For every well made movie, there are 100 piles of crap (at least). The vast majority of films nowadays are laughably bad. Bad acting, bad writing, bad casting, an overwhelming abundance of sequels and remakes, etc. Its become a cesspool of boobs, booms, and boos.
But is this not reflective of a lot of entertainment industries? For example: the video game industry. For every blockbuster game you can name, I can name dozens of horrible video games pushed out for a quick buck.
I can't really think of an entertainment industry where every single product is well received by the public. I could be wrong, but its just a characteristic of any entertainment industry to have good and bad product.
Movies that actually tell interesting stories about groups outside their mainstream audience in an interesting way, without relying on stereotypes. I'm waiting for The House of the Mosque getting filmatized.
Movies that are character-driven, but actually have characters that have flaws. No bad guy good guy dichotomy, but realistic human beings with their own interests. There are movies that pull this off, a lot of what Al Pacino stars in do, but it really seems like a minor "niche". TV shows such as House or Angels in America have been successful at this as well.
Less stories that go like this:
A: Hero meet girl.
B: Problem happen.
C: Hero fix problem.
D: Hero get girl.
E: Ending happy.
Ripley has to throw it into space to kill it, for god's sake. And it doesn't even die quickly.
There is nothing that harmful in space. You could survive in there until you ran out of breath, for god's sake. Sure, it's cold, but there's nothing where your heat can dissipate faster than radiating from your body. Sure, there's radioactive radiation, but not that much of it to kill you in minutes, or even hours, or days.
Also, less pseudoscientific bull****.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Which is a PROBLEM, dimir. It is a problem that sales are on the decline, and have been since early 2000.
Yes, and I already told you my theory on that. More than once, in fact, but, as usual Highroller style dictates, you flat out ignored it. Multiple times.
No, I read the transcript. Did you listen? It was a rant against the business, not the art. The has always, is, and always will be there, even if the studios aren't interested in that side of things. That's what he said.
But is this not reflective of a lot of entertainment industries? For example: the video game industry. For every blockbuster game you can name, I can name dozens of horrible video games pushed out for a quick buck.
I can't really think of an entertainment industry where every single product is well received by the public. I could be wrong, but its just a characteristic of any entertainment industry to have good and bad product.
Definitely, but this thread isnt about the entertainment industry as a whole (however valid your point may be), but a very specific part of it. That said, I dont play video games anymore just like I dont go to the movie theaters anymore. Its a huge waste of money more often than not in both cases. The argument isnt that there shouldnt be any bad product (that's inevitable) but that the discrepancy between the two has grown to absurd levels.
Less stories that go like this:
A: Hero meet girl.
B: Problem happen.
C: Hero fix problem.
D: Hero get girl.
E: Ending happy.
I see where you're going with this, but I feel it's worth noting that that's general enough to encompass a lot of stories. Hell, if you're willing to allow gender-flipping, that encompasses every single love story that does not end in tragedy ever.
That said, it's one thing to write a story whose skeleton is that, and another thing to write a story that is by-the-numbers what you described.
I see where you're going with this, but I feel it's worth noting that that's general enough to encompass a lot of stories. Hell, if you're willing to allow gender-flipping, that encompasses every single love story that does not end in tragedy ever.
Only the most cliché ones, that involve love at first sight, the problems being completely external and not caused by the protagonist because him ever screwing up would make him less sympathetic.
I'm also sure we could write love stories in different ways. From an outsider perspective, for example. Or perhaps show the life of a married couple over the 60 years, and what happens around them. Or have the main characters be misguided, and realize they don't actually love each other. Or something.
Happy endings are also way overrated. They get shoved in to all stories that a movie adaptation is made of. It's like having a happy ending is necessary to having a good story. Only, it's not.
That said, it's one thing to write a story whose skeleton is that, and another thing to write a story that is by-the-numbers what you described.
The skeleton also gets pushed into movies that wouldn't need it, and is often done very poorly. See: 80% of action movies.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Definitely, but this thread isnt about the entertainment industry as a whole (however valid your point may be), but a very specific part of it. That said, I dont play video games anymore just like I dont go to the movie theaters anymore. Its a huge waste of money more often than not in both cases. The argument isnt that there shouldnt be any bad product (that's inevitable) but that the discrepancy between the two has grown to absurd levels.
If you would like to have an intelligent discussion over your point of films generally being better in the past as compared to now (read; less bad films), feel free to take me through the decades.
