Why Movies Suck Now Part One: The Myths

[Dectilon]

"A Demographic Timeline of Hollywood Movies"

Did you analyze the data yourself or is it consensus? Not that I really doubt it but considering you seem to have strong opinions on what works and what doesn't in movies I think it's reasonable to question even your motives.

I think most people measure only take into account their favorite genres when they measure the overall quality of cinema. If the last three psychological thrillers you saw were ass then obviously movie-making at large is on the decline.

"But you would be very wrong to use it as an example of political ambiguity without reading Moore's novel."

But... he's not using the book, he's using the film

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Same reason most games such modern media is made for witless masses its watered down and at best is either "pretty" and dumb or sloppy and well written.

 

[Stabby Joe]

One issue I have with the political message is that some critics/movie goers try and cram in some half-baked political metaphor or symbolism into films that never did.

The best example (or worst depending on how you look at it) of this was The Dark Knight and "terrorism".

 

[MrTBOBBY]

Not only have they run out of ideas, but some of the movies are being re-released as a 3D Film [http://www.imax.com]. The cool thing about Dark Knight and Transformers was all of the visuals. During the 1990's and such the stuff we see in movies nowadays just wasn't available then. I personally liked both of them, though Transformers had some plot issues.

 

[Danpascooch]

See, in case you hadn't heard, the political leanings of the U.S. entertainment industry are overwhelmingly Liberal - a word which, here in America, is used as a slur to describe anyone slightly to the left of Yosemite Sam.

WHY IS EVERYTHING YOU SAY SO AWESOME!?

 

[RageTreb]

Mattel doesn't make Transformers. Hasbro does. You may as well said Sony makes Wiis.

 

[Villa Idiot]

Useless info time! Since he mentioned GI Joe in the article, did you know that the character Flint was named Dashiell Fairborne after Mr. Hammett?

I did not but that's awesome. Since you mentioned GI Joe, does that mean we're supposed to play the Knowing is Half the Battle clip or something?

 

[soapyshooter]

Meh, i don't really care about movies anyway. It's a dying industry that leeches off other types of media.

How exactly is a multibillion dollar industry dying and what's killing it?

 

[manchild]

I agree a bit with the earlier comment about political ideology still being on the table for why movies suck (with the 25%). I see it as a problem of subculture and group think rather than politics though. I come from a lit crit background to some extent, and you see the distinction between high and low writing, technical prowess vs storytelling, etc. Hollywood and the movie industry are, in a sense, like the academics on writing: the concerns of the critics and desire for proficiency and simple time required to be accepted at the professional level by the artists are so demanding in themselves they do not leave much time or geographic location to really connect to an extremely diverse audience through shared experience (it happens, but it takes a special kind of effort that I personally don't see too often). If, for example, a "liberal political concern" is extremely popular with people in that circle (when most people don't care and as many disagree as agree outside the circle), it becomes easy to be ham-handed or condescending without understanding how or why that actual person out there disagrees or doesn't care. This is certainly not limited to left leaning causes or hollywood, but as a somewhat insular group required to spend enormous amounts of time dedicated to a few people on a specific project, Hollywood is probably more vulnerable than average.

 

[Korroth Dyahwanre]

A very interesting debate. I personally think to a very small extent MovieBob is on to something. But at the same time there is this lingering feeling in the back of my mind that the Sheep have finally won out and we are seeing a larger number of sheeple aimed movies. In the 40's-60's you had slow drama styled movies that had feeling, thought and in my A.D.H.D. way of thinking were boring as hell good but boring. The 60's and 70's saw a huge push for ethnic movies that they could point at the "new" audience. In either cases they were mistaken it wasn't that they were a new audience, they weren't given the same rights to see movies at the same rate as the "in charge white males" of the previous generations of movies.

Today's films are about the bottom line, will it turn a profit? Politics get lost constantly. Though I don't doubt that there is often political agenda's hiden in most movies these days. I just choose to ignore them.

Being a 36 yr old White Male that has grown up on bad movies, Good movies, Horrible movies and Star Wars, I've watched how my favorite stories get beaten down and left for dead, due to the Directors views of what he thought it should look like. The Saw (why wont they just let it end) franchise started out as a good idea, it was different as far as horror flicks had been to that point. Now due to the success of such gore fest flicks as Saw, we have to suffer through the overly predictable Hostel PoS movies. Star Wars rocked the foundation of Movies in its time for how much was done with so little. There are spots where the acting isn't that great, but everything else stole our breathe as we watched and became enamored with the story and the mythology that was wrapped into the story. I was 3 in the theater when SW came out the first time, My mother said it was the first movie I sat perfectly still for, you say it was aimed at teenage boys, I say Bah! Most of my friends round my age have been in search of our very own light saber since 1977.

