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

391–400 of 454 posts

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#391

Post by icecreamscoop »

npteljes wrote: post #145
icecreamscoop wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "sincerity"?

I think literal meaning here is misinterpreted as sincerity by OP. Which is a misconception, literal things can be untruthful and abstract things can be truthful as well, being abstract, or going in a roundabout way is not necessarily about being dishonest.

I think the OP is pointing out the lack of depth in the writing. Sincerity isn't about using language at or below 2nd grade, sincerity can be expressed with any level of verbosity. I think the trend of dialog being over-simplified to the point of literal noun-verb-noun with no metaphor just makes everything taste like plain white bread and velveeta. That's great: if your tastes are pedestrian, but there's nothing elitist or insincere about wanting greater depth from art. Ironically the screenwriters that utilize this richness of language are rarely blockbusters or award winners.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#392

Post by twoodfin »

rbanffy wrote: post #364
dmonitor wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Couple of points in defense of the stargate sequence:

a) It’s meant to be seen and heard on what even today would be a pretty insane cinematic setup. Even moreso than the rest of the film, it loses a lot in the translation to the home theater, or even a typical multiplex. Maybe this is heretical, but I’d love to see a carefully upscaled, remixed 2001 in IMAX.

b) The stargate is perhaps the singular element of the film that was the easiest to imitate, vs. say the incredibly thoughtful and detailed production design. So it was replicated to the point of psychedelic cliché.

Genuinely curious if contemporary audiences found it overlong or just perplexing.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#393

Post by zoklet-enjoyer »

npteljes wrote: post #134
zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #5

Most movies are pretty bad. Always have been. I feel like I got scammed for paying to see 28 Years Later.

What did you expect from 28 Years Later, and what have you got?

I didn't expect anything after about half an hour into it. The first half hour or so was pretty good. The kid taking his sick mom into a zombie infested area was dumb. The blockade but not sending them supplies and stuff, dumb. Zombie pregnancy. Alpha male zombie roided out. The doctor character in general.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#394

Post by shermantanktop »

detourdog wrote: post #387
shermantanktop wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many movie cards can they put on a screen at once...10, at most. How are they supposed to show you what is "on offer"? If their catalog were 10x smaller or 100x larger, they can only show so much. I supposed they could email customers an excel document. But short of that, they have to make choices about what to do with the pixels on their page, and those choices represent filtering what they show you. How is "ham…

My complaint is that the repeat the same titles in multiple rows on the same screen.

Oh right, that’s bad.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#395

Post by zamadatix »

freejazz wrote: post #338
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…

Okay, what happened in 2003 then?

There was a ~3% delta in absolute ticket sales.

I take it you really mean "so why wasn't 2003 the peak year instead of 2002" to which I'd say "I'm not trying to explain one needs a 55" widescreen 4k TV before you'll ever consider going to the movie theater less often, rather that this kind of difference over time is why you can't say movie theatre ticket sales in 2002 were higher so people must therefore have watched more movies then."

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#396

Post by yndoendo »

Would the void of physical medium like VHS and DVD be part of the issue?

Younger me would go to Blockbuster Video and search the new release section for non-blockbuster movies. "Ghost World" was found this way with other cult films.

With the decline of purchasing physical media it makes it hard to bring in revenue to produce obscure art. Even big blockbuster movies that failed in theatres would often be uplifted from media sales.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#397

Post by freejazz »

zamadatix wrote: post #395
freejazz wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, what happened in 2003 then?

There was a ~3% delta in absolute ticket sales. I take it you really mean "so why wasn't 2003 the peak year instead of 2002" to which I'd say "I'm not trying to explain one needs a 55" widescreen 4k TV before you'll ever consider going to the movie theater less often, rather that this kind of difference over time is why you can't say movie theatre ticket sales in 2002 were higher so people must therefore have watched…

No, my question is why did it start going down in 2003 for the reasons you cited, which seem to be contemporary

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#398

Post by zamadatix »

freejazz wrote: post #397
zamadatix wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a ~3% delta in absolute ticket sales. I take it you really mean "so why wasn't 2003 the peak year instead of 2002" to which I'd say "I'm not trying to explain one needs a 55" widescreen 4k TV before you'll ever consider going to the movie theater less often, rather that this kind of difference over time is why you can't say movie theatre ticket sales in 2002 were higher so people must therefore have watched…

No, my question is why did it start going down in 2003 for the reasons you cited, which seem to be contemporary

Not sure I follow, why should there be a single year people started e.g. buying bigger TVs?

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#399

Post by freejazz »

zamadatix wrote: post #398
freejazz wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, my question is why did it start going down in 2003 for the reasons you cited, which seem to be contemporary

Not sure I follow, why should there be a single year people started e.g. buying bigger TVs?

I didn't say there was, but what do you think changed that year that they went down? It's your assertion, not mine...

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#400

Post by zamadatix »

privatelypublic wrote: post #272
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…

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

Honestly I wish I had put "(or maybe a new fangled DVD)" instead of "or DVD" because people seem to interpret that as "DVD wasn't good enough to have any impact on movie sales" rather than "either VHS or DVD at the time were still shit compared to the options now so does a decrease in ticket sales really guarantee a decrease in movies watched?"

DVD adoption (and later Blu-Ray) was certainly a huge factor in the gradual changes and 2002 was when people really started amassing them at home https://i.imgur.com/OHZ9H69.png. I'm sure piracy has a role as well too, but most of the deltas listed were also gradual changes which had their start prior to 2002, same as piracy. The only thing special about 2003 is it's the year the momentum changed, not that it's the year something brand new was introduced.

Post reply on HN