|
|
Post by janntosh on Apr 23, 2024 16:21:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Apr 23, 2024 16:33:10 GMT
Oppenheimer and Barbie would like to have a word.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Apr 23, 2024 16:58:18 GMT
Over is stretching it, but the communal part of flocking to a theater feels over. It still happens, but it seems gone are the days just about any movie in the theater was fair game. We're more in a golden age of television, or at least we were for about a decade prior. There's an even bigger shift recently to limited series'. With the exception of Barbie and Oppenheimer, the last entity I felt the world all watched at the same time was Stranger Things. Films-wise, it was the Marvel movies. There's too many wells for people to be drinking the same water, and yes, the wool has been pulled off too much shit happening in the world for movies to be the escape they used to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Apr 23, 2024 21:37:46 GMT
He was never a major player in the movie industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Apr 23, 2024 22:48:35 GMT
Over is stretching it, but the communal part of flocking to a theater feels over. It still happens, but it seems gone are the days just about any movie in the theater was fair game. We're more in a golden age of television, or at least we were for about a decade prior. There's an even bigger shift recently to limited series'. With the exception of Barbie and Oppenheimer, the last entity I felt the world all watched at the same time was Stranger Things. Films-wise, it was the Marvel movies. There's too many wells for people to be drinking the same water, and yes, the wool has been pulled off too much shit happening in the world for movies to be the escape they used to.
No, there's just too much shit happening in the movies to BE an escape. People don't go to the movies to be lectured and told everything wrong in the world is their fault because they're too white and toxic and we need more lame gay chicks in everything to fix it. And stuff from 20-30 years ago will reign supreme because everything wasn't 'let's put the most annoying POS people and kids in it we can find to make it real life! Make every kid lead a brat you want to strangle because they're just a whiny self righteous little bitch.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Roberto on Apr 23, 2024 23:19:46 GMT
Kind of true. Not over completely, but nowhere near what it once was and guessing won't ever be again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 23, 2024 23:23:14 GMT
It's because the novelty wore off in part.
1900-cinema was new and even a film of someone slipping on a banana peel was a big deal.
1920 -- the star--producer (Fairbanks-Pickford-Chaplin) who were world famous came along. Anything they did guaranteed an audience.
1940 - Hollywood had its own stars who had less control than the star-producer had but you still had experiment and novelty and a lot to explore in the medium
1960 - tv had taken a share of the audience so color and widescreen and big epic roadshow productions came along but you also had a lot more international films to compete with Hollywood
1980 -- The blockbuster era in full swing--where special effects and stunts became the big selling point for movies--not so much the star or writer. The number of films produced for theaters by them also decreased.
2000 -- The age of mergers and digital processes---now Hollywood was aiming for the entire world not just North America and Europe--and they began to focus a lot more on spfx-driven franchises. Stars of this era like DiCaprio made their name through a combination of personnel--i.e Cameron, the fame of the Titanic story, the global interest in the film...it was not like it had been where actors (like Clint Eastwood) might become an overnight star and be the main attraction.
2010 -- superhero films started to dominate as Hollywood continued to shrink--less stars--the ones that were best known were usually selling a movie with the help of a name brand or some other helping marketing aid.
2020-- superhero films wane--and there's nothing to replace them--the big talking point is politics--the gender or race factors---not the story or characters.
Hollywood painted itself into a corner because it put its eggs in one basket--spfx spectacle and sacrificed traditional story--character--actor charisma for it--and by 2020, spfx no longer could provide a wow factor (hard for skilled FX people to be motivated on a computer).
Plus the people making the films--the studios--have ZERO interest in movies as anything other than a commodity--which they can now control from a keyboard.
So the artistic passion is gone out of it.
Seinfeld is saying that people are tired of the technology and prefer a more organic kind of art--basic theater type which standup comedy would provide.
