5 ms·

Personally I think that has more to do with what movie offerings there are today vs 20 years ago. I could absolutely care less about the latest comic book movie

Personally I think that has more to do with what movie offerings there are today vs 20 years ago. I could absolutely care less about the latest comic book movie but that seems to be where movie studios have put all their effort. On the other hand, TV series have never been better - we seem to be in some kind of golden age where you can find tons of high quality well acted series on every streaming service. There was a bit of a lull (for me) during Covid, but my backlog is completely full through the next year.

Syonyk 4y ago
The consolidation of movie studios (mostly into Disney lately...) hasn't been helping either. There used to be plenty of small studios that would do "weird" stuff - it wasn't going to be a huge commercial success, but it would probably make back the modest budget it had. There's always older films to watch. I'm at a point where I'd far rather put the time into something older, with solid actors, than watch the latest and greatest mostly-CG special effects laden [whatever]. That most of those movies are unwatchable unless you're "deep into the fandom" doesn't encourage me to invest in them either. And if it's not those, it's the "How can we prequel all the popular things," even when it makes no sense at all. To yell at a cloud briefly, Han Solo doesn't need a prequel. He's a standard drifter archetype, and to nail his past down doesn't do the character any service at all.
- mmmpop 4y ago
  > He's a standard drifter archetype, and to nail his past down doesn't do the character any service at all. old man makes great point
- boredtofears 4y ago
  > greatest mostly-CG special effects laden [whatever] There was some threshold that was crossed probably close to a decade ago for me where CG effects stopped being interesting in any way, but watching older movies with their incredible special effects and stuntmen really does look impressive to me. There is no CG in the world that compares to the immersion in Apocalypse Now, for example. I do think there are many ways to use CG to subtly support the impact of a scene driven by characters, but when the scene itself is driven by the CG (in ways that are unrealistic for actors or stuntmen to perform) it just feels like a lazy way to progress a storyline.
  - Syonyk 4y ago
    Mad Max Fury Road stands out for their general lack of CG - and it shows in the movie. The thing is filled with practical effects, and it just looks right as a result. They don't have to simulate the physics of someone swinging around attached to the end of a fiberglass pole when they... just attached someone to the end of a fiberglass pole. The dirtbike trajectories look right, because... they filmed dirtbikes jumping the convoy. The flamethrowing guitar on top of the truck filled with speakers is exactly that. Etc. Yes, there's some CG for the flame effects and such, but the bulk of it is just practical effects - and when you watch it, the movie stands out because of them. Everything they're doing can be done - as proven by the fact that they did it. Is it insane madness in the desert? Yes, but they filmed insane madness in the desert. I started getting annoyed at CG heavily around the Star Wars Prequel days - when you've got movies in which the plot serves the tech demo, not the other way around. That's not a style of storytelling I enjoy, and more and more it seems to be the style used.
    - TrevorJ 4y ago
      There are actually around 2,000 VFX shots in the film, but I think they really nailed the mix between practical and VFX in a way that makes the sum of the parts greater.
    - boredtofears 4y ago
      Well put. Mad Max Fury road was fantastic.
    - cgrealy 4y ago
      There's a great video on how to use CG correctly by Rocket Jump https://youtu.be/bL6hp8BKB24 https://youtu.be/bL6hp8BKB24
- sharkweek 4y ago
  I do think this is why anytime the A24 logo comes up before a trailer it piques my interest. (side note: the one they just released, Everything Everywhere All The Time, might be one of the best movies I've seen in the last decade)
OJFord 4y ago
You mean you absolutely could not care less. (And neither could I.) I agree though, fortunately I'm someone who doesn't mind rewatching old films I like, and also there are surely many greats I've yet to see. Television is not all hits, but there seem to be many more than in film, and then once you have one that's firstly and most simply more hours of entertainment; secondly it's a virtuous circle having more time for character and plot development etc.
bear8642 4y ago
> I could absolutely care less Feel petty mentioning this, but you mean you couldn't care less right? As in you care nothing about latest movie, right? Took me a moment to work out what you were saying, hence why pointing out, although aware small, potentially peevish position on my part
- p00f 4y ago
  Both "could care less" and "couldn't care less" mean the same thing
  - inetknght 4y ago
    Only if you've been around people who say it a lot and have the cultural context. The internet, and Hacker News, is not that place. There are plenty of people on here who will read "could" and "couldn't" as the actual words they are rather than the phrase they're a part of.
    - p00f 4y ago
      yes, that is why i explained that
  - MrVandemar 4y ago
    Don't you love English. The langauge where polar opposites "sucks" and "blows" can mean in the right context exactly the same thing.
  - abdulmuhaimin 4y ago
    Surely you're joking, right? I've never encountered those two phrases where they meant the same thing. Couldn't care less - absolute zero care. Nothing can disappoint me whatever happen. Could care less - some degree of care is present. Thing can actually get worse
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
hsbauauvhabzb 4y ago
Star Wars was revolutionary for its time, but if it didn’t exist until today I’m doubtful you’d ever hear people fist bumping on may 5th.

