# Personally, I hope that Spielberg is right.



## EastWest Lurker

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/09/02/steven-spielberg-superhero-movies


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

Well it's inevitable, isn't it. Wonder what the next new/old fad will cycle back up after the superhero renaissance era has faded? 

Perhaps the pseudo-steamy erotic thriller flick will make a comeback. Basic Instinct, 9 1/2 Weeks, Sliver, that kind of thing. That'd be something, huh?


----------



## RiffWraith

EastWest Lurker said:


> Personally, I hope that Spielberg is right.



Personally, I hope that he's wrong.

I like these many of these movies. They are fun and entertaining. And obviously, many, many people agree with me.

Also, these movies employ people, and help many to put food on the table for themselves and their families.

So, why is it that you hope this goes away?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Because the genre is exhausted, devoid of anything fresh and creative for years now.

And Spielberg makes his case well.


----------



## Studio E

It was so amazing, when the first Tobey Maguire Spidey film came out. Although already dated, it was exciting for me and millions of others to finally see a great visual representation of what we had imagined for years. I felt that they got a ton right with it. I've enjoyed many of these films, both Marvel and DC, but I totally agree that they are getting monotonous at this point. To me, I always love a good origins tale. It fits the fish-out-of-water thing great, the awkward start of a character that has problems that A) many of us can relate to, and B) We wish we had (Take that Flash Thompson). 

Now it's turning closer to battle porn and over-used smarmy jokes, etc. Or, in the DC world, it keeps getting darker and darker. Either way, I get some joy out of them regardless, but I'd take a story about believable characters over these any day. Then again, I AM getting old, lol.


----------



## Guy Rowland

I don't often say this, but I'm with Jay.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

I was into superhero comics as a kid and young teen. And back then, I loved Tim Burtons Batmans of course.

The 21. century movies, not so much, for the most part. I thought The Dark Knight was really good. And Iron Man 2, that was just fun. And I was wondering if they could really pull off the suit, or perhaps doubting they could. But when you see it in the movie, you don't spend a single second not buying it, or even thinking about it. It just worked so incredibly well and that kind of thing wouldn't have been possible with the cinema trickery from 25 years ago.

But most of the others ones, gnah. Complete assembly line products; acting, editing, effects, music, everything. But when was that any different in Hollywood? I'm OK with it, let people have their fun with this stuff. I think it strikes one as annoying because - at least that's my impression - there aren't a lot of interesting and actually original films being made. Which I think used to be different. The cheesy machinery products were always there, but then also films of a different caliber as well.

I feel that studios today are incredibly reluctant to back anything that isn't a total safe bet, there just seems to be no willingness whatsoever to believe in a story and try something out. And if they do, it kind of ends up not doing as well as the franchises, adaptations and sequels/remakes/prequels.


----------



## AR

Dark knight was great. Realism to it. Also captain america 2 had some scenes, too. But then there are movies with tons of aliens fighting against halfgods and robots. Why do 30 year olds watch movies for 12 year olds? 
What we need is realism. Something like kick-ass but in a serious way.


----------



## AR

Dark knight was great. Realism to it. Also captain america 2 had some scenes, too. But then there are movies with tons of aliens fighting against halfgods and robots. Why do 30 year olds watch movies for 12 year olds? 
What we need is realism. Something like kick-ass but in a serious way.


----------



## jacobthestupendous

The studios are businesses first and foremost. It is frustrating as an artist to realize that, but it's true. They will continue making safe bets that pay off well. There will be a drought when the popular appetite for superheroes dries up, and there will be a lot of experimentation then, but something new will replace the current fad. People will still want to be entertained, and barring some serious shift in socioeconomic capacity, people will continue to keep studios afloat through and beyond the next identity crisis.


----------



## Guy Rowland

jacobthestupendous said:


> The studios are businesses first and foremost. It is frustrating as an artist to realize that, but it's true. They will continue making safe bets that pay off well. There will be a drought when the popular appetite for superheroes dries up, and there will be a lot of experimentation then, but something new will replace the current fad. People will still want to be entertained, and barring some serious shift in socioeconomic capacity, people will continue to keep studios afloat through and beyond the next identity crisis.



All that's true - Speilberg's point is that at some stage the public will simply tire of it, as they once tired of Westerns, and the business will therefore move on. Blockbusters don't have to be superhero flicks.


----------



## chillbot

Guy Rowland said:


> I don't often say this, but I'm with Jay.



That's funny I was going to post the exact same thing. (Some) superhero movies are great.... there just doesn't need to be a new one every month. Especially when in the case of spiderman, avengers, etc, I feel like I'm just watching a cartoon with all the CG. Studios are businesses of course they will make them if there is a demand but hoping the demand subsides...


----------



## Vin

Agreed, except for Nolan's Batman, which is in its own league (well written, acted and directed), most of the superhero movies became formulaic and...boring, uninspiring piles od CGI.


----------



## stonzthro

Wait, movies go in CYCLES? Total news flash there!


----------



## chillbot

Long list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_superhero_films

Can't say any stand out to me aside from Burton's Batman and Nolan's Batman. (Not counting non-typical superhero movies like Birdman...)


----------



## chillbot

How about this: has there been a truly memorable superhero theme since Williams' Superman and Elfman's Batman? If so, which one(s)? To me, they are all very good... apologies to all the amazing composers writing these themes... the problem is there are so MANY of them they all kind of run together in my head as generic epic superhero music.


----------



## jacobthestupendous

Studio E said:


> It was so amazing, when the first Tobey Maguire Spidey film came out. Although already dated, it was exciting for me and millions of others to finally see a great visual representation of what we had imagined for years. I felt that they got a ton right with it.


The thing that modern era superhero movies have gotten right is that they've been competent movies. They've been (mostly) solidly written, directed, and acted with relatable-enough characters and storylines, accessible-enough styles, and adequate sound and visuals, and they've been solidly entertaining for at least their two hour runtimes. That was not a true statement about any prior superhero movies, even including the Burton Batmans, which were soaked in a loony campy style that didn't do anything to win over grown men who thought comics were stupid. Prior CGI limitations aside, I'd wager that Batman Begins or the first Iron Man or the Avengers or X1/X2 would have been as popular in any previous era because they tell these fantastic stories in a competent, accessible way.

I think superheroes are a fad in the box office, but I don't think it's fair to the material to say that's all they are.


----------



## jacobthestupendous

EastWest Lurker said:


> Because the genre is exhausted, devoid of anything fresh and creative for years now.


It's a bit disingenuous to say that the whole genre is exhausted of creativity. The Avengers are two movies deep, but countless comic storylines deep. Most of the franchises that you're already getting tired of already have a deep wealth of fresh and creative stories that have managed to keep generations of nerds interested for their whole lives. It's not unimaginable that these movies could continue in episodic fashion as long as the important faces are young enough and still interested and the studios keep the basic quality up.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Doesn't the Bible say something like "You shall know them by their works?"

This stuff is largely crap for the last 5-8 years. Until they stop making money turning out crap they will continue to do so.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

EastWest Lurker said:


> Doesn't the Bible say something like "You shall know them by their works?"



The Bible also says _"She lusted after their genitals – as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions."_

Perhaps they should be making more Bible movies - starring Charlton Heston's corpse and Mel Gibson's liver!


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Might be better than some of the super hero films


----------



## blougui

AR said:


> Why do 30 year olds watch movies for 12 year olds?
> .


Same as in litterature : why do 30 yearsolds read books for 12 years old ?
I don't have a definitive answer but have some ideas.

erik


----------



## jacobthestupendous

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> The Bible also says _"She lusted after their genitals – as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions."_


I'm gonna need a scripture reference for that one.


----------



## JonFairhurst

The challenge for cinema is that people will only go to the big screen for big pictures. You want drama? Stream Peaky Blinders on Netflix. You get great writing, acting, sets, costumes, backgrounds, and top production levels. And you get several hours per season.

Before TV, Hollywood could fill seats with film noir, which had a distinctive but low budget look and intense but small stories. A "dame" a detective and a gun in a small office could be all you needed for your tent pole scene. One might pull off the greatest modern equivalent of a noir flick, but it won't get the masses off the sofa and away from their LCD screens.

Lawrence of Arabia might be a valid model. It was based in reality (or at least the western view of reality in the Middle East at that time) and featured expansive scenery. Yeah, it had its big scenes and themes, but had many smaller moments as well. It was about the man, not the battles.

Maybe the modern equivalent is Gravity. Huge visuals. Small story. Goes quickly from three to two to one characters - with no superpowers involved.

Truly small films still exist. They just go straight to disc/stream. Few make it to the cinema. To fill the theater, it's got to be trendy, visually big, and/or have a gimmick. And/or it has a big-name director and star. If it doesn't have any of these, it has no hope of competing with Ultraman III.


----------



## MA-Simon

"What we need is realism."

Please No.
I don't go the the cinema for realism.
I can have realism at work.

I like super Hero movies, they are nice to watch.
What I don't like is... the cinema. (So fucking loud.)
Let me whatch those flicks on day 1 on Netflix and I would gladly pay the ticket price.
I am a lazy person.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

jacobthestupendous said:


> I'm gonna need a scripture reference for that one.



Ezekiel 23.20.


----------



## Guy Rowland

jacobthestupendous said:


> The thing that modern era superhero movies have gotten right is that they've been competent movies. They've been (mostly) solidly written, directed, and acted with relatable-enough characters and storylines, accessible-enough styles, and adequate sound and visuals, and they've been solidly entertaining for at least their two hour runtimes. That was not a true statement about any prior superhero movies, even including the Burton Batmans, which were soaked in a loony campy style that didn't do anything to win over grown men who thought comics were stupid. Prior CGI limitations aside, I'd wager that Batman Begins or the first Iron Man or the Avengers or X1/X2 would have been as popular in any previous era because they tell these fantastic stories in a competent, accessible way.



Good lord, that's a contentious paragraph. For reasons that pass understanding, I took a chance on Man Of Steel - it got decent reviews and a decent IMDb score. Genuinely, truly, I consider it abominable, atrocious filmmaking. There is technical skill of course, but it was creatively bankrupt. It was singularly one of my all time worst movie-going experiences - I'd pay big money to avoid seeing it again. Noise without impact. The Guantanamo of cinema experiences.

I then tried Avengers Assemble, promised that it was totally different, witty and fun. This was watching at home with the family. After 30 minutes we unanimously voted it off. Bored witless, all of us.

Compare and contrast with the classics of the 80s blockbuster (BTTF, Indiana Jones etc). Pacing, light, shade, characterisation, solid (occasionally impeccable) scripts, humour and fun. Now, I might be old, but my kids aren't. These aren't movies now - they're corporate machines.

I've seen one truly excellent superhero movie in the past 2 decades. It got about 5/10 on IMDb, and had a budget of about 20 quid, but there's more heart, soul and joy in Griff The Invisible than the entire DC and Marvel output.


----------



## ghostnote

It's not just the superhero genre, the real problem here is CGI:


----------



## RiffWraith

EastWest Lurker said:


> Because the genre is exhausted, devoid of anything fresh and creative for years now.



So, b/c you are of _the opinion_ that the genre is "exhausted, etc." - you feel these movies should just go away.

"Hi, my name is Jay Asher, and I think the Superhero genre has run it's course, and hope it dies. And if you like this genre and wan to to continue to watch new movies in this genre, you can go screw yourself."

Nice attitude.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I'd settle for CGI going the way of the western.

Obviously I'm not 100% serious - probably 80%! - but too many films substitute effects for things like a good story.

(^ This was written before I even saw Michael Chrostek's post, never mind his video - which is blank until I reload the page with ad blocking plug-ins off.)

***

Riff...I don't know why you're heating up. Jay has his opinion and you have yours. Why is that a problem? Do you produce superhero movies? He didn't tell anyone who disagrees to go screw themselves, he's saying why he's bored with that genre of films.

I actually like "Gotham" - the TV show, but in general I agree with Jay.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

Guy Rowland said:


> Compare and contrast with the classics of the 80s blockbuster (BTTF, Indiana Jones etc). Pacing, light, shade, characterisation, solid (occasionally impeccable) scripts, humour and fun.



Exacly, that's how I generally feel about it as well.

I also have to agree about the CGI thing Michal Chrostek pointed out. I noticed that lately it's been really turning me off. It triggers quite a strong uncanney valley effect in my mind. And also I kind of can't take the whole thing seriously any more when I take a look at a new film and realize that more than half of it is purely computer-generated. It kind of turns into a mere backdrop for visual effects.


----------



## jacobthestupendous

Guy Rowland said:


> I took a chance on Man Of Steel - it got decent reviews and a decent IMDb score. Genuinely, truly, I consider it abominable, atrocious filmmaking. There is technical skill of course, but it was creatively bankrupt. It was singularly one of my all time worst movie-going experiences - I'd pay big money to avoid seeing it again. Noise without impact.


Notice that I _didn't_ list that one as an example of a superhero movie that would be popular in the past also...



Guy Rowland said:


> I then tried Avengers Assemble, promised that it was totally different, witty and fun.


The cartoon show? Not relevant to the discussion. If you mean The Avengers (2012 film), then I would say that you're the one being contentious.



Guy Rowland said:


> Compare and contrast with the classics of the 80s blockbuster (BTTF, Indiana Jones etc). Pacing, light, shade, characterisation, solid (occasionally impeccable) scripts, humour and fun. Now, I might be old, but my kids aren't. These aren't movies now - they're corporate machines.


I'm not sure that's fair. Indiana Jones et al were much more action packed than the movies of yesteryear, and I'd wager there were folks back then decrying the nonstop fistfights and gun violence just as you are doing now. I grew up watching It's a Wonderful Life around Christmas time, but compared to movies today (or to the classics of the 80s), it's nearly unwatchable like virtually all movies from that period. All light, shade, characterization, script, humor, no action, but I guarantee there were plenty of folks around in the 80s who would have taken those classics over the 80s nonsense any day of the week. I think it's more accurate to say that movies over time have refined the efficiency with which they deliver the things that audiences want. Corporate profit motive was just as present in the 80's as it is today.

And I wasn't talking about Indiana Jones anyway; I was talking about the campy crapshow and/or arthouse weirdness that was 100% of superhero movies before Tobey Maguire, Hugh Jackman and Robert Downey, Jr.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Yes. That video of Michael's is saying a lot of what I'm saying, although his focus is more about how the technology is affecting the films and he thinks it'll change back again. I'm not so sure it will.

To me the fundamental problem is that not enough is left to the imagination.

And of course what I said before: substituting CGI for substance.


----------



## jacobthestupendous

Nick Batzdorf said:


> To me the fundamental problem is that not enough is left to the imagination.


Anticipation of a thing is often more powerful than the thing itself. This was especially true when the thing itself was a man in a rubber suit; I suspect that people underestimated how true that would turn out to be, even when computers replaced the rubber suit with something much scarier.


----------



## D.Salzenberg

As a collector of Silver Age comic books, for me the best superhero/comic book related film has been the original Blade, which really captured the feel of Gene Colan's amazing comic book artwork, and had a superb soundtrack by Mark Isham. It had a great story, which made sense in its own world, took itself seriously and wasn't camp and wasn't reliant on hideous ridiculous CGI effects.
A truly great adaption of the Blade comic book character. 
Batman Begins was also great, amazing soundtrack of course and truly scary Scarecrow effects.
Apart from those two everything has just got worse and worse to the point of being unwatchable, with every trailer being more or less interchangeable. The same goes with the majority of SciFi movies. All stuffed to the gills with ridiculous and often amateurish CGI which stand out a mile as fake, and the same pathetic storyboarded sequences designed solely to impress the audience wearing 3D goggles.
Would films of the standard of Blade Runner or Alien get made today? No chance.
CGI needs to die a quick and painful death.


