What is wrong with the movie industry?

[Marter]

Considering there was nothing good about the first Hangover, I can't believe they even made a sequel. Let's just ignore the fact that a lot of people liked it, but the fact that the first one made money is still a surprise to me. Getting a sequel, one that I've heard is very similar to the original, and seeing how much money it's made is just a shock.

But I don't often understand why certain movies like this make money.

Anyway, if they made a movie that 94% of the population likes, there's nothing wrong with the industry.

 

[Wintermoot]

allot of movie goers have poor taste (how else do you think Epic Movie/Vampires Suck/Disaster Movie/etc. got green lit?)

 

[4RM3D]

If you hate these movies so much, why watch them? Why pay money to see them? Do you realize that YOU are the reason that this movie made so much money?

p.s. Pirates 4 made 815 Million $ worldwide.

The Hangover Part II might have been pretty obvious from the onset that it was just like part I. But regardless what people are saying, I want to form my own opinion of the movie, which means I would have to go see it. But what you haven't taken into account is that I might have downloaded the movie, because I had the feeling the movie would suck. And before you ask, I did see it in the movie theater. And I got a free ticket.

Oh yes, Pirates 4... I liked Pirates 1, heck I could even appreciate the overlong Pirates 3. But Pirates 4 was just a unnecessary, chaotic and lifeless sequel. I really wanted to like it, especially because I am a fan of fantasy/adventure (and sci-fi), but I just couldn't. But at least Pirates 4 had some content... had something, while Hangover Part II had nothing.

 

[Utrechet]

People are naturally idiots, and so the polls reflect that statement. Especially in America, the society here is completely hypocritical and, put simply, a bucket of raw stupid.

 

[Ham_authority95]

In one word picture? This (The Hangover Part II score):

A little explanation here: this is taken from rottentomatoes.com; one of the most popular movie websites (along with IMDB and Metacritic). The left side are the critics, the right side are the (other) moviegoers. 35% of the critics liked the movie with an average score of 5 (out of 10). 94% of the audience liked it with an average of 4.6 (out of 5).

The US Box Office is $185.8 million, making it the biggest movie hit this year.

What is wrong with the movie industry? Correction, what is wrong with you guys? You all went to the movie theater to see it and loved it? This movie is an exact replica of the first movie; no originality, no improvements, no story, no nothing. It's a dumb and senseless movie only made to extract as much money as possible with as little effort as possible. This is a 100% cash cow movie.

To be honest I find it kinda depressing that a movie like this does so well. This will give a green light to another sequel. Heck, this has painfully proven you can just copy old successes to make easy money. We will not see the end of this when people keep going to movies like this and keep liking it.

Discuss

I think this is the greatest thing to ever happen to cinema. Most critics are just tos-pots who think that their opinion is the greatest, and I'm glad the movie-going public has realized this and stopped caring.

Let people like and buy what they want. Worry about your own tastes, you'll thank yourself for it.

 

[HardkorSB]

If you hate these movies so much, why watch them? Why pay money to see them? Do you realize that YOU are the reason that this movie made so much money?

p.s. Pirates 4 made 815 Million $ worldwide.

The Hangover Part II might have been pretty obvious from the onset that it was just like part I. But regardless what people are saying, I want to form my own opinion of the movie, which means I would have to go see it. But what you haven't taken into account is that I might have downloaded the movie, because I had the feeling the movie would suck. And before you ask, I did see it in the movie theater. And I got a free ticket.

Oh yes, Pirates 4... I liked Pirates 1, heck I could even appreciate the overlong Pirates 3. But Pirates 4 was just a unnecessary, chaotic and lifeless sequel. I really wanted to like it, especially because I am a fan of fantasy/adventure (and sci-fi), but I just couldn't. But at least Pirates 4 had some content... had something, while Hangover Part II had nothing.[/quote
I thought that the first Hangover was pretty mediocre (about the same level of entertainment as the first American Pie, which I also didn't like that much). Sure, I laughed a few times but then again, I laughed a few times at Transformers 2. In fact, Transformers 2 was, in my opinion, better than The Hangover . That's why, even if Hangover 2 was "as good as the first one", it wouldn't mean much to me. I don't think I will ever see the second one (unless someone else will be watching it at their house and I will just happen to also be there).

Anyway, these are "popcorn movies" that we're talking about here. They're made for 2 reasons:
1. Entertaining people
2. Making money
These movies are very important to the movie industry. Without them, the studios wouldn't be able to make more movies because of lack of profit. This movie being a success means that other movies can be made in the future (some good, some bad, some smart and some stupid). The more money these movies make, the more risky projects can the studios make (like the Scott Pilgrim movie).