Syonyk 4y ago

The consolidation of movie studios (mostly into Disney lately...) hasn't been helping either. There used to be plenty of small studios that would do "weird" stuff - it wasn't going to be a huge commercial success, but it would probably make back the modest budget it had. There's always older films to watch. I'm at a point where I'd far rather put the time into something older, with solid actors, than watch the latest and greatest mostly-CG special effects laden [whatever]. That most of those movies are unwatchable unless you're "deep into the fandom" doesn't encourage me to invest in them either. And if it's not those, it's the "How can we prequel all the popular things," even when it makes no sense at all. To yell at a cloud briefly, Han Solo doesn't need a prequel. He's a standard drifter archetype, and to nail his past down doesn't do the character any service at all.

mmmpop 4y ago
> He's a standard drifter archetype, and to nail his past down doesn't do the character any service at all. old man makes great point
boredtofears 4y ago
> greatest mostly-CG special effects laden [whatever] There was some threshold that was crossed probably close to a decade ago for me where CG effects stopped being interesting in any way, but watching older movies with their incredible special effects and stuntmen really does look impressive to me. There is no CG in the world that compares to the immersion in Apocalypse Now, for example. I do think there are many ways to use CG to subtly support the impact of a scene driven by characters, but when the scene itself is driven by the CG (in ways that are unrealistic for actors or stuntmen to perform) it just feels like a lazy way to progress a storyline.
- Syonyk 4y ago
  Mad Max Fury Road stands out for their general lack of CG - and it shows in the movie. The thing is filled with practical effects, and it just looks right as a result. They don't have to simulate the physics of someone swinging around attached to the end of a fiberglass pole when they... just attached someone to the end of a fiberglass pole. The dirtbike trajectories look right, because... they filmed dirtbikes jumping the convoy. The flamethrowing guitar on top of the truck filled with speakers is exactly that. Etc. Yes, there's some CG for the flame effects and such, but the bulk of it is just practical effects - and when you watch it, the movie stands out because of them. Everything they're doing can be done - as proven by the fact that they did it. Is it insane madness in the desert? Yes, but they filmed insane madness in the desert. I started getting annoyed at CG heavily around the Star Wars Prequel days - when you've got movies in which the plot serves the tech demo, not the other way around. That's not a style of storytelling I enjoy, and more and more it seems to be the style used.
  - TrevorJ 4y ago
    There are actually around 2,000 VFX shots in the film, but I think they really nailed the mix between practical and VFX in a way that makes the sum of the parts greater.
  - boredtofears 4y ago
    Well put. Mad Max Fury road was fantastic.
  - cgrealy 4y ago
    There's a great video on how to use CG correctly by Rocket Jump https://youtu.be/bL6hp8BKB24 https://youtu.be/bL6hp8BKB24
sharkweek 4y ago
I do think this is why anytime the A24 logo comes up before a trailer it piques my interest. (side note: the one they just released, Everything Everywhere All The Time, might be one of the best movies I've seen in the last decade)

OJFord 4y ago

You mean you absolutely could not care less. (And neither could I.) I agree though, fortunately I'm someone who doesn't mind rewatching old films I like, and also there are surely many greats I've yet to see. Television is not all hits, but there seem to be many more than in film, and then once you have one that's firstly and most simply more hours of entertainment; secondly it's a virtuous circle having more time for character and plot development etc.

bear8642 4y ago

> I could absolutely care less Feel petty mentioning this, but you mean you couldn't care less right? As in you care nothing about latest movie, right? Took me a moment to work out what you were saying, hence why pointing out, although aware small, potentially peevish position on my part

p00f 4y ago
Both "could care less" and "couldn't care less" mean the same thing
- inetknght 4y ago
  Only if you've been around people who say it a lot and have the cultural context. The internet, and Hacker News, is not that place. There are plenty of people on here who will read "could" and "couldn't" as the actual words they are rather than the phrase they're a part of.
  - p00f 4y ago
    yes, that is why i explained that
- MrVandemar 4y ago
  Don't you love English. The langauge where polar opposites "sucks" and "blows" can mean in the right context exactly the same thing.
- abdulmuhaimin 4y ago
  Surely you're joking, right? I've never encountered those two phrases where they meant the same thing. Couldn't care less - absolute zero care. Nothing can disappoint me whatever happen. Could care less - some degree of care is present. Thing can actually get worse
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

hsbauauvhabzb 4y ago

Star Wars was revolutionary for its time, but if it didn’t exist until today I’m doubtful you’d ever hear people fist bumping on may 5th.