Yes, but the qualifier is "that's sympathetic." Notice the measures they took to keep you watching a show in which a serial killer is a protagonist, specifically that he's a killer of murderers, which makes him obviously problematic but at least in somewhat of a gray area. Also, and I haven't watched the show, but I'm guessing Dexter's had something happen to him in his past that's made him what he is now, thereby making him sympathetic.
So? The point is a protagonist doesn't have to be good, they have to be sympathetic. I never argued otherwise. He still kills a ton of people. Everything else you said I just left unstated.
Quote from Highroller »
What's ASOIAF?
A Song of Ice and Fire
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
I will disagree with you when say that the monster needs to be developed as a character. This is not necessarily true and is dependent on the story you are telling. Indeed, some of the greatest horror monsters of all time are effective precisely because they aren't developed or even seen until the latter half of the movie (or sometimes never seen at all) in order to build suspense.
I agree that we need to relate to the characters. If we become invested in them, we care about their well-being, and vicariously feel that we are in danger when they are. Alternatively, if it's a horror movie where they are revealed to be the monster, we confront the horrible aspects of our own nature.
However, just because the monster isn't a fleshed-out, three-dimensional human being doesn't necessarily mean the protagonists aren't.
You misunderstand what I mean when I say the monster/ghost/etc needs to have character. I'm not saying it has to be human, or really even have human qualities hell one of my favorite character in fiction is Kefka and his humanity hit the door a loooooooooong time ago along with his sanity by the time we first see him. The thing is though there needs to be something as to why this monster exists, why it does what it does, and just like Kefka if the monster simply wants to torture/kill/abuse people simply for some sick joy that's fine but flesh it out. Let me know something more about this monster than "monster wants to kill people just because" which is pretty much what the ghost in "The Apperition" did, which is a reason I pointed out that movie.
I would be fine with a monster in a horror movie that has zero human qualities and a simple story that explains why it wants to kill each protagonist. It doesn't have to be as fleshed out as Kayako or The Woman in Black but it needs to be better than "Jason wants to kill you because you where having sex" and while I know there is a bit more behind Jason it wasn't really anything with substance. Freddy Krugar is an example of a great character ruined by excessive blood and how silly some of the gags got, first one I feel was great it's the ladder films. I feel there was great potential in him as a character, I mean he was a child molester when he was alive and then he returned to kill the kids who ratted him out, thats one hell of a sadistic bastard that I can hate and it could push a film. My problem is a lot of this feels lost in the movies desire to push blood and gore over the top, and then when you gets to scenes like the skeleton jumping out of the grave that is suppose to be Freddy in the real world it's just ruined it for me.
Anyways, the huge budget blockbuster attraction continues to grow. There's been some good movies to come out because of it but I miss finding simple good movies like Good Will Hunting without titanic budgets.
Always felt more like a thriller not like a horror.
As for the aliens character itself it is something I am fine with. Its reasons for acting is primal driven by its own instincts to reproduce. Its a force of nature it really doesnt need more than that.
Good question, answer mine and I think you will understand.
Would you classify Predator as a horror movie?
The movie industry sure didn't when it gave it the label "science fiction action." Alien pretty much uses the same formula as that movie, although technically I should be saying Predator used Alien's formula but you get my point, with "thing from space wants to kill you" one happens to be naturalistic and the other has cool toys. Aliens does use a few jump scares but it hardly creates that closterphobic sense of panic and helpelessness that you get in a horror movie.
Because the cost of making a movie has become so astronomically high, producers/investors/studios are much less willing to gamble on new, obscure, or fresh ideas, instead opting for remakes, sequels, or cookie-cutter rom-com.
Even worse, the whole sequel concept is not even a possibility, it is an exception. So while a movie used to come out and then a sequel tied in, nowadays the movie comes out and pretty much has no ending at all and is left completely open ended.
Good question, answer mine and I think you will understand.
Would you classify Predator as a horror movie?
The movie industry sure didn't when it gave it the label "science fiction action." Alien pretty much uses the same formula as that movie, although technically I should be saying Predator used Alien's formula but you get my point, with "thing from space wants to kill you" one happens to be naturalistic and the other has cool toys. Aliens does use a few jump scares but it hardly creates that closterphobic sense of panic and helpelessness that you get in a horror movie.
Aliens takes a very big departure from the original Alien in concept and scope. The original Alien is intended as sort of a psychological horror based around a perverse view of the human reproductive cycle and sexuality. Aliens is more of a something-goes-bump-in-the-dark type sci fi action/thriller.
That is the main reason I liked Prometheus, it is a return to the original nature/scope of Alien. I liked Aliens, too, but it didn't have the depth of Alien IMO.