Definitely, but this thread isnt about the entertainment industry as a whole (however valid your point may be), but a very specific part of it. That said, I dont play video games anymore just like I dont go to the movie theaters anymore. Its a huge waste of money more often than not in both cases. The argument isnt that there shouldnt be any bad product (that's inevitable) but that the discrepancy between the two has grown to absurd levels.
Again, the discrepancy is not growing. There have always been good films and bad films. Always.
The real reason it seems the gap is growing is because there are more films made in general. Here's an article about just that. It's easier and cheaper to make films than ever before so more get made. When you have more of a product you get more of everything, the good and the bad. I'll gladly agree there's more bad than good, but that's always been the case. There's just more overall now so it looks like things are getting worse even when they aren't.
Again, the discrepancy is not growing. There have always been good films and bad films. Always.
The real reason it seems the gap is growing is because there are more films made in general. Here's an article about just that. It's easier and cheaper to make films than ever before so more get made. When you have more of a product you get more of everything, the good and the bad. I'll gladly agree there's more bad than good, but that's always been the case. There's just more overall now so it looks like things are getting worse even when they aren't.
This isnt the debate forum. You can post hundreds of links until youre blue in the face and youre not going to change my opinion on this matter. If you want to put stock in what you read in a few articles, be my guest. Me, I only trust what I see with my own eyes. Regardless, Im entitled to form whatever opinion I choose to.
But since you provided the article:
"continues to focus on consumption rather than curation. There are, bluntly, too many lackluster, forgettable and just plain bad movies pouring into theaters. Dumping “product” into theaters week after week damages an already fragile cinematic ecosystem"
"dumping crummy movies that should go straight to on-demand into theaters just to get a review before rushing into the on-demand maw is no way to sustain, much less build, a healthy film culture"
"And as tough as it is to get any movie made, it’s even more difficult to produce and distribute genuinely original, nongeneric, non-groupthink work, which is one reason the big studios are now largely in the recycling business"
“It’s upsetting to think that filmmaking has become a hobby for those who can afford it or that so few of these films are having any impact at all”
This isnt the debate forum. You can post hundreds of links until youre blue in the face and youre not going to change my opinion on this matter. If you want to put stock in what you read in a few articles, be my guest. Me, I only trust what I see with my own eyes. Regardless, Im entitled to form whatever opinion I choose to.
But since you provided the article:
And, as someone else pointed out, show me the decade where there wasn't more bad than good in the theaters (or sraight to video) and I'll concede your point. But you can't.
EDIT: Also, how can you throw out opinion like it's fact and then immediately say it's not up for debate?! Is this a dictatorship? I don't expect to change your mind, people are stubborn, I know that, but you can't just shut down all objections to your opinion.
EDIT 2: The articles are evidence/statistics that support my side of the claim. You have literally nothing to support your idea. I'm not putting stock in the articles, I'm putting stock in the fact (as in proof, evidence, support of my claim) that there actually are more films released each year and it's actually true that films cost less to make. You can't dispute those things. You can dispute the quality because there's a certain amount of subjectivity in quality, but you can't say I'm wrong in what my side of the debate is based on.
And, as someone else pointed out, show me the decade where there wasn't more bad than good in the theaters (or sraight to video) and I'll concede your point. But you can't.
You dont need to concede my point and I dont need to concede yours. Im not trying to have a debate here. I stated my opinion, you stated yours. Thats where it should end. I think movies are getting worse and worse. You dont. Move along.
Also, how can you throw out opinion like it's fact and then immediately say it's not up for debate?! Is this a dictatorship? I don't expect to change your mind, people are stubborn, I know that, but you can't just shut down all objections to your opinion.
I threw out an opinion like it was an opinion. My opinion.
You can dispute the quality because there's a certain amount of subjectivity in quality, but you can't say I'm wrong in what my side of the debate is based on.
Quality is precisely what I was arguing from the start. And again, it was pointed out in quotes from your article.
You dont need to concede my point and I dont need to concede yours. Im not trying to have a debate here. I stated my opinion, you stated yours. Thats where it should end. I think movies are getting worse and worse. You dont. Move along.
I threw out an opinion like it was an opinion. My opinion.
Like those 4 quotes I pulled from YOUR article that basically say the same thing I did?
Quality is precisely what I was arguing from the start. And again, it was pointed out in quotes from your article.
So why do you feel that films are getting worse and worse, why is that your opinion? Don't just say "IT'S WHAT I SEE WITH MY OWN EYES!", tell me what you see, specifically, as compared to other decades.
So why do you feel that films are getting worse and worse, why is that your opinion? Don't just say "IT'S WHAT I SEE WITH MY OWN EYES!", tell me what you see, specifically, as compared to other decades.
