So... Movies...

[Sacrieur]

I'm a movie critic. I do like giving the whole truth about the opinion of a movie and sharing with others. I am not afraid to tear into a piece with the fury of a demon, but alas...

I have been disappointed so far in my selection of films. Those films who may show promise turn me off when I watch the trailers. Seriously, the last movie I saw in theaters was Tangled, but since then the only movie to pique my interest was Sucker Punch, and that's more of a personal taste (I rather enjoy some good slashy slashy films). On that subject, my reading of the bad reviews on Rotten Tomatoes has me even more excited for it.

Is it just me, or are all of the big films coming soon are woefully disappointing in their trailers? I am forced to present films such as Thor, The Green Lantern, and several others. Though Source Code appears to be appealing... For me to sit down and watch on Netflix or Hulu.

Is it just me, or are there no bloody films worth going to theaters to see?

[Innis Cabal]

I haven't been to the movies since Iron Man 2. If that tells you anything on how I feel about the movies out on the market today.

[Killer Angel]

Is it just me, or are all of the big films coming soon are woefully disappointing in their trailers? I am forced to present films such as Thor, The Green Lantern, and several others.

It's a matter of tastes, I suppose.
For example I like Thor in comics, but the trailer deeply disappointed me.
I'm not a fan of Green Lantern in comics, but the trailer is pretty interesting.

[polity4life]

I think General Armistead is right, but I also think that these movies look very cookie cutter. It looks like no thought is being applied to these movies, especially Thor. It's almost as if this is just a prelude to the Avengers movie, that the movie is being made solely to draw money from the same well twice.

Cinema, especially American cinema, has diminished substantially. The stories are so lacking, the reliance on effects and bad one-liners carrying a film is hurting the industry, and Michael Bay is still getting work.

[turkishvan2]

New movies just don't really peak my interest these days. If a film does interest me, I usually just wait for the dvd. The last movie I saw in the theaters was Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, and I just saw that because a friend told it's the kind of film you have to see in the theater.

[comicshorse]

While in some way I do agree with the general feeling I don't feel it is all bad there have indeed been, and will be, many generic action, teen comed, romantic comedy churned out but there have been many intelligent films as well. This year there's been 'The King's Speech', 'True Grit', 'The Fighter', and 'Black Swan' all of which were well worth seeing

[Tyrant]

While in some way I do agree with the general feeling I don't feel it is all bad there have indeed been, and will be, many generic action, teen comed, romantic comedy churned out but there have been many intelligent films as well. This year there's been 'The King's Speech', 'True Grit', 'The Fighter', and 'Black Swan' all of which were well worth seeing

I'm in agreement with comicshorse on the three of those that I have seen (The King's Speech, True Grit, and Black Swan) being worth watching. I could see knocking some points off of True Grit for it being a remake, but it was quite entertaining. I never saw the original so I have no idea how it stacks up. I believe that Inception could easily be added to that list.

I do think there seems to be fewer "good" movies coming out of Hollywood, but I don't know if that is actually happening or if I just have a different outlook on movies than I used to. I'm entertained by all kinds of movies, but I aknowledge that most of them aren't "good" movies. So, I don't know if it's because I have a better grasp of what most consider "good" and "bad" as opposed to how I felt years ago, but there do seem to be fewer movies that I would lump into the "good" column.

[Jerthanis]

History has many years to compete with this very instant.

I think every year I hear someone saying that things suck now and used to be better.

Honestly, I can't point to a single movie I'm really excited about coming soon, but we're about to hit the Summer Blockbuster months, when a bunch of crappy movies with lots of explosions steal all the money from the lowest common denominator demographic and so interesting movies couch their releases for Fall and Winter. Even so, browsing the "Coming Soon" section of my local theater's website gave me, "Winter in Wartime", "Trust", "The First Grader" and "Incendies" for good sounding dramatic works; you've got "Kung Fu Panda 2" "Conan" and "Dylan Dog" for action.

So... yeah, if Thor and Green Lantern don't sound good... there's a bunch of other movies out there. Heck, even within the genre of Action/Special Effects extravaganzas we have HP7-2, Captain America, and Transformers. I'd even say the trailer for X-men First Class would've made me excited to see that if Wolverine parts 3 and 4 weren't so atrociously awful.

I'd be curious to hear what your criteria are for judging if a movie is worth seeing in theaters, because to my estimation, there have been WAY thinner selections for good movies in even recent memory.

[Dr.Epic]

I'm a movie critic.