I believe this : Hollywood has always found a good idea and beaten it till it is retarded(not the slang but the real definition of retarded: to slow, hinder, make less effective).. which is to say Hollywood = do it till you get it wrong, then try again with a re-boot.

They force feed us movie after movie in a franchise that WAS good till they have milked every cent out of it. I'm personally getting sick and tired of the Comic book movies playing out the secret identity angle that is supposed to be a huge portion of the Heroes issue early in every movie. Honestly the best superhero movie of recent history is the re-release of DareDevil, where the cut out the love scene the studio added after for the theater, it was never necessary, in fact I was insulted they put it in originally, and was pleased that the Director and Producers were as appalled as I was. In the Comics it took YEARS for MJ to find out Peter Parker was Spidy,(but they can't pay Kirsten Dunst and Toby Miguire costs) which is another reason movies are failing. Barely talented actors are getting WAY too much money to make a movie. So they cant afford to play out a story line as it is intended by the source material. NO ONE should be paid more then $1 million to act in a movie... NO ONE!

It happens in Novels to Film as well as TV to film. Sex and the City? WTF is that for? The show blows... lol literally, they glorify prostitution and then wonder why there's so many whores in the world. Black people want to be accurately portrayed in film and TV, then why do you keep excepting roles that only perpetuate stereotypes? My friends if we want the films to change we have to make them make the change. Movies suck because the people going to see movies are sheep, they have no thoughts for themselves and they see what the idiot box tells them too. I how ever see movies because I like to be entertained. I i hate a movie I warn everyone around me to see the movie at their own risk and what sucked about them, I don't see a movie because MovieBob told me too, or Roger(Video Games are too Art)Ebert told me too. Actually As far as Ebert goes, I think he's only ever given 1 review that I agreed with and it was back in the early 80's when he was still had a fat ass. For the most part if he says it was good I avoid it cause his definition of good is always a ballistic missile launch away from my idea of good. 80% of the time I completely disagree with movie Critics. But I watch their reviews to find out what a "trained" person thinks, then I either see the movie and lamb baist it myself or praise it for its qualities.

Twilight is so strong because... well ... I honestly have no idea. There's more acting in a Leonardo D-crapio(I'm not a fan) movie then in those, so I guess I have to thank the Twilight series for making my like an actor I thought was shit a lot more then those dry, lackluster, shitty acted movies, with a story line as thin as the superficial women that flock to those films to watch them over and over and over and omg will it ever end, over again. Twilight = death of the film industry. If those are good acted movies with a lasting moral then I'm an fungus spore.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Quick: Can you think of a functional premise somehow involving a hungry, hungry hippo? Because that might be worth money right now.

Been watching robot chicken lately Bob?

Gah, ninja'd.

It would appeal to overweight people, make it about a pie eating contest.

 

[Falseprophet]

I tend to agree with the above posters who note that Hollywood has always produced crap and we only remember the good stuff (I've had the same argument with people over "classic" rock), because Sturgeon's Law applies in all things. I remember when I heard they were making a Battleship movie, and I thought, "a movie based on board game? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard!" Then I was reminded of the movie Clue, which was one of the best ensemble comedies of the 1980s. Even a diamond started out as a lump of coal.

As for the politics in films--that's a load of crap. Most people don't care about the politics in film, or even notice them. I mean, look at some of the ideology the majority of Hollywood films would have me believe:

-If you are a parent and work a very busy job to put food on the table and give your children every opportunity in life, your kids are going to resent you for not being at all of their soccer games and school plays and you should feel guilty. Notwithstanding there were (and still are) whole generations where parents had to work long and hard just to scrape by and society didn't collapse.

-If you are fighting vampires or demons, you better be a Catholic with access to a Bible. Only a Catholic with a command of ludicrous interpretations of scripture can fight vampires and demons in the movies. Sorry, Protestants, but in compensation, have some birth control and enjoy sex.

-In all major historical events, there were only two sides. One was amazingly close to early 21st century liberal democratic ideals, even if the film is set 2500 years ago. This side was led by a handsome white Anglo-Saxon male who was a cross between George Washington and Chuck Norris. The other side were therefore tyrants or fascists surprisingly similar to America's current bogeyman du jour, whatever their actual historical circumstances or actions were. They were led by a mustache-twirling braggart who was a cross between Darth Vader and Hitler.

Does anyone actually believe any of that?

But if there's one thing I can add to the quality discussion, it's this (because I've seen it happen to music and publishing as well): In the "good old days", movies were made by people who liked movies. Yes, they were capitalists and they were trying to make as many bucks as they could, but they did have an appreciation for the craft of film. They wanted to make good movies, for the most part, even if this meant that producers called all the shots and directors and actors were basically wage slaves.

Today, movie studios are small pieces of huge corporate pies--multinational corporations whose primary concerns are stock futures, or wine, or insurance, or home electronics, and movies are just another line item in their budgets. While directors, actors and writers might still see themselves as craftsmen and artists, their corporate overlords see them as a commodity. You either produce, or you don't.

