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

[Steve Schaffer]

Another factor--often a bad popcorn flick that makes a very brief flash on openning weekend and disappears in a couple more weeks due to bad word of mouth will sell hugely on dvd!

Lost in Space stank, but sold huge numbers on dvd. I remember it as one of those movies people had to have as demo material for their HT's. Having had the misfortune of seeing it theatrically I didn't buy into the hype to own it on dvd.

Battlefield Earth probably made more on home video than theatrically.

Due to it's bad reveiws I don't plan on seeing LXG in a theater but will probably buy the dvd.

This may sound backwards, to pay $15 or so for a dvd and not spend $5.50 for a matinee theater showing, but there are few movies out there that will make me risk the unpleasantry associated with most theater presentations nowadays.

 

[george kaplan]

I'm not sure if Lost In Space actually sold that well on dvd. I own it (as do many others I'm sure), because in the early days you'd buy a dvd player and they'd give you five free dvds, of which that was one, or a variation on such a deal. I watched it once, but never will again.

 

[Jason Kleeberg]

I like Michael Bay movies.

 

[SteveGon]

I like Michael Bay movies.

That's okay, we still love you.

 

[Rob P S]

I like Michael Bay movies.

I can top that - I like most Jerry Bruckheimer movies - Crimson Tide, The Rock, Con Air, Armageddon, Enemy of the State, Gone in 60 Seconds, Coyote Ugly, Remember the Titans and Black Hawk Down. I'll probably see PotC and Bad Boys eventually. I'll never see Pearl Harbor, Bad Company or Bad Boys II.

 

[Steve_Tk]

I like Armageddon. I guess that should be a question when you apply for membership here.

"Do you like Armageddon, yes or no. If you check yes then it's obvious you are apart of the joe-six-packs, otherwise known to us as inferior in intelligence. You fail to be elite like us, therefore you need to go to a site that falls more in your intellect level. We only like movies here that are not made my Micheal Bay. If you do not like talking about how bad he is, then you are either stupid or do not have superior movie taste."

The thing is, the people who mostly spend their money on these films, kids, generally don't care. They want to see "sh1t blow up real good", and don't care so much about stuff like plot and acting

God. This is the most elitism post I think I have ever seen here. Does this guy walk around patting himself on the back all day? I guess because I like Armageddon then I'm just some retard, because hey, I don't care about plot or acting! If something blows up then I'm there with my money in hand, woohoo bring on the popcorn! Sorry to rant, I'm going to go hang out with my inferior friends and family now. Some day we all aspire to be as amazing as some of you.

 

[RobertR]

Stuff blewed up real good.
i like the camera is always moving-even in the quiet scenes.
that makes every scene important, not like in other movies.
when the camera doesn't move around , it makes the story dull and hard to concentrate on.
this dvds just gonna be sick yo.

No mention of plot, writing, acting, editing, etc.

 

[Seth Paxton]

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."

Yes, I think several people have already adequately covered the issue.

I would just add that IMO the term "popcorn movie" defines a GENRE just as identifiable as FILM NOIR, ROMANCE, THRILLER, SF, EXPRESSIONIST, and so on. Some are sub-genres of course, some describe direction style or cinematography more than narrative, some instead are mostly defined only by the narrative content.

But speaking from an amateur screenwriter standpoint, I see a popcorn film as having certain key structures and requirements from it's plot and characters, just as film noir can be identified by the detective, crime, femme fatal and dark cinematography.

Working within the contrainsts of a genre, focusing on the goals of a genre, does not limit the creators from seeking out excellence within those areas. Does the good guy win? Yes. Do we quickly identify a clear-cut antagonist? Yes. Should we expect more action and/or comedy than your average Oscar attempt? Definitely.

But within that structure there is absolutely no excuse for poor direction, writing, etc.



And for the record, since I see this as a seperate genre, I don't think "being entertained by the film" qualifies a film as "popcorn". I love Ben-Hur and 2001, both have moments of action, neither are close to being popcorn films though. I just like to eat popcorn while watching any genre of film that entertains me.


