Since when does quality filmmaking not include popcorn movies? (1 Viewer)

[rin]

I agree with you guys for the most part.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if you are the type who is very critical of films, and you expect a quality product in so many areas (character development, originality, plot, script, etc.)every time, it's kind of silly to plunk your $8.50 down on a film like Bad Boys II and then holler about how bad it was.

What were you expecting, Braveheart? Gone With the Wind?

Come on guys, really.

 

[Marvin Richardson]

I guess what I am trying to say is that if you are the type who is very critical of films, and you expect a quality product in so many areas (character development, originality, plot, script, etc.)every time, it's kind of silly to plunk your $8.50 down on a film like Bad Boys II and then holler about how bad it was.

Well, I've not seen Bad Boys II (I don't need a crystal ball to tell Michael Bay = crap 90% of the time, so I'll wait for video), but it seems silly to me to go to a movie theater and spend $8.50 + $6 or more for refreshments expecting the movie to be bad as you seem to be suggesting.

 

[chris rick]

The short answer: When bad, stale popcorn makes the quality suffer.

 

[rin]

Wow, I'm being quoted all over the place. Way cool!

it seems silly to me to go to a movie theater and spend $8.50 + $6 or more for refreshments expecting the movie to be bad as you seem to be suggesting

That's exactly my point! When there is a very high probability that a film won't be to your particular tastes(i.e. Bay/Bruckheimer), it IS silly to waste your time/money/brain cells on it and then tell everyone who will listen how bad it was.

Joseph Young: You may refrain from lightening up. The rest of you however...

 

[RobertR]

it IS silly to waste your time/money/brain cells on it

Which is precisely why I'm not going to see BBII (or Tomb Raider, for that matter).

 

[Marvin Richardson]

I think you missed my point: Expecting a Michael Bay film(a sequel no less)

Unless I've missed the point of this whole thread(for which I apologize if so), this isn't just about Bad Boys II or Michael Bay. Yes, he's the posterchild for crap movies in a lot of people's minds (mine included), but he isn't the only offender. Why do so many movies have to be BAD?
I try not to go see bad movies or movies that look like they won't entertain me. Unfortunately that means I don't go to the theater much. I'd like to, but most of the time it would be a waste of time and money as the movie will be a piece of garbage. I've been to the theater to see 6 movies this year. One of them was one of the top 20 worst movies I've ever seen (kudos to anyone who guesses which one it was!).

Dreamcatcher
X2: X-Men United
The Matrix Reloaded
Finding Nemo
The Hulk
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

I'd like to go more often, but those were the only movies that looked like they were worth spending the $15-$20 to go see. Out of all the movies that are produced, you'd think more of them would be worth seeing.

 

[Stephen_Dar]

Have a prostitue or drug abuser, saddle them with abusive friends/pimps etc. Then show them slowly abusing themselves in poorly lighted scenes. Bonus if they die at the end.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Too funny.

Lots of good points being made here. My criteria for a good film are the same as Stephen_L's, so no point in repeating. What's key is, can we get this message across to studio people some how? Or, to put it another way, has it struck anyone lately that studio heads actually aren't very competent at their jobs?

I mean, it's one thing to assume these dumb movies are made by smart studio execs because they keep the studios profitable, but the reality is the studios don't seem like profitable businesses in their own right at all. The profit these days mostly seems to come from spin-off marketing ventures, which basically makes most movies just expensive, extended commercials.

Fair enough, even that would convince me the studio execs actually are good at their jobs, but it seems even if you accept Hollywood films as extended commercials, there is still an astounding failure rate, and the studios eternally seem close to bankruptcy, seem to be getting passed around from one corporate parent to another like a hot potato.

You see a movie like "Hollywood Homicide" advertised, you say wow, that looks like such a misguided concept for a movie, something with no appeal either to young or older folk today, that you really wonder about the people who came up with it. Then it tanks, you see your prediction come true, and you really wonder, not about taste but about simple competence.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Rin, it seems to me like you're making the case for the people you're disagreeing with. You're a expecting a picture from Michael Bay, possibly the most successful action director in the business today, to be second-rate.

Some of us see that as a problem or symptom of the state of popular film.

 

[Holadem]

Armageddon is the best film ever made about deep core drillers who become astronauts in order to save the world.

I luv it.

--
Holadem

 

[Lew Crippen]

Fair enough, even that would convince me the studio execs actually are good at their jobs, but it seems even if you accept Hollywood films as extended commercials, there is still an astounding failure rate, and the studios eternally seem close to bankruptcy, seem to be getting passed around from one corporate parent to another like a hot potato.

You see a movie like "Hollywood Homicide" advertised, … you really wonder about the people who came up with it. Then it tanks, you see your prediction come true, and you really wonder, not about taste but about simple competence.

