3 ms·

The problem with "better movies" is it's totally subjective-film is art. For instance, I'd argue that the current quality of cinema has never been better. It's

The problem with "better movies" is it's totally subjective-film is art. For instance, I'd argue that the current quality of cinema has never been better. It's a mature medium with several mature distribution channels and the barriers to entry have never been lower. Some of the indie films that get produced these days are incredible. And the spectacle offered by blockbusters is truly breathtaking. Sure, there's a lot of bad movies released on both ends of the budget spectrum, but that has always been true. The theater experience on the other hand, is getting less and less appealing as home audio/video tech continues to improve at a furious pace.

exabrial 9y ago
Agree, it's always subjective; I didn't mean to imply that art is in any form deterministic. The items I criticized are things a general audience groans about movies both indie and blockbusters. I can think of a few recent examples that were good and bad. For instance, the plot in "Valerian" was fairly well done because there was a tension between the two main characters that we wanted to see resolved, despite the plot jumping around a bit from scene to scene. The plot in "Atomic Blonde" also jumped around, but there was no cohesion overall and the sex and violence scenes that followed were a yawn-inducing attempt to keep the viewer interested. I shut it off without finishing it and I haven't wondered how the movie ended. I love spy movies, and was hoping for another well-baked plot like "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit". To your last point, none of those movies I watched in a theater, I waited until they were released to my online video service and I could watch from the comfort of my couch. Thinking a bit more, I had low hopes for "Valerian" and "Jack Ryan", and high hopes for "Atomic Blonde", even though those turned out to be the opposite in reality. To my original point, I think that what killed the theater experience for me. I'm afraid to go spend $15 on a movie that _might_ suck. I'd rather spend half that and be able to leave if it's terrible.

exabrial 9y ago

Agree, it's always subjective; I didn't mean to imply that art is in any form deterministic. The items I criticized are things a general audience groans about movies both indie and blockbusters. I can think of a few recent examples that were good and bad. For instance, the plot in "Valerian" was fairly well done because there was a tension between the two main characters that we wanted to see resolved, despite the plot jumping around a bit from scene to scene. The plot in "Atomic Blonde" also jumped around, but there was no cohesion overall and the sex and violence scenes that followed were a yawn-inducing attempt to keep the viewer interested. I shut it off without finishing it and I haven't wondered how the movie ended. I love spy movies, and was hoping for another well-baked plot like "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit". To your last point, none of those movies I watched in a theater, I waited until they were released to my online video service and I could watch from the comfort of my couch. Thinking a bit more, I had low hopes for "Valerian" and "Jack Ryan", and high hopes for "Atomic Blonde", even though those turned out to be the opposite in reality. To my original point, I think that what killed the theater experience for me. I'm afraid to go spend $15 on a movie that _might_ suck. I'd rather spend half that and be able to leave if it's terrible.