Alien is probably the exception to the rule. There always is one.
Zombie movies.
The question in alien is, do you care for the crew that is plagued by this monster? I've never seen it, but I bet you do.
I've not seen it either, I only know the premise.
But that's my point. Horror movies necessitate you relate to the protagonists in some way, but they definitely don't require you to have a fleshed out monster. You CAN, depending on what you wish to achieve, but that's not required for horror.
Good question, answer mine and I think you will understand.
Would you classify Predator as a horror movie?
Never seen it.
I'm confused to your terminology though. How is Alien not horror? Is it the fact that something's in space that's trying to kill them? Because that's still horror.
I'm confused to your terminology though. How is Alien not horror? Is it the fact that something's in space that's trying to kill them? Because that's still horror.
Horror is more than just being around something that wants to kill you, if that was the case so many other movies would also be considered horror. Horror is about creating an atmosphere of solitude, helplessness, desperation, and fear. Alien really doesn't do this, it doesn't build up the atmosphere like say The Grudge or The Woman in Black that feeling of something isn't right but you can never catch what it is. It's about following the character as he'she experiences the panic of dealing with someone they can't explain or really even pin down.
The Aliens instead are often in your face once they are introduced and are rather up front, and at times over the top. This is generally what you get in thrillers, same can be said for Friday the 13th movies and the like. Instead of creating that atmosphere and terror and panic and allowing you to follow the main character through it the monster/villian/badguy/etc are thrown into the front of the action often seen coming.
To kinda just put in simply, Aliens doesn't create the atmosphere that makes horror movies what they are. Simply having a monster in your movie doesn't make it horror.
Alien is quite different from Predator, and I would definitely say Alien is horror and Predator... has a bit of horror in it.
Humans are stalked by a being from outer space and must over come/escape/kill it while trying to stay alive. One has cool tech toys the other is a force of nature. Really isn't all that different tbh.
Humans are stalked by a being from outer space and must over come/escape/kill it while trying to stay alive. One has cool tech toys the other is a force of nature. Really isn't all that different tbh.
That says zero about tone and atmosphere, characterization, or treatment of the antagonist and conflict with it. Guess what horror is all about? DING DING DING, you guessed it, mostly those things!
Alien is a movie about a group of pretty damn accurately human characters fighting a menace that:
1. They know nothing about except what they gather with their eyes, just like the audience.
2. Remains hidden - both from them AND from the audience. People die without you even being shown a single shot of it ACTUALLY happening. Notably, Dallas.
3. ****s their **** up whenever it gets near them. Flamethrowers don't even stop it. Ripley has to throw it into space to kill it, for god's sake. And it doesn't even die quickly.
4. Is stuck with them in a situation where there's no chance of escape or outside help. Not even from their company. ****, the company's secret robot (from both them and the audience again) even turns against them.
The movie is tonally bleak and slow when compared with Predator, and there are tons of minor differences that are easy to pickup if you pay attention. Characters are a lot more frightened, especially compared with Arnold. Everything is darker. The layout of the setting is never described and there's a lot of strange looking machinery that adds to the feeling of isolation. The only part of the layout they DO give us a decent detail of is the ducts, and then we're immediately shown that they're not at all safe.
Though some of Alien's protagonists have strong wills (and some don't), they're quite human. They try to kill the alien by setting it on fire and pulling other drastic actions like self-destructing the whole damn ship. Arnold tries to kill the predator by ****ing fighting it with his bare hands. He's an action hero doing action hero things. He's a special forces operative.
The predator was shown a LOT quicker in its movie than the Alien was. Why?
Because predator is first and foremost an action movie starring an action star playing a warrior deliberately fighting a threat that's already been revealed to the audience (when killing the squad that his goes in to save) in an open space. Meanwhile, alien is first and foremost a horror movie starring workers forced to fight a threat kept obscure from the audience (and them) in a claustrophobic, dark and drab setting. And that's not even mentioning all the distinctions, just the most major ones.
There is a lot of crossover in both, but there're also clear distinctions.
dimir, didn't I specifically ask you to leave this thread two pages ago? This is precisely why. Please exit. You are completely unproductive to this thread.
Wow, you asked the question. I answered it. Again, original question: What do you think is lacking in movies these days? Answer: Nothing.
I guess sharing my opinion is quite unproductive, but I could say the same about yours...and gumonshoes, and whoever the **** else. Opinions, are in fact, entirely useless.
