Why do YOU think the movies suck so much these days?

[raccoon]

One reason, I think, is the movie makers don't want to try anything new.

(PS-If you don't think the movies suck these days, that's OK too.)

[blueraven95]

1. I don't know if I would say they suck...

but I would say they have gotten repetitious, predictable, and special effects heavy because it is a proven formula for financial success. I don't think the movie makers/directors/creative people don't want to try anything new, I think the financiers are too chicken too.

If you want to see good films, check out the independents and foreign. I also recommend finding studios whose work you like and seeing what else they have done - it's not a sure-fire method, but it generally works.

:hi:

[charlie and algernon]

2. it's wierd

Movies have gotten VERY unoriginal. I swear if I hear about another crappy remake or sequal I'll scream. Now they're thinking of making a Red Dawn remake and a Top Gun II. :eyes:

On the other hand, the few original ideas lately have been very good, esp the animated ones.
No Country for Old Men
Rendition
Bucket List
Wall-E
Ratatuelle (Sp?)
Iron Man.

The new batman series is a shining example of remakes that work when you have competent directors, writers, and actors.


A serious question though, are we quicker to trash new movies just because they're new or are trying new technology just because they're different from the classics of the past?

[Inchworm]

3. rated pg horror/thriller movies for one

and "unrated"

Boo! Hiss!

:hi:

[unpossibles]

4. go to your local video store and look at the shelves

and tell me that crappy movies are a new phenomenon.

It's like music or any other art form which has a popular face which tends to turn out crap, and a lesser known side which turns out good stuff. I've seen quite a few amazing movies the past few years. My personal solution: don't support the crappy ones if possible.

[KatyaR]

18. I agree, there have always been lousy movies.

It's just that the ones today are much LOUDER than in the past, that and the fact that something has to blow up in just about every movie these days.

That being said, I'm going to see the new X-Files movie tomorrow . . . .

[TreasonousBastard]

48. They've always made shit, but they've always made...

a LOT of movies so the good ones could float and the bad ones sink.

Now, they make so few, and those are so overhyped, that when the inevitable stinker comes out, it just can't be hidden.

[terrya]

5. The studios are owned by huge conglomerates

Granted, Louis Mayer and Darryl Zanuck and the Warner Brothers cared about the bottom line, also. But they thought of themselves as movie makers...they cared about movies themselves.

The conglomerates that own the studios today only think of movies as just something on the bottom line. If a movie is a huge blockbuster and makes a lot of money, just make more sequels and movies that are similar to that blockbuster. Do a remake of a movie that was popular before. Make a movie out of a very popular television show.

[datasuspect]

6. they feed off the lowest common denominator

and if they can increase market share by micro-tuning entertainment product through market research, test screenings, and focus groups, they will do so to make the least offensive, most approachable movies possible.

hollywood is not artist-centered, it is inherently revenue-driven.

that has always been the case, but up until the mid 70s there was the pretense that something might have to be plausibly entertaining.

movies lately are just simple distractions.

[DarkTirade]

7. Video games are starting to follow the same trend.

'tis quite sad.

[Chovexani]

19. Starting?

I keed. Thing is, there's always been shovelware, pointless half-baked sequels and shitty licensed games. But this is a generation that gave us ICO, Katamari Damacy, and Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney so I'm really not prepared to write it off.

(PC games OTOH? Dying a slow death since about 1999.)

[edbermac]

8. They cost too much money.

Studios are only interested in big blockbuster pics that gross 100m the first week, along with big promotional tie-ins for Burger King and Coca-Cola. They rarely will spend tens of millions on 'art' films. You can't slap a tie-in for a Woody Allen film or an Ingmar Bergman film or a Stanley Kubrick film on some kid's lunchbox.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

9. Too much emphasis

on the lowest common denominator, plus excessive violence and language. Other than that, everyhting is ok :)

[MissMillie]

10. too much flash, not enough substance

and seriously, if a gun goes off and someone falls down, I get the point. I don't need to see the blood/guts/gray matter to know that someone was shot. It adds NOTHING to the movie.

[XemaSab]

11. I think a lot of stories have been told

and now there's one way to tell a pirate story, one way to tell a spy story, one way to tell a murder story, one way to tell a love story, and so forth.

I think it's really hard for directors to go outside the box on that, even when they're following books.

Even if the book itself goes outside the mold, you've only got a finite amount of time to tell the story in, and the beginning/middle/end paradigm is pretty inviolate.

