Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Today's hollywood motion pictures are a bad joke


NipkowDisc
 Share

Recommended Posts

unless of course you are 15 years old or younger. bad superhero movies, silly boy-girl interpersonal relationship movies and bad dramas fluctuating between government conspiracies and rogue intelligence agents and or assassins and bad cgi eye-fests masquerading as historical epics and through it all tcm happily go luckily ignores the current incomprehensible mess hollywood has become instead preferring to concentrate on the great films of past decades before hollywood lost it. the horror genre has devolved into gory ultra-violent cgi-fests of vampires and zombies with none of it making any sense at all belonging more to the devolving of comic book artwork throughout the 80, 90s and 2000s. that is how I see it.

hollywood cannot go back anymore than human society itself can go back...but this current garbage is just plain ridiculous.

judging by today's films you are not likely to see any new William Wylers or George Stevens, John Sturges or Robert Aldriches. it's like what a dying bedridden big mac once said to his friend Roy Earle in High Sierra...

 

"You know, Roy, all the A-1 guys are gone."

 

:)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unless of course you are 15 years old or younger. bad superhero movies, silly boy-girl interpersonal relationship movies and bad dramas fluctuating between government conspiracies and rogue intelligence agents and or assassins and bad cgi eye-fests masquerading as historical epics and through it all tcm happily go luckily ignores the current incomprehensible mess hollywood has become instead preferring to concentrate on the great films of past decades before hollywood lost it. the horror genre has devolved into gory ultra-violent cgi-fests of vampires and zombies with none of it making any sense at all belonging more to the devolving of comic book artwork throughout the 80, 90s and 2000s. that is how I see it.

hollywood cannot go back anymore than human society itself can go back...but this current garbage is just plain ridiculous.

judging by today's films you are not likely to see any new William Wylers or George Stevens, John Sturges or Robert Aldriches. it's like what a dying bedridden big mac once said to his friend Roy Earle in High Sierra...

 

"You know, Roy, all the A-1 guys are gone."

 

:)

seriously, just who the blank over the age of 25 do they expect to watch guardians of the galaxy? todays hollywood people seem to think that human civilization didn't begin until around 1980. :(

pitiful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a hot tip:  Read the reviews in Friday's NY Times (there are well over a dozen every week), eliminate the ones you don't like, and wait for the survivors to open outside of Manhattan and Los Angeles.  And if they never make it to your city (which they probably won't), wait till they get to Netflix.

 

There are plenty of good movies still being produced.  It's just that they usually get drowned out by the sort of crap that you're rightly complaining about, and after a while you give up looking.   But  you shouldn't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

seriously, just who the blank over the age of 25 do they expect to watch guardians of the galaxy? todays hollywood people seem to think that human civilization didn't begin until around 1980. :(

pitiful.

 

You should watch foreign films.   Lots of high quality films made for adult viewers.      BUT something tells me you're going to reject this idea.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should watch foreign films.   Lots of high quality films made for adult viewers.      BUT something tells me you're going to reject this idea.  

I guess my problem with todays hollywood slop is the subject matter. it's either vampires, zombies or imbecilic 20-something sex shenanigans. just because todays younger demographics haven't yet learned to take life seriously doesn't mean hollywood should follow suit by catering to such emotional and moral immaturity. hollywood's catering to the lowest common denominator is not the way to go\ and hollywood's laudible past certainly wasn't built on such thinking.

and the problem is not just subject matter. todays hollywood films are poorly conceived and even more poorly executed because, for one thing, todays young crop of "filmmakers" lack any semblance of moral or sexual propriety. todays reining attitude seems to be if any self-styled **** or schmuckette can get something on video, it's art.

yeah, sure it is. maybe they should hand the dvr to some finger-painting chimps. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my problem with todays hollywood slop is the subject matter. it's either vampires, zombies or imbecilic 20-something sex shenanigans. just because todays younger demographics haven't yet learned to take life seriously doesn't mean hollywood should follow suit by catering to such emotional and moral immaturity. hollywood's catering to the lowest common denominator is not the way to go.

 

As Andy noted Hollywood is still producing high quality movies;  one just has to look for them. 

 

Regadless making movies is a business.   Like any business producers are going to fund moive projects they believe have the best chance of making money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a hot tip:  Read the reviews in Friday's NY Times (there are well over a dozen every week), eliminate the ones you don't like, and wait for the survivors to open outside of Manhattan and Los Angeles.  And if they never make it to your city (which they probably won't), wait till they get to Netflix.

 

There are plenty of good movies still being produced.  It's just that they usually get drowned out by the sort of crap that you're rightly complaining about, and after a while you give up looking.   But  you shouldn't.