Would you say you're a cinema snob?:smallwink:

[Mattias]

The problem with movies today is that most of them are completely formulaic.
Here is the Warner Brothers guide to succes:
1) If you can make an adaptation of something that was popular in a different medium: do it. This has given us some recent old series-to movie mishaps such as 'Dukes of Hazard' and 'A-team', but also the various comic-adaptations.
2) If a movie turns out to be a succes: make at least 2 sequels. If the fanbase is still big enough after that: make more (New Pirates movie? ugh...)
3) Be sure to always produce enough cheap (that is no-CGI) movies with a couple of stars. Romantic comedies are the cheapest and easiest to make (the story is always the same) with the biggest revenue.
4) Because it turns out that you cannot make endless sequels, once in a while you must give carte-blanche to a 'visionary director' to create something new. If this works: follow step 2. (Interesting movies such as the Matrix and Inception can be the result from this. Be wary of the sequels though).

The main problem is that most big production companies are risk-averse, which is why so much crap is made and why there is so little variation from the formula. The biggest PR-budgets are made available to the least interesting films. Predictability seems to be a boon in Hollywood and that is never good for a creative industry.

On the other hand, rule nr. 4 does allow for interesting things to happen.

[Tyrant]

The problem with movies today is that most of them are completely formulaic.
Here is the Warner Brothers guide to succes:
1) If you can make an adaptation of something that was popular in a different medium: do it. This has given us some recent old series-to movie mishaps such as 'Dukes of Hazard' and 'A-team', but also the various comic-adaptations.
2) If a movie turns out to be a succes: make at least 2 sequels. If the fanbase is still big enough after that: make more (New Pirates movie? ugh...)
3) Be sure to always produce enough cheap (that is no-CGI) movies with a couple of stars. Romantic comedies are the cheapest and easiest to make (the story is always the same) with the biggest revenue.
4) Because it turns out that you cannot make endless sequels, once in a while you must give carte-blanche to a 'visionary director' to create something new. If this works: follow step 2. (Interesting movies such as the Matrix and Inception can be the result from this. Be wary of the sequels though).

The main problem is that most big production companies are risk-averse, which is why so much crap is made and why there is so little variation from the formula. The biggest PR-budgets are made available to the least interesting films. Predictability seems to be a boon in Hollywood and that is never good for a creative industry.

On the other hand, rule nr. 4 does allow for interesting things to happen.
Given the tremendous budgets of summer movies (which seem to be the type you are describing), I am surprised that they aren't all the same exact movie with a proven track record. Those movies have to appeal to the lowest common denominator because they have to make money to keep the studio doors open. That's not an excuse, it's just a reason. The movies are still cookie cutter, but there is a (arguable quite compelling) reason.

As for WB, why single them out? That seems to be every studio plan.
1) Why wouldn't they mine comic properties? They (the WB) literally own DC comics. It would be silly to not adapt them. It is also not a new trend. Adaptations have been around for a very long time. How many Dracula movies are there again? Likewise with old shows that some studio or another likely owns the rights to. If it worked once, why not try it again? Then again I kind of liked the A Team movie.
2) Why 2? If number 2 bombs, number 3 is rarely made. Filming back to back (filming movies together) is also rarely done. That aside, trilogies are a known quantity. They follow the three act structure to storytelling only the acts are entire movies. This also ignores the fact that numerous succssful movies that had avenues for sequels never see them. Also, PotC is a Disney franchise, not WB, and they appear to be quite popular so why not make more.
3) Wow. You figured out the key to success with cheap movies. Amazingly, Hollywood has too. Also, they are out to make money, not produce art. In a surprise turn of events, Hollywood does what it takes to make money which includes making tons of RomComs with a star or two that all have plots that two real people could fix in one 2 minute conversation and people flock to them in droves (thus filling the studio coffers). This is the same idea behind studios backing smaller movies in general. They may lose (very little) money on 9 out of 10, but if one takes off it's almost entirely profit. It's a gamble, but one that seems to pay off (or they would quit gambling). Big summer movies provide the bank roll for that gambling.
4) The Dark Knight is largely considered a good film, a commercial success, and one of the better comic book movies out there. This does not compute with the be wary of sequels sentiment and illustrates that the "radical new approach" can produce great results. Also, the James Bond series with 20 some odd movies in a series (excluding the newest 2 as they seem to be a break from the previous series) argues with your idea that you can't make endless* sequels.

*I think we can agree that we can't take the word endless literally otherwise you are right. However, along that kind of timeline anything becomes meaningless because everything ends eventually. 20 seems to be well beyond any "normal" series of movies.

[KillianHawkeye]

I thought Source Code was pretty good.

[Bhu]

Is it just me, or are there no bloody films worth going to theaters to see?

Summer films are always formulaic crap, unless you're lucky enough to live somewhere with a theater large enough to get limited release stuff.