Actor and writing only.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Apr 24, 2024 1:09:59 GMT
He was never a major player in the movie industry. Was he a major player down at the sewing store? |
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Apr 24, 2024 1:12:27 GMT
It's because the novelty wore off in part. 1900-cinema was new and even a film of someone slipping on a banana peel was a big deal. 1920 -- the star--producer (Fairbanks-Pickford-Chaplin) who were world famous came along. Anything they did guaranteed an audience. 1940 - Hollywood had its own stars who had less control than the star-producer had but you still had experiment and novelty and a lot to explore in the medium 1960 - tv had taken a share of the audience so color and widescreen and big epic roadshow productions came along but you also had a lot more international films to compete with Hollywood 1980 -- The blockbuster era in full swing--where special effects and stunts became the big selling point for movies--not so much the star or writer. The number of films produced for theaters by them also decreased. 2000 -- The age of mergers and digital processes---now Hollywood was aiming for the entire world not just North America and Europe--and they began to focus a lot more on spfx-driven franchises. Stars of this era like DiCaprio made their name through a combination of personnel--i.e Cameron, the fame of the Titanic story, the global interest in the film...it was not like it had been where actors (like Clint Eastwood) might become an overnight star and be the main attraction. 2010 -- superhero films started to dominate as Hollywood continued to shrink--less stars--the ones that were best known were usually selling a movie with the help of a name brand or some other helping marketing aid. 2020-- superhero films wane--and there's nothing to replace them--the big talking point is politics--the gender or race factors---not the story or characters. Hollywood painted itself into a corner because it put its eggs in one basket--spfx spectacle and sacrificed traditional story--character--actor charisma for it--and by 2020, spfx no longer could provide a wow factor (hard for skilled FX people to be motivated on a computer). Plus the people making the films--the studios--have ZERO interest in movies as anything other than a commodity--which they can now control from a keyboard. So the artistic passion is gone out of it. Seinfeld is saying that people are tired of the technology and prefer a more organic kind of art--basic theater type which standup comedy would provide. Actor and writing only. I really like this analysis. |
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Apr 24, 2024 1:26:53 GMT
Over is stretching it, but the communal part of flocking to a theater feels over. It still happens, but it seems gone are the days just about any movie in the theater was fair game. We're more in a golden age of television, or at least we were for about a decade prior. There's an even bigger shift recently to limited series'. With the exception of Barbie and Oppenheimer, the last entity I felt the world all watched at the same time was Stranger Things. Films-wise, it was the Marvel movies. There's too many wells for people to be drinking the same water, and yes, the wool has been pulled off too much shit happening in the world for movies to be the escape they used to.
No, there's just too much shit happening in the movies to BE an escape. People don't go to the movies to be lectured and told everything wrong in the world is their fault because they're too white and toxic and we need more lame gay chicks in everything to fix it. And stuff from 20-30 years ago will reign supreme because everything wasn't 'let's put the most annoying POS people and kids in it we can find to make it real life! Make every kid lead a brat you want to strangle because they're just a whiny self righteous little bitch.'
So, you don't like lesbians? |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Apr 24, 2024 12:18:08 GMT
It's because the novelty wore off in part. 1900-cinema was new and even a film of someone slipping on a banana peel was a big deal. 1920 -- the star--producer (Fairbanks-Pickford-Chaplin) who were world famous came along. Anything they did guaranteed an audience. 1940 - Hollywood had its own stars who had less control than the star-producer had but you still had experiment and novelty and a lot to explore in the medium 1960 - tv had taken a share of the audience so color and widescreen and big epic roadshow productions came along but you also had a lot more international films to compete with Hollywood 1980 -- The blockbuster era in full swing--where special effects and stunts became the big selling point for movies--not so much the star or writer. The number of films produced for theaters by them also decreased. 2000 -- The age of mergers and digital processes---now Hollywood was aiming for the entire world not just North America and Europe--and they began to focus a lot more on spfx-driven franchises. Stars of this era like DiCaprio made their name through a combination of personnel--i.e Cameron, the fame of the Titanic story, the global interest in the film...it was not like it had been where actors (like Clint Eastwood) might become an overnight star and be the main attraction. 2010 -- superhero films started to dominate as Hollywood continued to shrink--less stars--the ones that were best known were usually selling a movie with the help of a name brand or some other helping marketing aid. 2020-- superhero films wane--and there's nothing to replace them--the big talking point is politics--the gender or race factors---not the story or characters. Hollywood painted itself into a corner because it put its eggs in one basket--spfx spectacle and sacrificed traditional story--character--actor charisma for it--and by 2020, spfx no longer could provide a wow factor (hard for skilled FX people to be motivated on a computer). Plus the people making the films--the studios--have ZERO interest in movies as anything other than a commodity--which they can now control from a keyboard. So the artistic passion is gone out of it. Seinfeld is saying that people are tired of the technology and prefer a more organic kind of art--basic theater type which standup comedy would provide. Actor and writing only. I agree with a lot of this, but you may be overthinking it a little. The bean counters and formulas have definitely taken over, with the current trend of leaning heavily into sociopolitical messaging actually working to the detriment of the creative process. But I think audiences are less enamored with 'movie stars' and movies in general due to sheer oversaturation. With social media, what does it even mean to be famous these days? There's less wow factor with films because there are more distractions, and you can take your entertainment with you anywhere now. All those previous decades you mentioned-- there were fewer celebrities, fewer ways to get your entertainment fix. And streaming services take the fun out of films. The anticipation, the hype; going to the see the big movie that everyone was waiting for made it in event, not only in circumstance, but in your mind. A theater experience, good or bad, is going to resonate much more with you than randomly throwing something on in the background as you multitask at home. There's nothing special about that experience. The pandemic was the final nail in the coffin. It was already trending that way, but the pandemic showed the world they didn't need movie theaters anymore. They threw everything on streaming services, so that's where audiences expect to see it now. Why pay for tickets when you can just wait six weeks and watch a new movie at home, for the service you're already paying for? No theater, no 'event' atmosphere, less interest in the industry. Though it should be mentioned, look no further than Barbenheimer for proof that audiences are still willing to go to the theater, as long as it feels like an event. There's a formula every executive wishes they could replicate. |
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on Apr 24, 2024 16:45:16 GMT
One of the problems with movies is, that they don't provide the sort of interactive experience people are longing for today.
