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

211–220 of 454 posts

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#211

Post by morkalork »

BurningFrog wrote: post #155
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…

Movies had a century as one of the main stages for global culture. That era is ending, and other things are replacing them, mostly based on computers and internet. If you love movies this is sad, but movies once replaced other beloved things. The world spins on and nothing is forever. Enjoy the ride!

Even within the medium there was a whole generation of beloved silent-film stars that didn't make the transition to talkies. Every era has a beginning and an end.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#212

Post by vasco »

PaulHoule wrote: post #80
vasco wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't that was my point. But if people just go to the food court at the mall and complain there's 90% fast food... Go to a smaller movie theater, go to movie festivals that happen every year in most big cities, you'll see the majority of movies have nothing to do with the few major Hollywood block busters. And comparing Dune, a major block busters to other ones makes no sense when the point was that you need to…

My take is that the movies you see at the arthouse cinema aren't any better than the big movies, they just have a smaller budget. They come out of the same system and would be just as self-indulgent if they had the resources to be.

It shows you don't watch them, you can obviously find Hollywood-without-the-budget cause the people that work in Hollywood come from somewhere, but you also have things that are completely outside. Some documentary about a Georgian truck driver who goes across the country side selling supplies from the city to the villages with long, no dialog shots that go for several minutes, has nothing to do with Hollywood productions and there's a million fractal things like this that would be way too "boring" for mass consumption.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#213

Post by ToucanLoucan »

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.

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.

And I don't think you can totally disregard that movies cost more than they ever have to make while also looking worse than they ever have. The special effects in Pirates of the Caribbean utterly trounce newer productions that cost far more to make just for everyone to bounce around green screen stages in motion capture pajamas, and to be clear, this is not industry professionals costing too much or being bad at their jobs, it's almost solely down to the studios wanting the ability to hysterically tinker with films until the 11th hour to ensure maximum market reach.

The industry should be ashamed of itself.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#214

Post by morkalork »

gonzo41 wrote: post #89
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…

The main driver IMO is the death of the tight 90 minute, 80 Million decently acted thriller / action / comedy film. Everything is too big, too epic, too simplistic, and too long.

What about all the lower budget 1-5M contemporary films from the 90s? There's no new directors like Kevin Smith / Quinten Tarantino anymore.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#215

Post by rightbyte »

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…

Why do you bring up 4:3 as a bad property? Honestly I find watching 4:3 easier on the eyes and mind since you know where to look.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#217

Post by Cpoll »

rightbyte wrote: post #215
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…

Why do you bring up 4:3 as a bad property? Honestly I find watching 4:3 easier on the eyes and mind since you know where to look.

You might be an outlier. Our FOV is wide, so it's a better match. Furthermore, the 4:3 version of a movie is almost always a crop from the intended ratio, so information and intent is lost.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#218

Post by WorldPeas »

whoisyc wrote: post #194
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…

> 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...…

I've noticed on outings that some songs I hear on the PA system now will slow themselves down momentarily for what I'm sure is a "tiktok soundbyte". I'd be curious to see how music discovery works via that avenue

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#219

Post by owlninja »

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…

Plus the 30 minutes of previews and messages from the theater.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#220

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN