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

[Karl_Luph]

Maybe more people are choosing to pass on going to the theater and waiting to catch a movie on dvd to enjoy in the comfort of their own abode on their home theater set. This is what most of my friends do now that they're out of college. Alot of the big theaters around here are hangouts for undesirables or undisirable wannabees. Maybe it's different in the smaller towns out there. Band of Brothers was the last really great dvd(s) I saw and it blew away any other movie I've seen in years.

 

[Ray Chuang]

Karl, you wrote:

Maybe more people are choosing to pass on going to the theater and waiting to catch a movie on dvd to enjoy in the comfort of their own abode on their home theater set.

With the price of 5.1 surround home theater systems rapidly dropping in price, no wonder why this is happening. Also, with DVD releases they can often provide longer, uncut editions of a movie, which sometimes can actually make the movie much better.

It's sad that theater complexes like the new Syufy Century Theater complexes where every screen has THX sound and Kodak projection certification are still quite rare. The existance of Century 25 Union Landing (Union City, CA) and Century 20 Great Mall (Milpitas, CA)--where every screen has THX certification--are the only reasons why I even go out to see a movie in a theater nowadays.

 

[Ryan Peter]

Right now is a garbage heap time for releasing movies. Nobody wants to release a good movie in this twilight zone that exists after Academy Nominations and after the Oscars. Right now is a great time to see all those films nominated for various things, though, and ignore the crap they are putting out.

 

[Joshua_Y]

Its not like just now there have been bad movies that made money...its always happened....

 

[Brian Kidd]

Last weekend I was dragged kicking and screaming to BRINGING DOWN THE HOUSE. You know what? It wasn't that bad. In fact, I really enjoyed it up until the last quarter of the film. Is it art? Not even close. Does it have problems? Numerous. Is it funny? Yeah. It is. It's lightweight fluff. Enjoyable fluff. We tend to disregard films on this forum if they aren't intellectual and edgy. BRINGING DOWN THE HOUSE took me back to a simpler time when I was able to just enjoy a film. There's a huge difference between mindless flims that are just bad in every way shape and form and mindless films that are still fairly well made and entertaining. BDTH ranks among the latter.

 

[Malcolm R]

Movie goers...american or other...have always been suckers for bad movies.

Definitely. I don't think this is unique to any country or culture. Didn't Roberto Benigni's "Pinocchio" set box office records in Italy? It's been widely ridiculed by the rest of the world as one of the worst, if not most disturbing, movies ever released. How many "Godzilla" movies have the Japanese flocked to? With all their bad special effects and similar plots? France? Two words: Gerard Depardieu. Then there's Bollywood in India which seems to make dozens of films based on the same couple of scripts, resulting in the decline of the Indian box office. And the flood of martial arts movies that comes from Hong Kong (some are good, some not so good).

The US does not have a monopoly on bad movies. :wink:

 

[TheLongshot]

First off, you can't judge a film is "total crap", solely on reviews and trailers. While you might get the idea that you probably won't like something, until you actually see it, you don't know. Films that I skipped out on for that reason that I later enjoyed include "Nightbreed", "The Mummy", "American Pie", "Starship Troopers", and "Red Planet".

Second, you suggest that they should go see "City Of God" instead. Problem is, "City Of God" isn't a comedy. I know a lot of people who would see "Bringing Down The House" before setting foot in a screening of "City Of God". They'd rather laugh than get depressed.

Also, comedy is a very subjective thing. Just because you don't think it might be funny, doesn't mean other people won't think it is funny. Obviously, there are plenty of people out there that disagree with you.

Thirdly, I don't know why you are rolling your eyes about Daredevil being a #1 film. It was well marketed, and most comic book fans were going to be there no matter what the reviews, and there wasn't much competition. Personally, I think it is a better quality film than what we normally get during this time. Not saying it is a great film, which it is not, but usually all there is in Febuary is pure drek.