 

I believe Andy is right on with his dicussion of movies discussed in the NY Times...I also read the reviews in the WSJ, the New Yorker and from the Guardian in the UK which gives me a broad perspective.  Living here in the middle of America sometimes you do have drive aways to see movies other than what is geared for the younger generation but it is possible to overcome the movieplex.  This is particularly so if you live in or near a university town like I do...the population is more geared to the less "movie plex" types. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Andy is right on with his dicussion of movies discussed in the NY Times...I also read the reviews in the WSJ, the New Yorker and from the Guardian in the UK which gives me a broad perspective.  Living here in the middle of America sometimes you do have drive aways to see movies other than what is geared for the younger generation but it is possible to overcome the movieplex.  This is particularly so if you live in or near a university town like I do...the population is more geared to the less "movie plex" types. 

 

Back in the 70's, I used to show bootleg movies in Big 10 and SEC universities from Bloomington and Minneapolis to Athens and Baton Rouge.  And long before Netflix or even VHS rentals, the Bijou Theatre at the University of Iowa presented a year long repertory of "classic" films that rivaled anything I could find at the AFI or the Film Forum or UC-Berkeley.  Many nights there'd be as many as 3 or 4 different films showing in four different auditoriums or classroom buildings.  It was a cornucopia of cinematic riches that even today would be hard to find in any city outside of New York or LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seriously, just who the blank over the age of 25 do they expect to watch guardians of the galaxy? todays hollywood people seem to think that human civilization didn't begin until around 1980. :(

pitiful.

Guardians of the Galaxy was actually a really good movie.  I've seen it twice now.  I'm 30 (sorry I was born after 1980; but I can't help when I was born).  The movie had great music, a good storyline, entertaining characters and was just a fun film.  Not every movie has to be some serious film that will make an audience contemplate the meaning of life or their own existence.  Sometimes it's nice to just spend part of the evening seeing a fun movie that provides some escapism from the everyday. 

 

Alot of Marvel's more recent comic book movies: The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, Iron Man, Captain America, Thor) have all been really good.  It's not merely just comic book panels re-enacted on screen.  There are good casts, good storylines, usually are pretty funny and just overall fun films.  Just because the source material is a comic book, it doesn't mean that it only caters to the lowest denominator.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first sure sign that  a person is getting old is they complain about todays (music, movies, styles, anything... pick one) and proclaim that  "in their day, things were so much better"

 

Superhero movies were never better. The effects are great and they pull in hundreds of millions and show no signs of slowing down. I enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy myself.  Complaining  serves no purpose.

 

And when a drama does get released, those over 50 don't go to the theater to support it. If you know anything about the film industry, if something bombs (like that dumb elvis movie lol ) it doesn't get done again.

 

For example: That James Brown bio pic "Get on up !" I thought was well done. Yet, if I look at my own family, for the ten who would love to see it, only three of us went to go see it. The rest will wait until it hits cable. You can't make successful films that even the people who like it won't support.

 

And if you're old enough,you remember the early 1970's when tv was superior to the movies. Its no accident that many of these new tv channels are catering to the older demographic and showing programs from that era. Well, its a cycle and we are here again. T.V is superior to movies when it comes to dramas. There's good stuff on tv if you look for it.

 

It shouldn't matter where you enjoy your entertainment as long as its there for you to enjoy. New media are popping up everyday. I watch TCM films on my cell more than on the t.v. If you don't like something, find something you do like.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guardians of the Galaxy was actually a really good movie.  I've seen it twice now.  I'm 30 (sorry I was born after 1980; but I can't help when I was born).  The movie had great music, a good storyline, entertaining characters and was just a fun film.  Not every movie has to be some serious film that will make an audience contemplate the meaning of life or their own existence.  Sometimes it's nice to just spend part of the evening seeing a fun movie that provides some escapism from the everyday. 

 

Alot of Marvel's more recent comic book movies: The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, Iron Man, Captain America, Thor) have all been really good.  It's not merely just comic book panels re-enacted on screen.  There are good casts, good storylines, usually are pretty funny and just overall fun films.  Just because the source material is a comic book, it doesn't mean that it only caters to the lowest denominator.

I am an aging space cadet who read hundreds of marvel and DC comic books in the early 1970s and what marvel is putting on the screen today is a far cry from their comic books of those days. back then comic book artwork actually looked like something instead today you have a surrealistic type of artwork obviously the product of lazy no-talent "artists". :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am an aging space cadet who read hundreds of marvel and DC comic books in the early 1970s and what marvel is putting on the screen today is a far cry from their comic books of those days. back then comic book artwork actually looked like something instead today you have a surrealistic type of artwork obviously the product of lazy no-talent "artists". :angry:

 

To me you couldn't be more wrong.   These 'new' artists are NOT lazy and have no-talent;  Instead the style just changed and what they are producing is what non aging space cadets desire.  

 

Just because someone creates something that you don't like doesn't mean they are lazy and have no talent.  

