Why Movies Suck Now Part One: The Myths
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Are movies really any worse today than they have been in previous years? I think they come out at about the same quality as they always have. In a given year, there's several standout excellent movies, a bunch of decent, entertaining movies worth watching, and a ton of crap. Is this really different from how movies were many many years ago? I clearly don't know near as much about the history of cinema as Movie Bob, but I would be surprised if the quality spectrum of movies has always looked roughly the same. I surely doubt there weren't crappy movies made 30, 40, 50 years ago. "Oh, they don't make movies like Fantastic Movie X, Y and Z anymore." Ya, but you're just ignoring all the crap that came out that year as well because you don't bother remembering the crap(most of the time). Sure there are some years that are statistical outliers with a very large or very small number of great movies released, but then there is generally a return to the mean and we keep going at the same rate.
Generally, I leave a lot of movies alone. There aren't a lot that seem to peak my interest, especially in the last decade. I think I got ruined on the late 80s action movies (if anyone else here is old enough to remember the rise of Segal and Van Damme). Those movies, while most had different stories, usually had the same elements. The worst thing I can remember from those movies were the gratuitous sex scenes in nearly every movie. Just out of nowhere, for the benefit of the male audience (and to the female audience that got dragged along) the main characters would just start humping in the middle of the movie. And there I'd sit, not entirely hating to see an attractive woman naked, but wondering why in the hell they are screwing when they are either supposed to be getting away from the bad guys or trying to hunt them down. At least in the first Terminator movie, it actually panned out to make sense in the sequel (even though John Conner's age didn't make a damn bit of sense since it was less than a decade between movies, yet he had somehow become 12 or 14 years old in that time). Van Damme always found an excuse to do the splits (the worst example was in Time Cop), and Mr. Asian Experience always found a way to work in an angle where he tossed some guy through a window or glass table. For a few movies, Wesley Snipes found a reason to do a high kick to someone's head. They all had their signature moves that fans always looked forward to them doing, sort of like the moment nearly everyone waits for in modern movies where they mention the title of the movie within the movie, none being more of a whore to this concept as "Dude, Where's My Car?".
I'm glad we've seen the death of those terrible spoof movies that we were plagued by for the longest time, with at least one coming out every year based on the popular movies of the day. Damn those got annoying as hell!
I'm glad we've seen the death of those terrible spoof movies that we were plagued by for the longest time, with at least one coming out every year based on the popular movies of the day. Damn those got annoying as hell!
I find that all of these myths revolve around what kind of movie is being made. A lot of people try to pass it off as just a matter of taste, but a poorly made pizza is still shitty even if you like that flavor. Any kind of movie (political, adapted, remade, teenage oriented, etc.) can be good if it's well made. Of course, this is something that matters more to cinephiles and critics than the "average movie going audience". Great article, looking forward to the next.
I see this problem too. So many studios just make the same old uninspired crap over and over again, but it still rolls in millions of dollars. That's why I prefer smaller indie movies, but that factor does reduce the capacity of movies being able to pull off certain genres (such as fantasy or sci-fi,) in the same way that mainstream studios can.Not G. Ivingname said:
Sure, you might get a couple real gems per year (and sorting through the sea of crap, I think the good movies these days are better than good older movies,) but the sea is definitely mostly populated with filler, which desperately needs to be filtered out.
I'm personally looking very happily forward towards future Bollywood films, as the recent decade has produced some really amazing ones, while before that every single Bollywood movie is actually basically the exact same.
I think that a lot of movies are actually getting themselves in the left wing-libertarian corner of the political square, which is a good thing to me. More movies like Avatar might actually be able to influence people's politics a fair bit, assuming all the studios just aren't into making as much money they can off the same action or romance movie in a different dress.
id say movies have gotten better, i mean look at the 90s, yes there was some goodies, but damn there was alooooot of crap.
so okey the crap can be fun to watch amongst friends, but hell even plan 9 from outer space is fun with friends, but alone its just kinda sad..
hmm wait that was a bad example i just laugh my ass of at how low grade it is, like laughing at some one who falls in the corridor.