Jason

 

[John^Lal]

people go to the movies to be entertained. to watch in awe, laugh, and cry. When people pay to be entertained, it's for something that will give them an otherworldly experience. the fact that high octane movies like xXx and tired cliches used in Bring Down the House makes so much money doesn't bother me that much. hell, every time we turn on the t.v. we have to hear about Saddam Hussein and Iraq, as well as North Korea..as well as our bad economy. people want an escape, and escape where a brain isn't needed seems viable. These movies also, are not being made by the people we expect creativity from. hopefully though, this money making formula being used over and over will lose it's strength and hollywood will have to learn to become more creative as a whole again

 

[Wayne W]

I saw the new Steve Martin flick because a good friend of mine had sneak preview passes. I went in with low expectations (mostly looking to catch up with my friend) and the movie was entertaining. I rarely see any films at the theater anymore and I doubt I would have shelled out the $$ for this or most movies. But, that doesn't mean I can get up on a soap box and say other people shouldn't. I would rather go with blind DVD buys (of which I've only been disappointed once). As far as Steve Martin throwing his career away that is silly considering the film is doing so well. His next two films Shopgirl (from his book) & Picasso at the Lapin Agile (from his play - which I've seen) show that he isn't only doing mainstream work.

It kind of mystifies me when my friends call me a movie snob because I like many films from every genre. I guess it is because I can rattle off not only the actors in a film but the director, cinematographer, producers, & screenplay writer. But knowing a lot about movies and who is involved in making them doesn't mean I only like films the critics consider to be great. For the most part I find critics to be void of any insight into a film. I enjoyed Resident Evil, Starship Troopers, Fast & the Furious, XXX, etc as well as movies like City of Lost Children, Brazil, The Man Who Knew To Much, etc. Why do I like the cheesy adrenalin pumped movies (only some mind you)? Because they are fun and that is part of what I enjoy about movies. Personally I think the beauty of film is what the viewer takes from the experience and if somebody likes a film I don't more power to them. I guess I've rambled enough...

I loved Daredevil, btw.

 

[Steve_Tk]

The Teenage MTV generation seems to be taking over. It is absolutely funny to me to flick on MTV, see that 50 Cent song as number one. If you listen to the lyrics, absolutely none of children in the studio of MTV have encountered half of what he talks about in his song.

 

[Edwin-S]

If you listen to the lyrics, absolutely none of children in the studio of MTV have encountered half of what he talks about in his song.
------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't a measure of much. Noone who went to watch "Titanic" ever experienced the sinking, but it still managed to become the biggest box office hit of them all.

 

[DaveGR]

then again,,how many people,after seeing Titanic,went and started wearing early 20th century clothing,and started speaking like those who lived at that time,just to copy what they seen,,hmm not many that I can think of. I definitly see Steves POV.

 

[Rob Bartlett]

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.

QUite literally, seeing as how the entire movie made a fraction of what MBFW did.

It is kind of a conundrum isn't it? You can't legitmately criticize a movie for making it to the top of the box-office if you haven't seen it. And if you have seen it, then you don't have the eensiest bit of right to complain about it making money. (Truth be told, I find some films to be the biggest afforonts, and refuse to see them, like Red Dragon . I don't care what it makes, but when people compare a Brett Rater film-any Brett Ratner film to something like that, my blood boils.)

A film doing well at the Box-Office. I myself am fascinated by the subject, but I don't let it get to me when a film does well or poorly. It really is different from art, and who knows, maybe the writer of Bringing Down the House poor as much of his heart and soul into the work as any arthouse writer. Okay, maybe not. But art and commerce are two different things. And to ask to merge the two is like-well, it's like mixing church and state. I mean, to demand people see more serious films over Bringing Down the House is like asking someone to type up a bibliography over going on a Ferris Wheel, or soemthing. OK, bad anology. Also don't think people should hope for films to flop, because it's jsut not funny for people to lose their jobs. It really isn't.

