Why do some films that were blockbusters, later get bashed? (1 Viewer)

[george kaplan]

Well if I did do so anonymously, then I wouldn't be free to admit it would I , but I think my doing this would indeed be more anomalously as you spell it - i.e., an anomaly.

I read a review of Grease the other day, which said it was to teenage girls at the time what Star Wars was to teenage boys, and I think that's spot on. I loved Star Wars when it came out (I was a teenager), and saw it many, many times. I hated Grease, never saw it once, but many girls I knew (including my sister and all her friends) loved it. I'm now at a point where I actually like Grease a lot (though it still pales compared to Star Wars), though that doesn't mean that it wasn't designed to appeal to teenage girls. I still hate Titanic though.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I’m not saying you're wrong Doug—I just want to know who the cool kids are. First I tried to make George happy, but that only irritated Brook. Making Brook happy made Dome distressed (who I could only appease by posting recipes with lots of chilies). And even then I still had Seth to consider, where we not only disagree on movies, but on basketball—which brings me back to George.

Or maybe it is JimK who is the cool kid from Chicago. Or Angelo or Holadem from NY. Could be West Coast cool—but I gave up trying to be as popular as Ted—and I’m still trying to keep up with Zen and Ron in beer—no time for their views on movies. And of course I’ve got gulf cost cool in the person of Walter.

I can’t even decide which Jay is the coolest, much less trying to sort out overseas cool.

And I’ve not even managed to get to international cool—clearly those from foreign climes are likely more cool than locals.

And finally how to match Cees’ cool comments or Michael Ruben’s big city cool or Jack Brigg’s cool signiture.

Just tell me who I need to emulate and I’ll know what kind of movies to like. This will really be a big help as there are far too many that I’m trying to keep up with and too few to eliminate altogether.

Major apologies to all you cool guys not mentioned—just be assured that I’m trying to emulate you also.

 

[Lew Crippen]

How did I forget critical cool? Scott or Ernst? Or someone else?

 

[DougFND]

Damned if I know! All I can tell you is that I'm not one of them.

I may be reading you wrong. If so, I apologize. However, I certainly wasn't trying to say that you need to please the cool guys. I just meant that I think that the same kind of cool-kids/the-rest-of-us relationship that happens on an elementary school playground is present on a lot of boards, and probably here as well. Some people may notice that you get flamed for admitting you liked some of the blockbusters and jump on the bandwagon in order to fit in.

I sometimes get the impression that people bashing a movie are doing it not because they dislike it, but because they've been talked into disliking it.

 

[Chad R]

Trey Parker and Matt Stone once said something very prescient about pop culture, its successes and its eventual backlash. They said this on the cusp of South Park becoming a phenomenon, which made me, and still makes me, think they are very grounded and I have a lot of respect for them.

They said any pop culutre phenomenon will follow this same path. It will start out small, with a core group of people speaking its praises. Then it will become a success and the audience will rise, causing it to be put on magazine covers and what-not. At this point, there will be a group of people who claim to have liked it before it was popular. Soon after this, the show will hit its peak and the group that 'liked it first' will inevitably declare that it's no longer any good, it's not as great as it was when it had the small 'cult audience', etc, and the backlash begins.

It's several years after that when the culture will re-evaluate it and it has the chance of entering the pantheon of pop culture greats, or becoming an obsucre curiostiy piece.

 

[Lew Crippen]

No need, I'm just funning.

The people I mentioned would all listen to other’s opinions, and might well consider alternate viewpoints. But even when I disagree with them most passionately, I’d not think that they would take a position on a film because someone else did.

Most of us have never even seen the films that SteveGon promotes for example—pretty hard for him to take the popular (or intellectual view) on these.

 

[RobertR]

True. I think, however, that there are also people who say they like something even though they know deep down that it isn't good. I suspect this about many "admirers" of the SW PT.

 

[george kaplan]

Maybe, sometimes, some people, but I suspect, mostly not. At least not here. We have strong opinions around here, and while I like to think that most of the time our discussions are polite, they're certainly passionate, and while people learn from each other and appreciate others points of view, I don't think very many people are changing their basic opinion.

If I were the only person on this board to think so, I'd still feel the way I do about movies I love and ones I hate, and I know the same is true of Lew, and Brook and many others here. Find the most universally despised horror film of all time, and you can be certain that Justin S.' opinion will not be influenced by that one iota. We all find ourselves in the minority at times, but none of us change our mind just to be in the majority.