I would list Road Warrior, Raiders, Ronin and several Bond films, Star Wars and Pirates of the Carribean as great examples of the popcorn film done well. There are certain repeating patterns even among those films, certain narrative structure points that you can see in each film, setbacks and showdowns that time out at very nearly the same moments in each film for example. And these films often avoid fleshing out any deeper character conflicts or complexities, leaving us usually with just a general archtype to work with - tough guy, underdog, quiet thinker, dangerous rogue type...

And you can also combine genres of course. Dazed and Confused might linger between comedy, teen-coming of age, and popcorn (though with less "action", but still a protagonist headed toward a showdown). Seven Samurai is both human drama and clearly popcorn action.


Also, I think its safe to say that Shakespeare in Love made enough money to have touched audiences beyond the "film elitists". Just because you know someone who hated it and it beat out your favorite for an Oscar doesn't mean that lots of average folks didn't love the film. After all, that film leans quite clearly toward popcorn structure itself mixed with a strong dosage of romance. It's not like it utilizes odd, arty visuals, nor does it implement a confused narrative like you get with the opening of Punch Drunk Love or the entire plot of Adaptation. SiL makes it quite clear with very obvious action who is good and bad, where the romance is, where the conflict is, and how everything is going to be resolved (and is).

In fact I think its rather ironic that someone would defend the "popcorn" film and Joe 6 viewers by attacking SiL as elitist high-art, when the truth is it more likely won the Oscar for being a compromise between popcorn and high-art writing/dialog. And for that matter SPR was another popcorn meets moral drama blending, rather than being strictly high-art. Certainly it was lighter on the popcorn flavor than many other SS films, but it did hang off of a popcorn skeleton.

In both films the biggest point in which they stray from popcorn is that they do make an attempt to explore a character or characters deeper than a popcorn film would. We would not be investigating the complex motivations of Bill Shakes nor would we take time for the WW2 squad to go beyond 2 lines of dialog questioning their mission or reflecting on their lives (we would get 1-2 lines just for "color" and that's where it would stop, time to move on to the next narrative conflict point).

 

[SteveGon]

God. This is the most elitism post I think I have ever seen here. Does this guy walk around patting himself on the back all day? I guess because I like Armageddon then I'm just some retard, because hey, I don't care about plot or acting! If something blows up then I'm there with my money in hand, woohoo bring on the popcorn! Sorry to rant, I'm going to go hang out with my inferior friends and family now. Some day we all aspire to be as amazing as some of you.

Steve_Tk: I'm sorry you feel insulted but it cuts both ways. Those of us that insist upon a minimum level of quality in film and refuse to defend meritless junk are labeled "elitist." Some of us are simply more discriminating. There's a difference between that and elitism.

 

[george kaplan]

I do think it's a bit elitist to knock every film by a director, if you haven't seen them all. I do see a lot of "oh no, another film by Director X. Everything I've seen of his sucked, so this one will too, and there's no way in hell I'm going to go see this pos."

The problem is that, this might be the one good film by the guy. Like many others here, I think The Rock is a great movie, although the other Michael Bay films I've seen have sucked. I also really liked Crimson Tide and Enemy of the State, even if I don't care for the other Bruckheimer films I've seen.

Hell, I refuse to join in the Battlefield Earth bashing, because I haven't seen it. Just because everyone else thinks it sucks, doesn't mean I would agree. Although I may never find out, since it isn't exactly high on my to rent list.

 

[Quentin]

"Jaws" is a great example of a smart, well-done, "popcorn" movie. Partly because it IS all those things, and because it started the whole "popcorn", summer, blockbuster trend.

So, why all the tired blockbuster "popcorn" flicks? First of all, don't fool yourself...even in the '70's and early '80's there were a lot of dumb "popcorn" flicks. Heck, the '70's gave birth to exploitation flicks. There are just MORE movies now, and you are exposed to almost all of them because of the relentless marketing.

If you expect higher quality from your summer blockbuster - good for you! You should expect and demand better. But, better can also be a matter of personal taste. I did not think much of "Pirates", and "smart" is the last thing I would call it. But, it was fun enough for a "popcorn" flick, I suppose. "The Hulk" tried to be something different, but failed. I think there are always some above-average summer, "popcorn" flicks to choose from. It's just going to depend on your taste. My favorite film of this summer will be "Matrix:Reloaded".