[Mojambo]

12. They've always sucked. They suck no more or less now

This goes for everything that people naturally assume is worse now than when they were younger.

[montanto]

13. Writers don't write them, and actors direct them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. There are plenty of good movies being made throughout the world

The trouble is that 1) they don't get distributors in the U.S. 2) Most people are too intellectually lazy to look beyond the films that are currently being hyped in every bit of broadcast and print media at once.

Unless a film gets exceptionally good word-of-mouth, it can't succeed without a tie-in with a fast food chain, a whole slew of other merchandise (especially children's T shirts) with the characters from the film on them, full-page ads in newspapers and magazines, ads on TV and radio, and the local TV stations having "news stories" in which they talk to people who "just loved the movie," not to mention "making of" features on the local morning talk show.

The idea is to give the impression that EVERYBODY wants to see this movie, and that if you don't, you're uncool, especially if you're a child or teenager.

For years, I've refused to see any movie that has a lot of commercial tie-ins, on the assumption that 1) It's crap (and even if it isn't total crap, it's not so wonderful that I'll go to my deathbed regretting that I didn't see it, and 2) It will do fine without me.

[defendandprotect]

38. You used to be able to easily rent some good foreign films . .

I wouldn't even go to a movie rental shop --- except my library --- and they're not

carrying foreign films.

[defendandprotect]

39. How about NETFLIX for foreign films . .. ???

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. NETFLIX has a *fantastic* collection of foreign films

When I first signed on, I went through their listing of films from the prominent film making countries, such as France, Italy, Japan, China, etc. They not only had every movie I could think of from those countries; they had lots that I'd never heard of.

[TreasonousBastard]

50. I'll second that-- most of my queue is foreign now, and...

I just sent back "Nights of Cabiria."

[WinkyDink]

15. Seriously? For international $$, they strive for as little dialogue (dubbing costs) as possible.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. dumb audiences.

Paying money for crap.

[kentauros]

17. Pretty much.

The tried and true makes more money than anything "new".

Plus, if they are marketing to the 15-25 year-old male market, they have to take into consideration lowered attention spans and intellects :P

[BlueIris]

20. The scriptwriters don't read. Anything. It's why t.v. sucks, too. nt

[behave]

21. Influence of tv, rampant product placement, nepotism, bad acting, bad directing

profit-driven and ideological "creative" decision making, assembly line plots, roles that are given in exchange for sex with producers and investors, ethnocentricism, and the demonstrable and intentional misrepresentation of the public and its true needs and concerns. So-called independents share at least half these attributes. We are talking Hollywood, aren't we?

[Robeson]

22. Because their target audiance is adolescent....

...believe it or not, it wasn't always that way.

[Jade Fox]

23. Because all the studios care about is big box office in.....

the first few weeks. During that period of time most of the ticket money goes to them (the studios). After that increasing amounts of money go to the theater owners.

I don't know what the studios get from DVD rental, if anything. I bet it's not much, because that would be an incentive to make quality movies which do well in rental.

[Zavulon]

24. As you indicated, it's the complete lack of original ideas.

Plan 9 from Outer Space sucked a lot, but it was far more original than a lot of the shit Hollywood is churning out these days.

[csziggy]

26. Plan 9 was on TMC the other night

I thought about watching it.

The real horror of Plan 9 was that Ed Woods really did care and try to make good movies. He just was not able to. Today, Hollywood would probably give him a $1 billion contract, hook him up with a special effects/CGI company and he would be turning out the same level crap we're seeing in theatres now. I mean, think of what Plan 9 would be with lots of explosions and special effects! :rofl:

On edit: Let's do a remake.

[Zavulon]

28. It's only a matter of time.

And I'd actually go watch it. It couldn't be worse than those overhyped, shitty Spiderman movies.

[csziggy]

29. I refuse to go to most of the movies today - too loud and not worth the money.

Most movies we wait until they are on satellite - and I won't even pay for pay per view. My Dh likes the comic book based movies, but most of those I don't like, so he goes with some of his friends. That leaves about one movie every year worth going out to see. :eyes:

Done right, though a remake of Plan 9 could be fun. We did enjoy the movie "Ed Woods" if you have not seen that.

[Zavulon]

31. I haven't gone to the theater in years.

It amazes me how rude people can be in the theater. If I were to go to a theater with a large wooden club and a full day's worth of amnesty, there's no telling what damage I'd do. I'm exaggerating a bit here, but not much.

