I like hamburgers when I'm stoned, and don't necessarily lust after some exquisite cuisine - I just want food, I'm lazy, I'll Uber Eats it, even - I don't care - just give me a burger and fries, and, yeah, put on a 'shitty' movie, I don't want to have to think.
And there's a lot of people in that state, especially after a hard day of work.
I agree with this Ken chap. I suppose that the "The Fast/Furious Mission is Impossible = quality cinema" crowd will demur, but I suppose, if your idea of silver-screen greatness concurs with the Lego-Storm-Troopr here, aka "the most popular singer in the world is clearly the best singer in the world", then I suppose you will also disagree.
Archer, Bob's Burgers, Black Mirror, Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, Veep, Parks and Rec, Community, Mr. Robot, Handmaid's Tail, Broad City, Schitt's Creek, Bless this Mess, Atlanta, Bojack Horseman, Brooklyn 99, Barry, Portlandia, Westworld, IASIP.
I could go on. Lot's of these are, of course, arguable, but honestly, the 2010's was just jam packed full of awesome television.
Well, of course - these are 'Blockbuster' films, designed with high budgets, like AAA games - they need to be guaranteed to make back a significant investment made into something with such high production values.
South Park recently lambasted this in S26E02, 'Band in China,' where we saw a host of characters on their way to China - part of a group the series was lambasting on selling out to China with regards to censorship. The characters had been 'selling out' to expand their financial markets to China.
A film usually needs to make back twice its budget in order to be deemed a 'financial success.' If that film has a budget of $80-180mil, the execs are going to want it to fly with the lowest common denominator. If it happens to actually say something as well, and become critically-acclaimed, such as Joker, or the Dark Knight, well, that's an exception.
tl;dr: High budget superhero action films need to be guaranteed to make their budget back. They are made to hit the lowest common denominator and sell tickets. If they happen to be brilliant they are an outlier to the rule.
Let's not forget that the studios have an artistic side too; Harry Potter and the Order of the phoenix lost over a hundred and fifty million dollars (sic) but out of the goodness of their hearts they pressed on with the series!
Agreed, Hollywood accountants may be more creative than the filmmakers. But really, all they are doing is taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. Their marketing division or others will simply massively overcharge the film for their services. Thus showing a huge charge against the film budget. This is to keep from paying royalties based on profit.
This is also why Keanu Reeves is one of the richest actors in Hollywood. He made a 15% on gross deal for the matrix. So no amount of shifty accounting could get the studios out of paying him.
One can only assume they made that deal at the time because they didn't expect the movie to be all that successful.
They are more like rice. (or a popular Chinese meal that's cheap, easy, sometimes crappy and popular?)
Movies have shifted because of the Chinese market and Chinese demands.
They are a simpler market at this stage as their culture matures. A factory worker doesn't want to come home and watch Ken Loach's 'I, Daniel Blake', they are living it.
And they need movies that transpose the cultural differences between the West and East.
Piracy also means sequels can do better than originals. Some movies sequels that tank in the USA do better than the original in China.
Ken Loach said this of superhero films: "They're made as commodities like hamburgers, and it's not about communicating, and it's not about sharing our imagination."
Superhero films are just a genre, like any other. It's a constraint that lets you better express other themes or ideas.
Think about the best superhero films vs the worst ones. The good ones were all about something, not just people running around in costumes. And all the bad ones were just people running around in costumes.
Nolan Batman: does power make right? (all) who has the right the enforce justice? (bb and dkr) does peace by force breed a worse evil? (dk) how far can you push people before they embrace their darker haves? (dk and dkr)
Captain America: what is patriotism? (all) can you trust authority? (WS) the risks of concentrating power (WS) is rehabilitation viable (WS and CW) is safety more important than liberty? (CW)
Wonder Woman: is it better to be a part of society or apart from it? is the world worth saving? do woman have the power to shape the world?
Captain Marvel: can a woman succeed in a hero role without a male romantic/sexual interest to feminize her? also, the power of propaganda to literally shape how we view others (and especially, "The Other")
Black Panther: can black culture be identified with modernity and success? what is the role of tradition and culture in modern society? does our true power come from external sources or from within?
Spiderman (HC, FFH, IS): how much would the events of the Avengers films actually affect daily life? (HC, FFH) what are the consequences of casual implementation of government policy? (HC) what does it mean to be a superhero? (IS) what is identity (IS) how much of life is driven by deception (FFH)?