----------



## Dean

I think Star Wars might help change things a little,more practical sfx,real locations/sets,adventure,humour,hope..Im hoping the next wave might be more in that vein,..adventure,lighter tone,..Guardians Of The Galaxy /Indiana Jones territory. 

Re CGI: I have that same reaction when I see that awful over rendered CGI 'look',...those fake blue and yellow tones popping off the screen,..those Hobbit films/that WETA look,...gives me shivers. 

D


----------



## Guy Rowland

Yeah CG has been a problem, but it's not THE problem. It's another tool to be used well or badly. There have been some great analysis pieces on the misuse of CG, but plenty of filmmakers can use them with skill. I'm not a huge Fincher fan, but his use of CG is remarkable.

Jacob - yes, I was referring to the 2012 Avengers movie (I think we had a different title for it in the UK). Genuinely found it utterly tedious. I realise it's well liked (hey, so was Man Of Steel), but I wasn't engaged by it on any level. I will confess - the whole superpower thing now bores me beyond measure, so it's hard to get enthused by any of it unless they've really got a new take on it (Griff The Invisible - how I adore that scrappy little film). Oh, I forgot there was one other superhero movie I really enjoyed - The Incredibles. Sensational characters, wonderful pacing.

Of course, I was comparing with how blockbusters used to be before the blunt, brutal domination of the superhero subgenre. But there have been glimmers of light. I've not seen Jurassic World, but it seems to have done rather well without superpowers. I loved Mission Impossible 5, a fine old romp. Meanwhile we've had a few high profile superhero flops. With Star Wars coming and a slew of Avatars on the horizon, it feels like there might be some kind of balance being restored.

EDIT, dammit, missed another one - Guardians of the Galaxy WAS quite fun. I seem to remember the best scene was just all 5 of them talking - a bit more of that wouldn't have hurt, actually.


----------



## AlexandreSafi

Maybe this can be of interest for the discussion: 
*The Problem with Action Movies Today *

1.The Story
2.The Hero
3.The Villain
4.The Stunts
5.The Camerawork
6.The Vulnerability of Our Hero

My opinion is, the problem isn't the genre, it's that the structural elements which make a good movie experience went from "memorable-to-servicable".
I feel today, most (not all..) bluckbusters might feed your stomach, but not your soul. They feel like FX Movies... They draw short-term fantasy, not long-term respect! Great movies, at their core, usually have great & well-executed philosophical themes, do they today, who knows?
Longevity is out of the equation and i think a good movie critic can usually tell when a movie aspires to that or not, you draw your own conclusions with the next upcoming movies...
Greatness has its rules, break'em and you get less-than-great, always...
Today, maybe the 1st time in history, proves one thing: Standards are extremely vulnerable...
-A.s.-


----------



## ghostnote

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Yes. That video of Michael's is saying a lot of what I'm saying, although his focus is more about how the technology is affecting the films and he thinks it'll change back again. I'm not so sure it will.



I disagree. Hollywoods choice to stay on the safe side and exploit the superhero genre goes hand in hand with the overuse of CGI. Nowadays movies are built around the premise that everything you can imagine can be made inside the computer. More CGI equals more impressive action scenes which are easier to realise and cheaper on top. I think its an experimental phase and will decline in the near future. Why? Fatigue. Every artform tries to evolve, sometimes even into the opposite direction. Something we've been experiencing in pop music the last couple of years aswell as during the early 90s. The big question here is: Is there still something new to discover?



Nick Batzdorf said:


> To me the fundamental problem is that not enough is left to the imagination.



I wholeheartly agree. Movies nowadays feel very unpersonal and more like a mass product than an artform. I think Indie films will play a big big role in future. Away from deadlines and producers. Think Bourne.


----------



## toddkedwards

Dean said:


> I think Star Wars might help change things a little,more practical sfx,real locations/sets,adventure,humour,hope..Im hoping the next wave might be more in that vein,..adventure,lighter tone,..Guardians Of The Galaxy /Indiana Jones territory.
> 
> Re CGI: I have that same reaction when I see that awful over rendered CGI 'look',...those fake blue and yellow tones popping off the screen,..those Hobbit films/that WETA look,...gives me shivers.
> 
> D


Let's just hope Disney does not do the same thing with Star Wars. I have a feeling they are going to oversaturate us with everything Star Wars. I love Star Wars and I'm glad they are going to give us more stories, but I have a feeling they are going to milk it and we will all grow tired of it. Hence, like we are with Superheroes movies.


----------



## mverta

All of my friends working on vfx for the new Star Wars say it sucks, basically/don't get your hopes up.


----------



## Cowtothesky

At least Tarantino is still doing westerns… I'm looking forward to the Hateful 8 and a new score by Morricone! 

Everything is about the big box office weekend numbers, with little regard to art and story. Superhero movies are fine, as long as they aren't in this cookie cutter, cgi exploding, plot twisting to hell, terribly casted mold that has no soul to it. I can only think of a handful of movies made in the last 10 years that were truly good IMO. One example I can think of right now is '12 Years a Slave', an epic movie by all standards.


----------



## KEnK

jacobthestupendous said:


> I grew up watching It's a Wonderful Life around Christmas time, but compared to movies today (or to the classics of the 80s), it's nearly unwatchable like virtually all movies from that period. All light, shade, characterization, script, humor, no action,


Actually I still find it to be incredibly potent from a simple Human perspective.
I have a fondness for 40's cinema and many people still like film history, so old films are by no means unwatchable.
What is unwatchable to me though, is what's being talked about in this thread.
There has not been a single film I've wanted to see all summer.
Not only am I done w/ "Guys in Capes" movies, but also w/ "franchises" in general.
No thank you.
Give me an original idea please.

My Wonderful Wife just noticed that "Vertigo" is playing in 70mm at a local repertory house.
This will be preceded by 30 minutes of the Castro Theater's Mighty Wurlitzer being performed.
Real pipes! No Speakers!
Really a beautiful sound that can't be reproduced w/ a speaker system.
(Like all musical instruments, btw)

hmm...

So I'd rather see an Old Classic I know extremely well than endure
the umpteenth version of some sophomoric fantasy nonsense.
Unwatchable is a matter of opinion I guess

k


----------



## Lannister

They're great popcorn movies, in the most positive way. Last one I watched at the cinema was Ant Man, and it was great fun.

But if they're going to die out, just give me Guardians of The Galaxy 2 before it happens.


----------



## KEnK

mverta said:


> All of my friends working on vfx for the new Star Wars say it sucks, basically/don't get your hopes up.


That would be in keeping w/ the last 3 so it fits in well w/ the franchise.


----------



## Guy Rowland

mverta said:


> All of my friends working on vfx for the new Star Wars say it sucks, basically/don't get your hopes up.



Huh, odd - the people I know who worked on it praised it to the skies. However it turns out, I can guarantee it won't feel anything like eps 1-3.

As to anticipation in movies - yes, yes, and yes. And great post from Alexandre - much closer to the current malaise than simply blaming CG. The over-use and mis-use of CG is a symptom, not the root problem.


----------



## mverta

Maybe it looked great on set, who knows.


----------



## Vin

Guy Rowland said:


> However it turns out, I can guarantee it won't feel anything like eps 1-3.



And that's a good thing.


----------



## D.Salzenberg

Yes, cgi is just one part of the problem that comes with everything being profit margin, focus group, marketing 'expert' driven.
CGI is obviously so much cheaper than proper old school effects such as 'go motion' and model making and matte paintings, and the massive success of LOTR which actually had superb CGI, spawned legions of crap movies with legions of
CGI created armies and creatures only done in a cheap amateurish way to go with the zero imagination and zero storylines.
The other real problem with movies today which even Temple Of Doom was guilty of ages ago is pacing, as in lack of. Everything has to be frantic in case you get bored, there's no slow scenes, no atmosphere, no suspense.
No Country For Old Men was the last movie that I saw that had the classic slow thoughtfulness of a classic movie.


----------



## reddognoyz

The trailers all just run together boom zap pow. I don't mind the genre, I like it, but it is so uninspired these days. My 11 yr old was laughing at the preposterously over stuffed Age of Ultron. He thought it was stupid.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Michael Chrostek said:


> I disagree. Hollywoods choice to stay on the safe side and exploit the superhero genre goes hand in hand with the overuse of CGI. Nowadays movies are built around the premise that everything you can imagine can be made inside the computer. More CGI equals more impressive action scenes which are easier to realise and cheaper on top. I think its an experimental phase and will decline in the near future. Why? Fatigue. Every artform tries to evolve, sometimes even into the opposite direction. Something we've been experiencing in pop music the last couple of years aswell as during the early 90s. The big question here is: Is there still something new to discover?



I don't think we disagree. The guy in your video emphasizes how the CGI capabilities since exactly 2004 allowed the whole scene to be animated, while before that only parts of the scene were animated against a real background. He says animating the whole frame makes it *less* realistic, not more.

The other reason studios stay on the safe side etc. is that the audience is now international, and they can't afford to market new films around the whole world. So they make "franchise" movies with characters people already know to cut down on marketing costs.

Anyway, I hope you're right that this will evolve in a good way - not that there aren't a lot of good films being made these days as well.

What I don't understand is how so many really bad ones get made! I mean, even the "smaller" ones are expensive. How is it possible to read some of these scripts and decide to invest your, say, $20 million in total crap rather than...well, with so many writers there have to be good ones that stand a chance of being good films.

They should ask me first. I won't charge a whole lot.


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson

Cowtothesky said:


> At least Tarantino is still doing westerns… I'm looking forward to the Hateful 8 and a new score by Morricone!



+1!


----------



## creativeforge

Maybe we see in movies a reflection of the wussification of opinions. Movies are victims of people's dissections of cliches - you have to have all the age groups, genders, cultures, colours, religions, interests, etc. In the end, the story gets lost behind a heavy cultural pamphlet.


----------



## creativeforge

Just got me thinking, Steven Seagal - you got to watch one of his movies dubbed in Spanish. A whole new world opens...


----------



## NoamL

I think the crash may be happening NOW, such that most of the tentpole movies Marvel plans to release in the next 3 years will fall short.

I just don't see how you can do a bigger, cooler superhero movie than _*Avengers.*_ And if you look at the list of movies released since then, you might start coming around to my point of view:

*Iron Man 3
Man of Steel
Thor 2
The Wolverine
Kick-Ass 2
Guardians of the Galaxy
Captain America 3: Winter Soldier
Amazing Spider-Man 2
X-Men: Days Of Future Past
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Avengers: Age of Ultron
Ant-Man*

Out of this whole list, the only *two* that audiences and critics really loved were _*Guardians*_ and _*Winter Soldier*_.

By contrast the critical/audience opinions of many of the above films were tepid. Age Of Ultron particularly landed with a plop compared to the success of Avengers.

So why did audiences love Guardians and Winter Soldier? Because they did something new with the format.

Marvel and DC seem to keep remaking the Tobey Maguire Spider-Mans over and over. Call it the *"Standard Spider-Man Storyboard"*

First act: Spider-Man's origin and exploring his powers
Middle act: Spider-Man angsting about his powers
Final act: a fistfight in a city

Applying the SSS to other characters works if their origin stories are formative to their characters, and if they are angst driven characters, and they have street-level superpowers.

Batman is a great example of such a character. So *Batman Begins* uses the SSS and it works.

Then you take Superman, a character who is the OPPOSITE of angst-driven and whose origin story isn't really that relevant to their personality and outlook (not to mention it doesn't need to be told because EVERYONE knows it). And yet the studios tried to shove Supes into the SSS anyway, and the result was *Man Of Steel*.


----------



## Dean

Also the baddies all have to be young and sexy or be misunderstood and conflicted as opposed to just being baddies,warts and all.(Not to change the subject but as bad as the super hero shitfest is,..Im just as shocked by R.Scotts latest bunch of films,.packed to the roof with CGI ,breath taking sets,best actors on the planet,..all vision and no substance.Maybe the problem all round is the suits(producers),..running(or ruining) the whole show,dumming it all down? D


----------



## NoamL

AlexandreSafi said:


> Maybe this can be of interest for the discussion:
> *The Problem with Action Movies Today *
> 
> 1.The Story
> 2.The Hero
> 3.The Villain
> 4.The Stunts
> 5.The Camerawork
> 6.The Vulnerability of Our Hero
> 
> My opinion is, the problem isn't the genre, it's that the structural elements which make a good movie experience went from "memorable-to-servicable".
> I feel today, most (not all..) bluckbusters might feed your stomach, but not your soul. They feel like FX Movies... They draw short-term fantasy, not long-term respect! Great movies, at their core, usually have great & well-executed philosophical themes, do they today, who knows?
> Longevity is out of the equation and i think a good movie critic can usually tell when a movie aspires to that or not, you draw your own conclusions with the next upcoming movies...
> Greatness has its rules, break'em and you get less-than-great, always...
> Today, maybe the 1st time in history, proves one thing: Standards are extremely vulnerable...
> -A.s.-




Amazing video, might be the best Youtube film analysis since Mr. Plinkett. Thank you for the link.

When he cut from the shakycam compilation to the last fight in *The Matrix* my jaw literally dropped.


----------



## dpasdernick

EastWest Lurker said:


> Because the genre is exhausted, devoid of anything fresh and creative for years now.
> 
> And Spielberg makes his case well.




+1000... hmmm.... good guy with dumb fake super power meets villain with dumb fake super power.... fight, fight... love interest... fight some more... snog... gratuitous dose of CG... polygons aplenty... fight, fight... uh oh the bad guy has him now... wait... oh the good guy wins... rinse and repeat...

yawn...

(flame away )


----------



## EastWest Lurker

RiffWraith said:


> So, b/c you are of _the opinion_ that the genre is "exhausted, etc." - you feel these movies should just go away.
> 
> "Hi, my name is Jay Asher, and I think the Superhero genre has run it's course, and hope it dies. And if you like this genre and wan to to continue to watch new movies in this genre, you can go screw yourself."
> 
> Nice attitude.



I don't remember telling anyone to screw themselves or putting them down for liking what they like, did I? I simply stated my opinion, which some here obviously agree with.


----------



## AR

blougui said:


> Same as in litterature : why do 30 yearsolds read books for 12 years old ?
> I don't have a definitive answer but have some ideas.
> 
> erik


I personally admit AND blame imdb therefor, that my eyes are very often blinded by that stupid rating number which imo is not better than music charts. 
Example: Avengers Age of Ultron (1st week imdb rating 8.2)
San Andreas (1st week - I think it was average flat 6.2)
Both dropped a little bit now. I liked San Andreas much much more. Better make-up department, better VFX, better music, better adrenaline factor. Both stories flat and easy. Still Avengers has that marketing x-factor. You can't see Capt. America III or Thor 3 or iron man 4 without seeing avengers 2, first.

Hence Teenagers discovered imdb you can't trust it anymore. And before we go and see a movie in theatres we're often finding ourselves checking out the imdb rating :/


----------



## chillbot

EastWest Lurker said:


> I don't remember telling anyone to screw themselves or putting them down for liking what they like, did I? I simply stated my opinion, which some here obviously agree with.



I agree with this, the title of the thread says "personally, I hope..." whatever it doesn't seem like anyone here is picking a fight. RiffWraith I feel like you are trolling just to push buttons... maybe for fun maybe not? I enjoy it either way.

But I happen to agree. Holy shit all these superhero movies are is a bunch of CG destruction. I was excited for Man of Steel and Avengers until it turned out all they were was a bunch of explosions and buildings blowing up for two hours. Give me some acting and story for goodness sake. I think I liked one of the X-Men movies I forget maybe the first one... because there were characters? No I think it was the one they went back in time.... that was a pleasant surprise because we actually got to see Prof X and Magneto when they were young and it felt like an actual movie.

Can I bump my own post? I've had enough vino I think I will... no one responded to it.


----------



## chillbot

chillbot said:


> How about this: has there been a truly memorable superhero theme since Williams' Superman and Elfman's Batman? If so, which one(s)? To me, they are all very good... apologies to all the amazing composers writing these themes... the problem is there are so MANY of them they all kind of run together in my head as generic epic superhero music.



