possible.) Being obsessed with pop culture (yeah... I am geek) I like to talk to middle school students about it like equals and find myself amazed at the grasp that some middle school kids have on pop culture. However, notice I said some, because most don't have the idea who Quentin Tarantino or hell, Bowser is.

A week ago I find myself with no work to give to the class so I decide to start a discussion about the best movie they have seen in a while. Much to my dismay most votes went toward shit movies like Transformers 2 and New Moon. 3 or 4 votes went toward Inglorious Basterds or District 9, two of the recent movies that have good.

I find myself puzzled and when I am about to begin criticizing their picks the bell rings. So, I decide to go to the cafeteria and sit down with them for a discussion since they sit in a big group. During this conversation I found out that most of the kids don't give a crap about plot or character development picking Transformers 2 over Citizen Kane calling it boring, Godfather calling it stupid and boring and Pulp Fiction calling it a good movie but a bit boring. The comment I made about not caring about Plot or character development is not my guess. It is what they said and I quote "Who gives a crap about those things" and then they proceeded to nod among themselves.

For the girls I noticed as long as it becomes popular and has hot guys they like it, not very puzzling. It is not because they are kids and don't have enough knowledge since I have met some that have the knowledge of a 12th grader. Their choice of music is horrible too but that would take another thread to talk about. So I have to ask you, have you had similar experiences, what do you think about the future of pop culture and how do you feel about the culture of teens today?

P.S first attempt to try to start a discussion, won't be surprised if it fails.

Well I'm guessing you're old but not that old. I call the same bullshit on Pulp Fiction and Tarantino. Tarantino is in a big way responsible for a lot of the shit we're getting these days because he was so influential. That's influential, not good.

If you want to see the difference watch Stalker, watch Red Beard, watch Elephant Man. So many directors today are influenced by Tarantino and the Matrix, they're not even trying to express something, they're just wanting to whine about their own existance or watch something to distract them from the things that bother them.

Trantino and the Wachowskis are not terrible, they're just nothing on Kurosawa, Tarkovsky or Malick. Miyazaki, Fincher and Thomas Anderson are the only other interesting main stream directors I can think of these days. What you're experiencing is what we all go through at a certain age. There's no point trying to change it. Either ***** about it on internet forums or at the old age home like I will be.

 

[DracoSuave]

Hate to say it tho, Michael Bay movies -are- good.

They are attempting to create a high action explosion heavy special effects extravaganza of eyecandy and cheesy humor. They do that very well. A movie that does what it sets out to do competantly is NOT a bad movie, it's a good movie.

Now, whether high action explosion heavy special effects extravaganzas of eyecandy and cheesy humor is your particular cup of tea for entertainment or not is a totally different question entirely.

As for the 'quality of movies' issue.

The thing is, good movies last in the public consciousness a lot more persistantly than bad movies. The nostalgia effect, if you will.

So, yeah. You remember the Godfathers and the Princess Brides, but does anyone remember Leonard Part 9, or Ishtar, or Wolf, or...

...You probably had to look those up.

They were -terrible- movies, and you know what? Back then there was a terrible movie being put out just as often as terrible movies are put out now. In a few years, you won't remember them very well. You'll only remember the good ones, and you'll think back to the first decade of the 21st century thinking 'Damn, that was a great decade for movies! Too bad THIS one sucks.'

 

[quiet_samurai]

I'm puzzled that you seem to think high schoolers are sociieties bastion for taste and decision making. When I was in high school I didn't know alot of older directors or plots to older movies either. Directors like Roman Polanski, Oliver Stone, or Stanly Kubrick were unknown to me, and I didn't watch the Godfather until I was around twenty. So I didn't really experience alot of the cinematic greats until I got a little older, and I'm sure some of them will be the same. And if not... who cares. Don't let another person's bad tastes afffect you.

And for the record Citizen Kane is boring. Sure it revolutionized the way movies were made, but it's really not that spectacular of a story after evertything that has come since. I have always thought the people that say it's such are good movie, or call it the best movie ever are either 90 years old or only do it to make themselves seem smarter. It's kind of like reading the calssics, most people only do it jsut to say they have done so.

