Looking Back at This Summer's Movies

[Darth_Payn]

Based on the comments about Godzilla, that movie's ad campaign was an execs in false advertising. It led me to believe Brian Cranston and Godzilla (THE FREAKING TITLE CHARACTER!) would have a ton of screen time, and that wound up not being the case.
So if I read what Bob said about "tryout movies" correctly, he said directors of small-budget indie flicks are being handed the keys to the big-budget effects-driven star-studded franchises without doing something in between beforehand. I'm not really comfortable with that trend.

 

[Mr.Evil]

I think we could add a few more lessons to contemplate from this summer season:

*) Shockingly, Tom Cruise can still carry a film - you just need to convince more people to watch him again.

*) More Godzilla... seriously, just add more Godzilla. You'll make almost everyone happy.

*) This is the summer that proved that, yes, sometimes an ape can do a better job than an actor.

*) It's funny how people lambasted ASM2 for its plot-holes and story problems, yet give How To Train Your Dragon 2 a pass despite having similar issues. In a world where people hold up Pixar films for both mature storytelling and kid-friendly visuals, it's rather surprising. Then again, no one talks about this film at all. Maybe the lesson here is that unless your animated film is made by Disney or Pixar, don't expect people to care that much about it.

And finally...

*) Michael Bay still makes bad movies. Bad movies that make money, but bad movies nonetheless. And that's never going to change.

 

[RiseUp]

*) It's funny how people lambasted ASM2 for its plot-holes and story problems, yet give How To Train Your Dragon 2 a pass despite having similar issues. In a world where people hold up Pixar films for both mature storytelling and kid-friendly visuals, it's rather surprising. Then again, no one talks about this film at all. Maybe the lesson here is that unless your animated film is made by Disney or Pixar, don't expect people to care that much about it.

Plot holes are one thing, an almost complete lack of any cohesive plot is another. ASM2 fell into the second camp, focusing instead on a web of subplots it can't seem to prioritize.

Minor correction to your post, How to Train Your Dragon 2 was made by Dreamworks.

 

[Logience]

Wait a second:

Did I just hear him say there's gonna be a Metal Gear Solid movie?

WHY?!?!?!?!??!?!?!

 

[Mr.Evil]

*) It's funny how people lambasted ASM2 for its plot-holes and story problems, yet give How To Train Your Dragon 2 a pass despite having similar issues. In a world where people hold up Pixar films for both mature storytelling and kid-friendly visuals, it's rather surprising. Then again, no one talks about this film at all. Maybe the lesson here is that unless your animated film is made by Disney or Pixar, don't expect people to care that much about it.

Plot holes are one thing, an almost complete lack of any cohesive plot is another. ASM2 fell into the second camp, focusing instead on a web of subplots it can't seem to prioritize.

Minor correction to your post, How to Train Your Dragon 2 was made by Dreamworks.

I was actually referring to how Pixar films tend to be both commercial and critical successes (with some obvious exceptions *cough Cars cough*), so I have a hard time believing that critics don't hold "kid flicks* up to a certain standard. Yet I honestly feel that HTTYD2 somehow got "easy A'd" because its problems were hidden under a layer of good character scenes, dragon flying, and "oh, wow, that got dark" moments. I was aware it came from DreamWorks. Sorry for the confusion.

I do agree the ASM2 has major problems. Believe me, I agree. I watched ASM2 a couple of weeks ago, and I genuinely feel Bob's pain on the matter. I just think HTTYD2 has serious story problems as well, a few of which are similar to ASM2 (chiefly rushed resolutions), but certainly not to the same degree, and that no one discusses it because not many people seem to care. My theory is that it's because it's a DreamWorks film, where audiences are used to satire and comedy but not more serious-minded fare.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

If not for Guardians and 21 Jump Street ripping the heck out of sequel films I'd say it was a totally forgettable summer.