This was an interesting post chillbot. I would love to hear if anyone thought any of these CG blockbusters had a theme they could remember.


----------



## Guy Rowland

mverta said:


> Maybe it looked great on set, who knows.



And on the page - script was said to be stellar. Maybe the VFX guys are just jaded, who knows.


----------



## NYC Composer

I'd rather see a bad Coen brothers movie than a good epic superhero movie. One "There Will be Blood" is worth 20 BatSuperAntmans. One "Ex Machina" equals 15 Marvel classics (and that one had plenty of CGI). I guess it depends on what you're looking for from the movies.

I interpreted Spielberg's statement as saying that someday super hero stuff will be out of fashion and considered corny, as the western genre eventually was.


----------



## Pasticcio

jacobthestupendous said:


> I grew up watching It's a Wonderful Life around Christmas time, but compared to movies today (or to the classics of the 80s), it's nearly unwatchable like virtually all movies from that period.



Well I don't know about that. I find hollywood movies during the 40's are increadibly giving, because the scripts was such a big deal then. I'm still being immersed in compelling stories like Double Indemnity, & haven't ever considered them dated.


----------



## TintoL

Well, I work on the VFX and feature animation industry, and one thing I can say is that I doubt that it will be the case. "Unfortunately" for me. I personally dislike all unnatural superheros like marvel stuff. The comics have been selling for ages, and the people in the studio and kids still dye for them. Another example is the "talking dogs and animals" films. I hate movies coming over and over with talking human animals. And I don't see it fading away at all. Most films I've done for kids involve talking animals no matter what.

I guess I would love superhero movies if the heroes were more simple people in unnatural circumstances.


----------



## gsilbers

Not sure why all the hate. these movies are some of the most amazing pieces of art/company/productions etc.

Just think of the logistics , production, cgi and timeline of a movie like those. The amount of people involved inside and outside the credits, the marketing, the economics of it. The sheer size of production and potential sotrylines. JUST REEEEEEAAALLLY think about it. Maybe do some research. Saying that these suck or it doesn't compare to a more "artistic" movie is like a child who doesn't understand the world. Just because you didn't like the storyline/kids vfx/theme? c'com! what is this, a personal vendetta against a personal belief like religion? its a movie. we have to mature and try to evolve the discussion to a better plain.

For example, why aren't more of the those middle more artistic movies? OR maybe they are but we don't see them as they get clouded in the bigger blockbuster marketing? remember there are thousands of movies made every year. We only remember/see a few. There are big shifts in technology and the way people consume entertainment, maybe that's it? Or the way studios are doing release has changed due to technology? investment vs risk?

There is a big apetite for movies like ex-maquina, gravity and birdman which are more Oscar oriented movies. But why are they not marketing more of those? they exist out there. That you are not seeing them is where the real question lies.

Whats making those superhero movies a success or at least driving people to the theatre and not those other movies?
are people dumb? well no, they are not. They work, have college degrees, are doctors, lawyers etc who go see those movies. and demand is what moves the world. so why are they seeing those? is it the venue where its being presented. this might have to do with it
http://www.ew.com/article/2015/07/0...xhibitors-bring-theatrical-movies-home-sooner

implode , those movies? well, maybe. if the last 4 superhero movies bombed, you might wanna skip the 5th.
its like anything. it evolves. I rather like to see those movies success since that would mean more jobs for more people. more money for the studios that can turn around and give the money to their smaller production dept and make more of those Oscar type movies.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

But at the end of the day, no matter the _"logistics , production, cgi and timeline of a movie like those. The amount of people involved inside and outside the credits, the marketing, the economics of it. The sheer size of production and potential storylines._" a bad film is a bad film. 

And most of the super hero films since the terrific "Batman Begins" have been bad films. And no, not everything evolves, some things devolve.

Just my opinion, of course, not telling people who disagree to screw themselves.


----------



## Sebastianmu

Of course a lot of effort goes into them, but that doesn't turn them into great pieces of art. Everyone knows why the effort is made: we put in 250 million in the front, and 800 million come out of the back!


----------



## Dean

gsilbers said:


> Not sure why all the hate. these movies are some of the most amazing pieces of art/company/productions etc.


firstly I loved Avengers Assemble,Guardians Of The Galaxy,Iron Man 1, The Dark Knight,John Carter,Edge Of Tomorrow as do most folks here,..these films (flawed in places) had charm.humour,great characters that you care about,(aswell as all the other fun stuff), I still love the original Tron but the remake!,.the only thing they got right were the SFX,.they literally sucked all the wonder & charm out of it!This is not some nostalgia thing(see the films above I mentioned)

Im not sure what youre point is but actually everyone here would love to love all these films ,(theres no haters),we all want to be thrilled and entertained and just have fun at the cinema with these super hero movies,noyone is comparing a blockbuster to an 'artistic' film,.we're comparing a blockbuster to another blockbuster! This tidal wave of grounded,gritty CGI laden ,souless super hero (spinoffs and sequels) films running almost 3 hours long with convoluted plots and backstory (that takes away all the mystery and wonder) are very hard to stomach anymore. All I can say is bring on GOTG 2 and Star Wars (fingers crossed!) D


----------



## jacobthestupendous

Pasticcio said:


> I find hollywood movies during the 40's are increadibly giving, because the scripts was such a big deal then. I'm still being immersed in compelling stories like Double Indemnity, & haven't ever considered them dated.





KEnK said:


> Actually I still find it to be incredibly potent from a simple Human perspective.
> I have a fondness for 40's cinema and many people still like film history, so old films are by no means unwatchable.


My point wasn't that 40's films are/were actually unwatchable; I was pointing out that 40's films were different in a lot of ways that apologists of the era would say made them favorable to the blockbusters of the 80's, just as there are folks who say that blockbusters of the 80's are superior to movies today. It is the same as people who grew up in the 70's and say all music since then has been crap, and it is equally valid. Collective societal taste changes, hence the fads of Westerns, sleazy psycodramas, and superhero flicks, but there are also more profound changes in the technology (CGI, camera options) and the technique (pacing, camera choices) of film making which make the movies from different periods stand out all the more from each other. Our societal taste will change to something other than superheroes, but I wouldn't hold my breath for the pacing of 40's cinema to make a resurgence.

And despite a number of strong opinions here that the recent decade and a half of superhero flicks has been unmitigated crap, the vast majority of moviegoers seem to agree that this is not the case, and I stand by my opinion that it is at least partially due to the fact that before Tobey Maguire, Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, and Robert Downey Jr, no one had made a successful attempt at a well funded, well-enough scripted/acted/costumed/scored/special-effected (aka "overall decent") movie involving superheroes, Blade and Gruff the Invisible notwithstanding. Before those, superhero movies were full of cheeky humor, camp, and characters/visual problems that required too much suspension of disbelief for non-comic fans and studio execs alike. It might not be your taste, but you can't look and Iron Man 1 and deny that it meets all the objective tests of a decent movie. Part of the recent success has been misattributed to a superhero fad, when really it was just technology and studio faith finally catching up with what has always been a high potential of success in the stories and characters.



chillbot said:


> This was an interesting post chillbot. I would love to hear if anyone thought any of these CG blockbusters had a theme they could remember.



Offhand, I can't think of any. It's all competent but generic rousing action score. Iron Man usually includes more electric guitar, I think.


----------



## D.Salzenberg

gsilbers said:


> Not sure why all the hate. these movies are some of the most amazing pieces of art/company/productions etc.
> 
> Just think of the logistics , production, cgi and timeline of a movie like those. The amount of people involved inside and outside the credits, the marketing, the economics of it. The sheer size of production and potential sotrylines. JUST REEEEEEAAALLLY think about it. Maybe do some research. Saying that these suck or it doesn't compare to a more "artistic" movie is like a child who doesn't understand the world. Just because you didn't like the storyline/kids vfx/theme? c'com! what is this, a personal vendetta against a personal belief like religion? its a movie. we have to mature and try to evolve the discussion to a better plain.
> 
> For example, why aren't more of the those middle more artistic movies? OR maybe they are but we don't see them as they get clouded in the bigger blockbuster marketing? remember there are thousands of movies made every year. We only remember/see a few. There are big shifts in technology and the way people consume entertainment, maybe that's it? Or the way studios are doing release has changed due to technology? investment vs risk?
> 
> There is a big apetite for movies like ex-maquina, gravity and birdman which are more Oscar oriented movies. But why are they not marketing more of those? they exist out there. That you are not seeing them is where the real question lies.
> 
> Whats making those superhero movies a success or at least driving people to the theatre and not those other movies?
> are people dumb? well no, they are not. They work, have college degrees, are doctors, lawyers etc who go see those movies. and demand is what moves the world. so why are they seeing those? is it the venue where its being presented. this might have to do with it
> http://www.ew.com/article/2015/07/0...xhibitors-bring-theatrical-movies-home-sooner
> 
> implode , those movies? well, maybe. if the last 4 superhero movies bombed, you might wanna skip the 5th.
> its like anything. it evolves. I rather like to see those movies success since that would mean more jobs for more people. more money for the studios that can turn around and give the money to their smaller production dept and make more of those Oscar type movies.



Well personally speaking the fact that so many people and so much money go to such lengths to produce crap movies is what is annoying. As I mentioned earlier I am a big fan and collector of silver age comic books, so have a lot of love for the comic book genre. However very very few movies have translated the charm and atmosphere of the best comic books into watchable movies, the exceptions being the original Blade movie, and Batman Begins.
Frank Miller turned the comic book genre on its head with his groundbreaking gritty and very dark take on Batman in the original Dark Knight comics, and comics changed forever.
So now every film has to drown the characters and story in gritty grimness in the name of 'realism' and horrible cgi fests in the name of spectacle.
Whether that keeps armies of people gainfully employed and the studios lots of cash is irrelevant.


----------



## blougui

D.Salzenberg said:


> Would films of the standard of Blade Runner or Alien get made today? No chance.
> CGI needs to die a quick and painful death.


But there's never been any Blade Runner or Alien made yesterday nore today, apart from the original ones. They were unique and still are in many aspects. Blade runner : Scott fought against the producers to have it produced till the end, as he was skyrocketting both deadlines and budget. Scott was so horrible on the set that part of the team made tee-shirts to insult the director. The movie wasn't not such a success. No 100/200 million bucks producer would allow this today.

VFX were already blame in the 80's for trying to hide a not so decent screenplay - Blade runner is not such a great screenplay, btw. Good story, yes, but screenplay ?

truth is, we should blame an indie director who tried sucessfully to make the films he wanted using the system despite the latter not wanting to help him. This man was Lucas, probably the inventor of the blockbusters and the tomb digger of the adult movies major studios cared to produce in the 70's. Franchise, mershandising and all... He started it all.

and today, as the indie director imposing his views to the system we have James Cameron - and Avatar is by far not the kind of story line/philosophical ideas I personnally enjoy, nore to mention artistic design.


About anticipation vs/ demonstration, it's the same argument one oppose to horror movies. In the end, it's really a personnal matter, not a universal one.


Though not a fan of all his movies, I find Nolan one of the most refreshing mainstream/blockbusters director - and I must add I deeply enjoy the lack of humour.

- Erik


----------



## blougui

AlexandreSafi said:


> Longevity is out of the equation
> -A.s.-



Of course it is, Alexandre. At 200 m $ and hundred of employees involved, share holders, Wall Street you expect a quick reward rather than a slow burning cult following.

- Erik


----------



## D.Salzenberg

The thing is though, you could make a superhero genre movie or a sci-fi genre movie and not make it rubbish, you could even use some CGI and not make it rubbish, you could even get it to make big bucks and not make it rubbish.
It seems to me as if it's the 'decision maker's ' that are to blame for movies that are rubbish. Whether that's the producers, directors, marketing execs or a combination, it's people making crap decisions because they are basically crap at their job, which is making movies.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

blougui said:


> and I must add I deeply enjoy the lack of humour.
> 
> - Erik



In one phrase that may sum up how many people feel about these films today that I so do not share. Same with the Bond films.

They used to combine tension, action AND humor, and that was considered a GOOD thing in films that clearly had little resemblance to reality.

You do know folks, that there are _no_ men and woman of steel and iron, _no_ men and women flying around like bats and spiders fighting crime, etc. right?


----------



## D.Salzenberg

The exact same thing has happened with detective shows on TV, especially in the UK. I used to love detective shows with interesting characters and snappy dialogue with lots of humour.
Now it's like it's become a competition to see who can make the grimmest detective series.
I for one do not want to watch one detective series after another about psychopathic pedophiles or serial killers or terrorists all told in dark relentlessly serious grimness.
All this needs to stop.


----------



## Dean

While we're at it,the same goes for most 'contemporary' horror films too,..somewhere down the line someone confused misery with horror as they tried make everything more realistic and grounded.

One great exception is 'It Follows' really great,totally unsettled me,(on paper it shoulnt have worked at all)


----------



## KEnK

A few people have said these film must be "good" (or at least not suck) or they wouldn't be so popular.
Do you also think that about fast food?
or whatever song is topping the charts this week?

I don't mind that these films are made for the superhero fans.
But what seems to be happening is that there is "no budget" for anything else.
All the resources are being dedicated to SuperCape!™ 5,
so thoughful character driven films w/ an actual story aren't being made.
At least not by Hollywood.

And of course these things will eventually go the way of the Western,
or the WW2 film, or Film Noir.
But for sure, SuperCape!™ 6 & 7 will keep being made.

k


----------



## Dean

KEnK said:


> But for sure, SuperCape!™ 6 & 7 will keep being made.
> 
> k



Maybe Hollywood is still trying to portray white America as the saviour of the world (on film) over and over and over but we're not getting the message? 

D


----------



## Daryl

For me, if the super hero films are done well, I quite enjoy them. However, the last one I sort of liked was Watchmen. I admire the design and costumes of some of the more recent ones, but can't find anything else to like.

D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

D.Salzenberg said:


> the fact that so many people and so much money go to such lengths to produce crap movies is what is annoying



Exactly, when - I'm assuming - there are so many potentially good films that don't get made instead.

It's not that these CGIs (as opposed to films  ) are incompetent or that the people working on them aren't talented, of course. The problem is what Jay says: a bad film is a bad film.

I really liked the latest Mission Impossible, by the way. So it's not that big = bad, it's that...okay, I'm not quoting Jay again, because he's usually wrong about everything.


----------



## KEnK

Dean said:


> Maybe Hollywood is still trying to portray white America as the saviour of the world (on film) over and over and over but we're not getting the message?


hmm...
In spite of my cynicism regarding the film industry, I do think they know better than that.
They're driven by $$$, not some moral sense (right or wrong)

k


----------



## KEnK

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I'm not quoting Jay again, because he's usually wrong about everything.


No he's not, and neither are the people who disagree w/ him.
(How is that possible??)

k


----------



## Sebastianmu

EastWest Lurker said:


> In one phrase that may sum up how many people feel about these films today that I so do not share. Same with the Bond films.
> 
> They used to combine tension, action AND humor, and that was considered a GOOD thing in films that clearly had little resemblance to reality.
> 
> You do know folks, that there are _no_ men and woman of steel and iron, _no_ men and women flying around like bats and spiders fighting crime, etc. right?



I believe studies showed that a lacking sense of irony is correlated to lower IQs.. 

That's also why the new 'house of cards' is so bad, compared to the original BBC version: It's taking itself far too serious to be taken serious by any intelligent man.


----------



## Guy Rowland

EastWest Lurker said:


> In one phrase that may sum up how many people feel about these films today that I so do not share. Same with the Bond films.
> 
> They used to combine tension, action AND humor, and that was considered a GOOD thing in films that clearly had little resemblance to reality.
> 
> You do know folks, that there are _no_ men and woman of steel and iron, _no_ men and women flying around like bats and spiders fighting crime, etc. right?



