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

411–420 of 454 posts

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#411

Post by rsynnott »

JeremyNT wrote: post #296
privatelypublic wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Back in the year 2002... Internet access was widely available. Blockbuster video was a thing in almost every town. Netflix mail service was getting big, making huge back catalogs available. DVD players often included S/PDIF out for surround sound, which was becoming a more common part of home theaters. Plasma TVs were becoming far more common, dramatically improving picture quality and size versus CRTs. HBO and other…

DVD player sales were also just starting to boom; they overtook VCR sales the next year.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#412

Post by rsynnott »

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

That's about when DVD players started becoming common; it's the first year that their sales exceeded those of VCR players.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#413

Post by beAbU »

Duanemclemore wrote: post #355
kikokikokiko wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

My mid 30s brother in law is obsessed with graphics and framerates in video games. He optimises his games and gaming hardware selections primarily based on graphics fidelity.

He used to get the latest version of the fifa game every year, because the "graphics were so much better in this one", he went into debt for an xbox series X because of the better graphics that it offered, now he's recently built a custom gaming PC, primarily because he could eke better (you guessed it) graphics out of the games he plays.

Every single time I would tell him IDGAF about graphics, and I'll probably keep my XSX until the proverbial wheels come off before I upgrade. For me all I need is acceptable smoothness, decent-ish performance, but most importantly an enjoyable gameplay experience and (primarily for me) a very strong narrative focus.

I stopped trying to dunk on his enthusiasm (I was like that when I was 15), and now I'm just happy he's happy. Although he probably won't be happy, because the next-gen gpus are already just over the horizon, and by the time he's built his next gaming PC the next-next-gen GPUs will be just over the horizon...

Maybe some people are like that with movies? Maybe they select based on flashiness and special effects, and when the effects are obviously visible then it's bad by default? Maybe comments like "wow, this movie is certainly visually striking" in a focus group is seen as a Good Thing which makes the producers optimise for that when they make movies?

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#414

Post by justanotherjoe »

Duanemclemore wrote: post #355
kikokikokiko wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

The use of color is atrocious in new movies. It's the era of high contrast and contrasting colors. They depend on it to make something look 'expensive' and 'premium' even though to me it looks really bad. And played out. Give me washed out greens like My Neighbor Totoro or yes, Jurassic Park, anyday.

It's a self-reinforcing thing. New movies want to look 'new', no matter if 'new' is bad.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#415

Post by Doxin »

watwut wrote: post #334
Doxin wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The majority of music communication is not in lyrics, but in sound and tone of voice. That could maybe be argued for music which is released as music. This song isn't stand-alone, it's part of a musical. You can't take it out of its context and then complain it doesn't make sense. > This song makes you, unambiguously, feel good. Maybe it makes you feel good. It makes me feel conflicted. > From lyrics alone, I would…

I did not said the song makes no sense. It makes perfect sense. And it is in fact released as a standalone song. > Well look closer then As I said, I did not found sexual assault visuals. Only abstract abstract video with words and pink colors. > There's clearly an element of glamour he likes about it. Sure, but there is nothing about song itself that would make one feel bad about it. Or even be aware it is sexual as…

If you can't see the negatives and the dark sides in that music video I dunno what to tell you. To me they are clearly and obviously there.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#416

Post by rbanffy »

int_19h wrote: post #384
rbanffy wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People have been consciously cosplaying as villains for decades because pretending to be evil can be fun as hell; I'm not sure what that's supposed to illustrate, really.

You all (you, nitwit005, andrewstuart) make a very good point. Besides, having a red helmet with "Make The Empire Great Again" would be hilarious.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#417

Post by rbanffy »

twoodfin wrote: post #392
rbanffy wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fil…

There are parts of it in false color that are perhaps a bit more obvious and less "magical" now.

I would love to see what Stanley Kubrick (and Douglas Trumbull) could achieve with current technology for the same sequence. I'm not sure audiences would survive the warping of their senses though. Some would come out irreversibly transformed.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#418

Post by littlestymaar »

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…

Interestingly enough, this varies a lot between countries.

Also, you graph is way too short-sighted to say it “peaked in 2002”, as in reality it peaked in the 50s (before TV went ubiquitous) when almost ten times as many tickets were sold.

Re: The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

#419

Post by ragazzina »

I had not seen a recent movie in quite some time. Recently I went to watch Sinners (2025, critically acclaimed). The movie starts with a voiceover saying:

"There are legends of people born with the gift of making music so true, it can pierce the veil between life and death; conjuring spirits from the past and the future..."

Not even an hour passes, and the same exact voiceover repeats word for word that music can conjure spirits from the past and the future, while the scene on screen literally shows music conjuring spirits from the past and the future. It threw me off a little.

Many commenters in this thread point out that on-the-nose-ness in Hollywood movies isn’t new. Personally, I can’t recall a voiceover being repeated verbatim, especially not during the very scene it originally seemed to foreshadow.

Post reply on HN