I brought up Pirates 4 just so show that Hangover 2 isn't the biggest movie hit of the year (and seeing how Transformers 3 and the last Harry Potter are coming soon, the situation might change even more).

 

[Lionsfan]

Ugh....another person going on about how awful the movie industry/American Public is because the movies they like don't make enough money. Yes, Scott Pilgrim being beat was a tragedy but look at it from another point of view. To 90% of the public Michael Cera is a whiny annoying little chickenshit who has starred in a whole bunch of stupid hipster movies. And now he's in another one!?! Youth In Revolt tricked us already, there's no way in hell I'm seeing that; and what the fuck is with the stupid video game things? That looks like a movie for 10 year old and douchebags. Scott Pilgrim was destined to fail based on the casting, and the fact that it was a niche movie. Hell if it didn't have Edgar Wright on board there's no way in hell I would have seen it. But just because people didn't see it doesn't mean the American Movie Audience is a whole bunch of simplistic moronic rednecks. Hangover 2 was basically the same movie yes, but sometimes people don't want a 3 hour complex political plot. Or they don't want a whole bunch of subtle jokes, sometimes they just want easy simple gags. This isn't a new trend in cinematic history either. One of the first silent films was just of a guy sneezing. Then came The Three Stooges, or Dumb and Dumber or Tommy Boy. So just because around 50,000 people (which is still a small sample size compared to people who went to the film) gave it a 92% doesn't mean everybody loved it. Most people knew what they were getting into with this, and still went to see it because it has some laughs in it. Just because MovieBob makes it cool to hate on something doesn't mean you're right

 

[thepyrethatburns]

In one word picture? This (The Hangover Part II score):

A little explanation here: this is taken from rottentomatoes.com; one of the most popular movie websites (along with IMDB and Metacritic). The left side are the critics, the right side are the (other) moviegoers. 35% of the critics liked the movie with an average score of 5 (out of 10). 94% of the audience liked it with an average of 4.6 (out of 5).

The US Box Office is $185.8 million, making it the biggest movie hit this year.

What is wrong with the movie industry? Correction, what is wrong with you guys? You all went to the movie theater to see it and loved it? This movie is an exact replica of the first movie; no originality, no improvements, no story, no nothing. It's a dumb and senseless movie only made to extract as much money as possible with as little effort as possible. This is a 100% cash cow movie.

To be honest I find it kinda depressing that a movie like this does so well. This will give a green light to another sequel. Heck, this has painfully proven you can just copy old successes to make easy money. We will not see the end of this when people keep going to movies like this and keep liking it.

Discuss

Y'know, Metacritic has a section which lists all the games where the critics loved/hated a game and the audience did the exact opposite. In fact, this entire post could be applied both to E3 (What, we're rebooting Lara twice in one console generation? Another Halo trilogy?) and to gaming in general (Madden/Final Fantasy is in the double digits for sequels but you people couldn't spare time for Primal/Psychonauts?).

One of the things that used to bother my roommate about my gaming is that I had (and still do) every single Mega Man/Mega Man X game. Since then, I have not only kept up with those but I bought all 6 Battle Networks for the GBA (I only got one version where they did the Black/white thing) and Mega Man X command mission.

Does this mean I have no standards for Mega Man? No, that godawful GC game where they attempted to fuse Battle Network with platformer play didn't make the cut. 9 almost didn't. Zero and Legends doesn't infect my collection.

Does this mean that all I play is Mega Man and I fear playing anything new? Given that I have Primal and Psychonauts (Original PS2 version), the answer is also no. It's just that Mega Man hits a chord with me.

Point is that critics aren't necessarily representative of the general population and people will go to see/play what they like. There's nothing really depressing about it. Nor is there anything depressing about going to see the same thing repeatedly. All it means is that people have different tastes.

Does it mean that people are stupid? Thinks back to the fact that Pauly Shore had a career. Well, yes but that's something that I've come to expect and, frankly, everyone is kinda stupid in the grand scheme of things. Me, you, Moviebob, everyone. I mean, everyone here is spending time on an internet message board debating whether the Hangover II is some form of cultural barometer.