Dammit, I'm agreeing with you again, Jay.

(General point) there's a lot of spurious conflating of ideas and straw men knocking about in this thread. Its worth stressing that absolutely outstanding movies are being made right now, if anyone thinks otherwise they're just not looking hard enough. 12 years a slave wasn't the only good movie made in the past 5 years - if you pay attention to what's out there, you'll find dozens of great picks from foreign language independent cinema through to studio kids movies. It's not the case of rose tinted spectacles of the 80s or 40s either, both eras where terrible movies were also made. We're looking at real specifics here - the dominance of the superhero subgenre within blockbuster cinema.

But, again, there is cause for optimism. Day After Tomorrow had some joie de vivre about it. Guardians was a laugh. (Cruise again) the Mission Impossible series remains great fun and very well made. And Mike's cold water notwithstanding, the darkness and the light of SW7 awaits.

EDIT - oh Sebastian THANK YOU. I watched the first ep of House Of Cards and thought it was diabolical. Totally unbelievable characters and up itself. Pet hate - being asked to take something seriously I can't take seriously. Vote Veep.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Sebastianmu said:


> That's also why the new 'house of cards' is so bad, compared to the original BBC version: It's taking itself far too serious to be taken serious by any intelligent man.



That rules me out, because - while I haven't seen Season 3 yet - it's my favorite show on television.

Love it. It's brilliant. And I love Jeff Beal's scoring for it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

And without commenting on its use of music, I really like Mr. Robot.

Both those shows grab me.

And that right there is exactly what I find lacking in the CGIs: they don't grab me. The best films stick with me afterward.


----------



## Dean

KEnK said:


> hmm...
> In spite of my cynicism regarding the film industry, I do think they know better than that.
> They're driven by $$$, not some moral sense (right or wrong)
> 
> k


 I was taking the piss (where are you from again? )


----------



## blougui

EastWest Lurker said:


> In one phrase that may sum up how many people feel about these films today that I so do not share. Same with the Bond films.
> 
> They used to combine tension, action AND humor, and that was considered a GOOD thing in films that clearly had little resemblance to reality.
> 
> You do know folks, that there are _no_ men and woman of steel and iron, _no_ men and women flying around like bats and spiders fighting crime, etc. right?


of course, James Bond were not Hollywood films (Despite being american, Albert Brocoli, the 1st producer of the franchise, was operating from a british company he founded, EON production).
I wanted to say I'm not much fan of humour in action films,when it tends to stress on teen interests. What I enjoyed in The Prestige or Iinception was the absence of "nudge-nudge, see how funny I am despite the drama we go through ?" Bristish humour in movies is a far different thing, me think.

- Erik


----------



## JonFairhurst

I still love the scene where Bond drives out of the ocean onto the beach in his Lotus Esprit sub, onlookers gawk, and to put an exclamation point on the joke, he rolls down the window, and drops out a fish. (Never mind that it makes no sense that a fish would get _into_ a sub; it was funny!)


----------



## Guy Rowland

True Lies was American, and it out-Bonded Bond, Erik. Adore that film - loads of character, funny, action scenes are great. Action comedy has been done awfully badly many times let's not forget, but I miss the good stuff. Actually Mission Impossible is close to action comedy I guess.


----------



## mbagalacomposer

Nick Batzdorf said:


> That rules me out, because - while I haven't seen Season 3 yet - it's my favorite show on television.
> 
> Love it. It's brilliant. And I love Jeff Beal's scoring for it.



I gotta agree with you, I'm a big fan of House Of Cards (and David Fincher in general). Someone mentioned above how none of the characters are believable....if believability is your meter for whether its worthwhile watching I think you entirely missed the point of that sort of film/tv making. 

I feel like its an exploration of a particular concept by route of larger then life characters and particularly extreme circumstances...sort of like, what would happen if there was a politician who really truly only cared about power and made no allusions otherwise and would do absolutely anything gain more. 

But David Finchers work always seems to be polarizing....and we've got exceptionally far afield from the original topic....

Personally I'm a huge fan of the Marvel movies, I think they're well made (To varying degrees...some better then others) and I think they're a heck of a lot of fun. Are they high art? No way. Is it the pinnacle of film making? No! But they fill the seats, and they're a step above a lot of the other stuff that is out there and what Marvel has done with the franchise is kind of unprecedented....I don't think there has been a franchise that has had this kind of extended success with so many movies that were all connected ever. So...ya know thats impressive. 

Its clean, well produced and has just enough something extra that makes it a very enjoyable experience for a broad group of people. Its pop, for sure. But its particularly well done pop....I think the box office numbers back me up on that. I tend to feel similarly about really popular pop music....which I know a lot of people on this forum shit on....but man I have a soft spot for a well written pop song...whether its Kanye or Taylor Swift. 

And I'll just say in my opinion its pretty lame to blame the popularity of them on the "stupid, unintellectual plebs" (I'm super paraphrasing). There are MANY terrible films out there that get no traction....because well....they're bad....thats not a compelling argument when you're talking about the kind of succes Marvel has. 

Finally....I suspect the genre will wane....just like EVERY other genre of popular film that come in and out of vogue....thats just how the industry works. I'm not sure why Spielbergs comments were news to anybody...My guess is, if the Star Wars movies end up being really good that the super hero genre throne will be topppled by a new wave of sci-fi films....


----------



## KEnK

mbagalacomposer said:


> a very enjoyable experience for a broad group of people. Its pop, for sure. But its particularly well done pop....I think the box office numbers back me up on that. I tend to feel similarly about really popular pop music....which I know a lot of people on this forum shit on....but man I have a soft spot for a well written pop song...whether its Kanye or Taylor Swift.


McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, etc
It's crap- incredibly bad on a lot of levels.
but by the numbers, it must be really good for all of us.
right?

The analogy fits (by the numbers)
If you never cook or go to a decent restaurant
then you won't know what you're missing.

Lots of bad things were/are "popular".
Hitler, Slavery, Meth.
A long list.
Popular doesn't mean good.
The two aren't related.

just sayin' 

k


----------



## JonFairhurst

I thing The Problem with Action Movies Today (referenced earlier) nails it.


It's not whether the film is serious or comical, superhero or artsy, or high or low brow. It's whether it's a good film. After that, it comes down to personal taste.

Story - Needs to be interesting and push the film forward. In other words, it needs "stakes".
Hero - Needs vulnerability.
Villain - Needs motivation.
Stunts - Need to feel consequential.
Camerawork - Needs to immerse the viewer.

And I'd add that all actions from all characters needs to feel "right". That includes being true to their nature, actually reacting to what happens in the scene, and not acting above or below their competency. We've all seen the incompetent "last girl" in the haunted house go into the "death room" walking backwards. The audience just about screams not to do it, but the idiot does it anyway. Acting that far below natural competence might seem to raise tension, but it's really just raising the anger of the audience at the stupid film. Acting above natural competence, where the hero "just knows" or can jump out of an airplane and catch the corner of a building by their pinkie fingernail is just as bad. Who wants to see the hero walk into obvious danger like a moron only to waltz out of it being being unbelievably lucky?

Then again, the original Star Trek did this all the time...
Scotty: "She's gonna blow, Cap'n!"
Kirk: "Keep going Scotty, because I'm an idiot who doesn't listen to experts."
Spock: "I'd like to point out that this has less than 0.0001 percent chance of succeeding."
Kirk: "And I'm emotional and don't understand statistics."
Sulu: "The enemy has been destroyed."
Bones: "Jim, you're an unbelievably lucky emotional idiot. And I'm a doctor, not a screenwriter, dammit."
Uhura: "Captain, I'm awaiting your orders..."

Then again, many people like lucky idiot stories. (Maybe that explains Donald Trump.)

The problem is that its much harder to write scenes where the character makes natural, believable decisions and this leads him an inch from doom. And it's harder still to write natural actions that bring the character back from the brink. It's so much easier to have the boxer think of his dead wife, spring up from a nine-count with a burst of energy and magically beat his bigger, faster, meaner, healthier opponent senseless. How lucky to think of his dead wife right then! (Had he thought of his dead wife in round one, he'd have been luckier still!)

Yep. Write competent characters, but don't make them hyper competent - especially with dumb luck.


----------



## KEnK

JonFairhurst said:


> Then again, many people like lucky idiot stories. (Maybe that explains Donald Trump.)


I think Hitler and slavery are better at explaining Donald Trump.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Nick Batzdorf said:


> That rules me out, because - while I haven't seen Season 3 yet - it's my favorite show on television.
> 
> Love it. It's brilliant. And I love Jeff Beal's scoring for it.



Me too. But I never saw the original British series.


----------



## blougui

Guy Rowland said:


> True Lies was American, and it out-Bonded Bond, Erik. Adore that film - loads of character, funny, action scenes are great. Action comedy has been done awfully badly many times let's not forget, but I miss the good stuff. Actually Mission Impossible is close to action comedy I guess.


Hi Guy !
Hey, True Lies was a remake of a french comedy  So comedy is at its core for sure and Cameron had the means and talent to upgrade tremendously its action ratio. I too enjoyed it pretty much.

- Erik


----------



## blougui

mbagalacomposer said:


> My guess is, if the Star Wars movies end up being really good that the super hero genre throne will be topppled by a new wave of sci-fi films....



Interestingly enough - or not - StarWars launched an interest for space based movies in the late 70's an blooming 80's. Alien wouldn't have been made, nore Moonraker or Robet Wise's Star Trek. And what about Battlestar Galactica ? But it didn't last, most probably because it was a hellhuva to finance those VFX. And StarWars staied on top of its games for decades : think of it : no space opera at all !!! I shed tears for years not having any more space battles to take my breath away. You see how sad I've been ?

And curiously enough, we do not have any space opera with huge battles involving zillion of space ships till this day. At least, when you're a comic fan, you have DC and Marvel and a multitude of projects and characters. I just have Han Solo and Obi Wan.

- Erik


----------



## D.Salzenberg

Basically I think that technological 'progress' and it's associated convenience, speed, and lower costs have ruined many many things and this 'progress' has actually been taking everything backwards quality wise.
The fx done by ILM before cgi are way superior to what we get today.
Things that are actually filmed are always going to look better in the same way that a real musician captured with a microphone is going to sound better than samples played with midi.
Vinyl sounds better than CD, which in turn sounds better than mp3, analogue tape sounds better than Pro Tools, a real valve amp is better than digital modelling, the list goes on 
Progress is taking us further and further backwards all in the name of cheapness and convenience.


----------



## Guy Rowland

I don't think a successful (ie record-breaking) Star Wars 7 will unleash a sci-if wave, because the market now is very different to then. In the 70s, sci-fi was niche and cerebral, and Star Wars blew that away. Last year we had Guardians - we're not starved for popular sci-fi as it is.

I'm hoping a legacy of SW7 might be a more traditional aesthetic though - practical fx, some levity, classic structures and attention to character (I'm placing faith in what I've heard about Kasdan / Abrams script here of course). Oh and a return to more traditional scoring. Last night I had a dream - I'm not making any of this up, I really did - Kathleen Kennedy was in my kitchen, confiding in me that Katheryn Bigelow of all people was post-producing SW7 and kept replacing all of JW's music with hybrid stuff and Kennedy was like "what can you do, eh?". I awoke in a cold sweat.

On the House Of Cards tangent - it's not I don't get what it is, I don't like what it is. I've always hated David Mamet for similar reasons - it's over stylised, unrealistic yet asks us to take it seriously. It's actually very similar as to why I don't like the Dark Knight series, even though they're superficially totally different. The plotting of TDK is no better than an episode of Scooby Doo, but cos it has all this seriousness, weight and gravitas I end up loathing it. If you want me to take something seriously, there better be some substance to it, it better deliver on character, plot and motivation. Breaking Bad is a supreme example of getting it right IMO.


----------



## Greg

Totally agree. I always imagine super hero films without the clout of nostalgia and find it hard to stop gagging. Some of them like Guardians of the Galaxy have some entertainment value though, if you let yourself be a 10 year old again. Nolan's incarnations were great as they had vulnerable characters, a narrative, and drama.


----------



## pkm

What a negative bunch! 

If you don't like them, you don't have to see them, right? Why do they need to "die a fiery death"?

It's not like Marvel is going to go make The Godfather for you if you stop them from making superhero movies.


----------



## Guy Rowland

pkm said:


> What a negative bunch!
> 
> If you don't like them, you don't have to see them, right? Why do they need to "die a fiery death"?
> 
> It's not like Marvel is going to go make The Godfather for you if you stop them from making superhero movies.



Ugh, such a tired and straw man argument.

The point is not that those of us who are fed up with them wish the subgenre wiped from the earth, it's that we want to see better and more diverse BLOCKBUSTERS made with just a fraction of the billions that are spent on MagnesiumMan etc. But (for the umpteenth time) I think we're hitting peak superhero, with the biggest grossing films this year not from the genre. And this back to the link in the OP.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku

Magnesium Man!! That is hilarious Guy!

It does seem quite obvious that the super hero "phase" will be over at some point. I hope it will change course at least. 

Avengers 2 was very boring! 

And Man of Steel was even more boring! 

I guess, who are we to say what anyone should or should not make but it does seem like a huge over kill...

There are 28 superhero films up for release until 2020 starting next year! This does not include some unconfirmed ones like a Ben Aflleck solo Batman film.

I would love to see well made super hero films but right now it seems a bit of a CGI fest. I know some people don't like Nolan's Batman but I loved all three films. If they made more films with that kind of sincerity (not meaning dark as these films were) it would be great. Just good and enjoyable films!


----------



## sleepy hollow

Guy Rowland said:


> ...just a fraction of the billions that are spent on MagnesiumMan


Magnesium Man, starring Charlie Horse Sheen. Tagline: In space, no one can hear your cramp in the leg.


----------



## blougui

Guy Rowland said:


> I don't think a successful (ie record-breaking) Star Wars 7 will unleash a sci-if wave, because the market now is very different to then. In the 70s, sci-fi was niche and cerebral, and Star Wars blew that away. Last year we had Guardians - we're not starved for popular sci-fi as it is.
> 
> I'm hoping a legacy of SW7 might be a more traditional aesthetic though - practical fx, some levity, classic structures and attention to character (I'm placing faith in what I've heard about Kasdan / Abrams script here of course). Oh and a return to more traditional scoring. Last night I had a dream - I'm not making any of this up, I really did - Kathleen Kennedy was in my kitchen, confiding in me that Katheryn Bigelow of all people was post-producing SW7 and kept replacing all of JW's music with hybrid stuff and Kennedy was like "what can you do, eh?". I awoke in a cold sweat.
> 
> On the House Of Cards tangent - it's not I don't get what it is, I don't like what it is. I've always hated David Mamet for similar reasons - it's over stylised, unrealistic yet asks us to take it seriously. It's actually very similar as to why I don't like the Dark Knight series, even though they're superficially totally different. The plotting of TDK is no better than an episode of Scooby Doo, but cos it has all this seriousness, weight and gravitas I end up loathing it. If you want me to take something seriously, there better be some substance to it, it better deliver on character, plot and motivation. Breaking Bad is a supreme example of getting it right IMO.



What a dream !!! K Kennedy, the one and only. And Bigelow thrown in for good measure. How about empowered women ?  
I often dream of Alien (at least once a year since 1978, and it's no fun at all, believe me, and one night it occurend in a StarWars set).
About TDK : I agree with the plotting. There's something I enjoy and it has to deal with artistic direction, photography, and of course the way Nolan directs. Despite all I wrote earlier - probably much too seriously -is that his heroes are low-brow, whining overpowered fools that I can't feel any empathy with. At least, it's peculiar.
I might put The Prestige aside : it has all this and then some but this film had a huge effect (no pun intented) on me. But man, the story is brill - and the novel it's been adapted from is a genuine marvel.