I review films too, but I only get asian films, and cult/horror/exploitation stuff to watch :D

[Xondoure]

While the issues I take with movies are rarely the issues others take unless they are utter drible, I don't think this summer looks that bad for what it is. Thor, Captain America, Green Lanter, and HP7 are all promising. And Kung Fu Panda 2 will probably be a hilarious ride of cheap jokes and stairs.

[MCerberus]

I seem to have found myself in the uncomfortable position of being "not for me"d out of most of the movies that come out now.

As a male 18-24 I'm supposed to like the glorious CGI explosions or the X Movies. The previous I swore off of after Tranformers and the latter makes me want to punt cute things often and with force.

It just seems that effects, poorly-written references, and "a message" have largely replaced having a good plot (and don't get me started on Oscar bait).

The fact is, I'm likely just going to be bitter until the next goat-staring or CGI made entirely of human tears movie is released... At least hero movies are getting to a fun place where you get dozens of hours making fun of it afterwards. Thor looks like it's going to be a hilarious movie with my group of friends.

[Bhu]

Here's a summer film that will prolly see limited release here that looks like popcorn fun. Assuming it's not a bad Blair Witch parody.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLEo7H9tqSM

[Mattias]

Hello Tyrant,

I'm not talking only about summer movies exclusively, but about the movie industry. I don't mind that it is an industry and that thus making money is the primary motive. We can all take that as a given.

This does have some consequences though. The main one being that there are strict formulas that are pretty much always followed. The movie industry is extremely risk-averse. This means that many of the Hollywood-produced movies are, for my tastes at least, extremely unimaginative and boring. Repeating is preferred over re-inventing. This I find interesting because the movie industry is, when all's said and done, still a creative industry. I don't think that being a business that needs to make profit necessarily has to lead to mainly producting adaptations/romcoms/sequels.

This summer we get Thor, Green Lantern, Captain America, Kung Fu Panda 2, Scream 4, Pirates 4, HP7.2, a new Planet of the Apes, Cars 2, Three musketeers 3D, Hangover 2, Conan the Barbarian 3D... Not to mention all the RomComs. It's all one big rehash of old ideas.

I understand the need to make some flicks that are 'risk-free', but when those are taking over the entire industry, then there's not a lot of interesting stuff left.

PS: My "step 4" wasn't meant to be interpreted negatively by the way. I don't mind when they re-invent a franchise. It has happened with James Bond at least 4 times. And Nolan has made two great Batman flicks with 'The Dark Knight' as one of those few sequels in movie history that actually surpass the original. The new Spiderman movies by Raimi were also great until he was forced to throw in additional badguys for part 3. Spiderman 3 was one of those typical cases of the studio stepping in and destroying a good thing.

[Sipex]

I used to think all movies were unoriginal hollywood trash.

Then I stopped caring and just enjoyed myself, life is a lot better that way.

I also found out all my friends used to think I was an elitist jerk.

That said, I haven't seen anything which piques my interest lately but there will probably be a few of the movies coming out which I'll rent and end up liking afterall and there's always Deathly Hallows Part 2 coming out soon(ish).

[Tyrant]

Hello Tyrant,

I'm not talking only about summer movies exclusively, but about the movie industry. I don't mind that it is an industry and that thus making money is the primary motive. We can all take that as a given.
Well, I'm glad you can take that as a given. I have encountered a number of people that just can't accept that making money is the primary motivation of any business, if need be to the exclusion of all other interests and motivations. It also usually follow that they can't accept that movie making is a business.

This does have some consequences though. The main one being that there are strict formulas that are pretty much always followed. The movie industry is extremely risk-averse. This means that many of the Hollywood-produced movies are, for my tastes at least, extremely unimaginative and boring. Repeating is preferred over re-inventing. This I find interesting because the movie industry is, when all's said and done, still a creative industry. I don't think that being a business that needs to make profit necessarily has to lead to mainly producting adaptations/romcoms/sequels.
I am in agreement that creativity seems to be on the decline and is all but gone in any production with a real budget. I too wish there were more creativity, but I understand their reasons for not embracing that way of thinking. I honestly believe the whole situation is more complex than I originally commented and has to factor in two developments that seemed to occur side by side or very nearly so. The rise of the monsterous megaplex coupled with the increased validity of home entertainment as a viable substitute. So, you had more screens (for fewer movies if I have heard correctly) while also having more people content to wait and watch movies at home. To me, that is not a good recipe for increased revenue. The prevailance of cell phones and management who won't do anything about their use in the theater along with generally rude patrons really doesn't help either. So, the studios are concentrating their efforts more and more into movies that they expect to make big bank. I believe they also finally realised that it was stupid to have two "big" movies open against each other because one or both of them has to lose. I think it's just been one thing after another since the late 80s/early 90s that have lead to the studios not wanting to take any chances because they think that A) they can't for fear of losing and B) they have a formula that is working, for them. So far, audiences aren't letting them down likely due at least in part to most movie goers viewing movies purely as entertainment and not ever as an art form, like how most westerners dismiss cartoons including japanese anime as "kid stuff" without a second thought. Until there's a shift in sales, the system won't change for what you or I consider "the better".

