Have We Lost Trust With The Movies?

[happyfilmluvguy]

I've been thinking a lot of about this. It always seems as though a lot of people can't appreciate a new film. If there's any resemblence to another film, it is automatically considered unoriginal or a remake. Is originality really lost? Or is it the audience that has lost it? I'd like to believe it's a little of both. Movies can't be movies anymore. They can't take a person out of their seat and into another world without someone thinking it's just a waste of time and money. We'll always have the classics. Our favorite films we can watch over and over again. They're shown on televison and we just stop what we are doing to watch. Movies aren't movie unless they are seen by someone. To make a movie without having an audience is just not fun.

I hope that one day people can really appreciate the hard work that this industry puts itself through to get a film on the big screen. Many of us have no clue what goes on before that opening night. A entire year is dedicated just to making a movie, sometimes even 3 years. Countless hours on a set, countless phone calls, countless mistakes. A shooting day can be completely cancelled due to an actor or actress not showing up. Movies aren't made with magic. They are made with very hard working people.

 

[Lee Lynch]

I look forward to some new movies with anticipation. A few, anyway.

I was blown away with the Lord of the Rings, having read (most) of it years ago, and having been a D&D player.

I look forward to Spiderman 3, as 1 and 2 were great.

The 13th Warrior amounts to something of a religious experience for me.

When a company puts years of effort into making a mediocre "Armageddon" clone movie, or yet another lame comedy full of predictable, unoriginal situational mechanisms, it doesn't motivate me to respect the movie any more than if they'd spent 50 dollars. If anything it boggles the mind more that they'd spend all that time and money without someone looking at the script and saying "wait, we could be using this talent on something truly great".

I say this realizing that I am the worst of movie critics, and that these movies that I think are brainless are sometimes very entertaining for many other people.

I see your point in some ways regarding the viewer. Part of what I feel leads to viewers being disappointed is that many do not pick up on certain indicators in the previews, let it wow them, and hope to see a blockbuster.

I think that on the one hand, we are led to expect more in entertainment, then tend to get let down when we discover yet again that it leaned on one of Hollywood's plot formulas .

 

[Lady Day]

I can totally be surprised by a new original movie, that is also a block buster. The thing is, blockbusters rarely stray from their formula so as to predict a good financial outcome to their investment.

The movie experience is not what it use to be. The craft of acting is often taken for granted for who looks 'hot', CG has replaced much of the art of a well composed set, and people know this and think little of the effort because of the lack of creativity.

Im a story driven person, so Im gonna watch movies that have a good story. But I loved the film The Weather Man, that was totally a character based piece.

The craft of story and acting is NOT what it use to be. And it can get back to that, but not as long as the movie makers who control the purse strings want to make their quota over the film. That wont change, so I guess this wont either.

LD

 

[Sefton]

Perhaps the modern audience is too oversaturated with entertainment. In the past going to a film was an event,an entry into another world that could only be experienced in a theater which might even be grand enough to be called a "Palace".Most theaters now are little more than crackerboxes with uncomfortable seats and sound that bleeds through from the muliplex of screens surrounding it.

Those who can afford it have "home theaters" with multiple channel stereo sound and flat screen or projection televisions where they can watch almost any film thanks to home video. We can even watch movies on our laptops or IPODS when traveling away from home (or at work...). We have so many more options now that we've become truely spoiled. We don't go to a film in a state of anticipation. We go with the attitude of "I dare you to try and impress me. I've seen it all before". To add to this mix there is the aforementioned serial movie cash ins and tired formula comedies.

I myself do truely appreciate the hard work that the many technicians and artists do to make a film. I've been on a few film sets and aside from the occasional prima donna actor most of the people involved are really motivated to do a good job. Cheers to them!:eusa_clap

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

I guess with most movies, ideas just pore in so often that it seems like something was done before, but it isn't so. There are so many stories out there, and as a friend of mine once said, "everyone has a story to tell, anyone can be a creative writer".

These aren't opinions of mine, just observations I've have.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I think a large part of it is another aspect of what we've been discussing in Lizzie's "Snark" thread:

Much of general populace no longer takes *anything* seriously - everything exists to be mocked, deconstructed, dismissed, laughed at. This overall loss of respect for *all* endeavors includes movies: nobody will condescend to *care* about the effort that goes into making films. Just more grist for the endless put-downs and superior above-it-all-and-laughing mindset that's endemic to modern society. It goes beyond disappointment, indifference, or cynicism to a total lack of regard and respect, and does a huge disservice to the hard work of making movies (or anything, for that matter)...

