6 ms·

It sounds like you've been going to the wrong movies, at least for your tastes. You seem to be exclusively seeing blockbusters. Maybe you'd prefer smaller, less

It sounds like you've been going to the wrong movies, at least for your tastes. You seem to be exclusively seeing blockbusters. Maybe you'd prefer smaller, less action-focused films.

ericd 9y ago
Eh, I love a good action movie, but it's hard to get into movies that you can't believe. I watched a very low rated one from the 80s the other day (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blood_of_heroes/ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blood_of_heroes/), and while it had very little plot, and the production value was incredibly low compared to recent movies, and just generally wasn't a very good movie, I enjoyed it more than the vast majority of very expensive recent blockbusters, because it felt real. They had real actors and real stunts. They moved like real people. And in that world, a 50 foot fall could kill them, rather than just cause them to touch a knee, so there was something at stake. In a movie full of invincible people, who cares what happens? They'll be fine regardless. I wish hollywood would get to making movies about real people.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Those are called dramas.
  - ericd 9y ago
    Does it have to be mutually exclusive?
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Only on the labels of Hollywood cookie cutters.
- philwelch 9y ago
  Have you seen the John Wick movies?
  - ericd 9y ago
    I have. Definitely better than the superhero flicks that plague theaters, but he's still got that invulnerable mechanical efficiency that gets a bit old after he's plowed through the 50th person in a 10 minute shootout. I'm talking more like Die Hard, Alien, Air Force One, or even First Blood, where the main character is a mostly regular person with some combat training, is in a situation where they're believably screwed, and has to rely on their wits to survive the odds stacked against them, not just their incredible reflexes.
    - hacking_again 9y ago
      > in a situation where they're believably screwed There's a lot of action-packed neo-noir that you might like: http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2014/the-20-best-neo-noir-films-of-the-2000s/ http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2014/the-20-best-neo-noir-films...
      - ericd 9y ago
        Awesome list (the ones I know), I'll have to check out the rest. Thanks!
    - philwelch 9y ago
      One thing John Wick gets right though, is that they took their time with the choreography and training rather than using shaky cam and jump cuts to cover the fact that the actors have no idea what they’re doing. Keanu Reeves spent a lot of time learning how to handle firearms and it shows.
      - ericd 9y ago
        Very good point, and it's way easier to follow because of it.
        hansthehorse 9y ago
        My only complaint is that I would prefer they figure out some way to simulate firearm recoil. As a hobby / target shooter it always takes away from the action when I see guns rock steady every shot. If guns were like that everyone would be John Wick.
- hkmurakami 9y ago
  Time to watch Jack Reacher.
  - ericd 9y ago
    Seem to remember that being good, though I don't remember the specifics, I should rewatch.
    - hkmurakami 9y ago
      2 hours of Tom Cruise being badass. Fun raw action movie.
- yahna 9y ago
  > I wish hollywood would get to making movies about real people. Then watch movies about real people. Others (a much higher percentage of the population) will continue to enjoy movies that are about thigns that can't happen in real life.
horusthecat 9y ago
The thing I find crazy is that in 2017 $20M movies with B-list names are getting picked up as "independent". Ridley Scott's name shows up on IFC movies now; It Follows had an excellent ROI compared to most "blockbuster"; Get Out was a sold-out hit with audiences and critics... but it's all just a blip compared to the latest Transformers or DC or Marvel franchise shit-show. A few millenia from now archaelogists and historians will be pontificating about Hollywood the way we do about the Pyramids.
- robterrell 9y ago
  Get Out: 252.4 million USD. Not a blip. Break $100M and they're paying attention.
JKCalhoun 9y ago
My filter: avoid all super hero movies.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  Me too. I skip all the comic book movies.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    It's like someone said "lets make all those comics teenage nerds used to love into movies for adults -- while not only keeping everything as simplistic but making it even more simplistic and shallow". I was reading all the Marvel stuff when I was a kid/young teenager (5-6 comic magazines every week) but I never understood the point behind modern superhero movies. Those comics were shallow and childlish as well, but, depending on the writer, sometimes touched things beyond that, and at the very least, they explorer some subjects that mattered to their audience: young teenagers. Today's superheroes movies are watched by 20 to 40 year olds as well, and they don't put any effort to matter at all. Even Nolan's Batman is at a young teenage level understanding of the world, it just has better cinematography and more than the average comic-movie gore (because it's allowed to show that to kids nowadays) but no real life grit (because that's considered too confusing and adult) and no sexuality either (ditto). The plots and the "moral dilemmas" in the movies are laughable ( https://xkcd.com/1004/ https://xkcd.com/1004/ ). Maybe Logan points to a future where such movies can be actually good, but it's not exactly there yet either.
jknoepfler 9y ago
good point! And you're right, I do have those preferences. I guess I wasn't lamenting my own situation (I personally feel blessed to have as much art available to me as I do). I was trying to make a pretty awkward point, which was that even though I understand my conscious preferences aren't shared by most audience members, I think a failure to "satisfice" on some features of artistic quality might be reducing the value of the product for everyone, and hence the profitability of blockbuster movie studios. It's a hypothesis, anyway. edit: re-reading I see that I used "movie-going" to mean "going to the Regal Cinema 17 with extended family and seeing a Hollywood movie," which makes it sound like I'm throwing going to movies period under the bus.