I've already addressed this and the quotes I picked out of the above article echo a few of the same sentiments.
So why do you feel that films are getting worse and worse, why is that your opinion? Don't just say "IT'S WHAT I SEE WITH MY OWN EYES!", tell me what you see, specifically, as compared to other decades.
I've already addressed this and the quotes I picked out of the above article echo a few of the same sentiments.
No you haven't. You've repeatedly said there are more and more (which I pointed out is because there are more films in general; more films=more bad films and more good films), but you've never said it's actually based on anything other than "that's just what you see."
Unless you think "The argument isnt that there shouldnt be any bad product (that's inevitable) but that the discrepancy between the two has grown to absurd levels." this is somehow an argument with supporting data.
Bad acting, bad writing, bad casting, an overwhelming abundance of sequels and remakes, etc. Its become a cesspool of boobs, booms, and boos.
Substance has been replaced by the cash grab. The Hobbit Trilogy, 76 Final Destination movies, 43 Fast and Furious titles, 374 horrible movies based on comic book characters that are all the same damn movie and equally as awful as the others, 27 Paranormal Activity flicks and the 171 spin offs that have been made in recent years. This is what MAJOR motion picture releases have been relegated to.
Bad acting, bad writing, bad casting, an overwhelming abundance of sequels and remakes, etc. Its become a cesspool of boobs, booms, and boos.
Substance has been replaced by the cash grab. The Hobbit Trilogy, 76 Final Destination movies, 43 Fast and Furious titles, 374 horrible movies based on comic book characters that are all the same damn movie and equally as awful as the others, 27 Paranormal Activity flicks and the 171 spin offs that have been made in recent years. This is what MAJOR motion picture releases have been relegated to.
That's actually not a response to the question. That's saying what is wrong with major releases. Are you also against watching independent films? Gaia put up an amazing list in the top 5 of the year thread. I've watched 2 great films in the last 4 days, Her and Captain Phillips. I know the big films that are backed by the most money are crap, no one is disputing that, but you can't say in a year that saw releases like the two I mentioned and original films like Upstream Color and Spring Breakers (these are the ones I've seen from his list, I'll get back after watching a few others) that there's something lacking in film.
If you honestly think something is lacking then you aren't looking hard enough.
I guess I just don't understand what available for wide viewing has anything to do with overall quality of cinema. Just because a film premieres everywhere doesn't suddenly make it more of an accurate gauge of what is available. If all that was widely available for beer in 2013 was Bud's newest that wouldn't mean beer sucked in 2013, or that it was getting worse. Even in older decades, the films now considered the best weren't always available for wide consumption, which is part of your point. Not only that, but that studio system was generating MASSIVE output each year, much larger than now even; do you really think the majority of those films were not equally strong cases of "Bad acting, bad writing, bad casting"?
I'll concede that a lot of mainstream film is rubbish (I never said otherwise), but that link finds hope in mainstream and indie films. Maybe this year will be as exciting as last year.
But is this not reflective of a lot of entertainment industries? For example: the video game industry. For every blockbuster game you can name, I can name dozens of horrible video games pushed out for a quick buck.
I can't really think of an entertainment industry where every single product is well received by the public. I could be wrong, but its just a characteristic of any entertainment industry to have good and bad product.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem
Movies that are character-driven, but actually have characters that have flaws. No bad guy good guy dichotomy, but realistic human beings with their own interests. There are movies that pull this off, a lot of what Al Pacino stars in do, but it really seems like a minor "niche". TV shows such as House or Angels in America have been successful at this as well.
Less stories that go like this:
A: Hero meet girl.
B: Problem happen.
C: Hero fix problem.
D: Hero get girl.
E: Ending happy.
There is nothing that harmful in space. You could survive in there until you ran out of breath, for god's sake. Sure, it's cold, but there's nothing where your heat can dissipate faster than radiating from your body. Sure, there's radioactive radiation, but not that much of it to kill you in minutes, or even hours, or days.
Also, less pseudoscientific bull****.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Yes, and I already told you my theory on that. More than once, in fact, but, as usual Highroller style dictates, you flat out ignored it. Multiple times.
No, I read the transcript. Did you listen? It was a rant against the business, not the art. The has always, is, and always will be there, even if the studios aren't interested in that side of things. That's what he said.
Definitely, but this thread isnt about the entertainment industry as a whole (however valid your point may be), but a very specific part of it. That said, I dont play video games anymore just like I dont go to the movie theaters anymore. Its a huge waste of money more often than not in both cases. The argument isnt that there shouldnt be any bad product (that's inevitable) but that the discrepancy between the two has grown to absurd levels.