 

[Gamegodtre]

why movies suck the short list:
Uwe Boll
Michael Bay
Recently M. Night Shyamalan (especially for Last Airbender, i mean he just took the story and flung it against the wall)

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

V? Really using V for Vendetta as an examplem against movies being too political?

I'll admit I'm not expert on the movie but the comic is about as political as it gets.

I think he meant as in divided politically. It mixes right and left wing ideas.

I've never seen it or read it, and have no intention to. But interpreting Moviebob, that's what I got.

Yeah but the comic at least is very left wing. About as left wing as you can get. It's basically Alan Moore ranting about Thatcher. It had moral ambiguity but not much political ambiguity.

The problem is the the political scale is in fact a square, and not a line. In america, people try to cut that square diagonally for the two-party dichotomy: Liberals are Left\Authoritarian, and conservatives are Right\Libertarian. V for vendetta challenges this notion by making the hero Left\Libertarian.

Of course, it's an entirely false dichotomy, but that's just where the chips at the present.

This. yes, because i totally understand everything he said, but that many long words in a sentance cant be wrong

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

"V (as in For Vendetta) hates Government so much he makes Glenn Beck look like FDR, but his enemies are thinly-veiled analogs for the Bush Administration. Which one's the liberal, again?"

Well, well, well, Bob. Apparently, you've only bothered to see the V for Vendetta film, which clearly pits V against a government that's a thinly veiled Bush administration allegory.

However, if you had even bothered to read the original comic series, you would note that Alan Moore (of Watchmen and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen fame - both originally graphic novels) paints V as an anarchist - a terrorist who wages brutal war against a fascist British government. V is no liberal avenger, as seen in the film version. He's a hero, a villain, and a psychotic madman - not unlike the Dark Knight's Joker. Nor are his enemies Bush-analogs. They're closer to some crossbreed between Mussolini and Stalin. Moore portrays a world spiraling into madness, a world devoured by insanity. V's fight is no liberal and just crusade. He fights heroically but madly, and is an agent of destruction and chaos, for the sake of murder and pillage against those just as evil.

V for Vendetta (film) certainly isn't a good case to illustrate political nebulosity. It's just a case of a Hollywood's liberals messing with excellent source material. Sure, V for Vendetta was an above-average graphic novel adaptation, and I enjoyed the film (went to see it twice, in fact). But you would be very wrong to use it as an example of political ambiguity without reading Moore's novel.

Not the bush administration, its about the thatcherite administration in britain

 

[Ancientgamer]

The problem is the the political scale is in fact a square, and not a line.

A larger problem is people who sincerely believe they can reduce complex situations to simple geometric figures.

Seriously dude, your statement pretty much embodies the Dunning-Kruger effect.

First of all, please don't presume to diagnose me with a superiority complex on the basis of a 16 word sentence. Secondly, I obviously wasn't making a holistic statement on the political process: the line and plane metrics are very popular, common, and succinct methods of representing the political spectrum insofar as they are relevant in casual conversation. Of course I wouldn't write a treatise on the 4 point political scale, but don't be so obtuse as to consider yourself above using simplified graphs in very casual conversation? especially considering that, whether you like it or not, most people do still apprehend politics on a linear left\right scale.

Also of note is that you assume the Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't apply to you, and that you happen to be the only one so interested in asserting your superiority over others.

 

[00DUMB]

"V (as in For Vendetta) hates Government so much he makes Glenn Beck look like FDR, but his enemies are thinly-veiled analogs for the Bush Administration. Which one's the liberal, again?"

Well, well, well, Bob. Apparently, you've only bothered to see the V for Vendetta film, which clearly pits V against a government that's a thinly veiled Bush administration allegory.

However, if you had even bothered to read the original comic series, you would note that Alan Moore (of Watchmen and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen fame - both originally graphic novels) paints V as an anarchist - a terrorist who wages brutal war against a fascist British government. V is no liberal avenger, as seen in the film version. He's a hero, a villain, and a psychotic madman - not unlike the Dark Knight's Joker. Nor are his enemies Bush-analogs. They're closer to some crossbreed between Mussolini and Stalin. Moore portrays a world spiraling into madness, a world devoured by insanity. V's fight is no liberal and just crusade. He fights heroically but madly, and is an agent of destruction and chaos, for the sake of murder and pillage against those just as evil.

V for Vendetta (film) certainly isn't a good case to illustrate political nebulosity. It's just a case of a Hollywood's liberals messing with excellent source material. Sure, V for Vendetta was an above-average graphic novel adaptation, and I enjoyed the film (went to see it twice, in fact). But you would be very wrong to use it as an example of political ambiguity without reading Moore's novel.

Not the bush administration, its about the thatcherite administration in britain

Bob was referring to the (shit) movie version.