You are forced to sit still for 2-3 hours and passively endure a story, which today's hyperactive audiences often seem incapable of.
In video games you are allowed to make decisions, you are the star, everything evolves around you (or the character you inhabit).
In movies you are a slave to the pacing, which is why a slow movie can feel so awfully long. On home video or streaming you can pause the film or fast forward, but today's viewers are far more likely to give up on a more complicated film, since there's some much competiton from other media.
Even as someone who didn't grow up as a digital native I often find myself reaching for my phone, once a movie starts to bore me, just to check on the internet what other people thought of it.
Even books are more interactive, since you are allowed to set your own pace at which you experience the story. It's far easier to flip back an re-read a certain passage, plus every reader creates the story in their own minds, using their own imagination. You can also consume a book in small snippets, reading a chapter or a couple of pages each day, but the best way to experience a movie would be in one-sitting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 24, 2024 16:50:44 GMT
But I think audiences are less enamored with 'movie stars' and movies in general due to sheer oversaturation. And streaming services take the fun out of films. I think this is part of it-even an iphone takes some of the fun out of film because anyone can assemble their own film on a phone...it takes away the mystery and uniqueness of it.
Tv also took some of the excitement out of film too because it allowed people to see movie stars outside of a cinema as well. In commercials etc.
In 1980 Orson Welles said there were no movies stars anymore--that it wasn't as exciting to see a movie star as it was in the 1940s because the mystery and exposure was different. When he was a child, opera stars were a big deal. No one cares about opera now. He did say it would be possible to create new move stars that generated excitement, but it would require special handling and marketing of them. I.e. they would have be limited in internet activity. And writers would need to be better.
The corporate philosophy is totally indifferent to movies as entertainment or art. The early movie moguls were also accused of that-they had a cynical interest in the medium-they came from shoe peddling etc- but they still had some artistic interest in it--because it wasn't something you could take for granted due to the experimental nature of the technology and risks of equipment failure and competition etc. They needed flesh and blood people for it. Plus, they hired people who did have a sincere interest in film--whether it was a star, producer, writer etc. The writers had to be good in order to make the stars look good.
Eventually that eroded because the technology--spfx etc became more exciting to explore in an experimental way until it petered out (around 2010--Avatar was the last movie to really push the envelope in spfx technology but the story and stars didn't appeal much).
Around 2000, which was when there were big media mergers in film and tv-- you also had a writer's strike--and then after that it was the reality tv era.
These days you do have a lot more scripted shows on streaming services--far more than you had in television, but the fact is there is just no passion for it anymore. No one is enthusiastic about it. The big change is an absence of interesting ideas. And the corporations are so rich they just don't care.
In theory, with all the access to global film from any decade, and the easier access of film technology now, one would think that there might be a renaissance in creative enthusiasm but as a business it is difficult because either social media is too controlled or it is too fragmented for things to really catch on and create a sincere buzz.
There should be potential for cult film development --but the thing is--where are the Gods Must Be Crazy, My Big Fat Greek Wedding or Billy Jack or Blair Witch Project of today? How would that exist in today's climate--and those aren't the best examples because they were favorable to media political standards of their time--they were marketed for some kind of novelty rather than on their story alone. It's not like "did you hear about the movie set in a ski lift where they had to diffuse a bomb before they got to the top of the resort?" Or "I watched this really good story about a guy who starts a glass blowing business in Idaho. The lead actor was really interesting."
