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

301–310 of 454 posts

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#301

Post by thiht »

> Buzzy films from “Anora” to “The Substance” are undone by a relentless signposting of meaning and intent.

Can’t read the article because of paywall, but citing The Substance here from all possible movies is… weird? I agree with the title, and although there’s some literalism in The Substance, there’s also tons of subtext in it, so that’s a pretty terrible example. I’m guessing the rest of the article is extremely elitist, and no movie is good enough for the author except for obscure Eastern Europe movies from the 60s?

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#302

Post by duderific »

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…

That's weird. Where I am, if you buy tickets online you get a QR code. At the theater, there's someone in front who scans your QR code and gives you a physical ticket. That ticket is not really checked, but there is always someone there paying attention to folks walking in.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#303

Post by FredPret »

cultofmetatron wrote: post #290
FredPret wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you read text for long periods on those?

I won't recommend it for doing any kind of coding. its workable but far from ergonomic. That said, my pair is perfect for streaming shows and playing video games. Im going to wait till a system with true spatial anchoring and 4k come to market. I think at that point, Id be willing to use it as a virtual monitor.

Noted.

> Im going to wait till a system with true spatial anchoring and 4k come to market.

On that day, I'm taking my iPhone, a keyboard, and those future glasses and will work from under a tree.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#304

Post by wonderwonder »

It seems at least to me that they don't really make very good movies anymore. The last time I remember watching a movie and thinking "That was pretty good" was the Dune films. Before that I can't even remember. I watched Thunderbolts and remember I thought it was the first Marvel movie that wasn't just terrible since End Game and that was primarily due to the Russian guy as a comedy source.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#305

Post by shaky-carrousel »

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…

Nah, I don't buy this. In 2002 your "low quality DVD" was peak quality for us. Same way the blocky renders of PS1 was peak video-gaming for us. It only looks low quality when compared with today. For us at the time, it was magnificent.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#306

Post by int_19h »

dfxm12 wrote: post #179
s28l wrote: post #149

I find this article rather underwhelming because it spends so much time calling out bad examples and so little time highlighting examples of subtlety (in any era). Without positive examples, I don’t think they make the case that this is a new phenomenon or even a phenomenon at all: all the author has done is identify a lens to criticize through. It may be the case that this is a recent phenomenon (though some other c…

Yeah, I can see where the author is coming from, but it's kinda effortless to dismiss a ~2hr movie with a five sentence critique of a few scenes or lines of dialog. I'd much rather see the author go deep on one movie than shallowly take on a bunch.

For Gladiator II specifically, you might enjoy this:

https://acoup.blog/2024/12/06/collections-nitpicking-gladiat...

https://acoup.blog/2024/12/13/collections-nitpicking-gladiat...

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#307

Post by slg »

AlexandrB wrote: post #172
dkarl wrote: post #161

I think what this means is that the movies now care whether the least-common-denominator viewers get their "point." Because of this, they have to have a single easily articulated point, and they have to beat the audience over the head with it. Prior to this, I doubt whether directors, writers, or studios much cared if an unsophisticated viewer walked out of a movie with the "wrong" idea of what it "meant." The abilit…

One interesting example here is Joker. It seems like the filmmakers did not like the audience they attracted with the first film, nor the messages that this audience took away. So the sequel seems like it was intentionally designed to piss that audience off.

The Matrix is an earlier and I think more impactful example of this. That is a movie made by two trans filmmakers and with hindsight it is clearly an exploration of their own identities. Yet somehow it has been co-opted by people with diametrically opposed political and gender ideologies[1]. That has to be incredibly frustrating as an artist and I bet many people have seen that sort of reaction and go out of their way to make it more difficult for people to be that wrong about their art.

[1] - https://static1.cbrimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2...

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#308

Post by gretch »

shaky-carrousel wrote: post #305
zamadatix wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nah, I don't buy this. In 2002 your "low quality DVD" was peak quality for us. Same way the blocky renders of PS1 was peak video-gaming for us. It only looks low quality when compared with today. For us at the time, it was magnificent.

> For us at the time, it was magnificent.

At the time, did you think the quality of that DVD was about the same as the experience you got in the theater?

The parent post is arguing that the gap in experience between home theaters and theater theaters has shrunk immensely. Right now I have a 85" wide OLED in my living room - That's not a thing that existed in 2002

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#309

Post by ghssds »

IAmBroom wrote: post #69
litter41 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

ONLY because of streaming services. The industry exploded after the 1918 flu.

Was it because of the flu of because of the war?

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#310

Post by busterarm »

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…

I put almost $20k into a home theater setup. And with what I bought and how I set it up it punches way above its weight. I only have to wait 3 weeks to 3 months to be able to watch a movie at home now. Why would I go to a theater!?

I used to make exceptions for independent films when I lived near an IFC theater, but streaming/vod services now have me covered there too and I don't live near one anymore.

Post reply on HN