This summer we get Thor, Green Lantern, Captain America, Kung Fu Panda 2, Scream 4, Pirates 4, HP7.2, a new Planet of the Apes, Cars 2, Three musketeers 3D, Hangover 2, Conan the Barbarian 3D... Not to mention all the RomComs. It's all one big rehash of old ideas.
I honestly don't consider adaptations to be unoriginal. Yeah, it is rehashing an idea to an extent, but it usually changing the format. For instance, how many people read the Green Lantern? I'm betting less than a million (a lot less). How many will go see the movie? It will be several million. To them, it is a new idea because they don't know of or don't read the source material. In that way, I consider that different to a sequel or reworking. I can even give a lot of sequels a pass because there is still a story to tell, like Star Wars. Or, if a sequel can maintain the tone of the original while advancing the plot, I am fine with it. I don't like the idea of limiting a story to what can be told in one movie (or a planned set of movies) if the story can keep going and still be good (good obviously being quite subjective). Boring retreads or remakes that make most people stare and ask "why?" on the other hand (I'm looking at you upcoming "Blank of the Apes" movie) need to go. I guess the problem is what is boring to you may not be to me and vice versa.

As an example, I have no real interest in the upcoming Conan movie. I might see it if I am with some people who want to watch it, but I have no motivation to watch it. I really liked Conan the Barbarian (and the sequel was okay, but inferior), despite it not being the most faithful adaptation of Howard's stories. I thought having an older Arnold (kind of like the one we have now) playing the aging king that we see at the end of the other two movies set out on one last adventure after realising that King Osric in Barbarian was right about the throne room becoming a prison would make a nice conclusion to the series and bring a definitive end. Then someone else could make remakes or reimaginings to their heart's content.

[Soilborn]

I donno about you guys but I'm holding out for The Room 2.

[Bhu]

I wish I had money. I could make reams of comedies about the crap my former coworkers used to get up to.

[The Glyphstone]

I don't see movies in theatres because they're just too darn expensive. I'm happy to wait for my Netflix subscription to cough them up on DVD a few months post-release.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I'm a movie critic. I do like giving the whole truth about the opinion of a movie and sharing with others. I am not afraid to tear into a piece with the fury of a demon, but alas...

I have been disappointed so far in my selection of films. Those films who may show promise turn me off when I watch the trailers. Seriously, the last movie I saw in theaters was Tangled, but since then the only movie to pique my interest was Sucker Punch, and that's more of a personal taste (I rather enjoy some good slashy slashy films). On that subject, my reading of the bad reviews on Rotten Tomatoes has me even more excited for it.

Is it just me, or are all of the big films coming soon are woefully disappointing in their trailers? I am forced to present films such as Thor, The Green Lantern, and several others. Though Source Code appears to be appealing... For me to sit down and watch on Netflix or Hulu.

Is it just me, or are there no bloody films worth going to theaters to see?
According to The Onion, the only thing worth doing is to hole up in your apartment listening to Husker Du albums and an old book until Jan. 1st.

[Erts]

According to The Onion, the only thing worth doing is to hole up in your apartment listening to Husker Du albums and an old book until Jan. 1st.

Waiting for what?
Any ways, to the point...
There will always be more good movies out there you have not seen.

Unless you are a serious critic or fan, that will be the truth for a long time.
Go watch a movie that you have always heard is good, but never got around to seeing it. Many old ones can be seen cheaply, or even free from Netflix.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Waiting for what?
Not waiting, surviving. Surviving the barrage of utter pointless garbage that 2011's "culture" will bring. Not just in movies, but in music and literature as well.

But this is The Onion we're talking about, so I'm guessing they're joking.

[Tyrant]

I donno about you guys but I'm holding out for The Room 2.
Will this be in a double feature with Troll 3: Return to Nilbog?

[Sipex]

Not waiting, surviving. Surviving the barrage of utter pointless garbage that 2011's "culture" will bring. Not just in movies, but in music and literature as well.

But this is The Onion we're talking about, so I'm guessing they're joking.

You mean, we should treat it like they're joking because they're basically the friend that tells us everything we like is garbage, right?

Or are they really joking and thus making fun of said friend?

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Or are they really joking and thus making fun of said friend?
This. I don't think that's their serious opinion. Though Thor scored pretty low on their Tolerability index.