- Erik


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

pkm said:


> If you don't like them, you don't have to see them, right? Why do they need to "die a fiery death"?



It doesn't have to be fiery, but the answer is because they're taking the place of other films that don't get distributed, if they're made at all.


----------



## blougui

Nick Batzdorf said:


> It doesn't have to be fiery, but the answer is because they're taking the place of other films that don't get distributed, if they're made at all.



You definitely have a point, there. Cinema industry is... an industry. Though a creative one - or involving creative people - its mainpurpose is to make money far beyond ticket sales, as 1/it's possible thanx to merchandising 2/you can't add more seats than there already are the day a movie is out on screens or add more screening a day. 
I often have the same conversation about novels. Yes, hits and successes and bestsellers, whatever you call them, drive the relevent industry and make it possible for less successful/commercial products to be at least produced and reach the bookstores but in the end it's not that bright : the big ones take most of all the energy/money/ad spaces available because they cost so much that their investors have to get some big money back.

In France, a share of the ticket price is turned into a tax that goes to a public institution which role is to invest into movies that would'nt be made without public money - or interest. I won't go into the details that, alas, contributes to paint a darker picture, but the idea that the more people go to a blockbuster, the more money is available to produce far less commercial movies is interesting.

Anyway anyhow, I don't go to movies anymore, because of people munching endlessly, endless ads before the very movie begins and what not


----------



## pkm

Guy Rowland said:


> Ugh, such a tired and straw man argument.
> 
> The point is not that those of us who are fed up with them wish the subgenre wiped from the earth, it's that we want to see better and more diverse BLOCKBUSTERS made with just a fraction of the billions that are spent on MagnesiumMan etc. But (for the umpteenth time) I think we're hitting peak superhero, with the biggest grossing films this year not from the genre. And this back to the link in the OP.



It wasn't a straw man at all. My comment about the Godfather was meant to illustrate that Marvel is either going to make a superhero movie that you don't like, or it isn't. It's not going to make the kind of film you are missing.

I would love more diverse movies too, but I don't think killing a genre that many people love, myself included, would help that problem. There's no sense in discouraging a person from making something you don't like so a different person will make something you do.


----------



## Guy Rowland

pkm said:


> It wasn't a straw man at all. My comment about the Godfather was meant to illustrate that Marvel is either going to make a superhero movie that you don't like, or it isn't. It's not going to make the kind of film you are missing.
> 
> I would love more diverse movies too, but I don't think killing a genre that many people love, myself included, would help that problem. There's no sense in discouraging a person from making something you don't like so a different person will make something you do.



It is absolutely a straw man. It is the studios that spend the cash, either with Marvel, in house, whoever. It is not a silly choice between Iron Man 10 or Godfather 4. Jurassic World is a blockbuster, and look ma - no superheroes, and not in competition at Cannes either.

And it's a double straw man (straw men) because nobody is talking about killing anything. Spielberg argued that it will just fizzle out naturally (die of natural causes, if you will). It's the proportion that has got absurd, not that superhero films exist at all.

I was looking at the top dozen box office films of the last couple of years. Only two superhero films in there. The truth is that the market is both limited and saturated, and I think the studios are finally waking up to that.


----------



## blougui

I insist that it's not only the movies Disney (Marvel-SW) sell but licences-merchandising running the gamut from mug to toys to socks to toothbrushes (oh man, I've seen StarWars toothbrushes at the drugstore near my place). So these movies might not be in the top 20, they are the bright leading agents of a far darker commercial plot 

- Erik


----------



## D.Salzenberg

Yes, there was merchandising even in the 1960's with James Bond Dinky toy cars etc, but not on the ridiculous level that we get today. It becomes a massive issue when the merchandising actually starts to dictate the films themselves, and whole scenes such as the Star Wars pod racer scene only exist in order to provide a video game spin off etc etc. Whenever I see stuff like that or blatant product placement such as ridiculous close ups of mobile phones, then I just want to be sick and run from the cinema, and totally lose any respect I may have had for the movie.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Ha - there are always exceptions even there. Toy Story couldn't be more cynical on paper, and it's a creative joy. Ditto Lego Movie (albeit with a very different aesthetic).


----------



## mbagalacomposer

KEnK said:


> McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, etc
> It's crap- incredibly bad on a lot of levels.
> but by the numbers, it must be really good for all of us.
> right?
> 
> The analogy fits (by the numbers)
> If you never cook or go to a decent restaurant
> then you won't know what you're missing.
> 
> Lots of bad things were/are "popular".
> Hitler, Slavery, Meth.
> A long list.
> Popular doesn't mean good.
> The two aren't related.
> 
> just sayin'
> 
> k



I don't think that argument quite stands up in a conversation about art. 

People consume food because its a basic need, they consume junk food because its cheap, they don't know better...don't care, or maybe they like it. Theres another function to the consumption of food other then deriving entertainment...pleasure etc etc

Drugs, are typically consumed for entertainment purposes but the need comes from the addictive qualities...

Slavery....well there were economic incentives and cultural reasons....presumably people didn't own slaves purely for entertainment. 

....my point being that, films are viewed purely for entertainment, theres no other benefit or need associated with viewing a film other then what you derive from it emotionally. Its not a necessity for life, its not addictive and it doesn't make you money (in fact in most cases you have to spend money).

What I'm suggesting is that, there is an art to creating something so massively appealing as the Marvel films, or a Taylor Swift album or whatever....convincing people to give up their hard earned cash for something so intangible as film or music. I find that impressive and I think its a mistake to write off the craftsmanship it takes to create films like that. 

Sure, theres still wildly popularcrappy entertainment out there that people seem to enjoy consuming that sort of defies logic (mostly thinking of reality tv)....but I think that tickles a different sort of craving thats not really related or relevant to a conversation about the cinema.


----------



## KEnK

mbagalacomposer said:


> I don't think that argument quite stands up in a conversation about art...


I think it does, especially if we're talking "Pop Art".
My point was simply that just because something is "popular", it doesn't make a it by default "good".
Just pointing out a few "popular" ideas that are very bad.
Millions of Elvis fans may not be wrong, but they _can_ be.

btw- I don't hate these films in themselves as much as the entire franchise mentality that has overtaken
the film industry.
In another post in this thread, I mentioned that I was going to see Vertigo in 70mm.
It was far more amazing than I expected.
Every shot, every frame was masterfully done.
The film is a moving portrait.
I don't ever see that level of "visual composition" in CG movies.
just sayin'

k


----------



## NoamL

gsilbers said:


> Not sure why all the hate. Just think of the logistics , production, cgi and timeline of a movie like those. The amount of people involved inside and outside the credits, the marketing, the economics of it. The sheer size of production and potential sotrylines. JUST REEEEEEAAALLLY think about it.



Well the exact same was once said of _*Attack Of The Clones*_...

A movie needs more than just action set pieces. It needs a fresh interesting* story *and that's what is lacking with these post-_*Avengers*_ films.

These films have decent action and editing, decent casting, great effects and serviceable scripts. There's nothing wrong there. The problem is they are ALL just going through the same tired plot beats again and again.

I would happily see a *20th* superhero movie, but only a movie that is self aware and understands I've already seen Superhero Movies *#1 through #19*. I don't need to see another origin story, I don't need to see another poorly motivated 2nd act supervillain transformation. I don't need to see heroes and heels that are just cookie cutter characters to motivate fight scenes. Do something new and interesting.

Here's a depressing comparison. _*Man of Steel*_ is a movie about the *best known superhero character in the world* that opens with a 20 minute long CGI-laden prologue about his origin story followed by almost an hour of the rote "discovering powers, angsting about powers, deciding to fight the villain" cookie cutter story. _*The Incredibles*_ is a movie about _entirely original characters_ that opens with a 45 second voiceover prologue, skips the origin story, uses a montage to skip most of the main action of a typical superhero story, and then dives headfirst into an original and clever tale about a superhero being called out of retirement. (by the way, MG's score for _*The Incredibles*_ is as Oscar-worthy as _*UP*_ in my opinion)

When will we see a superhero movie as self-aware as, say _*Reservoir Dogs*_ (a heist film with no heist, because we all know the aftermath is the most interesting part anyway).

Just think about movies like _*Edge of Tomorrow*_, _*Interstellar*_ and _*Mad Max: Fury Road. *_Or for that matter _*Star Wars.*_ There is no hand holding in these movies. When a movie is confident enough to just cut to the chase of what it wants to do, the audience WILL follow along.

This is why the *MCU* is starting to lose its shine, imo. It's not a "cinematic universe" at all. It's just the same story over and over. Sometimes the good guy is Captain America and sometimes it's Ant Man. Sometimes the bad guys are Hydra and sometimes it's Ultron. But who cares? Beyond the character-specific quips does it really make a difference?

Here's another depressing comparison. Think about the difference in* tone *between, say, Pierce Brosnan Bond and Daniel Craig Bond. Now realize those two sets of movies are more different tonally than any two movies in the MCU so far with the exception of _*Guardians of the Galaxy.*_


----------



## Guy Rowland

NoamL said:


> Here's a depressing comparison. _*Man of Steel*_ is a movie about the *best known superhero character in the world* that opens with a 20 minute long CGI-laden prologue about his origin story followed by almost an hour of the rote "discovering powers, angsting about powers, deciding to fight the villain" cookie cutter story. _*The Incredibles*_ is a movie about _entirely original characters_ that opens with a 45 second voiceover prologue, skips the origin story, uses a montage to skip most of the main action of a typical superhero story, and then dives headfirst into an original and clever tale about a superhero being called out of retirement. (by the way, MG's score for _*The Incredibles*_ is as Oscar-worthy as _*UP*_ in my opinion)



1000x yes.


----------



## NoamL

btw Guy your point about Star Wars is well taken. When SW came out it was blowing away scifi like The Andromeda Strain, 2001 and Close Encounters. We certainly don't have movies like that now. 

In fact it seems like JJ Abrams got the job precisely because JJ Trek is already such a great Star Wars style movie that happens to star Star Trek characters.


----------



## Guy Rowland

NoamL said:


> btw Guy your point about Star Wars is well taken. When SW came out it was blowing away scifi like The Andromeda Strain, 2001 and Close Encounters. We certainly don't have movies like that now.
> 
> In fact it seems like JJ Abrams got the job precisely because JJ Trek is already such a great Star Wars style movie that happens to star Star Trek characters.



Yeah - Silent Running, Omega Man, Dark Star (which I adore... but it ain't Star Wars), Death Race 2000, Logan's Run, Soylent Green, THX 1138 (!), Rollerball, Solaris... some excellent movies, but it was a very different aesthetic, wasn't it? Close Encounters is a very interesting case, it actually came out at about the same time as Star Wars, I vividly remember the trailer that played before Star Wars and me thinking "whoa, I gotta see that". And I loved it even aged 10, I lapped it up - still do, it's my favourite Speilberg film (and the only one he's ever written). Even though it was PG it wasn't really aimed at me though, it was definitely a grown ups film (gee its about a blue collar worker who loses his mind as his marriage fails). And the adult sci-fi did carry on of course - Alien, Blade Runner etc all happened while the Battlestar Galacticas and Black Holes got swiftly put into production on the back of Star Wars' success.


----------



## NYC Composer

Actually, a fiery death would make a good vehicle for lots of CGI.


----------



## KEnK

Guy Rowland said:


> Yeah - Silent Running, Omega Man, Dark Star (which I adore... but it ain't Star Wars), Death Race 2000, Logan's Run, Soylent Green, THX 1138 (!), Rollerball, Solaris... some excellent movies, but it was a very different aesthetic, wasn't it?


To me all of those are vastly superior to the Epic Space Opera.
I did enjoy Star Warz™, but it's tragic that the mindless action explosion laden space adventure
has practically done away w/ a thoughful Sci Drama-
btw- Pi (Not "Life of Pi") was also an amazing unique film. I think no action at all.
And Spielberg/Kubrick's AI deserves mention in the good sci-fi catagory.

ps- In mentioning Solaris, are you talking about the remake or the original Russian version?
I did enjoy the remake, but the Russian version is a truly great film- so very very slow though,
but that kind of pacing when done well causes a great deal of tension/drama.

k


----------



## Guy Rowland

KEnK said:


> ps- In mentioning Solaris, are you talking about the remake or the original Russian version?



I meant the 70s one - all that little list was from the 70s. Some fantastic stuff there for sure. Room still for that tonally of course - Moon was very much in that vein, and a good film.


----------



## D.Salzenberg

Agreed, some of the greatest ever sci-fi movies in that list. Was lucky enough (suppose that should be old enough, lol) to see all those at the cinema when they were released. Great films and great music in the 70's, long before cynical marketing became all powerful.


----------



## KEnK

The very 1st Planet of the Apes deserves mention too. 
And that Goldsmith score!!!
Nothing like it before or since.
So perfect for the film.

and lest we forget- 2001 and Clockwork Orange,
both unique visionary film making.

k


----------



## NYC Composer

mdiemer said:


> I wasn't going to jump in, but I'm bored, what the hell. To me, these movies are just more evidence of the adolescentizing of America. There was a time when this stuff was targeted precisely at adolescents. Now it's targeted at the adult population. What does that tell you? If you're not in denial of reality...



This.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

NYC Composer said:


> This.



Yep. Peter Pan syndrome.


----------



## D.Salzenberg

mdiemer said:


> I wasn't going to jump in, but I'm bored, what the hell. To me, these movies are just more evidence of the adolescentizing of America. There was a time when this stuff was targeted precisely at adolescents. Now it's targeted at the adult population. What does that tell you? If you're not in denial of reality...


Well that's true but I think you have to look at what happened to comic books themselves to see why this happened. The kids from the sixties and seventies who were comic book fans loved them for what they were, in all their naive charm, me included. Then as the fans grew older but still loved comic books a new breed of writers and artists including Frank Miller and Alan More etc started to subvert the kids world of superhero comics with dark, grim, humourless, more adult and cynical themes. Of course the now older fans lapped this up because hey, the comic books they loved were now 'serious' and not to be laughed at anymore, they were serious art making serious statements. Comic books and superheroes would never be the same again.
So when Batman became the Dark Knight the movies that followed also became 'serious'. Like the comics themselves the first few movies, especially Batman Begins worked really well and became influential. As for what's followed. . . . .


----------



## JonFairhurst

So... Was Michael O'Sullivan of the film Road to Perdition a comic book hero?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Perdition_(comics)


----------



## D.Salzenberg

Good question!


----------



## Baron Greuner

mdiemer said:


> I wasn't going to jump in, but I'm bored, what the hell. To me, these movies are just more evidence of the adolescentizing of America. There was a time when this stuff was targeted precisely at adolescents. Now it's targeted at the adult population. What does that tell you? If you're not in denial of reality...



My generation grew up with lots of different genres. Not just super hero or rom com crap. Ergo, my generation is a lot more educated either subliminally or consciously in what constitutes a good film. Not what constitutes your favourite colour, ice cream or smart phone. One minute you could be watching Pyscho and the next Derby O Gill and then next The Seven Samurai and so on. 
I watched Iron Man 2 last night. Hadn't seen it. Don't know why I even wanted it on. It was smart talk CGI genre garbage. Made over a 100 million bucks profit. What does that tell you? It tells me that films are made bottom up rather than top down. Top down films won't make any money, that's the key to it all. Years ago, I doubt they would have even understood the concept, but they sure do now.

Ratings on IMDB are bullshit btw. They are serving their masters make no mistake. Whatever the rating there is, take off about 2 or 3 and you will be close to the mark.

Baron Greuner.


----------



## JonFairhurst

The "adolescentizing of America". Sounds about right to me. Wanna hear a fart joke?

Some country music strikes me as adolescent. Yeah, the lyrics might be adult, but the music is often simplistic, predictable, and overly produced. (On the other hand, blues might have a simple basis, but raw performance and improvisation can add the complexity of unpredictability.)