 

[Lee Lynch]

This is where I have to mention my defense for Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. The artistry was astonishing, and I thought it didn't get a fair break due to the downplayed acting. It was TRYING to be reminiscent of old sci-fi, including the bland acting that was present in the short serials I've seen (Flash Gordon, etc..), and no one gave it a chance. I guess this is a matter of personal taste. I've seen some movies that I felt were honestly a waste of resources, but the elements here were a breath of fresh air, and so many people were too busy downing the (deliberate) flatness of the acting (Does anyone realize that the cast had to act that entire film in front of a blue-screen in a warehouse with no budget for amenities ??) This was a small time film producer who had the drive to approach the first rate cast he ended up with, and they, knowing how tough it was going to be, agreed to it. I give it 4 stars...

 

[Doctor Strange]

Sky Captain is a pretty poor example

We have discussed this film at length before...

I went opening weekend, have the DVD, and enjoy it alot - with some serious reservations. And then, us FL folks are the target audience for this film.

But the bulk of the moviegoing audience - teens and twentysomethings - have NO interest in, nor point of reference for, the Flash Gordon serials, the Fleischer Superman cartoons, pulps and radio, or the 1930s in general. I am not at all surprised that the film did poorly: today's moviegoing audience considers the 60s and 70s antiquated and irrelevant, and the 30s hopelessly ancient.

For that matter, most stuff set in the 30s from the last 15 years - even pulp effects flicks like The Rocketeer, The Shadow, The Phantom, etc. - totally flopped. Today's audience just doesn't care about their grandparents' era. Sky Captain didn't have a chance...

 

[Lee Lynch]

We have discussed this film at length before...

I went opening weekend, have the DVD, and enjoy it alot - with some serious reservations. And then, us FL folks are the target audience for this film.

But the bulk of the moviegoing audience - teens and twentysomethings - have NO interest in, nor point of reference for, the Flash Gordon serials, the Fleischer Superman cartoons, pulps and radio, or the 1930s in general. I am not at all surprised that the film did poorly: today's moviegoing audience considers the 60s and 70s antiquated and irrelevant, and the 30s hopelessly ancient.

For that matter, most stuff set in the 30s from the last 15 years - even pulp effects flicks like The Rocketeer, The Shadow, The Phantom, etc. - totally flopped. Today's audience just doesn't care about their grandparents' era. Sky Captain didn't have a chance...

Good points, and fair enough. I should not expect the majority of the viewing audience to get into vintage styles of sci-fi, and my defense of the film is from by own biased and marginalized viewpoint...

 

[MK]

.

Here are the top ten at the box office right now:

1. Blades of Glory (2007) $22.5M $67.9M
2. Meet the Robinsons (2007) $16.7M $51.9M
3. Are We Done Yet? (2007) $14.3M $18.5M
4. Grindhouse (2007) $11.6M $11.6M
5. The Reaping (2007) $10M $12M
6. 300 (2006) $8.37M $193M
7. Wild Hogs (2007) $6.64M $145M
8. Shooter (2007) $5.86M $36.7M
9. TMNT (2007) $4.83M $46.6M
10. Firehouse Dog (2007) $3.84M $5.1M

The choices are dumb, fart joke movies, stylised sword and sandle movies that throw realism out the window, a tongue-in-cheek horror flickand some kid movies. Shooter was the exception. It had the most interesting plot that I read. I plan on taking my kids to see Meet the Robinsons today. It looks well done.


Good movies are fewer and rather in between.....or am I just getting older?

 

[Zemke Fan]

There hasn't been a GREAT movie this millennium...

Just looked back over the AFI selections for best movies from 2001-2006 and although there are some FINE films, there aren't any GREAT ones in my opinion. The movie genre that seems to be *hot* right now (Crash, Babel, Traffic, etc.) leaves me cold. I'm hoping 2007 will be a better year, but I'm not holding my breath.

And, HFLG, I think that a lot of this has to do with the absence of great storytelling, which points to bad writing or (more likely) writing by committee. Those of us who love the movies (my vanity plate is *movies*) understand the effort it takes to get a movie made, but we just wish for more great and fewer adequate (or worse) films.

