Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 454 posts

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#41

Post by emsy »

Duanemclemore wrote: post #37
justanotherjoe wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you describe more about the "ruined punchline" thing? Cause that sounds natural to me. Like in Jurassic Park, Alan Grant hears "We clocked the t-rex at 32 mph" and he goes "Did you just say 't-rex'?". Actually they repeat it like 3 times more to really lean into it. And I guess my point is that Jurassic Park doesn't feel modern or clumsy in this particular execution.

Having never seen Jurassic Park (yeah, right?) I'm guessing the preposterousness to an unaware onlooker is played for effect. This is a more recent phenomenon. This is literally just repeating a punchline so that it tells the audience - "that was the punchline, you can laugh now." I've seen plenty but I can't give any specific examples. I mention Kill James Bond [0] because they specifically point it out in the movie…

The T-Rex bit is not a joke, the line is said seriously. Also, watch Jurassic Park. Good movie.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#42

Post by hinterlands »

somenameforme wrote: post #17

Fun fact: movie sales, in terms of tickets sold, peaked in 2002. [1] All the 'box office records' since then are the result of charging way more to a continually plummeting audience size. And this is highly relevant for things like this. People often argue that if movies were so bad then people would stop watching them, unaware that people actually have stopped watching them! Even for individual movies. For all the m…

> All the 'box office records' since then are the result of charging way more to a continually plummeting audience size.

I don't think that going to the movies has gotten more expensive in real terms. It's just that the records are usually not adjusted for inflation, so a film with the same audience and the same inflation-adjusted admission price will appear to make 80% more at the box office compared to 2002.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#43

Post by hosh »

AIorNot wrote: post #4

Eh, People on their phones can’t be bothered with following plot lines everything has to be telegraphed

I am confused by the use of the term, telegraphed or signpost. I am not even sure I understand what this literalism is about.

Coming from a martial art background, telegraph means reading the subtle signs that comes before an action in order to anticipate, intercept, and counter it within the same tempo. It can also mean exaggeration of the signs, letting slip one’s intentions as an error in execution, or deceiving someone by falsely telegraphing intentions. They all come before the action, whereas the examples in this article seems to talk about things coming after the action.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#45

Post by litter41 »

somenameforme wrote: post #17

Fun fact: movie sales, in terms of tickets sold, peaked in 2002. [1] All the 'box office records' since then are the result of charging way more to a continually plummeting audience size. And this is highly relevant for things like this. People often argue that if movies were so bad then people would stop watching them, unaware that people actually have stopped watching them! Even for individual movies. For all the m…

oh wow, Covid really spell the death of movie theaters, and it's never going to recover.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#46

Post by litter41 »

riffraff wrote: post #39

Yesterday, I showed my kids the original Planet of the Apes. It literally ends with the main character going "oh no humanity you killed yourself may you be cursed for eternity". It's a fantastic movie, and it's as literal as it can be, so I'm not sure this complaints about movies being literal now makes much sense. We always had more literal and more abstract movies. To stick to classic SF: Barbarella, Quintet, Zardo…

Well I think that movie is great for reasons other than being abstract.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#47

Post by wiseowise »

brokencode wrote: post #9
bluefirebrand wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is just as likely the other way around People are on their phones because the slop they are being served is so shallow and meaningless that they can't be bothered to pay attention to it

If that were the case, people would watch classic movies, read novels, etc. No, I’m pretty sure social media has seriously hurt the average person’s attention span. The idea of sitting down and watching a two hour movie is really quite daunting when you’re used to videos that are at most 30 min and often less than one.

> If that were the case, people would watch classic movies, read novels, etc.

They literally do. Have you ever tried reaching out people NOT on social networks?

> The idea of sitting down and watching a two hour movie is really quite daunting when you’re used to videos that are at most 30 min and often less than one.

Average movie length is increasing every year.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#48

Post by wiseowise »

jowday wrote: post #15
zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #5

Most movies are pretty bad. Always have been. I feel like I got scammed for paying to see 28 Years Later.

Weird, I thought it was one of the best movies I've seen in the last few years. Wasn't at all what I expected to see, but was incredibly memorable and impactful. F1 on the other hand was maybe the worst offender as far as literalism is concerned.

> F1

Let me guess, an old man Brad Pitt enters the movie screen and says something like: “I’m gonna, I’m gonna… I’m gonna WROOOM! I’m WROOMING!!”?

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#49

Post by pixelfarmer »

oDot wrote: post #18

There's a disconnect somewhere in the industry, because as I writer I can guarantee you one of the things readers get most annoyed with is on the nose dialogue. My screenplays are heavily influenced by Japanese Anime (which I have researched to a great degree[0]). Some animes have _a lot_ of that kind of dialogue. Sometimes it's just bad writing, but other times it is actually extremely useful. The times where it is…

The problem is that it permeates writing in so many places. For example, games get more and more littered with this sort of nonsense, too. And worse, it is often also used as a vehicle to convey all sorts of ideologies. Many people don't care about these ideologies, but they get annoyed fast if someone shouts them into their face like a zealot. Plus it feels just fake, completely artificial.

The other problem with it: To me, as an adult, it feels like whoever wrote this made the assumption I'm stupid. This sort of writing is ok, up to a certain degree, for kids. But for adults? A lot of anime are aimed at the younger generations. Anime written for adults are done very differently.

The Matrix is heavily influenced by manga / anime, which you see in quite a few scenes in how they are shot. But many of the explanations that are done are part of the development of Neo, so they never really feel out of place.

Cyberpunk 2077, which does have on the nose dialogue here and there as part of random NPCs spouting stuff. But by and large it tells a story not just through dialogues but also visually. And the visual aspect is so strong that some reviewers completely failed at reviewing the game, they were unable to grasp it. Which is a huge issue, because we are talking about adults here.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#50

Post by Duanemclemore »

emsy wrote: post #41
Duanemclemore wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having never seen Jurassic Park (yeah, right?) I'm guessing the preposterousness to an unaware onlooker is played for effect. This is a more recent phenomenon. This is literally just repeating a punchline so that it tells the audience - "that was the punchline, you can laugh now." I've seen plenty but I can't give any specific examples. I mention Kill James Bond [0] because they specifically point it out in the movie…

The T-Rex bit is not a joke, the line is said seriously. Also, watch Jurassic Park. Good movie.

I actually have less than zero excuse. I was a 13 year old nerd when it came out - PRIME market.

But I think even then I was allergic to hype. Same reason I've never seen a vast number of well loved movies. Like Titanic. ... just a contrarian LOL.

We didn't have the money to go to movies. So I think the exposure to entire cohort of my fellow nerds having seen it three times over opening weekend, wearing the t-shirt every day, and talking endlessly about it for weeks made it easy for me to just nope out by the time it came out on video. That and I was really hitting the "girls and rock and roll" part of puberty and probably ran as far and as fast as I could from stuff that reminded me of being younger. Enough biography. LOL

Post reply on HN