Why Do We Still Go See Movies?

Well, there were the dozen or so adaptions of things like The Wizard Of Oz before we got the famous one. I think that's a pretty good representation of how much originality is respected in Hollywood.

I wasn't under the impression art films weren't being made, in fact you mention three in your post. No they're not box office successes, but neither was Citizen Kane ( which would have made even less money without Welles' name and the controversy surrounding the film) and M was only really popular in it's home country. The fact is that Art Films were never mainstream, even in this imaginary Golden age you've created, and most people have always watched spoon-fed exploitation flicks. Just be happy that in the future the films you love may be classics while Transformers will just be an embarrassing memory.

And stop with the anti-artistic crap, Deboss, it makes you look extremely stupid.

edited 21st Feb '12 6:25:01 AM by JudeDismas

Nah, it just looks that way to people who see invisible clothes.

If I wanted to sit through two hours of poorly constructed arguments designed to sell a point, I'd pull a chair up to a dude on a soap box. When I look for intelligent discussion of ideas, I look for essays and forum arguments since there's back and forth rather than some director engaging in some ideological masturbation. I also see no point in going to see a film that is going to present points that reinforce my views already, since I already hold those views and see no point in said ideological masturbation that tends to come with films that try to make a statement.

edited 21st Feb '12 7:08:03 AM by Deboss

To answer your question, studios latch onto the "hot" trends because making movies is incredibly risky, business wise. It costs millions and if the film is a flop, you get nothing. So studios try and stick with what seems popular, even after the genre/gimmick has been done to death.

That is also why sequels and remakes are so popular these days with studios - if it worked once, it ought to work again.

The problem isn't so much the people making films, but the fact that capitalism itself encourages this kind of "stick to what you know" mentality. Experiment in a capitalistic society is not rewarded, finding a winning formula that one time and then doing constant but incremental improvements rather than making giant leaps of faith is the norm in a capitalist society.

It wasn't any different in the past, either. The "classics" are those few films that get remembered, but at the time they were in theaters there was all sorts of generic crap that never got remembered. Nostalgia Filter is in effect, here. And you can complain all you like about the fact that most films are designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, but until capitalism is abandoned expect more of the same and learn to deal with it. I find that getting a little bit drunk before going to movies that I know are stupid tends to improve them. Heck, getting a little bit drunk is how I deal with society in general because I'm that 1% intellect in a sea of normals, as you, the OP, seem to be as well. I highly recommend learning to drink "just enough" if you value being part of society.

You realize that this is contradictory, correct? Finding the winning formula is the point of experimentation, so it is rewarded.

The last film I went to see in the cinema was the peerless Coen Brothers adaptation of "True Grit". Love having the kind of memory that stops me saying how long ago that was. Over priced food, tickets, and poor seating spoiled the experience somewhat, to the extent that I haven't been back since.

As I understand it, the food is overpriced because that's how theaters stay in business. When films first come out, most of the ticket money goes to the studio/creators and the theater doesn't see much of it until months after the initial release.

Was the Coen Brothers one the last one that came out?

Yes, but who wants to risk their entire company on that one winning formula? Take Apple: the company only made the ipod because they were screwed anyways and the ipod sounded like one last attempt at turning a profit. Big companies like Microsoft, however, don't do that sort of thing. They simply aren't willing to take the risk.

Now look at apple - instead of trying anything revolutionary, now that they are established again they are just making new tablets and ipods every few years and living off of those few risks they took in the past. They know that there's no profit to be made in taking big risks.

What you are talking about is Blue Ocean Strategy, and while a viable business option in the short term, it is never practiced in the long term.

Yep, it was, Deboss.

Microsoft created the X-box, a risk at the time. Apple is anything but small, and rarely creates original things to begin with, the mp3 player was not their idea, all they do is refine the ideas of others, which is a great thing that needs doing. After the big discovery, improvements are necessary. It's not like most people would trade their modern derivative car for a model T because it's the original Ford car. Incremental improvements are the life blood of design, since it allows for flaw correction. Also, if you're risking your entire company on something, you shouldn't be in charge. Eggs and baskets and all that.

People look for something specific in their purchases, in most cases of film, that thing is entertainment. If the work is entertaining them, it is doing its job. If it fails to meet your standards of purchase, don't purchase. Complaining that people hold different standards than yours seems like it's just you wanting a chance to bitch about liking something unusual.

Edit: saw that one in the theater. Pretty good.

edited 21st Feb '12 7:26:38 AM by Deboss

I agree with this title,even if Buscemi is going about it the wrong way.

I keep to a rule for this,unless it's gotten really good reviews and it's based of of great material like Tin Tin,only go if the movie question is

A) A Hayao Miyazaki film B) A Tim Burton film C) A Pixar film

Nothing else is worth the expenses,wearing those glasses, and having to bring ear-plugs to migitate the noise from all those riffers and film itself.

Yes, but as to the notion of risk, a big corporation is much more likely to sit back and watch an independent do the innovation, and if it proves successful, buy it, or come up with something very similar and tweak it enough so that they can patent it separately, and then bury their independent competition. That's been a corporate business model since at least the days of Thomas Edison (who did it a LOT).

