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

331–340 of 454 posts

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#331

Post by shaky-carrousel »

gretch wrote: post #308
shaky-carrousel wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

No, I didn't. I don't think it either today, with my pretty big TV. The experience still pales in comparison.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#332

Post by lupire »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #199
beAbU wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like others have said, go and watch it. It holds up exceptionally well. It's just a plain good movie. The tension, acting, the special effects, quotable moments, the dinosaurs, everything. Do it tonight and report back tomorrow please. I'm not gonna promise that it'll change your life - don't want to over hype it. But I am genuinely curious what an adult's initial reaction to it would be after watching it for the fir…

The special effects on that movie are superb. On the vast majority of big early 90s blockbusters really. Just enough CGI to make the animatronics feel perfect. Nowadays I can't watch any movie, they all look like I'm watching a bunch of PS2 cutscenes spliced together.

Jurassic Park is 2h7min.

9min of animatronic dinosaurs

6min of CGI dinosaurs.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#333

Post by lupire »

slg wrote: post #307
AlexandrB wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wa…

The idea of living in a simulation was well imagined separate from trans identity.

The people in the Matrix aren't trans -- they are the same people in the same bodies whether they are in or out of simulation.

It's OK for a trans person to make a movie with no trans content that doesn't only make sense from a trans perspective.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#334

Post by watwut »

Doxin wrote: post #297
watwut wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vide…

> The majority of music communication is not in lyrics, but in sound and tone of voice. That could maybe be argued for music which is released as music. This song isn't stand-alone, it's part of a musical. You can't take it out of its context and then complain it doesn't make sense. > This song makes you, unambiguously, feel good. Maybe it makes you feel good. It makes me feel conflicted. > From lyrics alone, I would…

I did not said the song makes no sense. It makes perfect sense. And it is in fact released as a standalone song.

> Well look closer then

As I said, I did not found sexual assault visuals. Only abstract abstract video with words and pink colors.

> There's clearly an element of glamour he likes about it.

Sure, but there is nothing about song itself that would make one feel bad about it. Or even be aware it is sexual assault what is going on. You have to bring that out from somewhere else.

> It's a realistic portrayal of how some abusive relationships work. Obviously people in them feel like they want or need to stay in them or... they wouldn't.

I do not think it is realistic portrayal of such relationship. It is glamorous portrayal. It makes you feel the harmful part feels good and is worth it. Realistic portrayal would had more pain in it, it would had mix of negative emotions in it. It would show dark side and pain, not just rational realization "this is harmful but I want it".

People in abusive relationship do not feel just the addiction and choice part. They do have fair amount of suffering, fear, feeling like they cant mixed in. They do not feel it is sweet. This song feels sweet.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#335

Post by lupire »

DoneWithAllThat wrote: post #198
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…

I am 100% of the opinion that it’s (2), in no small part because the writers themselves say as much frequently and vociferously at every opportunity. This isn’t reading some hidden meaning, this is just listening to what they say when they’re interviewed. The two most common themes I hear from writers are intense narcissism, feeling deeply their own personal experience is something anyone else should care about, and…

Audiences are intensely more political nowadays. They want that.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#336

Post by lupire »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #266
mvieira38 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard agree. In what other art forms are people expected to produce for "global appeal"? A lot of my enjoyment of books and music IS the fact that I "don't get it", and slowly learning the cultural references is fun and good for personal development

Part of it is that modern mainstream movies are so expensive to make. They need to be global to recoup their expenses. Much like videogames, the answer seems to be to look for indie and foreign works with less pressure on them to be easily consumable.

If they were good they wouldn't have to be so expensive.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#337

Post by asdff »

gretch wrote: post #308
shaky-carrousel wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The big difference maker imo in movie theater experience is size and sound. You still need to drop about the same few thousand dollars you had to drop in 2002 to buy a proper projector and sound system today. 85 inch low pixel density screen and a sound bar ain't it, but if it is it for you, you are probably no discerning audiophile who would have probably have been fine with whatever was sold in a comparable market segment in 2002 (refrigerator width crt displays were in fact all the rage and very desirable at one point).

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#338

Post by freejazz »

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…

Okay, what happened in 2003 then?

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#339

Post by asdff »

snozolli wrote: post #184
isk517 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

IMO actual quality components are still just as remote as 20 years ago. A proper setup is more or less the same technology as it has been for decades: good speakers, good amplifier, placed appropriately, and none of this has really seen any democratization. People buy sound bars and such but these are a far cry to what an actual sound system is like that you probably need to spend in the 4 figures to achieve. Buy enough sound bars that fall apart in a couple years for a couple hundred dollars and you could have bought a proper amplifier, speakers, in a setup that is actually modular, expandable, upgradeable, and serviceable.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#340

Post by haunter »

wonderwonder wrote: post #304

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.

>It seems at least to me that they don't really make very good movies anymore

There are plenty of good films out there. Ignore Hollyood, broaden your horizon

Post reply on HN