Perhaps the nature of social media and information sharing makes that situation impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 24, 2024 16:59:09 GMT
One of the problems with movies is, that they don't provide the sort of interactive experience people are longing for today. You are forced to sit still for 2-3 hours and passively endure a story, which today's hyperactive audiences often seem incapable of. Maybe but if you have a group of people in a room--there is a pack mentality at work too. If they all were raised on MST3K then they may start talking over the actors in a live performance too--but I think that has more to do with whether the work is fully engaging their attention.
It's weird in that they have far more sci-fi stuff today as mainstream than there was 60 years ago--and yet one is encouraged not to suspend disbelief. The litmus test is whether a hyperactive audience of today can watch a Dirty Harry or Robocop or some other movie where actor and story are the most important--but--at the same time, why does a movie need to appeal to everyone?
There are people rediscovering 1970s Eurocrime films, they aren't for everyone but they have a loyal audience--I think the idea that most people should be watching the same thing is part of the problem. That was the blockbuster mentality--one size fits all.
Lots of people may like action adventure but not want superheroes. They may want a non-superpowered person in that type of story--and they aren't getting it because the studios were fixated on superheroes as they downsized their content.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Apr 24, 2024 17:03:51 GMT
No, there's just too much shit happening in the movies to BE an escape. People don't go to the movies to be lectured and told everything wrong in the world is their fault because they're too white and toxic and we need more lame gay chicks in everything to fix it. And stuff from 20-30 years ago will reign supreme because everything wasn't 'let's put the most annoying POS people and kids in it we can find to make it real life! Make every kid lead a brat you want to strangle because they're just a whiny self righteous little bitch.'
So, you don't like lesbians?
Vincent Price once said a lot of modern actresses were like his niece, he likes his niece, but he wouldn't pay to see her in a movie. Likewise the issue is can a lame gay chick FIX a so called 'toxic' character by merely replacing the man? Is that alone going to save a film franchise? Survey says...HELL NO.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Apr 24, 2024 17:07:53 GMT
One of the problems with movies is, that they don't provide the sort of interactive experience people are longing for today. You are forced to sit still for 2-3 hours and passively endure a story, which today's hyperactive audiences often seem incapable of. Maybe but if you have a group of people in a room--there is a pack mentality at work too. If they all were raised on MST3K then they may start talking over the actors in a live performance too--but I think that has more to do with whether the work is fully engaging their attention.
It's weird in that they have far more sci-fi stuff today as mainstream than there was 60 years ago--and yet one is encouraged not to suspend disbelief. The litmus test is whether a hyperactive audience of today can watch a Dirty Harry or Robocop or some other movie where actor and story are the most important--but--at the same time, why does a movie need to appeal to everyone?
There are people rediscovering 1970s Eurocrime films, they aren't for everyone but they have a loyal audience--I think the idea that most people should be watching the same thing is part of the problem. That was the blockbuster mentality--one size fits all.
Lots of people may like action adventure but not want superheroes. They may want a non-superpowered person in that type of story--and they aren't getting it because the studios were fixated on superheroes as they downsized their content.
That's why Batman was always my favorite, no powers, no interplanetary origin, just an everyday man who used his body, his mind, his fortune and the tools available to do what was impossible for the whole police force.
Also why Power Rangers was such a big hit, they didn't have powers, their zords did. THEIR only real powers were their athletic abilities, their bravery, heart, strength, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Apr 24, 2024 19:09:57 GMT
It's been over... I see that my friends/family (and online acquaintances) don't even watch movies anymore. Some attribute it to lack of focus in post-screen world, but I have noticed if you recommend something great, their attention span improves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Apr 24, 2024 19:46:54 GMT
So, you don't like lesbians?
Vincent Price once said a lot of modern actresses were like his niece, he likes his niece, but he wouldn't pay to see her in a movie. Likewise the issue is can a lame gay chick FIX a so called 'toxic' character by merely replacing the man? Is that alone going to save a film franchise? Survey says...HELL NO.