 

[4RM3D]

Anyway, these are "popcorn movies" that we're talking about here. They're made for 2 reasons:
1. Entertaining people
2. Making money
These movies are very important to the movie industry. Without them, the studios wouldn't be able to make more movies because of lack of profit. This movie being a success means that other movies can be made in the future (some good, some bad, some smart and some stupid). The more money these movies make, the more risky projects can the studios make (like the Scott Pilgrim movie).

If that truly is the case then movies like The Hangover Part II are a good thing. Now, I don't know whether or not that is the case, but I do really hope so. Incidentally, that would invalidate this whole thread. ^^

 

[clipse15]

movies are actually made different to what people think

it usually all starts in an office somewhere between guys in suits..then they bring the creatives in

What? that's not really how the majority of films are made actually.

 

[ICantBelieveItGoesBoom]

*le snip*

I think I may be in love with you, this post is basically everything a more eloquent version of me would have said.

EDIT:

For me, the only difference is argumentation. If you ask the "average consumer" why he liked the movie, all he can say is that because the movie was awesome, or because Brad Pitt was in it. I like to separate myself from the average because I can explain everything I say. I can enter an intellectual discussion if I would desire so.

Sorry but after reading this I just have to respond. Since when is enjoyment of movies something that there needs to be an intellectual discussion about?

It really annoys me when people try to "argue" why a movie is objectively good or bad, film is an art, ART. IS. SUBJECTIVE.

The only way that "intellectual" defence of a film or offence towards another is when people like you insist on insulting people who like films that you don't so you can feel smarter than they are.

 

[gbemery]

Fun Fact: People go to movies to have fun and enjoy themselves.

Old Adage: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I believe this is worthy of a /thread.

OP: "Oh no people went to the theater and spent THEIR money the way THEY wanted and not the way I deem to be the proper way. So therefore they are stupid."

Why is it that people believe if something didn't "innovate" or do something different it is horrible? Sometimes it is just good to go see a pointless sequel to just have fun. Thats why its called disposable income. It obviously isn't the EXACT same as the first, sure the stories might be similar but like the quoted post says. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

 

[4RM3D]

Sorry but after reading this I just have to respond. Since when is enjoyment of movies something that there needs to be an intellectual discussion about?

It really annoys me when people try to "argue" why a movie is objectively good or bad, film is an art, ART. IS. SUBJECTIVE.

It is precisely because movie ratings are subjective that it is interesting to argue about. If it was a fact, there would be nothing to discuss.

Some people discuss movies and they are called critics. Some people discuss the meaning of life and they are calling philosophers. (We could discuss the meaning of life some other time.)

The only way that "intellectual" defence of a film or offence towards another is when people like you insist on insulting people who like films that you don't so you can feel smarter than they are.

I have already explained this a few times in this thread. It isn't about who is smarter, nor is it about that I don't like certain movies that other people do like. It is specifically about movies like The Hangover Part II and what they represent. As I have said, I can objectively review a movie regardless of whether I like the movie or not.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Last 2 movies I saw in theaters were Avatar and District 9 (I bought the District 9 blu-ray when it came out partially because the movie was awesome and partially because of the GoW3 demo). Twas many many years before that that I saw anything else (wow I used 2 words twice in a row in one sentence).
Only reason I went is some friends were going and I had a movie pass thing that brings the cost down to $1. I have to find some decent movie to use my last one on before the end of the year when it expires.

 

[4RM3D]

Fun Fact: People go to movies to have fun and enjoy themselves.

Old Adage: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

... but like the quoted post says. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

If you follow "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." to its core, we would all still be cavemen. No innovation would exist.

OP: "Oh no people went to the theater and spent THEIR money the way THEY wanted and not the way I deem to be the proper way. So therefore they are stupid."

*sigh*

 

[gbemery]

Fun Fact: People go to movies to have fun and enjoy themselves.

Old Adage: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

... but like the quoted post says. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

If you follow "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." to its core, we would all still be cavemen. No innovation would exist.

OP: "Oh no people went to the theater and spent THEIR money the way THEY wanted and not the way I deem to be the proper way. So therefore they are stupid."

*sigh*

*sigh* and facepalm all you want but it doesn't change the fact that you apparently find fault that people have different opinions than yourself.

 

[clipse15]

Sorry but after reading this I just have to respond. Since when is enjoyment of movies something that there needs to be an intellectual discussion about?

It really annoys me when people try to "argue" why a movie is objectively good or bad, film is an art, ART. IS. SUBJECTIVE.

It is precisely because movie ratings are subjective that it is interesting to argue about. If it was a fact, there would be nothing to discuss.

