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

51–60 of 454 posts

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#51

Post by jll29 »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #6
AIorNot wrote: post #4

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

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

Go to a restaurant and watch any "romantic" couple, what they do. Pay attention to each other, talk? Nah, stare at their own screens, and every two minutes or so show each other a cute cat video and go "awww!"; pathetic.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#52

Post by somenameforme »

vasco wrote: post #35
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…

Movies are still great, just not the main circuit. If you live in a large city most often you have access to indie movies or secondary rotation of festival movies instead of 3 marvels, one remake and one romantic like in the big box places.

I think they simply did what AAA video games did. They found what sold best at one moment in time and then obsessively tried to work to copy that.

But the problem is that people don't want to play 40 different Call of Duties, or watch 30 different Batmen. It's just that Batman or Call of Duty were the 'meet in the middle' of a variety of different tastes. But when those other tastes aren't accounted for, it becomes nauseating. It's like how most of everybody really likes cake icing, but eating nothing but cake icing is quite a repulsive concept.

I think things like Dune, Interstellar, and other such films emphasize that there's a gaping hole in the market for things besides men in spandex, but it's just not being filled. And there's even extensive social commentary in Dune (as in the book) but it's done through metaphor rather than shoving it down your throat. And the movie is also rather slow paced with some 3 key events playing out in a 155 minute film, yet it continues to do extremely well. On the other hand those Fremen suits are kind of spandexy...

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#53

Post by justanotherjoe »

Duanemclemore wrote: post #50
emsy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

I'd say, if you have a core memory at a zoo or a theme park, then you'll probably like it.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#54

Post by Doxin »

renewiltord wrote: post #38

Haha, the real reason is that people can’t get a joke. One classic I saw is that pg made some comment about philosophy and some other guy went “Looks like you had a bad philosophy class” to which pg replied “I’ve had many”. Well, that’s funny in a classic pub humour way. Except the guy didn’t get it (and neither did many others) who went on to say “Many bad philosophy classes you mean” Like, dudes, what did you think…

People just don't have any media literacy anymore it seems. Every now and then you get some indie project that doesn't treat the audience as stupid, but then the discourse around it demonstrates that the audience in fact may very well be stupid.

A recentish example I've run into is a song from Hazbin Hotel: Poison. They lyrics go on about how bad it is:

> 'Cause I know you're poison

> You're feedin' me poison

> Addicted to this feelin', I can't help but swallow

> Up your poison

The visuals are largely about the protagonist putting on a brave face under sexual assault. This song isn't putting on any kid gloves. But it's also a catchy pop song. The incongruity is the point. You're supposed to feel weird about liking this song.

But I guess a lot of people can't separate format and content so the discussion in the fandom is about how messed up it is for the authors to "glamorize assault".

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#55

Post by burnt-resistor »

Duanemclemore wrote: post #21

I don't know if calling it a "New Literalism" is helpful. I just don't know that a penchant for literalism ever went away. Now, what IS relatively new is the "ruined punchline" phenomena that they identify (without naming) on the movie recap podcast Kill James Bond, which is that contemporary movies always ruin jokes by telling one, say... "x" and then having another character chime in with "Did you just say 'x' !?"…

> the intelligence of the [..] masses

George Carlin didn't emphasis this enough in retrospect. The idiots in-charge now appear to begging for educational percussive maintenance, albeit in hyperbolic, euphemistic form for legal reasons only.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#56

Post by burnt-resistor »

wnevets wrote: post #11

I'm convinced it has to do with the increased importance of the overseas markets, these movies now must make it past Chinese censors and make sense for people that don't natively speak English or understands its nuances. Showing a flashback scene and swapping in the government approved voice over is a better business decision than not releasing the movie in insert country here . Unrelated movie trailer https://www.yo…

The bean counters ruin everything with product placement, taking out bits that "offend" certain censors, and explaining jokes. Let them have their own edited versions that suck.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#57

Post by burnt-resistor »

aspenmayer wrote: post #30
muglug wrote: post #12

Calling the literalism "new" implies it wasn't present in older pics. You can go back to 1997 when Good Will Hunting won 8 Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Pretty much everything was telegraphed, and that’s ok — the story resonated with millions of moviegoers and made a lot of money. Other movies of the era (e.g. Being John Malkovich) didn’t telegraph stuff. That movie didn't win any Oscars and sold roughly 10…

> Other movies of the era (e.g. Being John Malkovich) didn’t telegraph stuff. That movie didn't win any Oscars and sold roughly 10x fewer tickets. 1999 was a bumper year for film in general. There were too many good picks that many had to be passed over. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind came out in 2004 to acclaim, and covered similar themes, so it can be done. The casting of Being John Malkovich also made it a…

Malkovich, Malkovich. Malkovich!

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#58

Post by burnt-resistor »

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…

I noticed American shows and movies demographically aimed primarily at kids often slip in cultural references and subtle dirty jokes aimed at keeping older people engaged. Was or is this still a thing in your domain?

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#59

Post by burnt-resistor »

gamblor956 wrote: post #32
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…

Readers actually enjoy "on the nose" dialogue...depending on the genre. A drama? Biography? Subtlety is desired. Action? Comedy? Streaming? On the nose dialog is not only enjoyed, but in many cases required. (For non-prestige shows and movies, Netflix strongly encourages the character dialog state the actions/emotions the actors are visually portraying on screen, with the understanding that much of their lower-tier c…

> watched in the background while people are doing something else.

There are these devices called "radios"* and this stuff called "music."

There's no point to "watching" a show if it's not being watched, it sort of ruins the whole purpose of it. Dividing attention lessens almost everything. It's like "reading" a book while moving your eyes over the words faster than you can read them. SMH. It's kind of like the cliché of the Banksy couple staring into their screens across from each other, or people who have intercourse while staring at their phones.

* That have been replaced with apps like Spotify and Tidal.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#60

Post by anal_reactor »

Doxin wrote: post #54
renewiltord wrote: post #38

Haha, the real reason is that people can’t get a joke. One classic I saw is that pg made some comment about philosophy and some other guy went “Looks like you had a bad philosophy class” to which pg replied “I’ve had many”. Well, that’s funny in a classic pub humour way. Except the guy didn’t get it (and neither did many others) who went on to say “Many bad philosophy classes you mean” Like, dudes, what did you think…

People just don't have any media literacy anymore it seems. Every now and then you get some indie project that doesn't treat the audience as stupid, but then the discourse around it demonstrates that the audience in fact may very well be stupid. A recentish example I've run into is a song from Hazbin Hotel: Poison. They lyrics go on about how bad it is: > 'Cause I know you're poison > You're feedin' me poison > Addic…

1. People are indeed stupid. I don't understand why there's so much belief in human intelligence while there's so much proof of the contrary

2. Sometimes intelligent people don't want to engage with the media. Attention is a finite resource, and when I'm tired after 8 hours of work, 30 minutes of recommended daily exercise, two hours of house chores and one hour of depressive thoughts, I just don't have the energy to engage with your song about a topic that's completely irrelevant to my daily life.

3. Quite often media that's supposed to be good is actually quite shitty. Good media should have layers: surface-level literal fun catches your attention, then you discover there's some depth to it, and then you start digging and you realize it's actually very complex and interesting. The problem is that lots of media either just grab my attention for nothing, or start right from the beginning with difficult topics, and then it's "woo the audience is stupid because they won't engage with my media" no bro, I just think your media is boring.

Post reply on HN