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

191–200 of 454 posts

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#191

Post by kgwgk »

isk517 wrote: post #165
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…

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?

> it was 1997 so what else are you going to do?

Right, there are only so many walls to paint in a cave…

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#192

Post by PyWoody »

hanlonsrazor wrote: post #146

I have definitely noticed the same occurring in North American cinema, but I do not think this is a new phenomenon. Rather, it's just a symptom of the increased commercialization of indie cinema - commercialization requiring film for all to understand. If one is to broaden their horizons, overseas cinema is still devoid of this literalism. European cinema, Korean cinema, and the famously show not tell Japanese cinema…

For other relatively recent movies I'd add:

  > Evil Does Not Exist
  > Godland
  > The Beast
  > The Worst Person in the World
  > Misericordia
  > The Banshees of Inisherin
  > Amanda [0]
  > Afire [1]
[0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt18469872/

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26440619/

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#193

Post by [deleted] »

raincole wrote: post #124
PaulHoule wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't know if it's really anime eating movies' cake. But anime is generally FAR more on board with literalism than movies. If anime is really eating movies' market share, the lesson movie makers need to learn is to be more on the nose, not less.

[deleted]

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#194

Post by whoisyc »

deafpolygon wrote: post #133
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2002 was also when broadband internet and movie piracy became more prolific - DivX was just out, DVD burners became a thing, etc. Streaming video was in its infancy, with TiVo and VOD slowly becoming a thing (although that only reached mainstream in 2007 when Netflix launched). DVDs and DVD players became mainstream, as well as flat TVs, HD video, etc. Anyway. The tech in the movie theaters did improve by a lot since…

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…

> Songs are shorter (Beatles songs are around 164 seconds long on average.

https://www.aaronkrerowicz.com/uploads/6/5/4/3/6543054/durat...

An 2005 compilation of Johnny Cash’s greatest songs averages just a little over three minutes per song.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Johnny_Cash

Gerry and The Pacemakers did not have long songs either.

https://www.discogs.com/master/369149-Gerry-And-The-Pacemake...

Neither did the Kingston Trio.

https://www.discogs.com/release/666498-Kingston-Trio-The-Kin...

Before recording, popular forms of folk music typically has just one fairly short melody. You can repeat it over and over with different lyrics but the “core” is simple and short . Sing “Oh Susana” or “Kalinka” or “Scarborough fair” to yourself and count the seconds before you the melody repeats.

Frankly, “popular songs being over three minutes long” is likely an anomaly in the history of humanity. What we are seeing with shorter songs is probably just a regression to the mean.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#195

Post by npteljes »

watwut wrote: post #181
npteljes wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I read it, the joke is just owning the insult in a good way. It works here on multiple levels, because first, owning the insult is not expected, so that's already a surprise, which can work as a joke. Then, by actually admitting to the many bad classes, it signals that the author can actually tell good from bad, implying knowledge about the matter after all, refuting the argument in the insult (that he is bad…

But it is not funny. It is not a joke. It is just not engaging with the implied "you do not know what you talk about here" ... which is entirely valid, but not exactly a joke.

We can't know if it was a joke or not, but comes across as someone trying to be funny.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#196

Post by AlexandrB »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #177
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand movie theater economics correctly, the studio gets 80 to 95% of the ticket sales, depending on how "first run" the movie is. The theaters actually make their money on selling concessions. Well, the longer the movie, the more people feel the need of snacks to get through it. So maybe the theaters are pushing longer movies rather than shorter, because they make more money that way. Just an off-the-cuff…

Bit of a tight line to walk. Longer movies mean fewer showings per day. When I saw that Oppenheimer was three hours long -I want to watch that at home so I can take a bathroom break/snacks so a personal pause button is an improvement on the theater.

If movies are regularly going to be 3 hours long, movie theatres need to bring back intermission breaks.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#197

Post by ghaff »

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…

And probably add to the fact that streaming TV has become vastly more ubiquitous, popular, and high quality.

When I was an undergrad ages ago, going to the on-campus movies were a non-trivial part of the weekend experience. My understanding is that they're mostly dead at this point.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#198

Post by DoneWithAllThat »

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 activism/social justice/messaging, where they’re pushing a particular political narrative. It’s why we’ve seen the death of truly morally ambiguous characters or even antiheroes - they threaten the clear and unambiguous message the writer wants to send. Stories aren’t for the audience to interpret but for the writer to preach.

And again this isn’t inference. This is reading and watching interviews with writers, showrunners, producers, etc.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#199

Post by kikokikokiko »

beAbU wrote: post #65
Duanemclemore wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually have less than zero excuse. I was a 13 year old nerd when it came out - PRIME market. But I think even then I was allergic to hype. Same reason I've never seen a vast number of well loved movies. Like Titanic. ... just a contrarian LOL. We didn't have the money to go to movies. So I think the exposure to entire cohort of my fellow nerds having seen it three times over opening weekend, wearing the t-shirt e…

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.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#200

Post by aydyn »

adrianN wrote: post #101
api wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like (most) Anime (I feel like it's one way I diverge from typical geek culture) but I do often like foreign movies and TV shows more than domestic ones. That's probably an effect too. On the flip side, I've heard the blandness of larger ticket domestic US films in terms of things like sexual, religious, or political themes attributable to global distribution. Many culture are much more sexually conservative,…

Anime is such a broad genre that it is completely normal to dislike most of it.

Please, anime today is purely for children and teenagers. The golden age of serious anime is long over.
Post reply on HN