 

[Quentin]

An interesting take, Seth. I'm not sure I agree...but, I'd have to look into it more.

Certainly, "genre films" all share structural characteristics. Perhaps, our generation will replace "genre film" with "popcorn film". And, of course, the first thing they have in common is the limited number of genres that are typically considered "popcorn" fare: action, sci-fi, horror, western, and their many sub-genres (war, crime, noir, detective, space opera, chase, etc.).

 

[Steve Schaffer]

While I think Elizabeth and Cate Blanchett were more Oscar-worthy than SIL and Paltrow, I do enjoy SIL. On one level it can be taken as a satire on the Movie business, and I find this subtext very funny. One scene in particular starts out in a pub and we overhear a waiter describing the special of the day--sounds just like a waiter in a modern trendy Beverly Hills restaurant describing some weird nouvelle cuisine. The finagling over financing productions, the comparing of notes on scripts in progress, all can be taken as satires on current movie production. We even see Shakespeare's session with a 16th century "Therapist."


Badly constructed, implausible, effects heavy popcorn flicks with scenery chewing acting performances are nothing new--for every Jaws there was a Poseidon Adventure.

I think the audiences should be given more credit than they've been getting in this thread. Most of the really bad summer blockbusters this year are dropping off the charts pretty quickly due to word of mouth, while the few good ones are showing some staying power.

 

[TheLongshot]

I did not think much of "Pirates", and "smart" is the last thing I would call it.

Nor would I. How about "Well executed"? Sure, it didn't reinvent the wheel, but these movies don't need to. They just need to be entertaining without becomming overbloated. "The Mummy" also fits in this category. Sure, those films aren't "Raiders" or "Star Wars", perhaps, but they do the job for the summer that most summer films fail to accomplish, since they are too interested in being big event films to make a ton of money, rather than a film designed with fun in mind for the audience.

Jason

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Couldn't possibly have said it better myself.

 

[John Doran]

Badly constructed, implausible, effects heavy popcorn flicks with scenery chewing acting performances are nothing new--for every Jaws there was a Poseidon Adventure.

i love the poseidon adventure.

 

[SteveGon]

I do think it's a bit elitist to knock every film by a director, if you haven't seen them all. I do see a lot of "oh no, another film by Director X. Everything I've seen of his sucked, so this one will too, and there's no way in hell I'm going to go see this pos."

Guilty as charged. :b

However: I've been around long enough, and have seen enough movies, to be able to tell whether or not I'm going to like a film, especially when it's from a director I don't much care for. I have no desire to see Pearl Harbor or Bad Boys II based on the reviews of critics I respect and my own feelings towards Michael Bay. If that's elitist, then so be it.

 

[rin]

Those of us that insist upon a minimum level of quality in film and refuse to defend meritless junk are labeled "elitist."

When you label a film I liked as "meritless junk", rather than just saying that you personally didn't care for it, you are implying that your opinion is a factual statement. If this statement were true, someone who liked this film would be guilty of enjoying "meritless junk" and, by your standards, would be considered less intelligent, or discriminating at the very least, than you, in your opinion. Wouldn't you, in this case, be deserving of the label "elitist" since you are implying your superiority in this regard?

 

[SteveGon]

When you label a film I liked as "meritless junk", rather than just saying that you personally didn't care for it, you are implying that your opinion is a factual statement.

Has political correctness gone so far that one must soften his opinion to the point where it makes no impact? Case in point: my favorite whipping-boy Armageddon. I think it's a piece of sh*t. That's a fact as far as I'm concerned. I hate, hate, hate it.

On the other hand...

I admire The English Patient a great deal while many around here loathe it. I've yet to hear anyone say "I just didn't care for it." It's always "I hate it!" or "It sucks!"

Works both ways.

 

[Matthew_Millheiser]

It's all opinions, folks, nobody's right or wrong. For every piece of "mindless crap", there's an equally overpraised piece of "pretentious auterist garbage." And vice versa.

I love Armageddon and can't stand Magnolia. Don't like it? You can cram it sideways!!!!