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

131–140 of 454 posts

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#131

Post by [deleted] »

JohnFen wrote: post #126
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…

That's roughly when I largely stopped going to see movies. I stopped because movies started sucking too much. Sure, there is still the occasional wheat kernel, but there's so much chaff that it's no longer worth just taking a chance on a new movie.

[deleted]

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#132

Post by monkeyelite »

phyzome wrote: post #125
monkeyelite wrote: post #104

Most of this writers points are ideas recently circulating around twitter.

It's almost as if when one person is reacting to a trend, other people are also reacting to it!

Then one would hope they have a new point to make. I don’t need them to read twitter for me

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#133

Post by deafpolygon »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #113
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…

2002 was also when broadband internet and movie piracy became more prolific - DivX was just out, DVD burners became a thing, etc. Streaming video was in its infancy, with TiVo and VOD slowly becoming a thing (although that only reached mainstream in 2007 when Netflix launched). DVDs and DVD players became mainstream, as well as flat TVs, HD video, etc. Anyway. The tech in the movie theaters did improve by a lot since…

There is no evidence as to piracy even being a cause for the decline, I say this not as a supporter (I do not pirate) but to correct a misconception.

2002 is when tvs got larger, fidelity with cable tv improved, dvds were readily available, etc. it was also an era where more people started gaming (the industry took off around this time), so people were shifting away from movie theaters as a social activity.

The rise of literalism (as in the article) is probably a partial response to increasingly shorter attention spans.

Songs are shorter (think anymore.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#135

Post by alistairSH »

xnorswap wrote: post #106
IAmBroom wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact... it looks like they've slightly dropped. https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/14kznfv/movie_ti...

Dropped? You've produced a graph showing they've been on the increase for the past 30 years.

And where the heck can you get a movie ticket for $11? A discount matinee viewing at my local theaters is from $17 to $20. $20-$23 if you go in the evening. The lowest price ticket, a Tuesday noon showing, is $12.

I don't recall the last time I went to the movies with my wife and spent less than $60 (tickets, a shared soda, two snacks).

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#136

Post by JKCalhoun »

PaulHoule wrote: post #81
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.

One one level I really enjoy Steven Spielberg, but boy is he heavy handed.

Yeah, maybe the poster-boy even.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#137

Post by gilbetron »

PaulHoule wrote: post #77
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…

In my pod we've got the theory that more people in the US like anime than domestic pop culture. All the time my son and I have random encounters with people who like Goblin Slayer or Solo Leveling or Bocchi The Rock but never find anybody who is interested in new movies and TV shows. They say Spongebob Squarepants has good ratings -- of course it has good ratings because it is on all the time. People mistake seeing a…

Anime is the US is about a $2.5B industry, whereas just movies and just box office revenue in the US is about a three times that at around $7.5B. Anime is doing great here and growing fast, but I think you are in a bit of a bubble as far as anime. It tends to be a "bubbly" subculture, so not surprising.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#138

Post by zamadatix »

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…

In 2002, watching a movie at home for most people meant flinging a low quality VHS or DVD onto a ~27" tube TV (with a resolution so worthless it might as well be labeled "new years") using a 4:3 aspect ratio pan & scan of the actual movie. Getting anything recent meant going out to the Blockbuster anyways. In 2022, watching a movie meant streaming something on your 50+" 16:9 4k smart TV by pressing a button from your couch.

Box office ticket sales say people go to the theatre less often, not that people watch movies less often. Unless you specifically want "the movie theater experience" or you absolutely have to see a certain movie at launch you're not going to the theatre to watch a movie. The number of movie views per person may well be down (or up), but box office ticket sale counts don't really answer that question.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#139

Post by JKCalhoun »

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…

The only thing I remember from Good Will Hunting was Elliot Smith's soundtrack, ha ha.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#140

Post by npteljes »

alexey-salmin wrote: post #71
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…

For the less enlightened of us, what is the joke?

The way I read it, the joke is just owning the insult in a good way.

It works here on multiple levels, because first, owning the insult is not expected, so that's already a surprise, which can work as a joke.

Then, by actually admitting to the many bad classes, it signals that the author can actually tell good from bad, implying knowledge about the matter after all, refuting the argument in the insult (that he is bad in philosophy because he had bad philosophy classes).

Third, it's a very short, snappy response, in vein of the insult, making the author look competent.

Post reply on HN