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

271–280 of 454 posts

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#271

Post by x0x0 »

nilamo wrote: post #223
x0x0 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, I know this sounds like get off my lawn, but people behaved better. Or maybe they didn't didn't, but the penetration of flashlights kept in people's pockets wasn't 100%. Which is pretty annoying now that a movie for two is like a $75 experience with popcorn.

> a movie for two is like a $75 experience with popcorn A ticket is less than $15 during the expensive times, and $10 off peak. Where in the world are you seeing movies? I get it, I don't go to the theater anywhere near what I used to, but the nice one near me with a bar and a player piano in the lobby is still nowhere near $75 for two tickets.

Each non-imax ticket at my local theater is $20.74. I just punched in the 2 tix, 1 popcorn, and 2x sodas: $61.08 + tax. And that's w/ no candy, and I love sour candy.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#272

Post by privatelypublic »

zamadatix wrote: post #138
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…

This doesn't account for the decline starting in 2002. I'd like to see piracy numbers though- particularly the "official" mppa and riaa numbers

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#273

Post by BobaFloutist »

pjc50 wrote: post #100
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…

> Some animes have _a lot_ of that kind of dialogue. Sometimes it's just bad writing, but other times it is actually extremely useful. I think this is going to need unpacking; anime has its sub-genres, many of which are marketed at children, hence the simpler writing. When is it useful to be on the nose? How much speaking like a shonen protagonist do we really need?

Frankly American superhero comics also have(/had) notoriously ex positive dialogue. I feel like it has its DNA in classic pulp books, which, like comics and shonen, are long form stories in a short form format, which can't rely on their readers having read the previous issue(s) (or sometimes just want to refresh memories because it's been a while).

TV these days has recaps, I recently read the third book in a fantasy trilogy that tried a recap, but '"Ok, but what are we going to do about the dark lord?' The dark lord, Jathaniel, had turned out to be the actual murderer of Pomme, Gam's dad, who we had all thought committed suicide. He was seeking the crystals of wonder..." is still very common in modern books. Comics and cartoons are expected to have much less narration, so they tend to put refreshers like this in dialogue. Movies do that to make themselves feel like comics or cartoons. I'm not sure why non comic or cartoon movies do that.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#274

Post by Duanemclemore »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #254
Duanemclemore wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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've managed to partially short-circuit my allergy to hype by telling myself that if I wait until after something is established, I successfully avoided the downsides of hype (buying into something site-unseen that might not even be that good) and intelligently waited for something to come out and get properly evaluated. Also I'm being unique and independent by getting into things well after everyone else. This has g…

That's all really insightful! I agree. I'm also much better now - not willfully disregarding things because just they're popular. I was a punk and indie rocker in the early 00's, so I was able to get that out of my system. (and boy did we) Now, my tastes are just generally extremely non-mainstream. So I avoid it by default.

It's pretty straightforward really - for example I saw Fruitvale Station as a movie fan. I thought it was great and so Coogler was on my radar. I thought the Rocky franchise was ripe for a reboot, so when I heard he was doing it I was in. And the movie was fine. As was Black Panther (considering Marvel flicks for what they are, no judgment either way). So OF COURSE I was downright excited for Sinners. With no assumption that it had to be the best thing ever - and I had a blast.

Another good example is that I'm currently watching the John Wick series for the first time. I didn't know anything about them, but had heard them positively referenced on Kill James Bond. Well, if you meet it where it is and realize it's just "what if you made a comic book into a movie?" and don't expect more of it, you can appreciate it for whether it does that well or not.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#275

Post by briliantbrandon »

RandomThoughts3 wrote: post #248
nozzlegear wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to make this point myself. I think my wife and I have seen maybe three or four movies in a theater since COVID. Our theater didn't even close during COVID (they started marathoning older movies like Harry Potter), but once the big companies started releasing new movies directly on streaming services, we realized how much better seeing a new movie in the comfort of our own home can be. So now we just wait…

> once the big companies started releasing new movies directly on streaming services, we realized how much better seeing a new movie in the comfort of our own home can be As someone who is blessed to live in a city where multiple cinemas screen old movies and therefore go to the cinema very often, I must say I can’t disagree more. The experience of watching a movie in a cinema is to me incomparable to watching on a t…

> The act of sitting yourself in the cinema with other people to actively engage with a movie transforms the experience.

I very much agree with this sentiment, unfortunately post-COVID that transformation has often been a negative one in my personal experience. This is entirely anecdotal, but I feel like there is an increase in the frequency with which I have had a public movie experience ruined by people on cell phones, talking to each other, or even yelling in response to the events on screen.

I feel like when a movie comes out now that I want to see, I am in a constant tension between dealing with a potentially rowdy or obnoxious public, or a less ideal viewing experience at home.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#276

Post by bombcar »

bityard wrote: post #239
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…

I had an interesting experience taking my son to see the recent-ish Mario movie at the theatre that made me realize that the theatre business really is changing. It was the weekend. Sunday I think. Middle of the day. I hadn't been to this particular theatre before. I bought the tickets online, picked our seats, and then we drove to the theatre. It was in a strip mall on the outer fringes of town, I think they had aro…

Most still do cursorily check tickets (sometimes at the concession stand itself) but they’d probably almost prefer you buy popcorn and no ticket.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#277

Post by Duanemclemore »

woolion wrote: post #112
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' !?"…

>No one in this world ... has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people... I think you're disproving your own point. If you look the major flops in all industries (video-games, movies, ...) the general trend is contempt for the audience. This generally results in some form of uproar from the most involved fans, which is disregarded because of the assumption that the g…

I would suggest some shades of meaning on the Mencken quote. You're absolutely right that showing contempt for your audience will -absolutely- pave the road to losing money. In contrast if you -pander- to the lowest common denominator of intelligence required for engagement? Money printer go brrrrr.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#278

Post by BobaFloutist »

pjc50 wrote: post #102
pixelfarmer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Unfortunately this is a real problem even if you agree with the message. People won't let a pro-diversity story speak for itself, they have to fit in a PSA like the ones stuck on the end of He-Man episodes. Mind you, they feel they have to do…

It reminds me of the classic tweet:

'Black Panther was a fine movie but its politics were a bit iffy. wouldve been way better if at the end the Black Panther turned to the camera & said "i am communist now" & then specified hes the exact kind of communist i am'

Some writers are certainly taking cues from the criticisms that tweet was mocking. Or were the same people making those criticisms.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#279

Post by BobaFloutist »

andelink wrote: post #183
burnt-resistor wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I doubt it. Though, amusingly, people notoriously put on Netflix with the intention of having sex. Though the general expectation is that they're focusing on the sex to the detriment of the Netflix, not the other way around.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#280

Post by qoez »

ajmurmann wrote: post #117
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…

I wonder how much of that is because the movies themselves changed vs everything else that has changed. Back in 2002 most people still watched tv on CRT that were very small by today's standard and had very low resolution. You either had to go out and rent a movie, rewatch something you had recorded or bought or watch whatever was on and enjoy the ads. Now we have a huge choice of movies and tv shows at our finger ti…

I genuinely without rose colored glasses think the obvious explanations is true which is that movies simply became worse since 2002 vs now. Look at the movies released 1999 vs 2024 and the reason fewer people go out to watch them is obvious
Post reply on HN