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

401–410 of 454 posts

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#401

Post by andrewstuart »

rbanffy wrote: post #366
smt88 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you saying people are mistakenly thinking that the stormtroopers are “good guys” and wouldn’t play them if they’d realized they are “bad guys”?

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#402

Post by ndiddy »

asdff wrote: post #339
snozolli wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eno…

I have never heard of sound bars falling apart after a couple years, is that common? Every piece of sound equipment I've ever bought has lasted at least 15 years, my sound bar is 5 years old.

In general I think the sound bar audience is different from the hi-fi audio audience. I was fine with using the TV's built-in speakers until LCD TVs took over from CRTs and the built-in speakers became much tinnier and quieter because they couldn't fit quality speakers in a flatscreen TV case. I suspect most people who buy sound bars are in a similar situation.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#403

Post by ndiddy »

alistairSH wrote: post #135
xnorswap wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dropped? You've produced a graph showing they've been on the increase for the past 30 years.

And where the heck can you get a movie ticket for $11? A discount matinee viewing at my local theaters is from $17 to $20. $20-$23 if you go in the evening. The lowest price ticket, a Tuesday noon showing, is $12. I don't recall the last time I went to the movies with my wife and spent less than $60 (tickets, a shared soda, two snacks).

> And where the heck can you get a movie ticket for $11?

Places where real estate is cheaper than wherever you live.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#404

Post by zamadatix »

freejazz wrote: post #399
zamadatix wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Now I'm doubly confused... where did I assert what about 2003? My comment is about why you can't look at movie theater ticket sales between 2022 and 2002 as evidence alone to say people have stopped watching movies as much. I don't think I ever said anything about why ticket sales peaked in 2002 specifically?

If I had to throw a guess at the largest contributors I'd say 2002-2003 is when people really started buying lots of DVDs for the first time as well as the start of the modernization of TV sets. Even though much better versions of these were common 20 years later I feel they very likely helped make the absolute peak of ticket sales be 2002. This is getting more into speculation of what did happen rather than saying ticket sale data is not enough to support the conclusion though, which is what my comment was focused on.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#405

Post by freejazz »

zamadatix wrote: post #404
freejazz wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Now I'm doubly confused... where did I assert what about 2003? My comment is about why you can't look at movie theater ticket sales between 2022 and 2002 as evidence alone to say people have stopped watching movies as much. I don't think I ever said anything about why ticket sales peaked in 2002 specifically? If I had to throw a guess at the largest contributors I'd say 2002-2003 is when people really started buying…

You didn't. You said the peak hit in 2002. Presumably something happened that caused the trend to start in 2003, which could obviously not be the fact that eventually in 2025 it would be more convenient to instead stream movies at home.

>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 couch.

Is what I was responding to.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#406

Post by boogieknite »

thegrim33 wrote: post #380
boogieknite wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anora, Oppenheimer, and Everything Everywhere All at Once are not lowest common denominator movies. the academy has many issues but i dont think its catering to mass appeal and dumbing down Serpell's interpretation of Anora is dismissive and shallow. the point is Disney infects the American mind and Baker's made that point across half his movies and in some cases incredibly blatantly. its implied and Serpell categori…

What was complicated at all about Oppenheimer? Would a "common denominator" person really watch that movie and afterwards be confused about anything that happened? What aspect would they remotely be confused about? What aspect would be "deep" to them? From what I saw, it was nothing but the most basic character drama combined with some "suspenseful" races against time thrown in here and there. For the second half it…

i CERTAINLY agree that theres tons of new literalism in Oppenheimer. i was mentioning that Oppenheimer is not catering to the lowest common denominator in order to get an Oscar. Oscars trade on belabored basic character drama and many of the things you listed. mostly depends on directors who the academy think are "deserving" at the moment

Oppy did incredibly well because of it's memed Barbenheimer marketing wave. i dont think the 3 hour great man movie was lowest common denominator movie. sure, you and i might think it was basic and laughed when Einstein showed up, but my bar for lowest common denominator is a Happy Madison production

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#407

Post by zamadatix »

freejazz wrote: post #405
zamadatix wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now I'm doubly confused... where did I assert what about 2003? My comment is about why you can't look at movie theater ticket sales between 2022 and 2002 as evidence alone to say people have stopped watching movies as much. I don't think I ever said anything about why ticket sales peaked in 2002 specifically? If I had to throw a guess at the largest contributors I'd say 2002-2003 is when people really started buying…

You didn't. You said the peak hit in 2002. Presumably something happened that caused the trend to start in 2003, which could obviously not be the fact that eventually in 2025 it would be more convenient to instead stream movies at home. >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")…

That quote doesn't talk about the peak at all though so why am I said to make such claims? The quote should have the same exact meaning even if you substitute in 2001 or 2003 when reading 2002 - if it doesn't then you're inserting claims not from the quote on my behalf and then asking me to explain these claims I never made.

The quoted section was in response to the claim movie watches are down on the basis ticket sales are down compared to the past:

> 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!

Hence the next line after the quote "Box office ticket sales say people go to the theatre less often, not that people watch movies less often."

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#408

Post by shaky-carrousel »

zamadatix wrote: post #362
shaky-carrousel wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wha…

No, what I mean is the 2002 experience was awesome for us in our time, like the 2022 is for people of today. But both experiences still pale compared with a movie teather. It's like for us at the time the DVD was a 8, modern TV is maybe a 10, but movie rather in both cases was like a 10000. It was, and it is, in a complete another level.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#409

Post by rsynnott »

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.

Note that most people in 2002 didn't have DVD players. DVD player sales didn't even overtake VCR sales until a year or so afterwards, and there was a huge installed base. Watching on a DVD would not have been the _typical_ experience.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#410

Post by pickledoyster »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #213
pickledoyster wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's far more this, plus a combo of not only targeting the largest common denominator, but having to do that internationally which obliterates any script's ability to tie into cultural knowledge or norms, or the "vibes" of any given population. Not to mention nothing ever goes to screen that can't be quickly scooped out to appease the Chinese censors, lest they lose the largest audience on earth right out of the gate…

I'm not a fan of horror, but it seems like it's still extremely profitable (low budget -> solid viewership in theaters/streaming) and the one genre where creatives have enough freedom to experiment and do stuff out of the ordinary
Post reply on HN