 

[Lee Lynch]

...today's moviegoing audience considers the 60s and 70s antiquated and irrelevant, and the 30s hopelessly ancient.

In my own daily interactions, I find allot of enthusiasm for the 60's and the 70's (glorified way out of reality) as "nostalgia", "vintage", with the 80's being termed as "retro". In these cases, I view it as revisiting eras that were bad enough the first time.
There are a couple of ladies at the office who speak enthusiastically of a 50's style tiki bar in town, but when I bring up the 30's and 40's, I meet a confused sort of silence. Go figure.

 

[Twitch]

Happyfilmguy- I believe you are on target. Look it's ALL been done before. Plots, ideas and stories cease to be original when an indusrty is continually reinventing itself.

I have countless times watched something and immediately figured out the plotline simply because it was similar to another TV show or movie of the past.

Looking at romantic cinema of the past it has all been done but with better actors. Who today can top Audrey Hepburn and William Holden for example? So I say why bother with cutesy lovey-dovey romantic flicks. They all are lacking and end up corny and full of glib dialogue. I'd rather see epics like 300 than silly boy meets girl smarmy movies with a concept that's been done better before with far better actors.

If I'm going to spend $$ at a cinema I need to see a blockbuster in my values.

I see people around here continually complaining about hisrotical accuracy or period underwear not being correct or some such thing. They all attempt to be unpaid Roger Eberts in disecting movies into esoterica instead of simply sitting back and being entertained. It shows that some people can't just enjoy a movie anymore. Thay HAVE to compare it to something of a previous genra- buddy movie, western, spy etc.

We will continue to see familair storylines partly because it is a formula to gain viewers. Something familiar attracts more people than a radical departure.

I hear folks saying how you should boycott Mel Gibson movies or whoever when, as you mention, many thousand people put tremendous work collectively into cinema projects.

There exist movies I disliked intensly but the bottom line is one I hated or one I loved got me thinking and discussing it for days afterward.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

I believe it's partially us as well. Like Sefton had stated, we have so many more options now that we didn't then. Movie night was every week, and was an ever growing experience. Also in terms of the movies that are on the top box office right now, you have to remember that the films being shown are fit for todays audience. During the 30s and 40s, classic films were fit for that audience. It's the evolution of our tastes and ways that has changed the movie going experience as well.

To comment on younger audiences not being interested in period films, you have to understand that their interest isn't necessarily in the set time. I'm pretty sure King Kong didn't gross $500 million in the box office because it was set in the 30s. During movies prime, I'm sure there were audiences that didn't like certain films just as they did. Someone might not have liked Bette Davis in this film, or Clark Gable in another. That hasn't changed. You can only go so far in telling a story. The rest is up to the cast and the crew.

There are always more stories to tell as long as fact and fiction are still around. As long as imagination is still around we'll have the movies. They've done their job. Like my film teacher said once, the films out right now may not tune into your interest but they tune into someones. They may not be good films to me but they are to someone. It's just it seems not enough people go to the movies because of one reason or another or we do and spend too much time playing the critic and not spend enough enjoying the film.

 

[Lady Day]

I thought 'Stranger than Fiction' was incredibly refreshing, altho far from perfect. I also loved the generic world that was created for the character and all the inhabitants.

I think television is where the stories are going. Storytellers get the chance to evolve a character and we as the audience get to know them, without all the explosions and crazy plot derailment. Its slowed down so we can absorb it. I like that.

LD

 

[LizzieMaine]

Something Doc Strange said above made me think -- his mention of "deconstructing" as something in which The Current Generation can't resist indulging. That's exactly what too many people do nowadays when they go to a movie -- they pick it apart like they're competing to see who can sound most like the second coming of Andrew Sarris. I hear this kind of pontificating all the time where I work. And I think it's unfortunate, because too much of this whole film-class mentality -- or, worse, the film-class-poser mentality -- can take one to the point where it's impossible to just sit back and watch a movie and get lost in the story for two hours.

Could it be that this generation is, in fact, *too* media-savvy for its own good? Sure, there's a place for serious film study and analysis -- but does the world really need intense explorations of the post-structural neofeminist subtext in the relationship between Mary Jane and Spider Man? Could it be that maybe what movie audiences really need is a dose of good old fashioned naivete, a willingness to drop the picking and the posing for a couple of hours and just go where the movie's trying to take us?

