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

351–360 of 454 posts

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#351

Post by ProfessorLayton »

xoxxala wrote: post #257
nilamo wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a movie for two is like a $75 experience with popcorn A ticket is less than $15 during the expensive times, and $10 off peak. Where in the world are you seeing movies? I get it, I don't go to the theater anywhere near what I used to, but the nice one near me with a bar and a player piano in the lobby is still nowhere near $75 for two tickets.

Pricing greatly depends on location. Full-price tickets are $28.99 in New York for non-IMAX or special showing. Los Angeles is $22-24. My local theater in a small Arizona town is $10 full-price and $5 off peak. We just saw Superman in a Las Vegas IMAX and it was $85 including fees for three tickets. $75 for two seems perfectly reasonable in LA, SF or NY once you include concessions.

>$75 for two seems perfectly reasonable in LA, SF or NY once you include concessions.

Perhaps it's reasonable for a very occasional and special event, but it's not actually that expensive for anyone that cares about seeing movies in theaters. I'm paying $27/mo for effectively all-I-can-watch[1] movies via a subscription in SF, and includes IMAX. When I travel to LA I can use it there too, and it's available in NYC. I saw Superman for the cost of popcorn because I saw Elio earlier this month, it's a great deal.

If one doesn't go to theaters that often or cares for IMAX, there's other chains that offer 1 2D-only movie for $12/month and the tickets roll over.

[1] 4x movies/week, which is indeed more than I have time for.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#352

Post by jimbokun »

owlninja wrote: post #219
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…

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

A local non chain theater has no commercials before movies. Just the trailers.

Makes me want to only go to that theater.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#353

Post by satyrun »

qoez wrote: post #280
ajmurmann wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much of that is because the movies themselves changed vs everything else that has changed. Back in 2002 most people still watched tv on CRT that were very small by today's standard and had very low resolution. You either had to go out and rent a movie, rewatch something you had recorded or bought or watch whatever was on and enjoy the ads. Now we have a huge choice of movies and tv shows at our finger ti…

I genuinely without rose colored glasses think the obvious explanations is true which is that movies simply became worse since 2002 vs now. Look at the movies released 1999 vs 2024 and the reason fewer people go out to watch them is obvious

I was going to say, were movies really that good in 2002?

Catch Me If You Can

Gangs of New York

The Pianist

City of God

Yes, yes they were lol. It is almost hard to believe those all came out in the same year.

Imagine in 2025 having to pick if you want to see The Pianist or City of God? It is just so unthinkable

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#354

Post by jimbokun »

busterarm wrote: post #310
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…

I put almost $20k into a home theater setup. And with what I bought and how I set it up it punches way above its weight. I only have to wait 3 weeks to 3 months to be able to watch a movie at home now. Why would I go to a theater!? I used to make exceptions for independent films when I lived near an IFC theater, but streaming/vod services now have me covered there too and I don't live near one anymore.

Now you should sell tickets to people to come watch movies at your house.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#355

Post by Duanemclemore »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #199
beAbU wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I constantly wonder why no one's talking about the fact that almost every movie with cgi visual effects looks awful these days? I was on a plane recently. One person in front of me had Wicked on, another the live-action Snow White, another some recent Marvel movie. Each slid completely into the uncanny valley in their own way. It was really eye opening.

The era you're talking about the balance was spot on. I'd say there was a golden age of effects from Star Wars through to Terminator 2. You're already suspending your disbelief and letting the filmmaker take you on a ride. Who cares if it's hyper-realistic? (or, in the case of contemporary movies, trying to be hyper-realistic and failing to the point that it makes it even more obvious.)

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#356

Post by slg »

lupire wrote: post #333
slg wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Matrix is an earlier and I think more impactful example of this. That is a movie made by two trans filmmakers and with hindsight it is clearly an exploration of their own identities. Yet somehow it has been co-opted by people with diametrically opposed political and gender ideologies[1]. That has to be incredibly frustrating as an artist and I bet many people have seen that sort of reaction and go out of their wa…

The idea of living in a simulation was well imagined separate from trans identity. The people in the Matrix aren't trans -- they are the same people in the same bodies whether they are in or out of simulation. It's OK for a trans person to make a movie with no trans content that doesn't only make sense from a trans perspective.

This is an ironic reply as like those fans of the Matrix, you appear to be reading something different in what I said than what I intended.

I'm not saying the trans reading of The Matrix is the only valid reading of that movie. However, anti-trans folks and their ideologically peers reading the movie as supporting their worldview is objectively not the intended reading and therefore is likely incredibly frustrating to the trans creators. It is easy to imagine other authors seeing that and wanting to avoid that type of gross misreading of their work.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#357

Post by Lerc »

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

Yeah, I guess The same problem exists with The Watchmen and Fight Club.

I found it fascinating how the term snowflake was changed because the character that people admired told their proxies that they were not snowflakes. The meaning at the time was that they were homogenous and unremarkable. Snowflakes represented the opposite where each individual snowflake has a unique pattern. That viewpoint was not empowering so they took the metaphor to be about the fragility of snowflakes.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#358

Post by rbanffy »

babypuncher wrote: post #252
BobaFloutist wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you are clearly also very educated. Impressive use of language! I think it's pretty normal that as people get deeper and more invested in any given artform, they tend to become more appreciative of works that are less immediately pleasing to lay-people. You mentioned literature and (atonal) music, but this just as readily applies to food, wine, videogames, Anime, fashion, anything you can think of. I'll agree th…

To put it another way, today's avant-garde is tomorrow's mainstream.

Not quite. It’ll first be masticated, digested, and excreted before a simplistic version of it becomes the next mainstream.

Perhaps a more accurate (and less cruel) analogy would be that it will receive some scaffolding to sustain it - the leading edge is always unfinished. By the time it becomes mainstream, it’s closer to a product than an idea.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#359

Post by ghaff »

frameset wrote: post #206
AlexandrB wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've always thought this would make sense. Often during a three hour film I've ran out of refreshments and would like to buy a drink or something for the last hour.

It used to be fairly common with the big "epic" films. And probably no live theater production is going to go much over 90 minutes without an intermission.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#360

Post by quickthrowman »

ghaff wrote: post #197
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…

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.

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

The first two I agree with, the third one is a stretch. The quality of programming that HBO was putting out in the mid 90s and 00s is far higher than any streaming series that has ever been released.

Post reply on HN