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

361–370 of 454 posts

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#361

Post by MangoToupe »

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…

My social circle is into afrobeats and amapiano and, to a much lesser extent, american film. I think people just gravitate towards their niche.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#362

Post by zamadatix »

shaky-carrousel wrote: post #331
gretch wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Are you saying you'd order raw quality differently than:

  2002 TV setup
Or are you just saying that a home TV setup is still not as good as a movie theater? The point for the latter was the delta between home and theater used to be much larger, not that the delta is now 0, hence a decrease in theater ticket sales would make sense even if people were watching more movies. If the former, what order do you see it and what leads you to order them in the way you do?

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#363

Post by s1artibartfast »

pickledoyster wrote: post #158
deafpolygon wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> People don’t want to think anymore. Or the bean counters in charge target the largest common denominator, shaving off the long tail of above-average sophistication with every mediocre release.

or the least common denominator is decreasing, as people increasingly will scroll on their phone as they watch a film at home - just like most daily activities.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#364

Post by rbanffy »

dmonitor wrote: post #225
Barrin92 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but Megalopolis was a self-funded project which is completely out of left field sure, but it was self-funded and it was completely panned by the audiences which I think was undeserved, from a lot of people because they found it "weird" or incomprehensible. Which it wasn't in the grand scheme of things. I can't remember whose blog it was on but someone recently compared audience and critic ratings in the 70s/80s and…

Many of Kubrick's movies were panned at release and only received merits upon reexamination. Even 2001 was initially met with a mixed reception. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/hollywoo...

2001 is one of those movies that get better with every rewatch. The only part that doesn’t get much better is the stat gate sequence, which starts to get a bit long after a couple watches. Otherwise, every minute detail is masterfully crafted into the finished movie.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#365

Post by crazygringo »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #330
gretch wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

No, but it was good enough for most movies. The person you replied to is correct: It was glorious at the time. We were all amazed by graphics, even on those old tvs. The "movie theater experience" wasn't worth the hassle for anything but movies with good action and graphics - things like comedies didn't get uniquely better at the theater. It didn't need to be about the same or better, it just needed to be good enough…

> No, but it was good enough for most movies. The person you replied to is correct: It was glorious at the time. We were all amazed by graphics, even on those old tvs.

I genuinely don't know what you're talking about. No it wasn't.

Movies on TV weren't glorious at all. They weren't "amazing." They were what you made do with. And when a classic movie played at your local arthouse theater you grabbed a ticket because it was so much better. The image quality. The sound. Seeing the whole image rather than a bunch of it hacked off.

That's why we went to the theater. Not just for action. For comedies too. Which is why comedies made tons of money at the theater!

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#366

Post by rbanffy »

smt88 wrote: post #350
Lerc wrote: post #341

The Wachowski's once commented that the Red Pill movement was a message to them telling them to never be subtle again. Another data point. Most people seem to think that replicants are detected because they are unemotional. I would prefer filmmakers not assume the least of their audiences, but I would also rather that audiences not give them reason to.

The creator of The Boys has also said he needs to beat people over the head so he doesn't have a similar situation to Mad Men or Breaking Bad, where people think the main character is a hero to emulate

It was hilarious when the far-right noticed, IIRC on season 3 of The Boys, that they were being mocked.

And just look at all Star Wars fans cosplaying as stormtroopers. It even says “evil empire” in the first movie intro. You can’t get much more obvious than George Lucas.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#367

Post by crazygringo »

asdff wrote: post #337
gretch wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You can drop about $800 on a great 1080p projector, screen, and a pair of AirPods that will give you better surround sound than most speaker systems will give you.

My projector screen takes up more of my vision than any movie theater screen I've ever seen except IMAX.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#369

Post by longfingers »

pipes wrote: post #349
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…

I can make good coffee at home, but I still love going to coffee shops. It's the same for going to the cinema for me. It's an event. Something about being out in public. Also my local cinema serves beer. I haven't been in ages due to having kids. But I really miss it.

It's an event but one to put off for later.. Something good enough for right now where there's not much planning, anticipation or potential buyer's remorse is the kind of thing that is routine to do instead of consider.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#370

Post by reactordev »

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

I’ll chime in as a grey beard. Did we think the DVD was the same as being at the theater? It really depends on who your friends were. Some of us kids had techie parents that had things like VGA projectors for presentations. We would take these and play DVD’s off our full-tower Pentium 3’s at movie theater-like experiences. I fondly remember watching the Matrix bonus content with my friends over a giant 100ft wall.

Fight Club as well.

It was no IMAX but at 1024x1024 we didn’t care.

Post reply on HN