My test is this: If I can credibly ad lib lyrics to a country tune that go something like, "The cow goes moo and the chicken goes cluck", then it's children's music. (I have yet to sing those lyrics to a Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven piece and pull it off...)

BTW, what _does_ the fox say?


----------



## Dean

JonFairhurst said:


> My test is this: If I can credibly ad lib lyrics to a country tune that go something like, "The cow goes moo and the chicken goes cluck", then it's children's music. (I have yet to sing those lyrics to a Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven piece and pull it off...)
> 
> BTW, what _does_ the fox say?



Gimme that chicken!


----------



## KEnK

JonFairhurst said:


> My test is this: If I can credibly ad lib lyrics to a country tune that go something like,


I've never been a fan of C&W, but long ago realized a technical similarity between it and Blues.
Recently I was doing some mix research where I listened to a bunch of country tunes.
Gotta say I was surprised by the depth of some of the lyrics.

As to the "Adolescentizing of America" thing, one aspect is that the boomers never surrendered their youth. 
This is a good thing imo.

k


----------



## Darthmorphling

I have a problem with this term: "Adolescentizing of America"

What exactly does it mean? Look at westerns, most kids grow up playing cowboys, and then as adults watch westerns. To me this is the same as someone reading comic books as a kid and watching the movies as an adult. Yes I am aware that cowboys are real and Batman isn't. The argument is still valid.

Kids play sports, and then watch/play them as adults. Is that considered more adultlike than superheroes? Not really. Sports are simply a game.

I get what a lot of you are saying about how the movies are formulaic, and I do agree. However, to label something like superheroes as being childish, when many of you love westerns, and sports, is just a bit hypocritical.


----------



## NYC Composer

Hypocritically speaking-GO METS!!


----------



## MA-Simon

...I also like me some zombies. And yes, It's the same thing over and over again. But it's still fun.


----------



## Dean

I made the mistake of watching Monsters:Dark Continent,...they should have just called it Dark Continent as there was seriously about 5 minutes of Monsters in it(in the back ground I might add),..the rest was some sort of gritty,downbeat military drama (complete with Bootcamp montage!)we've all seen a million times before.(should've just stuck on Black Hawk Down!)

Im not sure about you guys but Im sick to death of movies and tv series with an incredible otherwordly premise that quickly descends into yet another downbeat,gritty kitchen sink drama,..gimme monsters!..gimme aliens! ( and not suggestive ones mind you!) D


----------



## Daryl

Darthmorphling said:


> However, to label something like superheroes as being childish, when many of you love westerns, and sports, is just a bit hypocritical.



For me the problem isn't the subject matter, it's the pretense that it is more than just a fantasy yarn. All this "it's really dark" is just marketing b*llocks.

D


----------



## Guy Rowland

Daryl said:


> For me the problem isn't the subject matter, it's the pretense that it is more than just a fantasy yarn. All this "it's really dark" is just marketing b*llocks.
> 
> D



See, I blame Empire Strikes Back. I reckon you can trace back all this "like before, only darker" to right there. I've never thought it was as good a film as the original (heresy, right?) - structurally its kind of a mess, it has no ending etc. I mean it's pretty good for a sequel, nice character developments, it has the best line of dialogue in the entire series and all that, but it's just not New Hope good in that gloriously perfect self-contained way

But it put this damn seed in people, the notion that darker = better. I have no issue with darkness in the right place and the right movie but dammit i have an issue with the very idea that it necessarily equates to integrity or depth or anything. That's only true if it's done well, which is kinda like anything really.

Personally I'd rather forget the whole adolescence phase (adolescents brains are malformed, simple as that) and embrace a bit more childhood - surreal, silly, nuts is pretty good for all ages.


----------



## D.Salzenberg

I think everyone is sick of this 'dark and gritty = I'm making a serious artistic statement' bullshit.
It's just an easy cop out when imagination, characters, great dialogue with humour and irony, and an original story are just way tooooo difficult.
Just look at what's happened to the Bond films. It's very sad.


----------



## Daryl

Guy Rowland said:


> I have no issue with darkness in the right place and the right movie but dammit i have an issue with the very idea that it necessarily equates to integrity or depth or anything. That's only true if it's done well, which is kinda like anything really.


The trouble is that if something is dark and gritty, it has to have a believable subject, and most of the super hero movies are just ridiculous and can't be taken seriously, so the idea that making it dark somehow makes it believable is plain stupid, IMO.

D


----------



## Darthmorphling

Daryl said:


> The trouble is that if something is dark and gritty, it has to have a believable subject, and most of the super hero movies are just ridiculous and can't be taken seriously, so the idea that making it dark somehow makes it believable is plain stupid, IMO.
> 
> D



I do agree that things shouldn't be dark just for the sake of being dark. The thing about superheroes is that they are completely ridiculous, but that's what makes them great for telling stories. You just have to accept that going in.

I do love diverse movies and agree with many here that I wish studios would take more chances.


----------



## blougui

Guy Rowland said:


> Yeah - Silent Running, Omega Man, Dark Star (which I adore... but it ain't Star Wars), Death Race 2000, Logan's Run, Soylent Green, THX 1138 (!), Rollerball, Solaris... some excellent movies, but it was a very different aesthetic, wasn't it? Close Encounters is a very interesting case, it actually came out at about the same time as Star Wars, I vividly remember the trailer that played before Star Wars and me thinking "whoa, I gotta see that". And I loved it even aged 10, I lapped it up - still do, it's my favourite Speilberg film (and the only one he's ever written). Even though it was PG it wasn't really aimed at me though, it was definitely a grown ups film (gee its about a blue collar worker who loses his mind as his marriage fails). And the adult sci-fi did carry on of course - Alien, Blade Runner etc all happened while the Battlestar Galacticas and Black Holes got swiftly put into production on the back of Star Wars' success.



CE3K is the only Spielberg film that depicts the collapse of a family in - soon to be clichéd - californian suburbia.
I was 10 too when I saw it (well, we must be of the same age Guy) and couldn't get my head around some of its scenes-plots. It was unsettling and optimistic at the same time. I had to wait till the Special edition to understand it fully - how dumb was I !!! 

- Erik


----------



## Guy Rowland

blougui said:


> It was unsettling and optimistic at the same time.



That's exactly it - although its about a marriage breakdown and it's pretty uncompromising (aside from the Special Edition where they excised some of the most important family stuff), it's not DARK. I was quite saddened to read Speilberg say decades later he would never have made CETK now, because of how Roy didn't put his family first. I thought (as a proud dad) he didn't understand his own movie.


----------



## blougui

"Dark" is quite often novelty for the lazy. 
Something I might enjoy once in a while, rather for artistic options/decisions (sets, costumes, photography, a a tad more "dimension" to the main characters when we're lucky).
I disagree about The Empire strikes back - in all subjectivity : Yoda is a great creation, photography is far superior and we have less of Luke. Hurray !
Interestingly enough, it's said that Katz, producer of the 1st two opus, left the boat for Return of the Jedi partly because of the merchandising direction the plot took early on (think Ewoks).

About merchandising : lets not forget how inundated with toys, t-shirts, posters and what not we were month before Burton's Batman or Jurassic Park were screened.

- Erik


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Hey , I grew up wearing a Davy Crockett coonskin cap, playing with a rifle like on "The Rifleman", a derringer that popped out and fired pellets from a belt buckle holder like "Yancy Derringer", etc.

But the point is around 16, I started to grow up and left childish things behind. My sense is that young people no longer aspire to do that.


----------



## blougui

Guy Rowland said:


> That's exactly it - although its about a marriage breakdown and it's pretty uncompromising (aside from the Special Edition where they excised some of the most important family stuff), it's not DARK. I was quite saddened to read Speilberg say decades later he would never have made CETK now, because of how Roy didn't put his family first. I thought (as a proud dad) he didn't understand his own movie.



I wouldn't be surprised StarWars had made this kind of ending impossible in a big studio movie. CE3K is really in its own league.

- Erik


----------



## dgburns

EastWest Lurker said:


> http://www.ew.com/article/2015/09/02/steven-spielberg-superhero-movies



I'm a gonna grab some more of that there popcorn

don't movies feel wrong watching without popcorn ?? i know,pretty deep


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Yep. Whatever the film, a movie is just not a movie without popcorn.


----------



## Guy Rowland

blougui said:


> I wouldn't be surprised StarWars had made this kind of ending impossible in a big studio movie. CE3K is really in its own league.



Well... CETK and endings... great in the original and the collector's edition, but the Special Edition ('79) shows what happens when studios dictate endings. Yuk.

In the end, the age debate is a little pointless / circular. I've grown up understanding that the best kids books, TV and music is equally great for adults. Twas always so, and is still so. And that's true for Young Adult stuff too, I think - The Hunger Games has matured into an excellent series, with #3 packed with thought provoking ideas about the world we live in today, the media, wars etc. It's a far more intelligent contribution to the debate than an evening spent on CNN or - perish the thought - Fox News.

But enter exhibit A of how to get it wrong - Peter Jackson's The Hobbit. LOTR I have no issue with, a great series. It was terribly long fantasy book aimed at adults, which Jackson, Boyens and Walsh made vivd, lean and mean (given the scope of the whole story). The Hobbit, on the other hand, is a travesty I'm still not remotely over - stealing a short and fluffy kids book and re-rending it an interminable PG-13 rated bore designed to appeal to the same LOTR adult audience. Bloody THEFT!!! Let the kids have their own book, you indulged adolescents. The plot is ridiculous really, let's not pretend it has any depth or barely any logic, it's just a fun romp. And as an adult, I'd get a lot more out of an honest younger take on that story than weighing it all down with ponderous nonsense that the material flat-out does not suit.

Course, that's all immaterial - it made $3bn. And nobody cared, as this article points out -http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/02/11/the-hobbit-trilogy-grossed-almost-3-billion-and-no-one-cared/

At least it wasn't superheroes, I guess.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Hmmm, Guy it is a matter of degree.

Dennis Prager, who I rarely agree with, makes one fair point I think.

He says, and I paraphrase: "When I was a kid I wore a baseball cap while my father wore a hat. No adult males wore baseball caps, except maybe to a baseball game. It was considered childish and adults did not want to be perceived as childish and children aspired to becoming adults someday."

Nowadays, a 70 something (and yes, me too,) wear baseball caps and jeans. I don't think it is just fashion. I think there is still a carry over prejudice against adulthood from the '60's, the whole "don't trust anyone over 30" thing.

Women too. Moms used to dress very differently from teenage girls and now they ALL dress like Britney Spears.

I think we live in the age of Peter Pan syndrome. I see that as a negative but I recognize that I may simply be out of sync with the times.


----------



## mbagalacomposer

EastWest Lurker said:


> Hey , I grew up wearing a Davy Crockett coonskin cap, playing with a rifle like on "The Rifleman", a derringer that popped out and fired pellets from a belt buckle holder like "Yancy Derringer", etc.
> 
> But the point is around 16, I started to grow up and left childish things behind. My sense is that young people no longer aspire to do that.



I think theres a different between not leaving childish things behind and nostalgia....but I'm curious where you're basing that judgment on. Being a younger person myself I really can't say I know anyone who is particularly interested in childish things. Sure, my group of friends enjoy the Marvel movies but its not because they're childish and we're not interested growing up....we just find them fun and enjoyable and perhaps....a little nostalgic (Though personally I didn't discover comic books until I was well into my 20's).

All that said, the biggest demographic of viewers for The Avengers...were men over 25... (http://deadline.com/2012/05/marvels-the-avengers-records-factoids-267389/). So I'd say its not actually "young people" who're driving the Marvel machine....its men and women in the 30's and 40s who enjoy the nostalgia.

Something to think about before we start the millennial bashing....


----------



## EastWest Lurker

I am not targeting a specific age group, sorry if I gave that impression. (Although Millennials ARE pond scum

When I was 15, my parents, uncles, cousins, etc. were probably all mostly 40-50. They didn't dress like us. They weren't interested in the same stuff, by and large. None of them wanted to see movies about super heroes, vampires, zombies, etc. They thought of it as childish stuff. Certainly none of them would get into a costume and wait in line for hours for the first midnight showing of a film.

I am sure that sociologists have explanations. After all, they were old enough to remember the Great Depression, fought in WW II, etc. and probably as a result they were just more _serious_ people.

(BTW, Guy and Daryl, was this true in Great Britain of that generation as well?)

Ah well, my 32 year old daughter puts it this way, "Dad, you really just have no imagination and sense of wonder, do you?"

She's probably right


----------



## Guy Rowland

Yeah, similar. Heard an interview with Mark Gatiss last week, he said something offhand about a picture of his own father who he said was younger than he looked - "of course, people were older then". Largely it's true. Video games - plenty of 40-something's play them. I have no actual facts to back it up, but I'd lay money on the average age of rock festival attendees going up significantly over the decades.

Actually I'd be interested in the sociologists explaining it all. But let's not be too rose-tinted specs about how great the generation gap used to be. I don't envy the lives or world-views of people my own age now of earlier generations.

But it's not black and white. I saw Star Wars when I was 10 with my brother and mum (we were all separated as we got the very last seats after queuing for an hour). My mum still speaks as fondly of the film as I do - she loved it, and not just because I did (she was particularly fond of Chewbacca for some reason). Then much more recently, my Dad gave the best film review of Daniel Craig's Casino Royale I'll ever hear - in a slightly bewildered voice, he said "I almost got the impression they were asking us to take it seriously". Perhaps this is where my aversion to darkness=good comes from...


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Guy, I think your Dad and I would get on well.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

Guy Rowland said:


> Yeah, similar. Heard an interview with Mark Gatiss last week, he said something offhand about a picture of his own father who he said was younger than he looked - "of course, people were older then". Largely it's true. Video games - plenty of 40-something's play them. I have no actual facts to back it up, but I'd lay money on the average age of rock festival attendees going up significantly over the decades.



I'd certainly hope so. Sometimes I hear people say: oh, I listened to rock'n'roll when I was younger. And I always think to myself: yeah, and what are you doing now? Such a silly thing to say. The whole point of honest rock'n'roll is that you can never be to old for it. 

When I was growing up, I was always irritated by the old farts. I remember thinking how I didn't ever want to become like them. What for? So I can spend more time sitting around, worry about the economy, judge others a whole lot and sometimes read a book?

It's good to see that the younger generations are leaving the staidness and self-flagellation of their (grand)parents behind. I think it's more concerning that a lot of young people are already super-uptight in their own way. They may appear hedonistic, unageing and constantly concerned with self-fulfillment, but when you look behind all that, they don't really seem to have all that much fun. They're irritable, tense and quarrelsome, and the lack of perspective they're thrown into is really showing. 

I think that's one of the reasons why entertainment today seems to be so angsty, serious and "dark & gritty". Everything has to have some kind of reference to the bleak times we live in. I have the impression that the prudence of the millenial is to never be caught off guard.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Do you REALLY think, Jimmy, times are more bleak now than in the Great Depression or WWII? I think it is mostly that people have a sense of entitlement now that they did not have in previous generations.

OK, I am done.


----------



## Guy Rowland

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> It's good to see that the younger generations are leaving the staidness and self-flagellation of their (grand)parents behind. I think it's more concerning that a lot of young people are already super-uptight in their own way. They may appear hedonistic, unageing and constantly concerned with self-fulfillment, but when you look behind all that, they don't really seem to have all that much fun. They're irritable, tense and quarrelsome, and the lack of perspective they're thrown into is really showing.



Remember bullies when we were kids? Now give those bullies the internet. There was a recent survey in the UK, 37% of teenage girls _personally_ needed help with their mental health, with self-harming top of the list of concerns - http://new.girlguiding.org.uk/latest-updates/making-a-difference/girls-attitudes-survey-2015 . Rates of depression among 15-16 year olds (boys and girls) have doubled in 20 years - http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/s...ntal health_introducing the main findings.pdf . I suspect most older adults have very little clue how tough it is out there now.