Some people discuss movies and they are called critics. Some people discuss the meaning of life and they are calling philosophers. (We could discuss the meaning of life some other time.)

The only way that "intellectual" defence of a film or offence towards another is when people like you insist on insulting people who like films that you don't so you can feel smarter than they are.

I have already explained this a few times in this thread. It isn't about who is smarter, nor is it about that I don't like certain movies that other people do like. It is specifically about movies like The Hangover Part II and what they represent. As I have said, I can objectively review a movie regardless of whether I like the movie or not.

Really? and what does a film like The Hangover II represent?

 

[4RM3D]

*sigh* and facepalm all you want but it doesn't change the fact that you apparently find fault that people have different opinions than yourself.

FYI, having different opinions is not something that bothers me. You have misunderstood me there.

 

[AyreonMaiden]

Yes clearly humanity is doomed because a movie you hate is popular. Send in the marines!

Jesus, grow up. No seriously, grow the fuck up, this isn't kindergarten--no one cares if you liked the movie or not. No one. And insulting people by calling them stupid because they liked the movie is not just immature but asinine.

But really, that describes every movie critic I've ever known (including Moviebob): Immature and Asinine.

These are the spoiled rotten man-brats who think their "vaunted" seal of approval means sooo much to everyone, then self-immolate outside of a theater to protest when it doesn't. And ignorant snobs like you are the ones who keep paying THEM to think for you. I've always said that's why The Critic would never survive back when it was on the air, because Jay Sherman was the most realistic portrayal of movie-snobs ever on television: a stuck up, lonely, immature adult brat with no self-control and an entitlement complex.

You want to know why movies like that are popular...here's a hint, people like them. And judging someone based on what movie they like, let alone judging someone's intelligence, something so arbitrary and intangible even science gave up trying to figure it out eventually, based on something like taste in movies is so earth-shatteringly silly I'd almost think you were MAKING FUN OF THE CONCEPT. If I didn't know better.

This is what bugs me about movie critics, people who listen to movie critics, and their ilk. You people can't take rejection. If movie snobs actually had any power, if you were all SOOOO smart, don't you think you'd be able to stop these movies from being made? That's the argument I always make when some smartass pulls out that old "EVERYONE IS STUPID BUT ME!" gimmick: if you're so smart why don't you have any actual power? Because surely it must be child's play to outwit such idiots and convince them to go see your precious Scott Pilgrim movie right? I mean if you really are that smart? But you're not are you...

And if everyone who went to see the Hangover II or Transformers II or Fast Five whatever is so dumb they'll see anything then how come a lot of big budget blockbusters fail? Cutthroat Island? Ever heard of it? It was a big budget studio blockbuster that was so shitty and so hated by the public it tanked a company! Clearly, the public has some discerning tastes.

See the reality is you just don't want to admit that no one cares about all that crap that movie snobs care about and just want to see an enjoyable movie. Because if you did, then suddenly whatever little indie film festival fodder you like, or some BS quasi-mainstream geekstravaganza like Scott Pilgrim, would be no better objectively than anything else. It'd be about taste and personal opinion...and that can't be because then you wouldn't be smarter than everyone else! No it must be some vast systemic problem with Hollywood, or better yet some vast systemic problem with the "average consumer" (which, newsflash, would include you). Obviously it must be. Obviously.

And of course I'm sure you'll just write off anything I say as "trolling" (i.e. disagreeing with you) or say I'm "stupid" because obviously you can judge someone's intellect based on something as arbitrary and silly as what movies they like. Obviously.

Or you can man up and at least TRY to respond to something I said. Go on, stand up for what you believe in, try to justify it. Shock me.

I...like this a lot.

Exactly what I have in mind, put more eloquently. I apologize for the excitement you might feel when you see a message on your Quoted inbox and find that it's just some goon agreeing with you without adding anything, but...man, I got nothing to say except big ups.

 

[Rockchimp69]

Snip

It doesn't matter what the smarter side of the population think about movies unfortunately because all opinions are just preference. None are right, there is no overall quality to any art.

Everything is fucking subjective, but at the same time life is pathetic when you think like that.
I guess we just don't like to be explained or analysed so it's easier to lie to ourselves that things are just straightforward childlike matters of good/evil, good/bad and such.

Getting a bit off topic but basically what I mean is that your whole argument is invalid because it doesn't matter how intelligent or well made a movie is, it's easier for us to just forget reality and delude ourselves.

I personally found it a fun movie, but it's also not original enough.
I'm so stuck in the fucking conflict of both sides of this thread.