I'm bring this thread back to life to point out that 2013 was the highest box office year ever. Yes, ticket sales are declining (again, IMO, because watching films at home has gotten better and better since 2002), but you can't say society is getting sick of movies if it's still one of the biggest industries in the US.
I'm bring this thread back to life to point out that 2013 was the highest box office year ever. Yes, ticket sales are declining (again, IMO, because watching films at home has gotten better and better since 2002), but you can't say society is getting sick of movies if it's still one of the biggest industries in the US.
It’s worth pointing out, though, that this doesn’t mean more people went to the movies than ever in 2013. The average cost of a movie ticket hit an all-time high this summer of $8.38 (though it fell back down to $7.34 in the third quarter of the year).
Indeed, The Numbers estimates that about 1.32 billion tickets were sold domestically in 2013. That’s not terrible, but it’s a small decrease from last year (1.36 billion). On the whole, their data shows that ticket sales have been sliding since 2002, when 1.58 billion tickets were sold in the U.S.
You have to actually read what you link to, and notice that there are, in fact, red minus signs.
I've already tried to state my case as to why ticket sales are on the decline (that of better at home experience and shorter wait from theater to home video, sometimes same day release via pay-per-view/on demand) and not lack of quality, but you're hearing nothing of it.
Go watch some of the critical faves of the year like Nebraska, 12 Years a Slave, Her, etc. and quit complaining. The artistry is there, you just aren't looking for it (or want to pretend it's not there so you can be curmudgeonly).
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.
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.
Have you ever seen Attack of the Mole People, The Killer Shrews, Zardoz, Krull, or The Giant Gila Monster? Have you ever watched Mystery Science Theater 3000?
There's always been more crappy movies than good movies. That isn't anything new. Get a different argument.
Have you ever seen Attack of the Mole People, The Killer Shrews, Zardoz, Krull, or The Giant Gila Monster? Have you ever watched Mystery Science Theater 3000?
There's always been more crappy movies than good movies. That isn't anything new. Get a different argument.
Yeah, there have always been bad movies. And theyre far more frequent and unoriginal now.
Tell you what, I'll do that after you read it for the first time. How about that?
It amazes me how smug you can act while citing articles that contradict what you're saying because you clearly just copy/pasted them without bothering to read the things you're linking to. This is the second time now this has happened in the same thread. Most people would take that as a shape up.
Go watch some of the critical faves of the year like Nebraska, 12 Years a Slave, Her, etc. and quit complaining. The artistry is there, you just aren't looking for it (or want to pretend it's not there so you can be curmudgeonly).
Oh it's there, but you cannot tell me that movies aren't getting worse.
Well, clearly you CAN, but you won't get far.
On another note, Steven Soderbergh on the state of cinema:
Tell you what, I'll do that after you read it for the first time. How about that?
It amazes me how smug you can act while citing articles that contradict what you're saying because you clearly just copy/pasted them without bothering to read the things you're linking to. This is the second time now this has happened in the same thread. Most people would take that as a shape up.
How the hell does it contradict what I'm saying?!?! I said sales are on the decline! I said the industry still made record numbers. That's what the freaking article says! But, please, try to redirect my argument again instead of trying to refute my conclusions (you know, the one you ignored about better at home viewing experience and shorter waits for homve video release).
Now we finally arrive at the subject of this rant, which is the state of cinema. First of all, is there a difference between cinema and movies? Yeah. If I were on Team America, I’d say **** yeah! The simplest way that I can describe it is that a movie is something you see, and cinema is something that’s made. It has nothing to do with the captured medium, it doesn’t have anything to do with where the screen is, if it’s in your bedroom, your iPad, it doesn’t even really have to be a movie. It could be a commercial, it could be something on YouTube. Cinema is a specificity of vision. It’s an approach in which everything matters. It’s the polar opposite of generic or arbitrary and the result is as unique as a signature or a fingerprint. It isn’t made by a committee, and it isn’t made by a company, and it isn’t made by the audience. It means that if this filmmaker didn’t do it, it either wouldn’t exist at all, or it wouldn’t exist in anything like this form.
If you spend all your time focusing on movies instead of cinema, then, yeah, you'd be right. As he says (yes, I read about this before you brought it to my attention, thanks, though), cinema is not on the radar of the studio executives. To that I say, so what? It's not as if we're not getting quality films. One of the years most successful films was also one of it's most cinematically beautiful; Gravity. He also talks about Shane Carruth and Christopher Nolan in a positive light. I don't know why he would do that if we're in such an artisically vacant time.