Also, Chicago is an immensely successful film, by many measures. it may end up being the highest grossing Musical ever . You have to udnerstand, most films about show business end up flopping, and flopping hard, if Julia Roberts doesn't star,

By the way, The Matrix was not a difficult movie for me to understand. However, I grew up nourished on X-Men comics, and I mean the Jim Lee Scott Lobdell era, so high concept doesn't faze me one bit. But people who aren't immersed in cyberpunk literature might find it difficult to figure out that it's not now, but it's the future, and computers talk to us but we're harvesting them and swallowing a pill frees you from the computer but you're not reall free and when you wake up you're blind, but then everyone is blind if they're freed so how can they free so many people. And you use martial arts because it's not the real world even though you thought it was the real world, but it once was the real world but it isn't; it just once was. All the wires and computers are the real world, people aren't the real world. because people are real and omputers aren't. And you'll know that by swallowing the pill. And there is no sppon. Of course there isn't.

 

[LennyP]

It is my hope that one day this kind of insulting, elitist bullshit will cease to exist here. People are now idiots because they don't share our hobby

No, people are idiots, period. Crowds have always been idiots, a person is intelligent, a crowd as a whole is a moron.
Sure most just want to be entertained, work their 9 to 5 jobs all week, go out only on Saturday night, see any movie that starts soon, etc.

But the main reason better movies fail at the box office is because they don't appeal to as wide an audience as those that are successful, they do not have as big a budget in advertising, which is $10-30 million just for ads and banners and posters and shit like that, and they also might not have as big a distribution and not play at every local theater in every village.
Most of all people are tired, everyone is whining and got problems, etc, "whaaa I want my mommy" kinds, so they just want to see light fare, where you don't have to think, which is just entertainment, no sad dramas, no complicated sci-fi, no social commentary or reflection of someone's real life, just happy endings, brainless action, walk out of a theater and forget what you saw in 3 mins 12 seconds.
Those of us that do enjoy more "challenging", well made movies that transport us into another reality for 2 hours, or 2 days, or a week, however long and however deep we dive into them, and engaged by them, ARE more privileged, are elite, are better. Yes we are on a higher level than the rest and we spit on those below. I like it like that. It's not a matter of taste, but a matter of understanding of where one stands. I think that a Touch of Evil and Fast and the Furious are on the same level of crap, yet The Tailor of Panama, Leon, and Resident Evil are in my top10 of all time. I am different, and consider myself lucky I'm not part of the crowd that just likes general fair and agrees with everyone. If that's how everything was, life would be boring.

 

[LennyP]

quote:

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

No I have not and nor will I.
-----------------------------------------------------------

The US does not have a monopoly on bad movies.

Oh yes indeed, maybe there'll be 150 stinkers made in US this year, at least, including straight-to-video/cable/tv whatever, because it's such a big industry in this country, but by percentage, almost every other country produces like 70% crap.
For every La Femme Nikita, Amelie, The Ring, The Eye, Amorres Perros, Swiri, 2019, there are 100s of other, terrible movies with no budgets, no acting, and no story.

 

[george kaplan]

There are so many problems with that statement I don't know where to begin. First of all, you are elite and better and spit on those others because you prefer films that you think are better made, etc. Many of us disagree with you about what those films are. But I'm not going to spit on someone or feel elitist just because I think Vertigo is a much deeper film than Jules & Jim and someone else like Jules & Jim. Hell, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World says more about the human condition than Jules & Jim, but because it also entertains, and elicits laughs instead of ponderment, it's immediately dismissed by a certain group.