One of the things that has me worried about the direction of films is China having too much influence over Hollywood. Dialog already seems dumbed down so things don't get lost in translation. But things seem to be going beyond that where studios fear doing anything that might offend the Chinese officials who will approve the release of a film in China. With our entertainment and media being so connected it even seems that if I want to hear any sort of negative story about China I have to get it from the BBC because in the US no network will touch something like the anniversary of Tiananmen Square for fear that a film from the parent company will get banned from China in retaliation for any reminders about what a brutal repressive government the government of China can be.

The one slight glimmer of hope I have coming out of the summer is that with doom and gloom not burning up the box office and the big summer hit being a fun film is that maybe just maybe it shake Hollywood out of the idea that people only want films chocked with doom, gloom, angst, and "realism". I really want to have fun at the movie theater again but far too many films are "no fun for you".

 

[Triality]

I'm just going to put this out there because it cannot be repeated enough.

Watching Guardians of the Galaxy was like watching Star Wars (Ep. IV) and The Fifth Element for the first time. Is it incredible that the upcoming JJ Abrams Star Wars: A New Lens Flare Filter movies have to live up to the expectations that Guardians established and not the other way around?

Goodbye old establishment. Sweet sweet irony.

 

[Hawki]

So, as far as summer movies (or winter for me) go, only seen two in cinemas this season:

-Calvary: In the realm of "good" for me, easily one of the best written and most intelligent movies I've seen this year. If one discounts movies that were released last year but I didn't see until this year ('Frozen' and 'The Wolf of Wall Street' for example), probably the best cinema film I've seen this year overall.

-Guardians of the Galaxy: If Calvary gets the distinction of being the best film I've seen this year, GotG gets the distinction of being...no, not the worst, but I'm giving it the strange reward of being the most average. It's "okay." It's "fine." It's everything I expect of an MCU film and this therefore an average popcorn flick (and I don't eat popcorn anyway) Perhaps the most memorable moment for me came after the film when I was trying to sum up my thoughts to family members, and literally couldn't get any words out of my mouth bar saying "it was okay," and struggling to find anything else to say about it outside giving a plot summary. Heck, even a bad film would leave me with something to talk about.

But that's just me. I'll get my flame shields up now.

 

[C. Cain]

I'm just going to put this out there because it cannot be repeated enough.

Watching Guardians of the Galaxy was like watching Star Wars (Ep. IV) and The Fifth Element for the first time. Is it incredible that the upcoming JJ Abrams Star Wars: A New Lens Flare Filter movies have to live up to the expectations that Guardians established and not the other way around?

Goodbye old establishment. Sweet sweet irony.

Expectations for the new Star Wars movie might have been higher if Star Wars hadn't been selling out for the past thirty years.

 

[F.Dubois]

Being very very continental European, even though I intellectually understand many of the concerns raised in the article I cannot "feel" them apparently. I absolutely dislike the transformers movie franchise, the last one didn't feel that bad and I think it has a lot to do with making it more accessible to non-american audiences. Likewise the pace and and structure of Lucy, by the grace of Besson, felt more familiar to me in regards to pacing and subject matter.

I think this also is a huge factor in the popularity of Disney's Frozen, considering that the most oft repeated actual criticism of the movie is that again the pacing was off and "all over the place" while I found the movie perfectly palatable.

To reiterate I think Bob hit the nail on the head when he surmised that many of the big money releases do not have a solely american audience in kind anymore and hence start maybe to feel different to the moviegoers.

 

[Hawki]

That's an interesting line of thought. Certainly pacing in GotG was one of the issues for me (similar to 'The Dark Knight Rises') - it always seemed so eager to get to the next scene, the next plot point without giving the plot/characters/audience time to breathe. As for 'Frozen', I didn't have any pacing problems with it. True, filler existed IMO (e.g. the "Fixer Upper" song...gah) but that was a blip in otherwise solid material.