You misunderstand what I mean when I say the monster/ghost/etc needs to have character. I'm not saying it has to be human, or really even have human qualities hell one of my favorite character in fiction is Kefka and his humanity hit the door a loooooooooong time ago along with his sanity by the time we first see him. The thing is though there needs to be something as to why this monster exists, why it does what it does, and just like Kefka if the monster simply wants to torture/kill/abuse people simply for some sick joy that's fine but flesh it out. Let me know something more about this monster than "monster wants to kill people just because" which is pretty much what the ghost in "The Apperition" did, which is a reason I pointed out that movie.
I would be fine with a monster in a horror movie that has zero human qualities and a simple story that explains why it wants to kill each protagonist. It doesn't have to be as fleshed out as Kayako or The Woman in Black but it needs to be better than "Jason wants to kill you because you where having sex" and while I know there is a bit more behind Jason it wasn't really anything with substance. Freddy Krugar is an example of a great character ruined by excessive blood and how silly some of the gags got, first one I feel was great it's the ladder films. I feel there was great potential in him as a character, I mean he was a child molester when he was alive and then he returned to kill the kids who ratted him out, thats one hell of a sadistic bastard that I can hate and it could push a film. My problem is a lot of this feels lost in the movies desire to push blood and gore over the top, and then when you gets to scenes like the skeleton jumping out of the grave that is suppose to be Freddy in the real world it's just ruined it for me.
Relevant. : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWfg__wKSY
Anyways, the huge budget blockbuster attraction continues to grow. There's been some good movies to come out because of it but I miss finding simple good movies like Good Will Hunting without titanic budgets.
Sexy Sig by mchief111 @ Rising Studios
EDH
G Isao
Always felt more like a thriller not like a horror.
As for the aliens character itself it is something I am fine with. Its reasons for acting is primal driven by its own instincts to reproduce. Its a force of nature it really doesnt need more than that.
Why?
Would you classify Predator as a horror movie?
The movie industry sure didn't when it gave it the label "science fiction action." Alien pretty much uses the same formula as that movie, although technically I should be saying Predator used Alien's formula but you get my point, with "thing from space wants to kill you" one happens to be naturalistic and the other has cool toys. Aliens does use a few jump scares but it hardly creates that closterphobic sense of panic and helpelessness that you get in a horror movie.
Because the cost of making a movie has become so astronomically high, producers/investors/studios are much less willing to gamble on new, obscure, or fresh ideas, instead opting for remakes, sequels, or cookie-cutter rom-com.
Even worse, the whole sequel concept is not even a possibility, it is an exception. So while a movie used to come out and then a sequel tied in, nowadays the movie comes out and pretty much has no ending at all and is left completely open ended.
Aliens takes a very big departure from the original Alien in concept and scope. The original Alien is intended as sort of a psychological horror based around a perverse view of the human reproductive cycle and sexuality. Aliens is more of a something-goes-bump-in-the-dark type sci fi action/thriller.
That is the main reason I liked Prometheus, it is a return to the original nature/scope of Alien. I liked Aliens, too, but it didn't have the depth of Alien IMO.
Zombie movies.
I've not seen it either, I only know the premise.
But that's my point. Horror movies necessitate you relate to the protagonists in some way, but they definitely don't require you to have a fleshed out monster. You CAN, depending on what you wish to achieve, but that's not required for horror.
Never seen it.
I'm confused to your terminology though. How is Alien not horror? Is it the fact that something's in space that's trying to kill them? Because that's still horror.
Horror is more than just being around something that wants to kill you, if that was the case so many other movies would also be considered horror. Horror is about creating an atmosphere of solitude, helplessness, desperation, and fear. Alien really doesn't do this, it doesn't build up the atmosphere like say The Grudge or The Woman in Black that feeling of something isn't right but you can never catch what it is. It's about following the character as he'she experiences the panic of dealing with someone they can't explain or really even pin down.
The Aliens instead are often in your face once they are introduced and are rather up front, and at times over the top. This is generally what you get in thrillers, same can be said for Friday the 13th movies and the like. Instead of creating that atmosphere and terror and panic and allowing you to follow the main character through it the monster/villian/badguy/etc are thrown into the front of the action often seen coming.
To kinda just put in simply, Aliens doesn't create the atmosphere that makes horror movies what they are. Simply having a monster in your movie doesn't make it horror.
Humans are stalked by a being from outer space and must over come/escape/kill it while trying to stay alive. One has cool tech toys the other is a force of nature. Really isn't all that different tbh.
Alien is a movie about a group of pretty damn accurately human characters fighting a menace that:
1. They know nothing about except what they gather with their eyes, just like the audience.
2. Remains hidden - both from them AND from the audience. People die without you even being shown a single shot of it ACTUALLY happening. Notably, Dallas.