It sounds like you've been going to the wrong movies, at least for your tastes. You seem to be exclusively seeing blockbusters. Maybe you'd prefer smaller, less action-focused films.

ericd 9y ago

Eh, I love a good action movie, but it's hard to get into movies that you can't believe. I watched a very low rated one from the 80s the other day (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blood_of_heroes/ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blood_of_heroes/), and while it had very little plot, and the production value was incredibly low compared to recent movies, and just generally wasn't a very good movie, I enjoyed it more than the vast majority of very expensive recent blockbusters, because it felt real. They had real actors and real stunts. They moved like real people. And in that world, a 50 foot fall could kill them, rather than just cause them to touch a knee, so there was something at stake. In a movie full of invincible people, who cares what happens? They'll be fine regardless. I wish hollywood would get to making movies about real people.

anigbrowl 9y ago
Those are called dramas.
- ericd 9y ago
  Does it have to be mutually exclusive?
- coldtea 9y ago
  Only on the labels of Hollywood cookie cutters.
philwelch 9y ago
Have you seen the John Wick movies?
- ericd 9y ago
  I have. Definitely better than the superhero flicks that plague theaters, but he's still got that invulnerable mechanical efficiency that gets a bit old after he's plowed through the 50th person in a 10 minute shootout. I'm talking more like Die Hard, Alien, Air Force One, or even First Blood, where the main character is a mostly regular person with some combat training, is in a situation where they're believably screwed, and has to rely on their wits to survive the odds stacked against them, not just their incredible reflexes.
  - hacking_again 9y ago
    > in a situation where they're believably screwed There's a lot of action-packed neo-noir that you might like: http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2014/the-20-best-neo-noir-films-of-the-2000s/ http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2014/the-20-best-neo-noir-films...
    - ericd 9y ago
      Awesome list (the ones I know), I'll have to check out the rest. Thanks!
  - philwelch 9y ago
    One thing John Wick gets right though, is that they took their time with the choreography and training rather than using shaky cam and jump cuts to cover the fact that the actors have no idea what they’re doing. Keanu Reeves spent a lot of time learning how to handle firearms and it shows.
    - ericd 9y ago
      Very good point, and it's way easier to follow because of it.
      - hansthehorse 9y ago
        My only complaint is that I would prefer they figure out some way to simulate firearm recoil. As a hobby / target shooter it always takes away from the action when I see guns rock steady every shot. If guns were like that everyone would be John Wick.
hkmurakami 9y ago
Time to watch Jack Reacher.
- ericd 9y ago
  Seem to remember that being good, though I don't remember the specifics, I should rewatch.
  - hkmurakami 9y ago
    2 hours of Tom Cruise being badass. Fun raw action movie.
yahna 9y ago
> I wish hollywood would get to making movies about real people. Then watch movies about real people. Others (a much higher percentage of the population) will continue to enjoy movies that are about thigns that can't happen in real life.

horusthecat 9y ago

The thing I find crazy is that in 2017 $20M movies with B-list names are getting picked up as "independent". Ridley Scott's name shows up on IFC movies now; It Follows had an excellent ROI compared to most "blockbuster"; Get Out was a sold-out hit with audiences and critics... but it's all just a blip compared to the latest Transformers or DC or Marvel franchise shit-show. A few millenia from now archaelogists and historians will be pontificating about Hollywood the way we do about the Pyramids.

robterrell 9y ago
Get Out: 252.4 million USD. Not a blip. Break $100M and they're paying attention.

JKCalhoun 9y ago

My filter: avoid all super hero movies.

WalterBright 9y ago
Me too. I skip all the comic book movies.
- coldtea 9y ago
  It's like someone said "lets make all those comics teenage nerds used to love into movies for adults -- while not only keeping everything as simplistic but making it even more simplistic and shallow". I was reading all the Marvel stuff when I was a kid/young teenager (5-6 comic magazines every week) but I never understood the point behind modern superhero movies. Those comics were shallow and childlish as well, but, depending on the writer, sometimes touched things beyond that, and at the very least, they explorer some subjects that mattered to their audience: young teenagers. Today's superheroes movies are watched by 20 to 40 year olds as well, and they don't put any effort to matter at all. Even Nolan's Batman is at a young teenage level understanding of the world, it just has better cinematography and more than the average comic-movie gore (because it's allowed to show that to kids nowadays) but no real life grit (because that's considered too confusing and adult) and no sexuality either (ditto). The plots and the "moral dilemmas" in the movies are laughable ( https://xkcd.com/1004/ https://xkcd.com/1004/ ). Maybe Logan points to a future where such movies can be actually good, but it's not exactly there yet either.

jknoepfler 9y ago

good point! And you're right, I do have those preferences. I guess I wasn't lamenting my own situation (I personally feel blessed to have as much art available to me as I do). I was trying to make a pretty awkward point, which was that even though I understand my conscious preferences aren't shared by most audience members, I think a failure to "satisfice" on some features of artistic quality might be reducing the value of the product for everyone, and hence the profitability of blockbuster movie studios. It's a hypothesis, anyway. edit: re-reading I see that I used "movie-going" to mean "going to the Regal Cinema 17 with extended family and seeing a Hollywood movie," which makes it sound like I'm throwing going to movies period under the bus.