I see where you're going with this, but I feel it's worth noting that that's general enough to encompass a lot of stories. Hell, if you're willing to allow gender-flipping, that encompasses every single love story that does not end in tragedy ever.
That said, it's one thing to write a story whose skeleton is that, and another thing to write a story that is by-the-numbers what you described.
Only the most cliché ones, that involve love at first sight, the problems being completely external and not caused by the protagonist because him ever screwing up would make him less sympathetic.
I'm also sure we could write love stories in different ways. From an outsider perspective, for example. Or perhaps show the life of a married couple over the 60 years, and what happens around them. Or have the main characters be misguided, and realize they don't actually love each other. Or something.
Happy endings are also way overrated. They get shoved in to all stories that a movie adaptation is made of. It's like having a happy ending is necessary to having a good story. Only, it's not.
The skeleton also gets pushed into movies that wouldn't need it, and is often done very poorly. See: 80% of action movies.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
If you would like to have an intelligent discussion over your point of films generally being better in the past as compared to now (read; less bad films), feel free to take me through the decades.
Again, the discrepancy is not growing. There have always been good films and bad films. Always.
The real reason it seems the gap is growing is because there are more films made in general. Here's an article about just that. It's easier and cheaper to make films than ever before so more get made. When you have more of a product you get more of everything, the good and the bad. I'll gladly agree there's more bad than good, but that's always been the case. There's just more overall now so it looks like things are getting worse even when they aren't.
This isnt the debate forum. You can post hundreds of links until youre blue in the face and youre not going to change my opinion on this matter. If you want to put stock in what you read in a few articles, be my guest. Me, I only trust what I see with my own eyes. Regardless, Im entitled to form whatever opinion I choose to.
But since you provided the article:
And, as someone else pointed out, show me the decade where there wasn't more bad than good in the theaters (or sraight to video) and I'll concede your point. But you can't.
EDIT: Also, how can you throw out opinion like it's fact and then immediately say it's not up for debate?! Is this a dictatorship? I don't expect to change your mind, people are stubborn, I know that, but you can't just shut down all objections to your opinion.
EDIT 2: The articles are evidence/statistics that support my side of the claim. You have literally nothing to support your idea. I'm not putting stock in the articles, I'm putting stock in the fact (as in proof, evidence, support of my claim) that there actually are more films released each year and it's actually true that films cost less to make. You can't dispute those things. You can dispute the quality because there's a certain amount of subjectivity in quality, but you can't say I'm wrong in what my side of the debate is based on.
I threw out an opinion like it was an opinion. My opinion.
Like those 4 quotes I pulled from YOUR article that basically say the same thing I did?
Quality is precisely what I was arguing from the start. And again, it was pointed out in quotes from your article.
Giant monsters.
I think every movie could be better if they just found a way to add in a giant monster.
So why do you feel that films are getting worse and worse, why is that your opinion? Don't just say "IT'S WHAT I SEE WITH MY OWN EYES!", tell me what you see, specifically, as compared to other decades.
No you haven't. You've repeatedly said there are more and more (which I pointed out is because there are more films in general; more films=more bad films and more good films), but you've never said it's actually based on anything other than "that's just what you see."
Unless you think "The argument isnt that there shouldnt be any bad product (that's inevitable) but that the discrepancy between the two has grown to absurd levels." this is somehow an argument with supporting data.
Substance has been replaced by the cash grab. The Hobbit Trilogy, 76 Final Destination movies, 43 Fast and Furious titles, 374 horrible movies based on comic book characters that are all the same damn movie and equally as awful as the others, 27 Paranormal Activity flicks and the 171 spin offs that have been made in recent years. This is what MAJOR motion picture releases have been relegated to.
That's actually not a response to the question. That's saying what is wrong with major releases. Are you also against watching independent films? Gaia put up an amazing list in the top 5 of the year thread. I've watched 2 great films in the last 4 days, Her and Captain Phillips. I know the big films that are backed by the most money are crap, no one is disputing that, but you can't say in a year that saw releases like the two I mentioned and original films like Upstream Color and Spring Breakers (these are the ones I've seen from his list, I'll get back after watching a few others) that there's something lacking in film.
If you honestly think something is lacking then you aren't looking hard enough.
I'll concede that a lot of mainstream film is rubbish (I never said otherwise), but that link finds hope in mainstream and indie films. Maybe this year will be as exciting as last year.