So, it's not that you don't like lesbians, but rather you don't like lesbians in movies if you think they replaced a man? If we're being honest, I don't think the comment about the movie business being over has anything to do with the quality of the movies. Take the front page of this board for example. There's a thread about the debut of Rebel Moon part II on Netflix. That's the core as I see it. Movies, even big ones by big name directors and with big budget effects don't require dressing up and going out anymore. People are getting the goods from elsewhere. Movies don't feel like events anymore. It affects shows too. I don't have Amazon Prime, or at least I didn't until literally this past weekend. I thought Jason Sudeikis fell off the face of the Earth. Turns out he was on a show called Ted Lasso, but without Amazon Prime, I'd no idea he was up to anything. Too many streaming services and apps make it so the world doesn't watch films or even shows at the same time anymore. A chunk of movies and shows from the past few years aren't in the public arena where everyone knows about them at the same time. I could be wrong but I didn't even think Seinfeld's comments had anything to do with the content or quality of the films. The business models have changed. |
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Apr 24, 2024 19:51:13 GMT
It's been over... I see that my friends/family (and online acquaintances) don't even watch movies anymore. Some attribute it to lack of focus in post-screen world, but I have noticed if you recommend something great, their attention span improves.
Even pre-pandemic there would be 2-3 years at a time I didn't even go to the theater, if anything good came out, our theater didn't get it, and the rest didn't look worth the price of admission.
People can blame whatever they want, but when George Lucas re-released the original trilogy Star Wars in theaters in the late 90s, how many people attended? Mark Hamill thought it was a dumb idea and even asked his kids 'haven't you guys seen those movies a hundred times already?' And in the 90s, you could go into any video store and rent them for about $1, so the rental business should've killed the prospect of a theatrical re-release, but it didn't. Why? Because they're timeless movies and people wanted to see them on the big screen, with the surround stereo sound, even if they had watched the same films a hundred times already, nothing could beat that theater experience.
Now it seems when the movie franchise in general started hurting was when movie RENTALS started going in the toilet. Like I said, the day our video store got rid of the VHS collection was more painful than when they finally went out of business, because in the former they already removed 90% of their best inventory, the DVD collections at that time were not so hot. You get rid of Nightmare on Elm Street 1-Wes Craven's New Nightmare, and all you have left is Freddy vs. Jason, big surprise that didn't keep the money coming in.
And sorry, streaming may have killed the rental business, but it was and is a stupid idea, and a pale facsimile thereof to replace the rental trend. There was no experience like walking into the video store and browsing all the rows, all the genres, finding favorites, finding 'new' titles, finding obscure titles, so many great stories, so many possibilities, so hard to pick only the limited number of tapes allowed per week. I remember as a kid being gobsmacked our little store had episodes of Muppet Babies on tape in the family section, I didn't even know that was a thing, it was either on TV, or if you were lucky you recorded one, but actual tapes? Couldn't believe it.
The only thing today that can compete with video stores, is YouTube. They both have their ups and downs, by and large YouTube is free, usually with ads, some videos are doctored so copyright doesn't strike them down, by and large most available movies are older, but damn you sure never run out of 'new' titles to check out.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Apr 24, 2024 19:56:25 GMT
Vincent Price once said a lot of modern actresses were like his niece, he likes his niece, but he wouldn't pay to see her in a movie. Likewise the issue is can a lame gay chick FIX a so called 'toxic' character by merely replacing the man? Is that alone going to save a film franchise? Survey says...HELL NO.
So, it's not that you don't like lesbians, but rather you don't like lesbians in movies if you think they replaced a man? If we're being honest, I don't think the comment about the movie business being over has anything to do with the quality of the movies. Take the front page of this board for example. There's a thread about the debut of Rebel Moon part II on Netflix. That's the core as I see it. Movies, even big ones by big name directors and with big budget effects don't require dressing up and going out anymore. People are getting the goods from elsewhere. Movies don't feel like events anymore. It affects shows too. I don't have Amazon Prime, or at least I didn't until literally this past weekend. I thought Jason Sudeikis fell off the face of the Earth. Turns out he was on a show called Ted Lasso, but without Amazon Prime, I'd no idea he was up to anything. Too many streaming services and apps make it so the world doesn't watch films or even shows at the same time anymore. A chunk of movies and shows from the past few years aren't in the public arena where everyone knows about them at the same time. I could be wrong but I didn't even think Seinfeld's comments had anything to do with the content or quality of the films. The business models have changed.
If you *have* Netflix, which many do, many also don't, many had to cut it because they couldn't afford it, we've never had it, won't pay for it, so for us going to the theater is still largely the only way to see something new. But I have to be fairly convinced it's going to be worth my time to spend the money, and that's a hard trick these days. So 2 moron cops being stupid, big surprise I didn't bother with the Jump Street movies. Unpopular opinion, I liked Fantasy Island, wasn't drawn to it by what the ads DID show, but there's 5-6 people on this island and we only see 2 of them get their wishes and how they go wrong, I wanted to know what happened with the other people, so I went. And being the last movie I saw in-theater pre-pandemic, it'll always hold a special place for me.
|
|