3. ****s their **** up whenever it gets near them. Flamethrowers don't even stop it. Ripley has to throw it into space to kill it, for god's sake. And it doesn't even die quickly.
4. Is stuck with them in a situation where there's no chance of escape or outside help. Not even from their company. ****, the company's secret robot (from both them and the audience again) even turns against them.
The movie is tonally bleak and slow when compared with Predator, and there are tons of minor differences that are easy to pickup if you pay attention. Characters are a lot more frightened, especially compared with Arnold. Everything is darker. The layout of the setting is never described and there's a lot of strange looking machinery that adds to the feeling of isolation. The only part of the layout they DO give us a decent detail of is the ducts, and then we're immediately shown that they're not at all safe.
Though some of Alien's protagonists have strong wills (and some don't), they're quite human. They try to kill the alien by setting it on fire and pulling other drastic actions like self-destructing the whole damn ship. Arnold tries to kill the predator by ****ing fighting it with his bare hands. He's an action hero doing action hero things. He's a special forces operative.
The predator was shown a LOT quicker in its movie than the Alien was. Why?
Because predator is first and foremost an action movie starring an action star playing a warrior deliberately fighting a threat that's already been revealed to the audience (when killing the squad that his goes in to save) in an open space. Meanwhile, alien is first and foremost a horror movie starring workers forced to fight a threat kept obscure from the audience (and them) in a claustrophobic, dark and drab setting. And that's not even mentioning all the distinctions, just the most major ones.
There is a lot of crossover in both, but there're also clear distinctions.
As is Friday the 13th for that matter.
No, it's not. Again, that's psychological horror. But psychological horror is only one subgenre within horror.
Wow, you asked the question. I answered it. Again, original question: What do you think is lacking in movies these days? Answer: Nothing.
I guess sharing my opinion is quite unproductive, but I could say the same about yours...and gumonshoes, and whoever the **** else. Opinions, are in fact, entirely useless.
Do you think we've run out of stories?
http://www.slashfilm.com/2013-domestic-box-office-was-biggest-ever/
It's called inflation, dimir.
You have to actually read what you link to, and notice that there are, in fact, red minus signs.
Maybe you should try re-reading what I posted. You know, that whole thing about me already ****ing saying that ticket sales are declining.
How about this man's opinion of 2013? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10516725/Film-review-of-the-year-2013-This-was-the-greatest-year-of-cinema-since-1999.html
I've already tried to state my case as to why ticket sales are on the decline (that of better at home experience and shorter wait from theater to home video, sometimes same day release via pay-per-view/on demand) and not lack of quality, but you're hearing nothing of it.
Go watch some of the critical faves of the year like Nebraska, 12 Years a Slave, Her, etc. and quit complaining. The artistry is there, you just aren't looking for it (or want to pretend it's not there so you can be curmudgeonly).
Have you ever seen Attack of the Mole People, The Killer Shrews, Zardoz, Krull, or The Giant Gila Monster? Have you ever watched Mystery Science Theater 3000?
There's always been more crappy movies than good movies. That isn't anything new. Get a different argument.
Yeah, there have always been bad movies. And theyre far more frequent and unoriginal now.
Tell you what, I'll do that after you read it for the first time. How about that?
It amazes me how smug you can act while citing articles that contradict what you're saying because you clearly just copy/pasted them without bothering to read the things you're linking to. This is the second time now this has happened in the same thread. Most people would take that as a shape up.
Oh it's there, but you cannot tell me that movies aren't getting worse.
Well, clearly you CAN, but you won't get far.
On another note, Steven Soderbergh on the state of cinema:
http://vimeo.com/65060864
How the hell does it contradict what I'm saying?!?! I said sales are on the decline! I said the industry still made record numbers. That's what the freaking article says! But, please, try to redirect my argument again instead of trying to refute my conclusions (you know, the one you ignored about better at home viewing experience and shorter waits for homve video release).
Oh, but that would be actual work.
Actually I can and you haven't refuted that at all other than to say you think films are bad so that must be true.
I'll start with a quote:
If you spend all your time focusing on movies instead of cinema, then, yeah, you'd be right. As he says (yes, I read about this before you brought it to my attention, thanks, though), cinema is not on the radar of the studio executives. To that I say, so what? It's not as if we're not getting quality films. One of the years most successful films was also one of it's most cinematically beautiful; Gravity. He also talks about Shane Carruth and Christopher Nolan in a positive light. I don't know why he would do that if we're in such an artisically vacant time.
Which is a PROBLEM, dimir. It is a problem that sales are on the decline, and have been since early 2000.
... Did you even listen to the thing?