I seem to have drifted off topic. Go Spielberg.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

EastWest Lurker said:


> Do you REALLY think, Jimmy, times are more bleak now than in the Great Depression or WWII? I think it is mostly that people have a sense of entitlement now that they did not have in previous generations.
> 
> OK, I am done.



I wouldn't make comparisons to post-WW2 now ... I don't know if they're "more" or "less" bleak, or if there's a scale for that. But I do know that these are highly cynical and neurotic times we live in today. The links Guy posted for example - that's not just a fad or something.

I sometimes notice that some of the older folks, who are perhaps already out of the economic loop, or close to it, don't really have a grasp of how it is for a 20 year old youngster today. Every generation faces its challenges. The world post-21k puts a whole new kind of pressure on a young person. That was completely different in the latter third of the 20. century, which were times of upswing and prospect.

The structures of old are failing left and right. Economics, ethics, authorities. These are the kids of the people who have been taught that education pays off and hard, honest work goes a long way. For them, a lot of the wisdoms of the old parents, politicians, clerics, economists and educators have turned out to be BS that they're now wading through. 

It's easy to sit there and say that they're all just pussies and have an inflated sense of entitlement. I think they deserve some slack. They deal with crazy expectations and highly questionable perspectives. It may not be the drought and misery of 1946 - but then again, one of the terrible flaws of that old timer mindset is that "it's all good as long as there's food in the stomach".

But this is starting to get depressing - back to Spielberg!


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Fair enough, Jimmy and well stated.


----------



## D.Salzenberg

Times may not be more bleak now, but everyone of all ages seems so much more stressed and way more cynical. With all the information available to everyone now, and wall to wall 24hr media and social media the pressure to appear successful, usually as in financially successful rather than anything more meaningful is immense. Couple that with (at least in the UK) everyone being sceptical and suspicious of everything and looking for the hidden agenda behind every single thing then it's no wonder that most of the population seem to be suffering with anxiety and taking pills.


----------



## Baron Greuner

I think the dialogue/script on Star Wars is almost certainly the worst bollocks I have ever heard in a film next to the Wild Women of Wonga.

Baron Greuner


----------



## Dean

out of curiosity I just watched Avengers Assemble 2,..WTF!!...I have no idea what the [email protected]%k it was about!?,..it was like the ravings of a madman,(like Transformers 4 ? POTC 3 & 4 / Alexander / Jupiter Ascending /Iron Man 3) ,..how the [email protected]%K does this happen?..All those a-list actors/production teams/so many talented people..who the hell is running the asylum?..the inmates!? This is not just a rant Im genuinely shocked considering how good the first one was? D


----------



## Baron Greuner

They just don't make enough films like Margin Call or Glegary Glenross anymore. Almost made on a pro bono basis.

A lot of Spielberg films are f**k**g twee. Some are good and they are visually great. But the underlying dysfunctional family thing can drive adults nuts. And the scripting and general rubbish of all the Indiana Jones films, especially the first one and the ridiculous scripts and plots cannot hold up under any intellectual film scrutiny.


----------



## NYC Composer

But the winner, really, is the script for Avatar, which was _mindblowingly_ bad, yet the movie monetarily surpassed any that had come before it. Mr. Cameron is an interesting fellow with the CGI and the big subjects and budgets, but why he thinks he can write....I dunno. I guess in the end, all that money makes you right.


----------



## blougui

NYC Composer said:


> But the winner, really, is the script for Avatar, which was _mindblowingly_ bad, yet the movie monetarily surpassed any that had come before it. Mr. Cameron is an interesting fellow with the CGI and the big subjects and budgets, but why he thinks he can write....I dunno. I guess in the end, all that money makes you right.



What gagged me is that suddenly, Mr Cameron appeared to be a progressist, ecologist, "honorable defender of a great cause" with a script that's so conservative in the values it promots, almost racist and misogynist, full of clichés on the whole spectrum, from how you dominate/slave animals to how you choose a wife to how only a single Marine can save a whole intelligent alien specie. I enjoyed the flick at the theatre (it surely has its action packed moments) but found its screenplay both ridiculous and despicable.

- Erik


----------



## Guy Rowland

Good lord, how we can all read a film differently. To continue Larry and I's wild disagreements, I think the Avatar script was good. I know, right? Ok, it was probably the least good of his scripts in the last 30 years mind, but still more than serviceable. If you want to see what pretty much the exact same story looks like with a genuinely bad script, try John Carter - which pains me to say as I'm an Andrew Stanton fan, but lawks that was atrocious - head-bangingly boring.

The biggest problem was Avatar was that it really was by the numbers forumalic, I read off the beats as I watched it the first time, there was almost zero element of surprise. But though I hate to appeal to box office figures, it clearly did something right when it's to this day the #1 grossing movie of all time by a mile, despite being not based on a book or pre-exisiting characters. And a ecological sci-fi at that, a subgenre not known for packing 'em in. We can all make excuses for the over-performance of a lousy yet wildly successful comic book franchise, this was dismissed as smurfs in space before release. Cameron has a knack of writing in a way that has broad appeal across gender, age and culture - again, exhibit B is John Carter, what Avatar really should have been by rights. To do that the writer must have some real skill, even if its not to everyone's taste.

But I more take exception to Blogui's reading of the film. Politically I read the film totally opposite to you, and indeed I think its one reason why it was such a global success. To me, it reads as a allegorical rage against American imperalism so nakedly it's almost comic. Stephen Lang even speaks bluntly of "shock and awe", which is not exactly subtle (and lest anyone forgets he's very much the bad guy here). The lone Marine does not save the species from itself, they were doing just fine thanks, rather he turns on the imperialist invaders he was a part of who have immeasurably superior firepower. In the (to me) overt analogy, its as if a US Marine joined the Iraqis to help defeat the USA, UK and the rest of the shameful alliance, and I wouldn't consider that notion racist either (might not play well in Texas though). In fact, the politics of Avatar is the main reason I have any fondness for it all - I'd take almost any other Cameron film over this otherwise. I still find myself rather delighted that this sugar-coated eye-popper is as anti-war and anti-imperialist as is - I'll wager that message got through loud and clear to much of the audience around the world.

(yet another diversion - I've just read Bright Angel Falling, a James Cameron meteor script from the 90s that was abandoned as both Deep Impact and Armaggedon were put into production at the same time (co-written with Peter '2010' Hyams). Its a fun read to see what could have been, a lot of Cameron trademarks, some fun one-liners, great setpieces (he pre-staged Gravity by 15 years) but lordy it IS utterly ridiculous. From a science guy like Cameron, quite a (bad) surprise actually. Even though it would probably have been more fun than either film that actually got made - though the first half of Armageddon is a laugh - all for the best it was shelved. Though the tidal wave at Cape Canaveral with our heroes clinging onto the tower would have been fun. Anyone curious, you can download the script here for free - http://www.scifimoviezone.com/imagelegend/brightangel.pdf )


----------



## Pasticcio

I read the "political" message similar as above. I always saw Avatar as a modernised, fictional, scifi version of Pocahontas.

I wouldn't call the script _mindblowingly_ bad. I didn't enjoy it alot when I saw it, but I do think it's story is superior to every blockbuster movie I've seen that has followed.


----------



## blougui

Well, about this generation, I think this could sum up it well - it's been linked here or somewhere else ?
http://brightside.me/article/why-generation-y-is-unhappy-11105/


----------



## NYC Composer

Gosh guys, I think if you read the script on paper, you'd laugh uproariously.


----------



## blougui

Guy Rowland said:


> Good lord, how we can all read a film differently. To continue Larry and I's wild disagreements, I think the Avatar script was good. I know, right? Ok, it was probably the least good of his scripts in the last 30 years mind, but still more than serviceable. If you want to see what pretty much the exact same story looks like with a genuinely bad script, try John Carter - which pains me to say as I'm an Andrew Stanton fan, but lawks that was atrocious - head-bangingly boring.
> 
> The biggest problem was Avatar was that it really was by the numbers forumalic, I read off the beats as I watched it the first time, there was almost zero element of surprise. But though I hate to appeal to box office figures, it clearly did something right when it's to this day the #1 grossing movie of all time by a mile, despite being not based on a book or pre-exisiting characters. And a ecological sci-fi at that, a subgenre not known for packing 'em in. We can all make excuses for the over-performance of a lousy yet wildly successful comic book franchise, this was dismissed as smurfs in space before release. Cameron has a knack of writing in a way that has broad appeal across gender, age and culture - again, exhibit B is John Carter, what Avatar really should have been by rights. To do that the writer must have some real skill, even if its not to everyone's taste.
> 
> But I more take exception to Blogui's reading of the film. Politically I read the film totally opposite to you, and indeed I think its one reason why it was such a global success. To me, it reads as a allegorical rage against American imperalism so nakedly it's almost comic. Stephen Lang even speaks bluntly of "shock and awe", which is not exactly subtle (and lest anyone forgets he's very much the bad guy here). The lone Marine does not save the species from itself, they were doing just fine thanks, rather he turns on the imperialist invaders he was a part of who have immeasurably superior firepower. In the (to me) overt analogy, its as if a US Marine joined the Iraqis to help defeat the USA, UK and the rest of the shameful alliance, and I wouldn't consider that notion racist either (might not play well in Texas though). In fact, the politics of Avatar is the main reason I have any fondness for it all - I'd take almost any other Cameron film over this otherwise. I still find myself rather delighted that this sugar-coated eye-popper is as anti-war and anti-imperialist as is - I'll wager that message got through loud and clear to much of the audience around the world.



Though I wholeheartedly disagree, I don't want to show myself as a pompous prick so I won't go anyfurther
I know one article that sumps up pretty well what I think and express it with witt and style but it's in french 

- Erik


----------



## Pasticcio

NYC Composer said:


> Gosh guys, I think if you read the script on paper, you'd laugh uproariously.


Yes absolutely, but at least there is a script to be read. Not just a A4 of one-liners :D


----------



## Guy Rowland

NYC Composer said:


> Gosh guys, I think if you read the script on paper, you'd laugh uproariously.



Funnily enough (!) I did laugh out loud a few times when I read Bright Angel Falling, sometimes with and sometimes at. But it was always entertaining. Actually (I realise I'm just inviting derision now) I think he's a very underrated writer. Screenplay is structure, and his best stuff is structurally impeccable. Titanic the perfect example - while the intelligensia scorn (and sure there's some atrocious dialogue here and there), I highly doubt anyone else on the planet could have engaged audiences in the way he did running at 3 1/4 hrs where we all knew the ending going in (spoiler - the ship sinks). Sets and effects were very good, but it's all character and structure, and it's all on the page. The diamond driving historical and contemporary narratives and linking them was a stroke of genius.

Sorry, I'm droning on again. James Cameron is one of my triggers, apologies all.


----------



## blougui

Guy Rowland said:


> Funnily enough (!) I did laugh out loud a few times when I read Bright Angel Falling, sometimes with and sometimes at. But it was always entertaining. Actually (I realise I'm just inviting derision now) I think he's a very underrated writer. Screenplay is structure, and his best stuff is structurally impeccable. Titanic the perfect example - while the intelligensia scorn (and sure there's some atrocious dialogue here and there), I highly doubt anyone else on the planet could have engaged audiences in the way he did running at 3 1/4 hrs where we all knew the ending going in (spoiler - the ship sinks). Sets and effects were very good, but it's all character and structure, and it's all on the page. The diamond driving historical and contemporary narratives and linking them was a stroke of genius.
> 
> Sorry, I'm droning on again. James Cameron is one of my triggers, apologies all.



Abyss was great, so was Aliens (he did found something brill to add to the backstory). And I totally agree with you on Titanic. I'ld rather say it's amazing he kept the audience interested for so long with a... romance that cliché (the duchess and the poor man).

- Erik


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Baron, I'm with you on Margin Call. Loved it.


----------



## G.R. Baumann

From the Western department, there are in deed only a few out of the giant bucket worth mentioning, but they are worth watching, even today. Hell, sometimes I really enjoy watching Chaplin, so there is a lot of very good stuff that passed the test of time.

For the marvellian produtcs we currently are cluster bombed with, I remember my own youth when these comic books were around. 

Interestingly perhaps to some here from the US could be the social aspects that I remember from round about 45 years ago. 

The Marvel comics were not popular at all if your family background was not from a rather challenging social situation. Superman? Batman? The Hulk? Yeah, the comic books were alwyas in the shelfs fo the news agent and apprently he sold quite a few of them.

So what about the bourgeoise? Of course there was something on offer for them as well in form of Scrooge McDucks adventures, just in line with a few capitalist ideologies to nurture childrens brains with from the earliest possible.

There you are, braindead glorification of violence for the underdogs, and capitalist smirks for the bourgeoise. 

How convenient, really! LOL


----------



## Baron Greuner

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Baron, I'm with you on Margin Call. Loved it.



Yes Nick it's great film. Total Budget I think is around $1.5 to maybe $2.5 and it came at me by accident from left field. There have been a few films and TV shows since 2007/8 that have dealt with the economic issue and collapse causes. What this one does, is come at it from a very interesting perspective over a 24 hour period and claustrophobically uses an excellent ensemble cast. I think it made money too, unbelievably.

I particularly thought Jeremy Irons was brilliant the way he played the head man and Stan Tucci - marvellous, but they were all great. Script and plot is everything in a budget film.


----------



## sleepy hollow

I've watched Clash of the Titans (1981) on TV yesterday. What a movie!

Wouldn't mind some more 'hero movies' based on those old tales - but no CGI fest, please.


----------



## Parsifal666

I love Man of Steel, including the fact that at times it paid obvious homage to the Reeves. I thought everyone was great, the soundtrack is one of my favorites by anyone (and I LOVE the Williams). There are things resolutely different, darker. It took a few chances. Would I pick it over the Reeves on desert island? Oh hell no. But I'll take over any other Superman movie (and I really liked the Reeves 2). I'm a huge fan of Interstellar.


----------



## Guy Rowland

mverta said:


> All of my friends working on vfx for the new Star Wars say it sucks, basically/don't get your hopes up.



Just remembered this post. Glad your friends were bang on wrong, Mike


----------



## Baron Greuner

NYC Composer said:


> But the winner, really, is the script for Avatar, which was _mindblowingly_ bad, yet the movie monetarily surpassed any that had come before it. Mr. Cameron is an interesting fellow with the CGI and the big subjects and budgets, but why he thinks he can write....I dunno. I guess in the end, all that money makes you right.



Unfortunately money does not make anything right and you very well know that.

This new Star Wars film will make a lot of money and by all accounts is a rip roaring adventure film. As long as you're able to understand this is just a genre thing and you cannot possibly compare it to anything on any kind of intellectual basis, then you're good to go.
Other than that, to me it will be total bollocks of the first order and I'm not 12. When the first one came out in 77 I was already too old to understand it.


----------



## Parsifal666

Baron Greuner said:


> Unfortunately money does not make anything right and you very well know that.
> 
> This new Star Wars film will make a lot of money and by all accounts is a rip roaring adventure film. As long as you're able to understand this is just a genre thing and you cannot possibly compare it to anything on any kind of intellectual basis, then you're good to go.
> Other than that, to me it will be total bollocks of the first order and I'm not 12. When the first one came out in 77 I was already too old to understand it.



This has some really good points. I'm middle aged...when Star Wars came out in the 70s I liked it (but thought Superman blew it away). When, after a few decades, I went back to watch the two movies I liked SW even less, while Superman was still a great, great movie. Even the Williams soundtrack was better for the latter imo.

I had to go watch this latest SW with one of my little nephews...Man of Steel blows it away. So there Star Wars (sticking my tongue out), Superman beat you all up. I'd pick the Dark Knight trilogy over any of the SW as well...but I doubt Batman could take Yoda (or whoever). And I far preferred the MoS soundtrack to even the Williams SW (GASP! Bring the hate).

