Has america lost it's movie going mind? (1 Viewer)

[DaveGR]

oh well,theyve proven it with what they see. It has nothing to do with "elitist",,thats laughable. Its the fact that THESE same people who see,lets say FaF,are the same ones who say, "Man that there movie is a chick flick,its crap" to something like Shakespeare In Love. Sure not everyone will act that way,but are we as intelligent humans,supposed to go to these movies,and say yes,,yes this is quite a good movie,because it has cars in it. woo hoo NO, People have a right to opinions,and I may say there idiots,but they can watch what they want. As I can watch what I want,and think what I want about movies I dislike. It has nothing to do with being an Elitist,,thats just a oversimplification. And Yes I think theres alot of Idiots out there,not all dealing with what they choose to watch.It just so happens alot of the time,what they watch shows there mentality,not always,but many times. You ever watch Judge Judy? if so youll quickly realize that in her opinion,MANY people are idiots. hehe Hey I know Im an idiot with some things.

 

[Joseph Young]

The moviegoing public is, more than ever, looking for distraction in today's stressful times. Glancing at the headlines from the last couple of weeks, it is no surprise that a film like 'bringing down the house,' which under less tenuous circumstances might have grazed the top 5, hit at number one. No surprise at all, and do you really blame the American public for desperating seeking laughs, even if it's pretty clear the movie delivers few?

Joseph

 

[Andrew_Sch]

I generally agree with most of the complaints about the stupidity of American moviegoers. However, I'm not ashamed to say that I contributed to the box office take of A Guy Thing and Daredevil, in the interest of being with my friends and getting out of the house. Taking a look at my DVD Collection, am I a stupid moviegoer?

 

[Ted Lee]

....in the interest of being with my friends and getting out of the house.

well said. and yep, i'm also guilty as charged.

that's how i saw 'not another teen movie', 'dude, where's my car?' and other completely atrocious movies. well...okay...i sorta did laugh at not another teen movie. :b

sometimes it's not about the movie...it's about hanging out and having a good time with your friends. now that i think about it...i probably have dragged some of my friends to some artsy-fartsy film that they can't stand too.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

oh well,theyve proven it with what they see. It has nothing to do with "elitist",,thats laughable.

How is it laughable, exactly? They're idiots because they don't like what you like with your sophisticated sense in movies but you're not elitist? I'm confused here.


I know I'm not the audience for Bringing Down the House, so I stay away from it. I wouldn't disparage those who do like it though.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Few laughs, not true based on the reaction from the audience that I watched the film with on Friday. All of you sophisticated film lovers need to take another look at some of those guilty pleasure films you've enjoyed in the past before throwing stones at other people, who happen to enjoy films like Bringing Down The House.




Crawdaddy

 

[Jeff_Standley]

Jeff, have you actually seen either of the films in question?

No I have not and nor will I. I dont care to see either one of these movies because they have already been done about 10 other times. By different directors and studios and listed as another title. Like I said before I dont care to spend $8 at a time to see Queen Latifah show us the error of our ways and be a little hipper and Steve Martin as a gangster?....come on now we didnt get enough in Bulworth with Warren Beatty. And I dont need chris rock to show me how to be a breakdancing senator, because thats what the white house needs is to be is Gansta fly.
I mean really, the idea of these movies does'nt seem rediculous to America. I guess not, because apperantly thats what we want more of is a 2 hour time filler where we dont have to think for our selves but just sit and let it soak in. because, as quoted before the matrix is to hard to undestand.

 

[DaveGR]

Maybe I should be more clear,,when I say something about watching a movie,I dont acutally mean simply watching it,but rather,watching and then thinking it was good. I know there are some movies that are just stupid,and purposly so,to get laughs,,and I really dont have anything against that,but when a movie tries to pass itself off as "cool" or "great",and people buy into it,when clearly its worthless,then thats where I get to thinking that the general film goer doesnt know what there talking about,or has horrible taste. As far as simply seeing a movie,I didnt mean that,I admit I went to alot of crap,but then again I know it was after I seen it.At any rate,it doesnt matter,people can like what they want to,if they want to watch something,thats up to them.

 

[OcieB]

Taking a look at my DVD Collection, am I a stupid moviegoer?

Well, Andrew... you do own The Fast and the Furious.

I agree with Joseph Young to some extent... People do go to the theater to relieve stress and get away from the world; but I don't understand why someone would want to pay 8.75 or whatever to see a bad movie... At least go see a really good one. I just saw City of God and it was way better than any of the nominations for best pic this year (except maybe the pianist). The closest it was playing was in a little theater 45 min away, other than that i would have to drive an hour or more to see it. Most good movies don't get enough exposure. I think the problem lies in the theaters, not the public.

 

[george kaplan]

How the hell do you know that? You are making assumptions based on trailers. I'm sorry, but judging a movie from a trailer is a piss-poor idea. I've seen some great movies that had horrible trailers and some great trailers that turned out to be complete garbage.

 

[Andrew_Sch]

Well, Andrew... you do own The Fast and the Furious.

Hey...it's uh...got a kick-ass DTS track.:b

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Maybe I should be more clear,,when I say something about watching a movie,I dont acutally mean simply watching it,but rather,watching and then thinking it was good. I know there are some movies that are just stupid,and purposly so,to get laughs,,and I really dont have anything against that,but when a movie tries to pass itself off as "cool" or "great",and people buy into it,when clearly its worthless,then thats where I get to thinking that the general film goer doesnt know what there talking about,or has horrible taste.