X-Men: what does it mean to be an outsider/The Other? (1, 2) can The Other become part of society (2, FC, DOFP)? Contrast with the universally derided 3, Apocalypse, and DP, which don't appear to have any driving themes.
Aquaman: can man and nature exist together in a non-destructive state? can mankind save itself?
Joker: what is sanity? how thin is the line between thought and action? does inequality justify class-based warfare? does abuse justify retribution?
Contrast with the DC Justice League ensemble films, which don't have any themes. They just have people in costumes stand around a fight CGI villains. Snyder's Superman films have a concept (what if Superman killed?) but no themes (since they backed away from actually exploring any of the religious themes likening Superman to Jesus).
For those of you who haven't had to suffer through Ken Loach's works: they're all pretentious, insufferable dramas that claim to be about something. But they're trying so hard that they have to hit you over the head over and over and over again so that you know that they're supposed to be about something. Because if his works didn't explicitly tell you they were about something you wouldn't know from the play/show/movie that it was anything deeper than the poorly directed, poorly acted crap in front of you.
I haven't been to a movie theater in more that 10 years now. Almost every trailer I see looks spectacularly boring. I am not exactly demanding audience either. I just want movies to be (1) fun (2) interesting (3) exciting. The recent-ish movies I saw (not in a theater) that would satisfy the given criteria are It: Chapter 1, Upgrade and Arrival. Hollywood can make extraordinary stuff if it wants, but currently it's tied up with modern day "westerns"(?) aka superhero movies. Aren't people tired of "evil vs good + explosions + unfunny one-liners" formula? What about stories like "I Have No Mouth But I Must Scream" by Harlan Ellison or "Blindsight" by Peter Watts? Wouldn't they look insane on the big screen?
In general there’s too many “one man/woman/superhero’s only chance to save country/world/universe” movies. The formula is oversaturated with too many movies that try to make up for bad writing and uninteresting stories with excessive CGI and explosions.
There’s also quite a bit of hypocrisy in Hollywood in general. They claim to be progressive but I’m not sure I’ve seen many movies where the Indian guy wasn’t comic relief or the Arab looking guy wasn’t a terrorist or other form of antagonist.
Hollywood always goes through cycles. Remember when most films were simple/generic Westerns with John Wayne on screen every other month. Remember after WW2 when there was a glut of war films. Some actors made there career out of playing German bad guys. Or the prevalence of disaster movies in the late 70's. Today it is Superheroes. In another 10 years? Who knows...
And that's OK. People show up for spectacle and power fantasy and to see their favorite superheros fighting on the big screen, they get what they pay for... which isn't often the case with movies elsewhere.
"How dare they make this lowbrow entertainment for the masses that packs in audiences and makes tons of money for the studios! These "films" (if digital projections can be graced with such a title) are no better than the tired, clichéd superhero comic books that inspired them! We must demand nothing short of the highest of art cinema, just as we insist upon the nutritious, gourmet food that is typically served and consumed in movie theaters."
Totally valid point, but what I what ponder is the extent to which blockbuster movies (specifically the recent onslaught of sequels) consume the shared resources available to make quality films; i.e. talent (videographers, actors and actresses, directors, etc.), available slots for films that theaters have, the audience's time, and mainly studio budgets.
Indie films can exist symbiotically; and I think they have been successfully. It seems like there are many more movies, of all varieties, available today than any other time in history. Although, I can't help but think about what we don't have as a result of YASM (yet another superhero movie).
You could also argue that adding to the coffers with a "sure-thing" provides more money to create new and innovative films, but I suspect currently that profits go into bonuses, getting the same actors back again and again, and production of the next "sure-thing".
I think there are a lot of movies now, but a lot of "bad" ones. The "good" ones are either "more-of-the-same-good" or exposed to very small audiences. Which may be less desirable for a diverse and interesting culture and society.
26 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 81.2 ms ] threadAnd there's a lot of people in that state, especially after a hard day of work.
Action. Franchise. hello.
More seriously I liked the big bang theory, the expanse, firefly, and dark matter. I haven't watched game of thrones yet.
I could go on. Lot's of these are, of course, arguable, but honestly, the 2010's was just jam packed full of awesome television.