Thanks for the recommendation, I will try to find it.

[csziggy]

32. DH & I go out once or twice a year if there is anything worth watching

We went last week for our 31st anniversary - Journey to the Center of the Earth. While I like Brendan Fraser and the movie was entertaining, it was not worth the price of the matinee tickets. Not enough character development and too much special effects. So what's new?

Dh didn't want to take me to movies for a while - I feel asleep during the last three Star Wars movies (or are they the first three? Episodes 1-3 anyway.)

Of course, I punch him because he is making comments to loudly throughout the movies. So I guess we're even.

Ed Wood was the first movie I really paid attention to Johnny Depp in. He did a great job with the character.

[Xipe Totec]

25. Porno movie writers scabbing during writer's strike nt

[Initech]

27. Too many remakes and sequels, not enough originality.

[LostInAnomie]

30. Movies sucking is nothing new. We just notice it more now...

... because they are fresh in our memory.

There have always been shitty movies. Mystery Science Theater demonstrated that.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

33. Lazy studios and lazy audiences.

[datasuspect]

34. because so many people are dumb

they give us what they think we can handle

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

35. Aw,come on. So many people are dumb? Rather an elitist attitude

don't you think ?

People are different. Period.

[defendandprotect]

41. No . . . but the movies are intended to keep you dumb .. .

look at the violence over the last 30 years . . .

That's intended to give people a certain view of society --- and many believe it ---

Very few thoughtful, non-violent movies get made ---

"Pride & Prejudice" . . . funny . . . how far back do we have to go for a story?

This is all fluff --- nothing real or challenging can happen ---

it's too dangerous for the powers that be ---

ESPECIALLY ART/THEATER . . . VERY DANGEROUS . . .

[alarimer]

36. Because they are marketing to 12-year old boys.

All explosions and car chases and superheroes. Very, very few original ideas.

[defendandprotect]

42. ...and sad to say that males are a great market for this kind of movie . . .

You may have noticed the OPIE took "The Da Vinci Code" and made it into a car chase

movie for 11 year olds . . . !!!

A story which so challenged current thinking --- with the power to turn the world

right side up again --- now a car chase movie.



And, if I see one more Tom Hanks movie made, I'm going to ..... get sick.

[defendandprotect]

37. Nah . . . media is intended to distribute messages of violence these days . . .

dumbing people down --- and films here are part of that ---

Yeah, we have Michael Moore and every now and then a Robt Redford movie gets made ---

but nothing that is ever much going to get anyone thinking about anything real ---

[callous taoboy]

40. Indie movies, baby! Slingblade- Great movie, shot in 24 days very cheaply.

[CBHagman]

43. Well, given that someone thought to make "Hurl"

...and put it on TV, the movies look slightly less soul-destroying than I'd previously thought. Note I said "slightly less."

Seriously, though, even though there are some great directors, screenwriters, and actors working today, much of the material is just too formulaic. There are occasional flashes of originality and heart, but I think in general American movies are going through a dry spell.

[jobycom]

44. I think some have been getting better in recent years, especially animation and action.

Animated films lately: Ratatouillie, WallE, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, even shows with low expectations like Kung Fu Panda have been a little better than expected. Blame Pixar for raising the standards not just of animation, but of quality of story.

Action films a few years ago were unwatchable. I used to watch James Bond and pretend to like it because there wasn't anything else. Lately we've had Casino Royale, the two Batman films, the Bourne films. Smarter dialogue, less ludicrous chase scenes (the one in The Bourne Ultimatum was actually good).

And there are the really impressive films, like anything the Cohen brothers do, and Million Dollar Baby.

I think part of what's happening is that people are rejecting the really awful stuff. Romantic comedies starring all the box office certainties of the past are flopping like dying fish, as are slasher/horror films.

There's always going to be garbage. There are just too many screens, and too, too many straight-to-DVD films--the latter of which may explain why so much garbage can still seem profitable to some movie makers. But I think audiences are demanding a little more than they used to.

[mitchum]

45. Cocaine, comic books, CGI, remakes, lack of talent, idiotic formula...

there are many reasons

[begin_within]

46. It's because they're only trying to make hits, and not trying to make classics.

[Pierre.Suave]

49. because...

they dont have awesome theme music...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii1tc493bZM

[crimsonblue]

51. they don't

this has been one of the best uears
In film in a while.