 

[StanleyVanBuren]

Those who can afford it have "home theaters" with multiple channel stereo sound and flat screen or projection televisions where they can watch almost any film thanks to home video.

And even some of us who can't still do because their roommates have the setup.

I've been lucky to benefit from this and have a great home theater. As a result of this and the diminishing pleasure in the theater-going experience, I see a movie in theaters maybe once or twice a year, and when I do, it had damn well better be at the Arclight (see: http://www.arclightcinemas.com/) or I simply won't bother.

 

[StanleyVanBuren]

Something Doc Strange said above made me think -- his mention of "deconstructing" as something in which The Current Generation can't resist indulging. That's exactly what too many people do nowadays when they go to a movie -- they pick it apart like they're competing to see who can sound most like the second coming of Andrew Sarris. I hear this kind of pontificating all the time where I work. And I think it's unfortunate, because too much of this whole film-class mentality -- or, worse, the film-class-poser mentality -- can take one to the point where it's impossible to just sit back and watch a movie and get lost in the story for two hours.

Could it be that this generation is, in fact, *too* media-savvy for its own good? Sure, there's a place for serious film study and analysis -- but does the world really need intense explorations of the post-structural neofeminist subtext in the relationship between Mary Jane and Spider Man? Could it be that maybe what movie audiences really need is a dose of good old fashioned naivete, a willingness to drop the picking and the posing for a couple of hours and just go where the movie's trying to take us?

As a former film student, I fully agree.

And I would go further to say that plenty of what I was exposed to in film school was rubbish as well; people striving to assign some sort of overly-academic explanation to films that were never meant for such, much like your Spiderman joke. That said though, there is nothing quite like watching "Tea and Sympathy" or "Red River" in a classroom full of savvy Santa Cruz film students.

But overall, the effect is negative. Many of my friends had the option of taking film instead of English during senior year of high school. While we all agreed it was a great class, many complained that it diluted the film-watching experience as all the analysis we learned lessened our ability to suspend disbelief.

 

[Sefton]

As a former film student, I fully agree.

And I would go further to say that plenty of what I was exposed to in film school was rubbish as well; people striving to assign some sort of overly-academic explanation to films that were never meant for such, much like your Spiderman joke. That said though, there is nothing quite like watching "Tea and Sympathy" or "Red River" in a classroom full of savvy Santa Cruz film students.

But overall, the effect is negative. Many of my friends had the option of taking film instead of English during senior year of high school. While we all agreed it was a great class, many complained that it diluted the film-watching experience as all the analysis we learned lessened our ability to suspend disbelief.

This reminds me of the times that I've seen interviews with filmmakers from the "golden age" where the interviewer asks about the meanings and symbolism in their old films only to be met with a puzzled look from the filmmaker. When John Ford was asked about his film "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" being a statement on the closing of the era of the old west and the encrochment of modern civilization his answer was "I don't know what you're talking about." I'm sure from watching his movies that he was an intelligent and sensitive man who did think about such 'high concepts'. He just didn't need to talk about them or explain his film. It's all there on the screen;just watch the film and enjoy it. Nothing wrong with analysis as long as it doesn't become the primary focus. For me it's about losing myself in the experience first and second about 'what it all means...'

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

Could it be that maybe what movie audiences really need is a dose of good old fashioned naivete, a willingness to drop the picking and the posing for a couple of hours and just go where the movie's trying to take us?

This has been done on occasion but it has to be done right for it to work. Films that feed on story rather than entertainment are hard for people to swallow unless the story is really something special. Special doesn't have to be complicated, simple, or original. It doesn't even have to be one of a kind. Something about it just draws people. The Lake House was story drawn and it worked. The Notebook was not original, it was very expecting, and yet it worked so well because of just that. I can't think of more examples of recent films that are completely story drawn but there are many. Special effects add to the experience and many movies with special effects just need them to keep the story going. A movie without a story isn't a movie at all.

The reason I believe King Kong did so well was because the name itself had a reputation. I can bet not everyone who went to see Peter Jackson's version had seen the original, the sequels or the 80s version. But they knew the name. The name "King Kong" has come a very long way since 1933 and it has stayed strong. A few movies today will still have a special place in history. We are very media drawn. Maybe it's laziness, maybe it's being too busy, or maybe we just don't find movies as important as they once were.