Of course, every once and while Brook and I find ourselves in complete agreement which leads to lots of cognitive dissonance on both sides.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Bad example. It got horrific reviews and took in $113 million. That's not a horrible figure, but it's definitely not "huge", especially given expectations for the flick. It had an enormous budget and was viewed as one of the year's big flicks, but it failed to become one...

 

[Lou Sytsma]

I agree with Ernest's first post.

As much as people love seeing a winner, there are just as many that love to see a winner fall.

Check out Ayn Rand's Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged novels -they capture this human characteristic mercilessly.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I hate that jackass Henry Roarke.

 

[RobertR]

On the other hand, Howard Roark is quite a man of integrity.

 

[Brook K]

I have an eviscerating review of Troy already prepared. Look for it sometime in 2007.

And may the record show that I'm a fan of School of Rock and Phantom Menace. It was that 2nd Star Wars movie that sucked ass.

Gotta go, I'm late for a Poseur meeting at the Ivory Tower.

 

[Mark_vdH]

A pretty well-known artist/director once said:

It can, but only if it has LOTR as its initials, Ernest.

 

[Dave Poehlman]

Titanic is like an ex-girlfriend. When you first see it you think it's pretty good... but then you think back and say "what was I thinking?!?"

 

[Ben_@]

Chad R, you hit the nail on the head. Though its different for a TV show, since they are basically constantly making sequels or followups to their previous season or episode. The Matrix and Star Wars could be looked at in this way.

Titanic, Armageddon and other big "one hits" are a different breed. People agree that they aren't "great cinema," but they aren't worthless either. I enjoy my share of dumb movies (just look at my collection) and I think it helps round out your opinions of all movies. Even the Criterion collection gives huge budget American blockbusters a nod (Armageddon, The Rock). I look at it like having sugary cereal, or a great dessert. You need plenty of good stuff that has meaning and purpose but you also deserve to be able to enjoy a spectacle for what it is.

And for the record, I like Armageddon, hate Titanic, love the Matrix sequels, and hate the Star Wars prequels.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Point proven.

 

[Angelo.M]

Well-said.

Nowadays, we go to the cinema on 2 sorts of occasions: (1) to take our daughter to a new kids' film; (2) the occasional "blockbuster."

And, in most of the cases of type (2), we walk out entertained, but not thinking we've seen anything earth-shatteringly great or artistically revolutionary.

For example, the LOTR flicks were, for us, flashy (and goofy [sorry]!) fun, and nothing more. But that's OK, because we were entertained. Art? I don't know, and I don't care. We went because we were interested, not because we thought we'd see a classic, and a good time was had by all.

And I certainly feel no need to bash these films. I just don't hold them in the same estimation as many folks around here do.

 

[BretWeaver]

The great majority of a film's income value is measured by its first weekends numbers. At that point people aren't really going on reviews, unless they are so overwhelmingly negative (waterworld), but more on the ammount of marketing buzz put out by the company releasing it. I'd have to say that the ammount of money a movie makes is not a very good indication of how good it is at all, altho with film being an industry you cannot leave that part out. But cmon, "Home Alone" made craploads of money... anyone wanna put it on the AFI top 100?

 

[WillG]

I'm late here, but I think alot of it is psychological. When we get to Blockbuster season. We are bombarded with maketing. Cool looking trailers, EPK television specials, fast food tie ins, magagzine articles, actors promoting the film etc. We go to the theater, pay money, kill 3 hrs of our lives, watch cool looking stuff happen on screen with a bunch of people. Even though the film may be not be all that good, I think many people want to believe that they have just seen something really good, but that wears off after awhile. When they watch it again at home without the bravado of the theater and with modified presentations, it changes perceptions and the flaws become more apparent.

For the record, for films like Independence Day and Armageddon, I have no problem. Even though they are not great examples of Cinema, I think with those films you got your money's worth. And, the premises of those films are frighetening enough to ilicit a reaction. As long as you are not expecting "Gone With the Wind" quality, and don't have to pick apart the plot holes. I think those films are perfectly enjoyable. On the other hand, I don't think the Star Wars prequels and Matrix sequels have fared as well. Those films were many years in the making after the initial films with good quality. It seems like those films did not deliver on the promise built up in people's minds.