 

For example,  I mostly listen to jazz from the 50s.   This is the style that I love.   But there are many musicians today with a lot of ability and talent.   I just don't enjoy the music they are creating. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and I don't enjoy the artwork they're creating.  It's like comparing the original star trek series to Glen Larson's Buck Rogers in the 25th century. :lol:

 

Yes,  I know that since it was obvious.   But what isn't obvious and in fact is untrue, is that the work you don't like is the product of lazy no-talent "artists".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,  I know that since it was obvious.   But what isn't obvious and in fact is untrue, is that the work you don't like is the product of lazy no-talent "artists".

 

It's more the fault of no-taste artists. Taste is one of the most underrated necessities of a good artist, probably because it is so hard to define, and you can't scientifically point out why something is tasteless (though sometimes it seems like you could.) I have a very long and exhausting spiel about the downfall of taste in society, but taste is such a personal matter that no one would agree with me except my brother.

 

I hope it is true to say that things seem much worse than they are, given that the worst of the worst is that which has the most advertising dollars, so that's what we hear the most about. I know there are still good and great artists out there, but they are not useful for money-making reasons. It's the tried-and-true that has brought us here, ultimately. (according to me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more the fault of no-taste artists. Taste is one of the most underrated necessities of a good artist, probably because it is so hard to define, and you can't scientifically point out why something is tasteless (though sometimes it seems like you could.) I have a very long and exhausting spiel about the downfall of taste in society, but taste is such a personal matter that no one would agree with me except my brother.

 

I hope it is true to say that things seem much worse than they are, given that the worst of the worst is that which has the most advertising dollars, so that's what we hear the most about. I know there are still good and great artists out there, but they are not useful for money-making reasons. It's the tried-and-true that has brought us here, ultimately. (according to me)

 

I tend to agree about a lack of taste.   I used style instead but I think we are saying about the same thing.

 

But even one with no taste can have a lot of talent and ability.   For example,  I was playing music with some young dudes that were the children of one of my friends.   First they played 'their music'.  I hated their music.    

 

Next I played a jazz song and they said  'oh,  I learned about that at music school,  why don't we play together'.   So I got some lead sheets for a few jazz standards and we played a few songs.  They could play well.      Man,  I wanted to ask them 'hey if you learned about that type of music,  why do you play that crap you play'.   But of course that wouldn't have been nice!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: James,

 

Hah, I can sympathize. Too bad that, in some cases, there's no way to be completely honest as well as polite, as the truth often sounds so rude. But it seems ruder to feign interest, while in reality you've dismissed their taste, instead of trying to stay on the same page by saying what you think. But, yeah, usually the thoughts take the form of "that crap that you play," haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The major studios only seem interested in creating event movies and as this summer poor box office indicated maybe the audience is tired of these over blown fx heavy epics. 

I love fx just so long as there can be drama, story and substance behind it. I think the rise of fx has been contemporaneous with the decline of drama, story and substance. todays young hollywood filmmakers simply do not know how because they have never known how. :) Not gonna get those skills from captain planet, teenage ninja mutant turtles or g.i. joe. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm usually the last person to defend any modern movies, but depending on your taste, you can find decent offerings.

 

Anything from Philip Seymour Hoffman (more's the pity that he is gone) was good, as are most foreign films.

 

Obviously, CGI movies are made to appeal to the lowest common denominator, as are those with 'stars', such as the no-talent Cruise and Carrey.

 

If you look, you will find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen any movie advertised that piques my interest.  I think they ran out of so-called "children's classic" books that nobody's ever read to make movies out of and moved on over to the comic book section.   Puh-LEEZ don't call them "Graphic Novels".  At any rate, a good story is a good story regardless the source.  Just depends on how it's adaptation is handled.  But as I said, I've not seen anything that catches my interest this year.    

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and I don't enjoy the artwork they're creating.  It's like comparing the original star trek series to Glen Larson's Buck Rogers in the 25th century. :lol:

 

Hey, Buck was a good, campy show, especially the first season with Tim O'Conner as Dr. Huer and Colonel Wilma Deering played by the very sexy Erin Gray. I agree no comparison to the original Star Trek, but hey it was the late 70's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1980's Buck Rogers was pretty good- specially the first season- and the movie has the gorgeous  Pamela Hemsley as Princes Aradala

The first season most certainly had higher production values and pamela hensley as princess ardala. they handed the 2nd year over to John Mantley who shoulda stuck to westerns. Mantley then proceeded to try and morph the show into star trek with laughable results. fat jay garner as admiral asimov or is it assimov :D and an aging wilfred hyde-white and his stupid aluminum robot creighton.

During the time of the first season I read a letter in the pages of Starlog that really made me chuckle. this guy thought they should rename the show "25th century fever". :lol: which I kinda think says it all. nobody loves plastic hoses with alternating lights inside them more than Glen Larson does. :)

 

15d2deg.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...