I don't understand the distinction. It just seems like a difference of opinion to me... One person thinks the film succeded, the other does not. But that's okay. I guess I'd be fairly hypocritical if I judged you for the way you judge others.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Jeff, have you actually seen either of the films in question?

No I have not and nor will I.

Then that would make your comments about the film(s) in question and to which this thread was based on to begin with rather irrelevant.

I have seen Bringing Down The House and wasn't at all surprised at its opening weekend's take. And while I was pretty much negative about the film, I wouldn't be too quick to judge those who paid money to see the film and actually enjoyed it.

~Edwin

 

[DaveGR]

hmm maybe you havent been reading all the way thru,,I believe I do state that nonetheless its still an opinion,and they can watch and think whatever they want,I could care less about what they think,just as they ,if they believe what there doing,shouldnt care about what im saying,Still my initial statement I stand behind,that I believe the normal movie goer to be an idiot,,,and when I say Idiot,I mean that simply in the fact that I dont think they have any clue as to what a good movie,or film is. And That I still stand behind. BUT AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID,its all just an opinion,thats fairly easy to understand for me. I dunno

 

[Jeff_Standley]

Quote.
How the hell do you know that? You are making assumptions based on trailers?

I have read the reviews for Bring down the house, and Head of state I dont think needs an explanation as to why its going to be a stupid movie. I have seen my fair share of stupid movies and been deceived by trailers as well, but these 2 in point are pretty clear what type of movie they are going to be from the trailers.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I just don't get the inability for the "high art" fan to let go of the fact that not everyone shares those standards. Of my group of friends I am by far the highest up the chain of the "high art" ranks, but that doesn't mean I slam them all to hell as idiots.

Yes, I give some of them a hard time, my closer friends at least. If I have a friend that says he won't see Chicago I will point out that it's headed for the Oscar win and was pretty damn good to me (and many others). My point to him would be "hey, it appears to have something to offer".

But when he sees it and doesn't like it what do I say then? "sorry I wasted your money with bad advice"


So while I can chide my friends over missing some of the more artistic work out there, I also keep in mind that they have different expectations from film than I do, not to mention flat out different tastes. Our ideas of funny stupid humor might not even be the same, for example.

I've learned to enjoy films like Russian Ark by myself (well, HTF is where I go for the discussion) and I let them see/rent whatever they want. I will give advice if asked, and I will include qualifications and an explanation of what sort of film they will get if they go see a film I'm commenting on.

I'm pretty happy just getting the enjoyment out of the "high art" stuff by myself, who needs the rest of America? I love when I have company in the enjoyment, I'm just not dependent on it.


Now, that doesn't mean that I'm in favor of H'wood making more crap, nor am I pleased that "schlock" makes big BO. But so much of that is marketing and filling an audiences needs. And your needs do change drastically when you heavily increase the amount of films you see or have seen (when going back and catching classics).

 

[Ray Chuang]

Looks like I'm going to have to throw in my €0.02 on this one (holding €1 coin in my hands ).

This debate has pretty much made the arguement from Michael Medved (despite what lots of people here think about him ) that moviegoer tastes often are at major odds with movie critic tastes.

Take for example serious tone Oscar favorites among the movie critics this year: The Hours, About Schmidt, and Gangs of New York. Have they been making money hand over fist? No. Movies with a lighter tone like Chicago will definitely make WAY more money in the longer run.

I think movie critics are often blind to the fact that moviegoers often want movies as an escape from the real world, not reflect the real world. Why do you think the two Lord of the Rings movies released theatrically so far have made nearly US$650 million in box office revenues for the US market, and the two Harry Potter movies around US$570 million in box office revenues for the US market?

It is relatively rare that a movie that was a box office blockbuster became a favorite among movie critics at the same time.

 

[Seth Paxton]

And Ray, it's not like Chicago is exactly cashing in. Maybe relative to the other noms, but compared to the top 20 BO films of the year Chicago is nothing.


At the time of it's release Titanic actually was enjoying positive reviews out of both fans and critics.

 

[Nicholas Vargo]

Calm down. You just have to face facts that people are allowed to like what they want to like.

Back in early October, I posted a thread like this that pointed strictly to the teenage generation and how they were idiots when it came to going to the movies. Being a teenager myself who is more into thought-provoking films, I thought I was being brave and taking a stand. Of course, things change, and everybody who responded to that thread made me see the light that people are allowed to like what they want to like.

In fact, I was compelled to start that thread because the film "Swimfan" topped "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" in its opening weekend and it just outraged me at the time. Now, I look at it as just getting ticked over nothing. I'm compelled to see "Swimfan" even if it is horrible just so I can see if I was right or wrong.

As for "Bringing Down The House"'s numbers, they were no surprise to me whatsoever. I knew the movie would make money over the weekend because American audiences would like to see a comedy to get them away from the politics of war. It's a good alternative to get away from that.

 

[John^Lal]

Movie goers...american or other...have always been suckers for bad movies. Right now we are just seeing a major capitalization on it because hollywood has found their formula for this generation