I have a similar list. Both our lists have Hayao Miyazaki on it (too bad his son isn't nearly as good; I was hoping Ghibli could carry on the legacy, but sadly the fruit fell far from the tree), as well as Pixar (though I'm a sucker for Peter Jackson and James Cameron films, and will see any movie with Liam Neeson or Leonardo Di Caprio in it. Also, any science fiction titles involving outer space, even bad ones, I will go see). I'll still sometimes go to see a film with friends that I wouldn't normally want to see, even knowing that it might turn out to be stupid, just as an excuse to have some time with my pals when its raining and we are bored of video games.

Exactly. The true innovators tend to be crushed by the corporations at some point, stifling progress for the human species. Not to say that corporations are bad, just that corporate POWER is bad. Corporations are meant to be a means of minimizing risk on an endeavor, not a way to amalgamate your funds so that you can crush competition with lobbyists. Basically, corporations as initially conceived were done so in the spirit of joint venture, and weren't meant to continue to exist after the initial venture had been successful. They were meant to be a temporary understanding between business partners, not something that could inherit property nor meddle in elections. They have gotten out of control.

We see this problem in Hollywood, which the OP points out. Namely, status qup is now God in our movie industry, so most films are stripped of all content and meaning beyond temporary and trivial gratification. Most films don't make you think anymore - its just as if Fahrenheit451 has come to pass. Which is why we need to build a new society, one in which not monetary wealth but spiritual wealth is of prime importance. And I don't mean spirit in a biblical sense here, but the "spirit humanatus", the spirit of humanity. We should exalt how amazing humanity is, how wonderful it is to feel emotions and to understand the universe. Instead of even aspiring to make money, filmakers should aspire to art, to the betterment of ourselves as a species, by forcing us to think and to feel about something significant. But there is currently no reward in that beyond feeling good about oneself, which is why directors don't even try.

This is why Western civilization is in decline, by the way.

edited 21st Feb '12 11:52:07 AM by MyGodItsFullofStars

I can say alone that Buscemi has some pretty lame preconceptions about some of those movies in the OP. Like Chronicle.

I thought it was butch chicks. (And I love how you got this out of "Buscemi doesn't like the movies that are out right now.")

I don't.

There's little reason to go to the movies anymore. With big, widescreen T Vs you're not missing anything in the picture. Blu-Ray captures the film beautifully. My sound system is more than capable of handling most movies. Simply put, there's little to no reason for me to go to the movies anymore.

Cost wise, a Blu-Ray is about $30, I can get a big coke from the 7-11 for not even $2 a piece and I can make a big bowl of fresh popcorn for less than a buck. Total cost for me and the wife to BUY a movie and watch it at home? ~$35. Going to a theatre? $20 in tickets, drinks are $5 a pop, so is popcorn. Total price for two people? ~$35 to $40. In other words I can just buy the movie when it comes out and watch it at home for the same price as seeing it in the theatre. That's if I buy it. I can rent the movie at Redbox or a Blockbuster Kiosk for $3 or less. So a rental? $8 to see a movie. What's the point of seeing most movies in the theater anyways? Drama and comedy don't need the huge format or thumping sound system. With my TV and sound system even most action movies are plenty fine at home. In the end the last movies I can think of that I really needed to see in the theater for the spectacle of it? Avatar, and maybe Transformers: Dot M. Other than those I really can't think of a movie that I've seen in the theaters that I wouldn't have been better off just watching it at home. Save money, watch it on my own time, watch it more than once.

Theaters are cute and all, but they're just paying more for no real benefit to me. Not to mention how many movies in recent times have blown chunks I'd rather be out $8 on a bomb than $40.

Humans are social creatures. We like to be with others when we do things. I read an article a while back about how movie theaters should adopt a Netflix style of showing movies.

Note that in most industries, a lot of companies *do* take some risks with innovation. They just tend to be calculated risks without all the company assets in play. This is usually the case in Hollywood; most studios do fund the occasional experimental piece.

If you don't see any experimentation in an industry, its probably either extremely staid with little competition, or its deeply dysfunctional.

I go mostly for the social thing. If I could get all my friends together and buy the DVD and watch it at home, I would. I think some tropers forget that most people like doing things with other people and are willing to spend a little extra money to do so.

Kinda says something about a lot of tropers, don't it?

In context or not, that is an awesomely quotable line there, and I totally want to steal it and put it in a song or a movie script or something. And have a gruff, Jack Slate-type voice say it.

edited 21st Feb '12 9:32:08 PM by 0dd1

LMAO, I didn't see that! But are you in the 1% of people who claim to be in the 1% that actually are in the 1%, or are you in the 99% who are ordinary people with overinflated egos?

I'm pretty sure that most studios have a substudio just for that. I think Fox has, what was it, Fox Searchlight or something?

Does Searchlight actually make films? I thought they just picked up independent films that had done well at festivals and such. (But I don't actually know.)

To clarify, that quote seems like the perfectly pessimistic line you'd expect to hear from either an action movie protagonist or a huge hipster in an indie flick.

edited 21st Feb '12 11:26:55 PM by 0dd1

Oh, like this?◊