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

181–190 of 454 posts

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#181

Post by watwut »

npteljes wrote: post #140
alexey-salmin wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But it is not funny. It is not a joke. It is just not engaging with the implied "you do not know what you talk about here" ... which is entirely valid, but not exactly a joke.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#182

Post by mjd »

BurningFrog wrote: post #155
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 had a century as one of the main stages for global culture. That era is ending, and other things are replacing them, mostly based on computers and internet. If you love movies this is sad, but movies once replaced other beloved things. The world spins on and nothing is forever. Enjoy the ride!

Eben Moglen observed that at one time people were building giant stone pyramids, then the social and technological conditions changed, and people stopped making new ones. That's OK, it's not a sad thing that there are no new pyramids, we still have the old ones and people still find them awesome.

And he says maybe big-budget movies are like that too, something that culture will do for a while and then move on to something different when the conditions change.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#183

Post by andelink »

burnt-resistor wrote: post #59
gamblor956 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 clich…

> people who have intercourse while staring at their phones

This can’t be real. Surely no one does this. Do people do this?

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#184

Post by snozolli »

isk517 wrote: post #165
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…

A major contributor to Titanic being the best selling movie by tickets sold is the amount of people that went to watch it multiple times, and going to see a movie multiple times in 1997, while not common, was not unusual because it was 1997 so what else are you going to do?

1997 was an absolutely phenomenal year for movies. Life Is Beautiful, Boogie Nights, Jackie Brown, Titanic, Donnie Brasco, The Fifth Element, Good Will Hunting, As Good as It Gets, Austin Powers International Man of Mystery, Gattaca, LA Confidential, Men in Black, Liar Liar, Amistad, The Game, Con Air, Contact.

There was a lot to do in 1997, just not as much to do without leaving home. We went to movies because they were affordable and great movies were being released.

Also, that was the era where new multiplex theaters were being built with great sound systems, so it was worth going to a theater for the high-quality experience. While quality consumer electronics are more readily available today than ever before, I feel like the vast majority today only watch media with headphones, TV speakers, or maybe a 2.1 stereo+sub setup.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#185

Post by jihadjihad »

Mainstream films (or works of art writ large) rarely trust their audience. Artists imbue their work with a lot of handholding for the audience's sake; if it's a need or a want on the audience's part, conscious or unwitting, who can say.

I don't particularly enjoy having my hand held through a narrative, but I know plenty of people who don't mind, don't care, or don't know. It's easier to "participate" as an audience by passively consuming the art than to engage with it actively, and no doubt such art is easier to produce.

Many people seemingly desire a contract to be enforced between artist and audience, where the artist constructs a narrative that is sensible and palatable and neat and tidy. Look at the reviews for Birdman (2014), for example. Plenty of people couldn't tolerate the ending, even if it thematically and tonally made sense.

Gone with the Wind (Mitchell, 1936) upholds such a contract; Light in August (Faulkner, 1932) does not. With no slight against the former, the latter could be used as an example of a work with a radical trust of its audience.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#187

Post by the_af »

I agree with some of the sentiment in TFA, but I think the author goes way overboard and ends up disliking some of the movies "just because".

I do agree that the dialogue from Gladiator II is awful, but what did we expect? The movie shouldn't have been made at all, Gladiator didn't need a sequel.

As for literalism: it's always been there in mainstream movies, I think. That we got so many (non-auteur) movies that are not so literal is surprising, actually.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#188

Post by kikokikokiko »

jihadjihad wrote: post #185

Mainstream films (or works of art writ large) rarely trust their audience. Artists imbue their work with a lot of handholding for the audience's sake; if it's a need or a want on the audience's part, conscious or unwitting, who can say. I don't particularly enjoy having my hand held through a narrative, but I know plenty of people who don't mind, don't care, or don't know. It's easier to "participate" as an audience…

Birdman's ending is atrocious, but the main problem ain't even there. The movie is just a giant pile of pretentious nothingness, I can't even remember what was the point of it. Hollywood movies from the last 2 decades or so are just disposable.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#189

Post by hinkley »

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…

Somewhere, Cameron admits he rereleased Avatar to theaters ahead of Avatar 2 so it would beat Endgame. He only needed 8 million more to stay on top, he got 134.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#190

Post by watwut »

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…

The majority of music communication is not in lyrics, but in sound and tone of voice. All good artists know that and intentionally manipulate that. This song makes you, unambiguously, feel good.

From lyrics alone, I would assume the protagonist is voluntarily part of abusive relationships. As in, they make choice to stay, despite knowing this is bad for them. I did not found sexual assault visuals, only abstract video with words and pink colors. The lyrics do not come across to me as "not putting on any kid gloves", they are gentle. They are about wanting this bad thing to happen, despite it being bad thing.

> You're supposed to feel weird about liking this song.

There are songs that make me feel weird about liking them, but not this one. This one was intentionally made to make me like it.

I do not mean it as kind of major criticism or the song ... but it is kids gloves song about abuse and feelings that make someone stay in such relationship.

Post reply on HN