 

[CompanionCube]

Anyone else reminded of the old guy quote

"When I was your age we didn't have any Megan Fox or Cee Gee Aii"

 

[Wintermoot]

maybe culture/society is changing or the people in your class dont know the diference between a good and bad movie a friend of mine said that tast needs to be developed by exposure to a subject PS show them a Uwe Boll movie and ask if that is a good movie

 

[DracoSuave]

maybe culture/society is changing or the people in your class dont know the diference between a good and bad movie a friend of mine said that tast needs to be developed by exposure to a subject PS show them a Uwe Boll movie and ask if that is a good movie

Actually, some reviewers looked past the Uwe Boll and actually reviewed postal fairly well. Not excellent, but fairly decent. I found it to be a genuinely funny film.

But yeah, most his movies are dumbass schlock. And he admits it. You should listen to his interviews, he's not trying to make -good- movies, he's trying to entertain, and his movies, as bad as they are, do successfully do that.

I -enjoyed- In the Name of the King, because it -was- entertaining. Terrible? Yes. But in a good enjoyable way. Mathew Lilliard and Ray Liotta in a hamfest of great proportion!

And it had such cheezy lines like 'WISDOM IS YOUR HAMMER' that just made me bust a gut in tears from the bad.

 

[Lullabye]

Hollywood doesn't target teens primarily, thank god. Nor does the gaming industry. Both direct their focus in advertising and product finality towards that ever-illusive 18-24 male demographic. Studies show that whatever they (I) like, the rest of the populous will eventually begin to like as well.

XDfun fact, after the age of 33 you're no longer considered a target consumer. now you know when your "getting old".

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I must be the only one that finds contemporary cinema to be quite good. The fact that so far this year I've been to the movies ten times or so and only once have I felt an urge to up and leave (Transformers 2, I had to be a good bro and jump on that grenade). The rest I have enjoyed immensly for what it was worth.

In my DVD collection, you'll find mostly old stuff. The Thing, Assault on Precinct 13, Blade Runner, Evil dead, Night of the Living Dead, The Dollar-trilogy, Taking of Pelham 123 (the 70's original), Soylent Green, Smokey & The bandit, Cannonball Run, the Longest Day, Where Eagles Dare etc.. These are all good movies for sure. But at the same time, all of them were critically hailed as groundbreaking when they came (or developed a cult-following later on a'la Evil Dead).

And let's face it, Children of Men spanks Soylent Green seven ways to sunday when it comes to delivering a dystopic vision and a message about humanitys course. Inglorious Basterds has far better camerawork and exposition than A Fistful of Dollards and Night of the Living Dead might be the "first" zombie-flick, but the re-make of Dawn of the Dead delivers a far more solid zombie-flick with better pacing and character development.
Nostalgia is a powerful thing, but it is just that, nostalgia. We don't even need to have grown up during the period today to feel a certain nostalgia towards the movies that made way for the industry as it is seen today. But no matter which way we look at it, cinema develops. And just like in any big industry, the truly groundbreaking stuff will stand out from a large puddle of cheap knock-offs and expensive imitations. It is that groundbreaking stuff (like the Godfather, Children of Men and Blade Runner for example) that we will remember. Not all the countless mediocre movies that were released at the same time as them.

 

[Spitfire175]

As if there were'n bad movies with no content at all before. There's a reason we don't know too many of these.

 

[BlueberryFalacy]

Why is anyone suprised at this, most of these kids grew up in the era of BBSFX and Playstation's, I may only be 20 (yes i admit my age) but the first ever computer I used was still running on Windows 3.1 and I was given NES after NES game to play, if anything I believe that those of us who grew up within the 2D gaming era will see most of the new stuff out as shit, but I digress from my point. Most of us from 20-(we'll say)30 grew up being shown classic films like Logan's Run (A great film that if you haven't seen I suggest remedying that). Taste is relative to time as well as gender and age. Allow the little teens and tweens their mindless flicks (which I will admit sometimes you do need) especially as the next wave of directors, producers, writers, etc. will be from the last of this generation and will remember the classics that actually had a solid story, with (mostly) good acting (if I see one more clip of Pattinson acting I think I'll vomit all my organs into a black market vendor just to pay to have him killed) and maybe they will be able to drill the whole in the brain of the newer generation that will allow their brains to actually absorb this stuff.

 

[Doug]

I don't like all of these "the next generation sucks so life will suck when they get old" arguments. You were like that, too. It's a phase of either ogling and "drama" (as with the girls), or ogling and explosions (as with the guys). They'll grow out of it, just like you did.

Dear god I hope they do. I think Michael Bay is an example of what happens if they don't. He actually seems to legitimately believe that his movies are good.

I predict within...8 years everyone (including these little buggers) will have forgotten the name Michael Bay.