Dude, has anyone noticed what an* Überdork *I am?


----------



## Baron Greuner

Parsifal666 said:


> Dude, has anyone noticed what an* Überdork *I am?



Yes and No.

It's no good talking to me about films around here. I watched Interstellar the other evening for the first (and hopefully) the last time. Cheesus does that film disintegrate around itself.

I watched The Train the other evening. Now that's a good film.


----------



## mverta

Guy Rowland said:


> Just remembered this post. Glad your friends were bang on wrong, Mike



I guess that depends on your perspective. 95% rehashed imagery, storylines, manipulative "cute" and "adorable" stuff to sell toys, and even John Williams mostly vamping doesn't necessarily get everyone excited, no matter how much we're instructed to be so by a shock-and-awe campaign. It is the best Star Wars in 30 years -as if that's saying something. It will make a gazillion dollars and a lot of people love it, so good for them. What kind of a-hole wants people to be disappointed and have movies suck? It's like all JJ Abrams movies - it's fine, it has its moments, and they started shooting the sequel and all the spinoffs months ago, so what difference does it make? It's not Star Wars, it's "Star Wars," and what we do in the 21st century is reboot and remake things. I think it's fantastic, and I also couldn't give two shits.


----------



## Baron Greuner

The problem I have, is the obsession with all this shit. I've never seen a JJ Abrams film yet that wasn't a bottom up load of crap designed to relieve smelly spotty youths wallets.


----------



## Guy Rowland

mverta said:


> I guess that depends on your perspective. 95% rehashed imagery, storylines, manipulative "cute" and "adorable" stuff to sell toys, and even John Williams mostly vamping doesn't necessarily get everyone excited, no matter how much we're instructed to be so by a shock-and-awe campaign. It is the best Star Wars in 30 years -as if that's saying something. It will make a gazillion dollars and a lot of people love it, so good for them. What kind of a-hole wants people to be disappointed and have movies suck? It's like all JJ Abrams movies - it's fine, it has its moments, and they started shooting the sequel and all the spinoffs months ago, so what difference does it make? It's not Star Wars, it's "Star Wars," and what we do in the 21st century is reboot and remake things. I think it's fantastic, and I also couldn't give two shits.



Ha - that's quite some post-event justification of your original comment. Yours was the single voice I heard from the inside that the movie was a dud, brushing off the other voices as over-excitable kids. Of course a case can be made that the film is no good - one can do that about any movie ever made.

Actually - and this is interesting - your own criticisms are almost word-for-word what the naysers reported in 1977 (that too just cynically rehashed everything we've seen before and it sure was all about selling toys). But 95% Rotten Tomatoes, an AFI top 10 of the year place and a euphoric public already returning to multiple screenings don't meet any known definition of "it sucks" that I can get on board with.

FWIW I didn't love TFA unqualified, but I did think - along with practically everyone else on the planet - that it was very good, and felt like the fourth real Star Wars film (I'd be putting those inverted commas around the prequels to denote artifice). In terms of this thread it's a triumph, and along with The Martian does indeed suggest we are re-entering brighter blockbusting times.


----------



## mverta

Guy, with all due respect, the reviews for The Phantom Menace were stellar when it came out. There is a near hysteria about this film, released in an era of extremely mediocre to shitty films, on the heels of a prequel trilogy so bad Lucas gave up. Wait 6 months, minimum, for any even remotely objective take on this film. My criticisms of it are mostly fact, not opinion: the imagery IS mostly retreaded from Star Wars, as are most of the themes. It was, by JJ's own admission, a contrived affair. A checklist of nostalgic hotbuttons makes for joygasm tears for some, apathetic skepticism for others. Luke, Leia, Han, C-3PO, R2-D2, Stormtroopers, Star Destroyers, Lightsabers, "Sand planet," Father/Son stuff - Christ, even the wallpaper in the bad-guy-place looks the same. "Yay," go those for whom all that is familiar and wonderful, "Got anything new to say?" go those of us who prefer something original. I've seen Star Wars already. Remember, there is no such thing as "a Star Wars movie." There is a George Lucas Star Wars movie, or an Irvin Kirshner Star Wars movie, and this is a JJ Abrams movie. It's better than your average JJ Abrams movie, which means it's better than an average movie. That's my opinion, and you only need know me for .00001 seconds to know how much I fear being a lone voice in hostile waters. My hero growing up was the kid in Emperor's New Clothes. But, for the record, I've had no shortage of people reaching out to me to say, "You were right. Can't process it all now, but disappointed." They just don't post about it, probably for fear of being pounced on. Anyway, I was sincere in that I only root for movies to do well and inspire others, and I hope people love it and get their money's worth and it sells a billion consumer products, etc., etc. It just won't be to me. And trust me, nobody cares.


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen

Mike, with all due respect, you sound like a grumpy old man who's in denial of his aging. Do you really feel that way, or do you feel you have to hide your true emotions?

Don't get me wrong, I'm fascinated by your thoughts on The Force Awakens, and I don't want to insult you in any way. I'm just curious how you manage to list all those aspects of the movie that will make it successful and then label them as flaws.

I thought you had a son? Did you watch the movie with him? I'm sure you will watch the movie differently if you'd just accept the fact that it's a family movie which basically tells the same familiar story again, but this time in such way that it inspires a new generation of people.

If you want to sell a family movie, you can't make a movie which only appeals to grown ups. You need to build in elements that trigger children's emotions as well without annoying parents (I mean dads) too much. That's not an easy thing to do, and I think they nailed it with BB-8. If droid is cute and looks like a toy, then that's actually a compliment, just ask any child. My kids love BB-8 just as much as my brother and I loved R2D2 when we were the same age. Now when I look at BB-8 as a grown up/dad, I'm fascinated and impressed by the technical aspects of the 'toy'. So, BB-8 is not just a regular toy to be sold to the kids, it's more like a family dog ànd a fascinating gadget at the same time.

I don't see why you'd criticize the fact that Disney has made a droid that appeals to children and puppy lovers. I mean, what would be the worst that can happen? Are you afraid that Santa's gonna give your kid a BB-8 toy droid and that you will have to feed the robot for the rest of it's life and take him out for a walk every day once the cuteness factor has worn off? If so, then don't worry, just like R2D2, the BB-8 droid can be powered off, and it won't bark to the neighbour's dog during recording sessions.

As for Star Wars toys in general, I'm a little surprised that you seem so negative about the whole merchandising, especially since you grew up in the 1970s, the decade in which children for the first time had a chance to take a physical piece of the whole experience home and treasure it like a valuable relic that 'connects' you to the story and the magical world in which it takes place. These toys play a huge role in the lives of children and they are much more than a reminder of the genuine emotions they felt when they first watched the movie.

Star Wars toys, at least when I was young, were the only way to relive the Star Wars experience and keep the fire burning as a fan. After all, there were no DVD's or videos, apart from a few very expensive Laser Disks. The only thing we had was toys, comic books, that horrible Star Wars Christmas Special, one episode of the Muppet Show where the cast visited the studio, and Battle Star Galactica, a Star Wars surrogate on TV that to me was the only alternative to the world of Star Wars (since no one watched Star Trek, except for a handful of nerds born in the 1960s and 1950s who lived with their mother and never had a girlfriend).

I don't know you personally, but I do get the feeling from what you say about The Force Awakens, that J.J. Abrams managed to touch your "nostalgic hotbuttons" too, but instead of admitting that, you chose to respond to it in a typical 'midlife' kind of way, which is usually just sarcasm + argumenta ad populum.

I respect your opinion about the movie and I don't think you need the consensus gentium to back up your views on the new Star Wars movie. Besides, how do you know for sure if someone isn't hiding his true feelings and doesn't just feel uncomfortable to have a different opinion in your presence, whether it's because of low self-esteem, or out of admiration. After all, you are Mike Verta, and they are not even posting here, apparently...

Go watch the movie with your son and enjoy. There is still good in you!

- Jerome Vonhögen


----------



## Baron Greuner

Jerome Vonhogen said:


> Star Wars toys, at least when I was young, were the only way to relive the Star Wars experience and keep the fire burning as a fan. After all, there were no DVD's or videos, apart from a few very expensive Laser Disks.
> 
> - Jerome Vonhögen



I totally agree with this Jerome.

When I was a boy I used to go and watch films like Psycho. Some of the toys were great. I still love them. 

The *Woman in the Shower © *toy was a particular favourite of mine. Actually had running water when you filled up the little tank. Did really well during Christmas 1962 I recall. No DVDs, laser disks, mobile phones or computers in those days. So one of the ways we were able to keep the fan fire burning was to find women and attack them while they were taking a shower. I still do whenever I get a chance even though I'm quite old now. 

Great days!


----------



## Jerome Vonhogen

Baron Greuner said:


> I totally agree with this Jerome.
> When I was a boy I used to go and watch films like Psycho. Some of the toys were great. I still love them.
> The *Woman in the Shower © *toy was a particular favourite of mine. Actually had running water when you filled up the little tank. Did really well during Christmas 1962 I recall. No DVDs, laser disks, mobile phones or computers in those days. So one of the ways we were able to keep the fan fire burning was to find women and attack them while they were taking a shower. I still do whenever I get a chance even though I'm quite old now.




I'm happy for you it was Psycho and not Billy Elliot. That would have seriously messed up you childhood.

- Jerome Vonhögen


----------



## Baron Greuner

If I remember right, one of the lads was actually called Billy Elliot and attacked several fully grown women while they were talking a shower.
But once you told them it was to keep Psycho alive, they were generally very accommodating. In fact, as the years went by, I found that they actually enjoyed it.


----------



## snowleopard

To go back to the OP, Spielburg said that comic book films would soon go the way of the western, but when I look at 2015 I see:

The Hateful Eight - New QT western with a heap of stars.
The Revenant - Alejandro Iñárritu film with Leonardo DiCaprio & Tom Hardy.
The Ridiculous Six - Netflix 4k film with Adam Sandler & Nick Nolte.
Also two fairly well praised, if smaller films were out in Diablo (with Clint's son Scott, none the less!), and Bone Tomahawk, with Kurt Russell. The Foresaken didn't get anywhere, but had big stars in Donald Sutherland and Demi Moore. There was also somewhat of an underground hit in the Slow West. Plus The Timber.

In 2014 we also had a big hit in A Million Ways to Die in the West, plus two praised films in The Homesman with Tommy Lee Jones and Hillary Swank and The Salvation.

I'm not saying the western is as big as comic book movies, but it may not be as dead of a genre as one might think!


----------



## Baron Greuner

Star Wars is a western. It's just set in space, that's the difference, with not very good scripts.


----------



## Dean

mverta said:


> Guy, with all due respect, the reviews for The Phantom Menace were stellar when it came out. There is a near hysteria about this film, released in an era of extremely mediocre to shitty films, on the heels of a prequel trilogy so bad Lucas gave up. Wait 6 months, minimum, for any even remotely objective take on this film. My criticisms of it are mostly fact, not opinion: the imagery IS mostly retreaded from Star Wars, as are most of the themes. It was, by JJ's own admission, a contrived affair. A checklist of nostalgic hotbuttons makes for joygasm tears for some, apathetic skepticism for others. Luke, Leia, Han, C-3PO, R2-D2, Stormtroopers, Star Destroyers, Lightsabers, "Sand planet," Father/Son stuff - Christ, even the wallpaper in the bad-guy-place looks the same. "Yay," go those for whom all that is familiar and wonderful, "Got anything new to say?" go those of us who prefer something original. I've seen Star Wars already. Remember, there is no such thing as "a Star Wars movie." There is a George Lucas Star Wars movie, or an Irvin Kirshner Star Wars movie, and this is a JJ Abrams movie. It's better than your average JJ Abrams movie, which means it's better than an average movie. That's my opinion, and you only need know me for .00001 seconds to know how much I fear being a lone voice in hostile waters. My hero growing up was the kid in Emperor's New Clothes. But, for the record, I've had no shortage of people reaching out to me to say, "You were right. Can't process it all now, but disappointed." They just don't post about it, probably for fear of being pounced on. Anyway, I was sincere in that I only root for movies to do well and inspire others, and I hope people love it and get their money's worth and it sells a billion consumer products, etc., etc. It just won't be to me. And trust me, nobody cares.



Have to say I agree with 'some' of what Mike is saying here.

Im able to leave all that at the door and just enjoy the ride,I loved the characters,tone and the spectacle of it all while also reliving my youth too!(seen it twice already) but I was surprised at how close to the original SW ('77) it was in so,so many ways,..plot/character arcs/set peices/locations/scenes/..felt more like a reboot of the original film but I think it still holds more than enough to keep originals fans invested too.

D


----------



## zacnelson

Dean said:


> Have to say I agree with 'some' of what Mike is saying here.
> 
> Im able to leave all that at the door and just enjoy the ride,I loved the characters,tone and the spectacle of it all while also reliving my youth too!(seen it twice already) but I was surprised at how close to the original SW ('77) it was in so,so many ways,..plot/character arcs/set peices/locations/scenes/..felt more like a reboot of the original film but I think it still holds more than enough to keep originals fans invested too.
> 
> D


Yep it's almost a re-make - I recently rewatched eps 4-6 and was struck by how often TESB and ROTJ recycled scenes from A New Hope, something I was less aware of previously because I grew up with them and pretty much considered them all one giant movie. I'm sure when TESB came out people would have commented on the familiarity with ANH


----------



## snowleopard

Guys, why are you posting Star Wars stuff in this thread (complete with potential spoilers)? Not cool.


----------



## mwarsell

Btw folks, have you watched the hilarious 'reviews' on the three bad SW films on Youtube? The reviews last longer than the actual films and are much more enjoyable. Google star wars reviews Mr. Plinkett 

About the superhero films. I've tried to watch them, but it's not easy. I need massive amounts of good food and drinks or a hangover with the aforementioned food articles to be able to watch them.


----------



## LamaRose

Spielberg is dead-wrong, folks... just like I was 30-years ago regarding rap. It's "Groundhog Day" without any lessons learned... or Bill Murray to keep it fresh, lol.


----------



## toomanynotes

[


LamaRose said:


> Spielberg is dead-wrong, folks... just like I was 30-years ago regarding rap. It's "Groundhog Day" without any lessons learned... or Bill Murray to keep it fresh, lol.


hope you're wrong, Star wars 7 has totally put me off sci fi for a long time...but hopefully something fresh will come along from this travesty.


----------



## gregh

Baron Greuner said:


> Unfortunately money does not make anything right and you very well know that.
> 
> This new Star Wars film will make a lot of money and by all accounts is a rip roaring adventure film. As long as you're able to understand this is just a genre thing and you cannot possibly compare it to anything on any kind of intellectual basis, then you're good to go.
> Other than that, to me it will be total bollocks of the first order and I'm not 12. When the first one came out in 77 I was already too old to understand it.


the Star Wars series are children's films - other than the first one which had a wonderful freshness for the time I am amazed how well they have done. I enjoy some children's films from time to time (one of the nice things about parenthood is revisiting being a child) but it strikes me strange how the franchise is taken seriously as adult film (as against as a fountain of money with as much relation to adult film as McDonalds has to quality food)


----------



## Baron Greuner

*Star Wars Spoiler Below: DO NOT READ IF YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THIS FILM
*
It's a load of crap.


----------



## snowleopard

I ask again. Why are people even writing about Star Wars in this thread, which has nothing to do with the film?

I'm for now going to stop reading the thread, and stop visiting this site, at least until I've seen the film with my own eyes.


----------



## Mike Connelly

mverta said:


> Guy, with all due respect, the reviews for The Phantom Menace were stellar when it came out.



Not really. I saw it opening night and I specifically remember having seen bad reviews beforehand and hoping that I wouldn't agree with them. Reviews this time around are nothing like they were for TPM and I've also heard good things from people whose opinions I trust (who also all hated the prequels).


----------