 

[Ruisu]

Thank God movies now don't need american audience so much to be considered a success or failure. Is annoying how people liked to dismiss international box office as if people outside of the US can't decide if a movie should succeed.

 

[deathbydeath]

-Guardians of the Galaxy: If Calvary gets the distinction of being the best film I've seen this year, GotG gets the distinction of being...no, not the worst, but I'm giving it the strange reward of being the most average. It's "okay." It's "fine." It's everything I expect of an MCU film and this therefore an average popcorn flick (and I don't eat popcorn anyway) Perhaps the most memorable moment for me came after the film when I was trying to sum up my thoughts to family members, and literally couldn't get any words out of my mouth bar saying "it was okay," and struggling to find anything else to say about it outside giving a plot summary. Heck, even a bad film would leave me with something to talk about.

But that's just me. I'll get my flame shields up now.

Christ, this. This summer I learned that Marvel's key to making money is to stop even pretending to make something worth remembering. Sure, The Winter Soldier had "brilliant" 9/11 commentary rivaling Star Trek: Into Darkness, but at least it was trying to do something interesting.

Also Live, Die Repeat/Edge of Tomorrow was surprisingly enjoyable, so I guess I'll be keeping an eye on anything that comes out of that talent pool in the future.

Also also I'm looking forward to Neill Blomkamp's next movie, which I believe is coming out next year.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

Thank God movies now don't need american audience so much to be considered a success or failure. Is annoying how people liked to dismiss international box office as if people outside of the US can't decide if a movie should succeed.

It all comes down to understanding the cut.

In the US and Canada the movie studios get the lions share of the opening weekend box office. If a movie opens big then that's a big pay day for the studio. As the release weeks go on the cut gets smaller for the studio. Outside of the domestic market the US studios only get a small cut of the box office. Several good articles on what studios get http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable and http://online.wsj.com/articles/for-hollywood-not-all-box-office-dollars-are-equal-1409241925

I also feel that international over home market is really bad for creativity. Films can't be as witty or quick with the dialog when film makers are overly worried that something will be lost in translation. Trying to please the repressive government of China just to get in the Chinese theaters is a bad idea because it means studios will have to forever be quite about Tiananmen Square and human rights abuses. Even when China acts horrible they can never ever be the bad guys again because they might bar films in retaliation. It also means we are getting McFilms where everything has the flavor of McDonalds to try to please everyone by taking out flavor into a general blandness. What I've enjoyed about films made outside of the US is getting the flavor of place that isn't exactly like where I live.

 

[Vivi22]

Marvel already had their flop. Or did everyone forget about The Incredible Hulk?

 

[Aristatide]

My money for Marvel Flop is definitely on Ant-Man. It's already been through several big shake-ups just in terms of production, and worse, they've been highly-publicized shake-ups. But I've read enough about Marvel Studios to expect the actual film will be no worse than, say, IM2, with the difference that the audience will go in expecting a worse movie and so actively looking for flaws. Even a lot of fans who would be loyal through the shake-ups have been turned off by how the movie has already explicitly saying it's going to be trashing a lot of what brings the comics fan to the screen: continuity with the best parts of the books. Sure, there are probably some Ant-Man fans who hate Wasp, but that's a smaller number than the ones who feel otherwise, especially since she's been in enough ensemble titles to get a following that don't care one fig for Hank or Scott. A double-dose of negative pre-coverage combined with an audience that's actually starting to become almost eager for a Marvel 'stumble' and you've got a recipe for, if not an outright tank, at least a serious fall from previous heights.

(I'm not including The Incredible Hulk in these factors because that was during the early, trial, throw-stuff-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks days.)

 

[Vault101]

Thank God movies now don't need american audience so much to be considered a success or failure. Is annoying how people liked to dismiss international box office as if people outside of the US can't decide if a movie should succeed.

people have brought up the issue of "simplifying" to allow for better translation

I was always aware of the "china" thing but didn't consider it too much...I wonder if we'll see more movies with "eastern" influence

 

[Hawki]

My money for Marvel Flop is definitely on Ant-Man. It's already been through several big shake-ups just in terms of production, and worse, they've been highly-publicized shake-ups. But I've read enough about Marvel Studios to expect the actual film will be no worse than, say, IM2, with the difference that the audience will go in expecting a worse movie and so actively looking for flaws. Even a lot of fans who would be loyal through the shake-ups have been turned off by how the movie has already explicitly saying it's going to be trashing a lot of what brings the comics fan to the screen: continuity with the best parts of the books. Sure, there are probably some Ant-Man fans who hate Wasp, but that's a smaller number than the ones who feel otherwise, especially since she's been in enough ensemble titles to get a following that don't care one fig for Hank or Scott. A double-dose of negative pre-coverage combined with an audience that's actually starting to become almost eager for a Marvel 'stumble' and you've got a recipe for, if not an outright tank, at least a serious fall from previous heights.

(I'm not including The Incredible Hulk in these factors because that was during the early, trial, throw-stuff-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks days.)

"Early days" equaling "throwing stuff at the wall" isn't really a defence. If anything, it seems to be Marvel's overall production style, to the extent where different films are being thrown on the wall, and you have to see all of them to make sense of what the hell is going on. 'Captain America' is one example with the Tessaract - a plot point is brought up in a film (McGuffin, vague references to Norse mythology), and if you want that explained, you will have needed to watch 'Thor'. Not interested in 'Thor'? Too bad. Alternatively, you may have watched 'Thor', seen Hawkeye, wondering what someone is doing on a base with a bow...and get nothing more of "nameless bow guy" (is he even named in the film?), and have to see 'The Avengers' to find out more. And if you have no intention of seeing 'The Avengers', then the movie has devoted 5-10 minutes to a character who is of no relevance to the VERY MOVIE HE'S INTRODUCED IN. 'The Empire Strikes Back' introduced the emperor before 'Return of the Jedi', but not only are both films under the "Star Wars" moniker, but the emperor was also relevant to the actual plot of the film he first appeared in.

So yeah. "Throwing stuff at the wall" is what Marvel did throughout all of phase 1, and the reason why I like 'Iron Man' the most (and consider it the only "good" MCU film that I've seen) is that, among other things, it was content to succeed or fail on its own merits. Apart from the post-credits scene, the film was self-contained enough to understand it, and any sequel bait was to an 'Iron Man 2'...which instead set up sequel bait to every other MCU film to the detriment of its own writing. And while GotG is the only MCU film of phase 2 I've seen, it hasn't got much better. It was self-contained for the most part, but I have to reflect on the irony that Thanos (who's actually named in the film) is introduced in GotG 1, and probably won't even be defeated in a GotG film. So any filmgoer who's not necessarily interested in 'The Avengers' will still have to see it to get a full resolution in all likelihood.

...okay, I've got it all out. I'll leave a link below for a similar view on the subject that I found carthartic...and flamebait is fun

http://blip.tv/confused-matthew/matthew-s-marvel-madness-or-why-marvel-studios-sucks-ass-7021494

 

[C. Cain]

(...)

...okay, I've got it all out. I'll leave a link below for a similar view on the subject that I found carthartic...and flamebait is fun

http://blip.tv/confused-matthew/matthew-s-marvel-madness-or-why-marvel-studios-sucks-ass-7021494

Hah. Such an awful video. Entertaining, though.

Took him only 22 minutes (out of 34 minutes) to sort of get to a poorly made point. He kind of discusses the thing for three minutes and then for another three minutes at the very end.

 

[Hawki]

(...)

...okay, I've got it all out. I'll leave a link below for a similar view on the subject that I found carthartic...and flamebait is fun

http://blip.tv/confused-matthew/matthew-s-marvel-madness-or-why-marvel-studios-sucks-ass-7021494

Hah. Such an awful video. Entertaining, though.

Took him only 22 minutes (out of 34 minutes) to sort of get to a poorly made point. He kind of discusses the thing for three minutes and then for another three minutes at the very end.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. But surely one can appreciate that the point exists. Or, to spill it out why I have the issues with the MCU films that I do:

-They cannot stand as individual movies. Plot resolution/provision occurs in-between movies that are not under the same blanket title.

-This segregation of plot leads to weaknesses within the movies themselves.

-It is an attempt to compel people to see movies they might have otherwise not intended on seeing, which as mentioned above, is moving from one average movie to the next at the cost of the individuals themselves.

-They are made primarily with comic fans in mind, to the expense of the average viewer. I didn't know who Nick Fury was before 'Iron Man 2' (or who the "guy with the eyepatch was" rather). Or "light whip guy." Or "guy who appears in 'Thor' with bow and arrow and does nothing"). The only I reason I knew who Bruce Banner was in 'The Avengers' was that I'd seen the previous non-MCU 'Hulk' film by chance, and either way, the film was based on the assumption that I knew who these characters were. I didn't feel gratified to know who they were after I'd trawled through the Internet to understand who these characters were, or why I should care about them. And to make myself clear, I'm fine with movies being made for a specific audience in mind. But usually, those films aren't marketed under the impression that the average person can come in and get everything that's going on - I've seen plenty of comic book movies, and movies that stemmed from pre-existing works, and while some have certainly inspired me to look up on their source material, and some haven't, apart from the MCU films, I've never been in a situation where such research was required to understand who characters were, and why I should care about them. I'm sure Marvel fans were cheering silently at such plot points or characters rearing their heads, but let me put it this way - if not for Internet trawling, I'd only know that Thanos was some guy who appeared in GotG, who is someone who Ronan answered to, who Drax hates, and that he wants to do...something. Not very in-depth, but the protagonists are likeable enough that I can bear with a generic villain. Thanks to said Internet trawling, I now know that Thanos is apparently a big villain in the Marvel universe, who ALSO is a titan of some kind (whatever the heck that is bar a being from Greek mythology), who ALSO is after things called infinity stones (apparently such stones were in pre-GotG films), who ALSO will likely be the antagonist of the third 'Avengers' film, who ALSO will therefore have resolution to an arc that for all intents and purposes, began in GotG 1, and will ALSO be resolved in a film that doesn't have "Guardians of the Galaxy" in the title. And I wouldn't mind such info existing, if not for the last few points. I liked 'Iron Man', but got a commercial for the second film, and as far as I can tell, IM3 is more a sequel to 'The Avengers' then IM1 or 2, which was the only phase 1 hero I was interested in. I wouldn't have minded seeing a second GotG film - the first film managed to be relatively self-contained, but I have to ask, is it worth it? Can I see only GotG films without seeing films I'd otherwise not be interested in? Based on my MCU experience...no.

This isn't entertainment. This is homework. Films like 'Lord of the Rings' and 'Starship Troopers' got me to read the books by being damn good films on their own merits. The first 'Star Wars' film actually came out after its novelization, but never used the novelization as a crutch to understand plot and characters, and I never even knew a novelization existed until well after I'd seen the film, but picked it up and read it as soon as I saw it because the film was a damn good space romp on its own merits. Forcing me to shift through extraneous material by obligation is not the same thing.

Anyway, I'll leave it there. This is meant to be about summer movies, not MCU ones. But honestly, I've reached the point where I had to get this out. The only reason I saw GotG was because not only was it the first installment of a franchise rather than a sequel, and therefore likely to be self-contained, but its promotional material managed to get me interested in it based on its own presentation, and not from any obligation to see it out of continuity porn. And while it's the second best MCU film I've seen (but still average), I'm left to ask as to whether it's possible to enjoy GotG without having to see EVERY SINGLE FILM in the MCU in the process.

I haven't got my hopes up.