As William Goldman said in one of his books on the industry, “Nobody knows anything.”

 

[rin]

I too am tired of movies Bay and Brucheimer put out

Now you know not to waste your money on crap like Remember the Titans and Black Hawk Down!

Anyone want to bag on Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich?

 

[Jason Seaver]

Anyone want to bag on Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich?

Made a pretty good movie in Stargate, never reached those heights again (well, I don't think - I missed The Patriot). They do appear to have some talent, but haven't really been inclined to use it.

 

[SteveGon]

WTF????????????? If a film requires that herculean of an effort to watch, get up and leave, ask for a refund, something.

Well, Bad Boys (what I can remember of it) and The Rock are merely okay, I've never bothered watching Pearl Harbor, and with Armageddon, I sat through it because my brother-in-law was an extra in it (trying to spot him).

My major problem with Michael Bay is this: his films are usually taken to task by critics. Even many of his fans would probably not call them classics. He has to know this. Knowing that, you think he'd try to do better (I would), to make something genuinely good. He isn't. That smacks of contempt for his audience. He's content to put out shoddy material and rake in the quick cash. That makes him a hack in my book.

 

[SteveGon]

Well, here's the issue as I see it- some people associate "great movie" with some sort of message, or to not be an action movie. The point that a few people have tried to make in this thread is that it is possible to make a great movie that is action or comedy without "redeeming social value."

Exactly. Take a look at my Top 20. There's action: The Road Warrior, The Train, Seven Samurai. There's horror: Dawn of the Dead. There's comedy: Sullivan's Travels, The Commitments. There's weird psycho-dramas: Santa Sangre, Proof, The Ninth Configuration. Even a western: The Gunfighter.

I appreciate and love good movies no matter what genre they fall in.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

The problem as I see it is that many of today's summer blockbuster type films do not feel like they where made with any sense of joy or adventure. I imagine films like Too Fast Too Furious & Scooby Doo not being the result of film-makers trying to make a solid piece of entertainment, but more as the end result of statistical research and number crunching, these films are not made for people, so much as they are assembled for key target demographics whom on average are expected to spend X amount of dollars.

I know that there have always been bad films being made, But I really cannot recall any other time in which these bad films where so totally devoid of any soul or imagination.

 

[TheLongshot]

I know that there have always been bad films being made, But I really cannot recall any other time in which these bad films where so totally devoid of any soul or imagination.

I agree. While I watched a lot of crappy movies in the 80s, a lot of it was still enjoyable. Sometimes in the "it's so bad, it's good" level, but mostly because people were putting their heart into it. Damnit, I want Cannon Films back...

I agree that there are a lot of movies nowadays that are just overbloated, trying so hard to blow you away with spectical, that they forget about simple fun. That's why PotC was so enjoyable. It has life and soul, and the effects just support the story, instead of overpowering it.

Jason

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

"Heat" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" in the same sentence?? Sorry but
Back to your regularly scheduled thread...

-Dennis

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I agree with many posters here. Beiing a "popcorn" movie is no excuse for sucking. Escapism can be be and has been doen well. Besides the oft-mentioned The Rock, there's Men in Black, Lethal Weapon, the orignal Star Wars Trilogy and Ghostbusters. There's no excuse for crap like Godzilla and Lost in Space.

 

[Jim_K]

First of all Hollywood has been making bad popcorn films for years so this is hardly a new phenomena. Now I do agree that over the past 10 years or so there has been a glut of bad F/X extravaganzas.

Part of the problem lies with the Hollywood system itself. In the 70's & 80's there was an incentive for film-makers to make a quality Popcorn film so it would have legs for a few months. Whether they had the talent or not to pull it off was a different story.

In today's Hollywood it's all about a strong marketing push & the big opening weekend. As long as they make a big enough profit that first weekend, too many film-makers don't give a toss whether it's a quality film or not.

Another problem is with CGI. In years past many F/X extravaganzas just didn't get off the ground because of the costs that were involved. Today with CGI almost anything can get the green-light which means you have a glut of F/X films churned out by the truckload with the studio's scraping the bottom of their talent pool to get these films made.

The last problem is a by-product of the first two I mentioned. Studio's generally dumbing down their Popcorn films to aim them primarily toward the teenage market for that Big opening weekend. In the 80's the Studio's churned out those insipid teen-comedies by the truckload. Now with CGI becoming cheaper & most cost effective the Studios can blow shit up to pack the kids in.

On a more positive note - Whether you like them or not we have had a decent amount of good Popcorn films over the past year such as LOTR:The Two Towers, X-Men 2, Hulk, Pirates of the Caribbean, Matrix Reloaded, etc.

Besides the good films wouldn't be taste so sweet without the shit to clean your palate.

 

[TheLongshot]

"Heat" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" in the same sentence??

Yeah, I know. PotC is such a better film.

Jason