if id put my vote to why there isn't as many good movies as it ought to be, well thats cause big name peps fuck things up, directors, producers screen writers or the sponsors having their own opinion about how to do things and so things don't reach their full potential, like district nine, its good rly good but it could be so much better whit just some minor adjustments, some more ingenuity in the weapons, the main character being just a little less of a prick(he had like 2 or 3 good qualities) , the villains a little bit more humane and a much greater depiction on the plight of the aliens and booom instead of a 8-9/10 its a 10/10 a epic to be forever remembered.
but essentially a good movie can be done on basically any story line if done right.
so okey the crap can be fun to watch amongst friends, but hell even plan 9 from outer space is fun with friends, but alone its just kinda sad..
hmm wait that was a bad example i just laugh my ass of at how low grade it is, like laughing at some one who falls in the corridor.
if id put my vote to why there isn't as many good movies as it ought to be, well thats cause big name peps fuck things up, directors, producers screen writers or the sponsors having their own opinion about how to do things and so things don't reach their full potential, like district nine, its good rly good but it could be so much better whit just some minor adjustments, some more ingenuity in the weapons, the main character being just a little less of a prick(he had like 2 or 3 good qualities) , the villains a little bit more humane and a much greater depiction on the plight of the aliens and booom instead of a 8-9/10 its a 10/10 a epic to be forever remembered.
but essentially a good movie can be done on basically any story line if done right.
I think somewhere the movie (T2)not-so-clearly states that it takes place in 96 or 97, with the first movie taking place in 85. I could be wrong, but I think it just barely hits the mark.GodKlown said:
Way to generalize a whole industry.electronic wolf said:
Anyway, I don't think that movies these days are any worse or better than normal, certainly not early 70s level but some still fantastic movies are made. As it is, i think the best way to find good movies these days is too just look at smaller movies that are often overshadowed by the big blockbusters, things like "Bad lieutenant", and stop looking at only multi-million dollar special effects wank-offs like Transformers, though sometimes even they are good, like District Nine.
I don't see why Twilight or High School Musical and their audience would be any more to blame than Transformers or 300 and their audience. A "good" film could be made that still appeals to young girls, just as MovieBob pointed out concerning The Dark Knight and teenage boys.Onyx Oblivion said:
My guess would be... it seems few directors are doing it for passion anymore. It's all about the benjimans now. Of course, hollywood has always made a lot of money, but it seems like old directors while making lots of money still had a passion for films.
Movies now just seem to be dumped out, run through the "make shiny" CG department and then slapped on screen. This is an obvious blanket statement as there ARE "good" films still being made.
Movies now just seem to be dumped out, run through the "make shiny" CG department and then slapped on screen. This is an obvious blanket statement as there ARE "good" films still being made.
I read your debate with "Men are pigs" woman at Big Hollywood. I decided to comment here since I don't want my online self connected any way to that site.MovieBob said:
Speaking as a guy with an old fashioned style I have to say I was insulted. Just because I wouldn't say no to a willing and eager partner I have no respect for them and treat them as akin to a wet towel. Besides, chivalry is all about a pro-female sexual attitude. One of it's core tennant is "Ladies First".
Also, since I'm Canadian, could someone explain why abstinance education is a good idea but teaching safe sex isn't?
It would be helpful to define what makes a movie suck so there would be common grounds for discussion. I know the question is broad and does not easily isolate to any particular factor, but knowing what standards have deteriorated in the last 10 or 20 years would help bring focus to the article.
Referencing some of the comments, before one goes and says "I don't like most movies being made today" it is important to keep in mind different people have different tastes and the American movie industry caters to broad tastes and so one shouldn't expect to like all or even a majority of movies being produced.
Referencing some of the comments, before one goes and says "I don't like most movies being made today" it is important to keep in mind different people have different tastes and the American movie industry caters to broad tastes and so one shouldn't expect to like all or even a majority of movies being produced.
I personally dislike movies simply for time reasons. 2 hours is too short to go truly in depth compared to a TV series, novel, or even a video game. Yet sitting down for two hours just watching something goes beyond my attention span at the same time. But I guess that is just a personal bias I have... I rather play a video game or read a novel for two hours straight then just watch something.
Before people are like TV sucks (which it often does as well), a few words-
AVATAR: The Last Airbender...
TV> movies...
hehehe...
fallacious reasoning is fun... =)
Before people are like TV sucks (which it often does as well), a few words-
AVATAR: The Last Airbender...