South Park recently lambasted this in S26E02, 'Band in China,' where we saw a host of characters on their way to China - part of a group the series was lambasting on selling out to China with regards to censorship. The characters had been 'selling out' to expand their financial markets to China.
A film usually needs to make back twice its budget in order to be deemed a 'financial success.' If that film has a budget of $80-180mil, the execs are going to want it to fly with the lowest common denominator. If it happens to actually say something as well, and become critically-acclaimed, such as Joker, or the Dark Knight, well, that's an exception.
tl;dr: High budget superhero action films need to be guaranteed to make their budget back. They are made to hit the lowest common denominator and sell tickets. If they happen to be brilliant they are an outlier to the rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
This is also why Keanu Reeves is one of the richest actors in Hollywood. He made a 15% on gross deal for the matrix. So no amount of shifty accounting could get the studios out of paying him.
One can only assume they made that deal at the time because they didn't expect the movie to be all that successful.
Movies have shifted because of the Chinese market and Chinese demands.
They are a simpler market at this stage as their culture matures. A factory worker doesn't want to come home and watch Ken Loach's 'I, Daniel Blake', they are living it.
And they need movies that transpose the cultural differences between the West and East.
Piracy also means sequels can do better than originals. Some movies sequels that tank in the USA do better than the original in China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films...
Superhero films are just a genre, like any other. It's a constraint that lets you better express other themes or ideas.
Think about the best superhero films vs the worst ones. The good ones were all about something, not just people running around in costumes. And all the bad ones were just people running around in costumes.
Nolan Batman: does power make right? (all) who has the right the enforce justice? (bb and dkr) does peace by force breed a worse evil? (dk) how far can you push people before they embrace their darker haves? (dk and dkr)
Captain America: what is patriotism? (all) can you trust authority? (WS) the risks of concentrating power (WS) is rehabilitation viable (WS and CW) is safety more important than liberty? (CW)
Wonder Woman: is it better to be a part of society or apart from it? is the world worth saving? do woman have the power to shape the world?
Captain Marvel: can a woman succeed in a hero role without a male romantic/sexual interest to feminize her? also, the power of propaganda to literally shape how we view others (and especially, "The Other")
Black Panther: can black culture be identified with modernity and success? what is the role of tradition and culture in modern society? does our true power come from external sources or from within?
Spiderman (HC, FFH, IS): how much would the events of the Avengers films actually affect daily life? (HC, FFH) what are the consequences of casual implementation of government policy? (HC) what does it mean to be a superhero? (IS) what is identity (IS) how much of life is driven by deception (FFH)?
X-Men: what does it mean to be an outsider/The Other? (1, 2) can The Other become part of society (2, FC, DOFP)? Contrast with the universally derided 3, Apocalypse, and DP, which don't appear to have any driving themes.
Aquaman: can man and nature exist together in a non-destructive state? can mankind save itself?
Joker: what is sanity? how thin is the line between thought and action? does inequality justify class-based warfare? does abuse justify retribution?
Contrast with the DC Justice League ensemble films, which don't have any themes. They just have people in costumes stand around a fight CGI villains. Snyder's Superman films have a concept (what if Superman killed?) but no themes (since they backed away from actually exploring any of the religious themes likening Superman to Jesus).
For those of you who haven't had to suffer through Ken Loach's works: they're all pretentious, insufferable dramas that claim to be about something. But they're trying so hard that they have to hit you over the head over and over and over again so that you know that they're supposed to be about something. Because if his works didn't explicitly tell you they were about something you wouldn't know from the play/show/movie that it was anything deeper than the poorly directed, poorly acted crap in front of you.
There’s also quite a bit of hypocrisy in Hollywood in general. They claim to be progressive but I’m not sure I’ve seen many movies where the Indian guy wasn’t comic relief or the Arab looking guy wasn’t a terrorist or other form of antagonist.
Indie films can exist symbiotically; and I think they have been successfully. It seems like there are many more movies, of all varieties, available today than any other time in history. Although, I can't help but think about what we don't have as a result of YASM (yet another superhero movie).
You could also argue that adding to the coffers with a "sure-thing" provides more money to create new and innovative films, but I suspect currently that profits go into bonuses, getting the same actors back again and again, and production of the next "sure-thing".
I think there are a lot of movies now, but a lot of "bad" ones. The "good" ones are either "more-of-the-same-good" or exposed to very small audiences. Which may be less desirable for a diverse and interesting culture and society.