You know, almost every film ever made deals with some complex issues. I haven't seen Bringing Down the House, but the 'issues' are certainly there. The fact that they are dealt with humorously immediately brings derision from some. Why? I see this all the time. Why is it that

film A - made you laugh, had a light-hearted tone - conclusion: just fluff, can't be deep, will be forgotten as you walk out the theater

film B - serious, weird characters that are nothing like anyone you've ever met, plot holes big enough to drive a multiplex through, incomprehensible writing - geez, I didn't understand that, but it must be deep. Let me think about it for 4 weeks. It can't be the film, it has to be me not understanding the brilliant insights that this director has buried in this film.

Why?

 

[Jay E]

If you look over at the thread extolling the virtues of 1980's films, you'll see that the movies Hollywood is making now are no better or worse than they were making 20 years ago. The difference is, because people grew up with those films, and thus have a very nostalgic view of that time period in Hollywood. 15 years from now, people on this forum will be doing the same thing with the films coming out now.

 

[Brad Eisenhauer]

Okay, here's my view of this subject, once and for all. Some of it's been said here already, even repeatedly.

Fact 1: The "average" movie-goer has rather pedestrian tastes in movies. They're not looking for anything that's going to "push the envelope" or make them think; they're looking to be entertained for a couple of hours.

Fact 2: The "average" poster on this board views film as an art, unlike the movie-goer discussed above. That's why we're here. We like to be entertained just as much as the next guy, but our tastes in entertainment are different. We approach a movie differently.

Fact 3: The terms "good" and "crap" are subjective. One person's favorite movie of all time is another's crap, and vice versa. It's all opinion. Those opinions, however, can be backed up with previous experience. Someone with a broader experience in watching films might be said to have a "more valid" opinion. Someone may espouse that FaF is their favorite movie of all time, but they may also never watch anything outside the standard "popcorn" fare. Someone with broader experience might be more discriminating in terms of what they will stamp with their personal seal of approval.

Fact 4: Those of us on this board are most likely elite in our film experience. By this I mean simply that our experience is far broader than that of most people, putting us in a relatively elite category. (Personally, I believe I've seen a broader range of film than most people, but I don't hold a candle to some of the people here.) Does that make us elitist? Only if we believe ourselves superior human beings because of it.

Fact 5: Every art form has its good and its crap. Take music, for example: Britney Spears' music is formulaic and unoriginal, but it's also catchy and can be fun to listen to if you're not expecting much from it. It's widely derided as complete schlock, but she also sells a lot of records. Similarly, there is a segment of the movie-going public (apparently most of it) that will go see unoriginal, formulaic movies that can be fun to watch if you're not expecting much from them. They're popular BECAUSE they're formulaic. The audience knows exactly what to expect. (See fact 1.)

Fact 6: People are still idiots, but for entirely different reasons completely unrelated to this discussion.

Conclusion: Those of us who are in that elite category of film experience get frustrated because of what we perceive as a lack of appreciation for our favorite art form on behalf of the general movie-going public, particularly because their taste affects what is available to us at the local cineplex. Everyone has different tastes in art: some like paintings hanging on a wall, some like the great wines and cheeses of the world. I don't. Those who view movies simply as entertainment will pay to see those formulaic movies; those who view film as art, who expect more from a film, are not likely to plunk down our hard-earned cash on something that we recognize as being exactly like a dozen other releases this year, that recognition being possible because of our broad experience. We are more discriminating in what we want to see. It takes more than a slick marketing campaign, big box office numbers or a bunch of cool cars to get us to see, and deem good, a movie.

 

[Holadem]

then again,,how many people,after seeing Titanic,went and started wearing early 20th century clothing,and started speaking like those who lived at that time,just to copy what they seen,,hmm not many that I can think of. I definitly see Steves POV.

Silliest argument I have ever heard. Comparing the influences of Pop culture on fashion with that of a disaster movie made from a 90+ years old event. Interesting. :rolleyes

--
Holadem

 

[Rob T]

We live in a world where professional wrestling, "The Bachelor" and Howard Stern provide a realistic sampling of what the public craves in mass entertainment.

The difference between the two is Howard is quite talented.

And I liked Daredevil.