TV> movies...
hehehe...
fallacious reasoning is fun... =)
I think movie Bob summed it all up in his last review: The producers of movies in general think the public doesn't understand 'difficult/intelligent' movies anymore. So it all needs to be very simple ans straight forward to understand. They probably have tunnel vision and think big movie hits equals dumb audience equals moneys.
"V (as in For Vendetta) hates Government so much he makes Glenn Beck look like FDR, but his enemies are thinly-veiled analogs for the Bush Administration. Which one's the liberal, again?"
Well, well, well, Bob. Apparently, you've only bothered to see the V for Vendetta film, which clearly pits V against a government that's a thinly veiled Bush administration allegory.
However, if you had even bothered to read the original comic series, you would note that Alan Moore (of Watchmen and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen fame - both originally graphic novels) paints V as an anarchist - a terrorist who wages brutal war against a fascist British government. V is no liberal avenger, as seen in the film version. He's a hero, a villain, and a psychotic madman - not unlike the Dark Knight's Joker. Nor are his enemies Bush-analogs. They're closer to some crossbreed between Mussolini and Stalin. Moore portrays a world spiraling into madness, a world devoured by insanity. V's fight is no liberal and just crusade. He fights heroically but madly, and is an agent of destruction and chaos, for the sake of murder and pillage against those just as evil.
V for Vendetta (film) certainly isn't a good case to illustrate political nebulosity. It's just a case of a Hollywood's liberals messing with excellent source material. Sure, V for Vendetta was an above-average graphic novel adaptation, and I enjoyed the film (went to see it twice, in fact). But you would be very wrong to use it as an example of political ambiguity without reading Moore's novel.
Well, well, well, Bob. Apparently, you've only bothered to see the V for Vendetta film, which clearly pits V against a government that's a thinly veiled Bush administration allegory.
However, if you had even bothered to read the original comic series, you would note that Alan Moore (of Watchmen and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen fame - both originally graphic novels) paints V as an anarchist - a terrorist who wages brutal war against a fascist British government. V is no liberal avenger, as seen in the film version. He's a hero, a villain, and a psychotic madman - not unlike the Dark Knight's Joker. Nor are his enemies Bush-analogs. They're closer to some crossbreed between Mussolini and Stalin. Moore portrays a world spiraling into madness, a world devoured by insanity. V's fight is no liberal and just crusade. He fights heroically but madly, and is an agent of destruction and chaos, for the sake of murder and pillage against those just as evil.
V for Vendetta (film) certainly isn't a good case to illustrate political nebulosity. It's just a case of a Hollywood's liberals messing with excellent source material. Sure, V for Vendetta was an above-average graphic novel adaptation, and I enjoyed the film (went to see it twice, in fact). But you would be very wrong to use it as an example of political ambiguity without reading Moore's novel.
In the US, the political parties are divided badly. Many Democrat voters want the party to be Left/Libertarian or Centre/Authoritarian, but the Democratic administrations tend to be Centrist/Libertarian while Obama is more of a Centre-Right/Authoritarian. Republican voters want the party to be Right/Libertarian or Far-Right/Authoritarian, while the last few Republican administrations have been Right/Authoritarian.vivaldiscool said:
I agree that the political spectrum is much too complex to view as a line. Even politicians from different parties can have essentially similar views on one political line, but radically different views in other areas.
OT: The fact is that we think movies suck nowadays, but it's not an accurate perception. Name 5 movies from 1972, and 5 movies from 2010.
Your 2010 list probably includes some shitty movies like Remember Me, Eclipse and Predators, as well as good movies like Toy Story 3 and Shutter Island.
As for the 1972 list, you probably remember classics like The Godfather and Cabaret. However, 1972 was also the year some unimaginably bad films came out. Films like The Dirt Gang, Night of the Lepus, and Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny.
We remember classics from long ago, but don't remember the shitty movies. With recent films, the classics seem to be buried under a deluge of mediocre movies, with a few really shitty ones as well. Even in the time of "classics", the same thing was true.
Useless info time! Since he mentioned GI Joe in the article, did you know that the character Flint was named Dashiell Fairborne after Mr. Hammett?Villa Idiot said: