Why Do We Still Go See Movies?

That was too brilliant.

But this brings up a good point. Pixar routinely makes movies that literally print money. And yet there's no question that those movies are pinnacles of filmed art.

What about them.

edited 8th May '12 2:06:48 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

I don't understand. How can no one else see that they're just using the same, worn formula over and over?

I mean, it works, but why?

edited 8th May '12 2:31:52 PM by Mort08

Oh? What formula is that? A three act structure?

Angst and endless Tear Jerker moments.

Not only that, but I've always felt Pixar has the same set of storytelling tropes in a lot of its movies, the most obvious one I can think of is the set of characters with quirky and diverse personalities but individually contribute nothing to the story (most of the toys in the first Toy Story, the circus bugs in A Bug's Life, the fish in the tank in Finding Nemo, the Radiator Springs cars in Cars, the other cooks in Ratatouille, and so on)

I mean, I love Pixar about as much as anybody, but I can certainly find flaws in their work, personally.

edited 8th May '12 4:35:38 PM by Extreme64

It's a formula that works, why change it?

Whenever people say movies were better back in the day I bring up Plan 9 From Outer Space. Terrible movies like that don't exist in a vacuum. We remember it because it's hilariously terrible, but there were tons of films that were just terrible made as well.

Also, there were approximately 600,000,000,000,000 cowboy films made back in the day and 90% of them had the duke. That's a formula they stuck to until it crashed.

Emotions are not a "formula". Nor is that. That's maybe enough to work its way up to being a trope but no, that doesn't make a formula.

"...the most obvious one I can think of is the set of characters with quirky and diverse personalities but individually contribute nothing to the story."

You just described what most Supporting Chararacters are.

Oh, I don't want to get into this....

Yes, a lot of supporting characters don't contribute a lot into the story, but there are just as many that actually do contribute to the plot in some way, however minor. However, Pixar, more so in its early years, had a huge cast of supporting characters for every movie that, at least individually, contributed absolutely nothing. Look at the other cooks in Ratatouille for example. They each have backstories, personalities, quirks, and so on. That's great, that's good character development. But nothing was ever done with this. They don't even really show these quirks much, other than one joke about that one chef using his thumb on Skinner. And then they quit before the climax, go off from the story forever, but no one misses them because nothing they did helped in the story.

I like Pixar a lot, don't get me wrong. But it's silly to defend everything they do just because they're Pixar.

edited 9th May '12 2:28:30 PM by Extreme64

I agree with thatguythere; the era of the "classics" probably had just as much crap as today. I mean, look at MST 3 K. The reason there seems to be more crap today is that, well, the films were bad. We've either forgotten about them because there's nothing good to remember or Nostalgia Filtered them out. In fifty years, I'm 99% sure the same fate will have befallen the crap from today.

I'm not sure why having colorful background characters is a problem ...

Hell, part of the appeal of a movie like Toy Story or Monsters Inc. are the imaginative toys/monsters/whatever that make up the world. The Catina scene wasn't necessary for the original Star Wars, but it captured the imagination of moviegoers everywhere. It said: This was a universe with all kinds of crazy stuff that you want to stick around in and get to know. Ditto the Troll Market in Hellboy II, the millions of quirky wizards and ghosts in Harry Potter, the various aliens in MIB, the non-plot central animals in every Disney cartoon, the crew of the Black Pearl in Pirates of the Caribbean, etc. etc. etc.

This is not an uncommon trope, and it generally makes the world seem entertaining and interesting. I'm not sure why you have a problem with it.

edited 10th May '12 7:05:05 AM by Cthulboohoo

I'll even give an example. The Searchers, starring John Wayne, was voted the greatest Western ever made by the American Film Institute. It came out in 1956.

Here are some other things that came out in 1956:

• It Conquered The World
• Fire Maidens From Outer Space
• Bride Of The Monster
• Swamp Diamonds
• The Violent Years
• The She Creature
• Prince Of Space

There's always been crap, there always will be crap, and we'll always forget the crap and whinge about how there's more crap today.

Indeed.

I remember reading a quote from someone discussing an awful film(I do not remember who or where)... "Nothing ever changes. We only think it does because we think about things in years."

I barely go to the movies these days, but mostly because of the expenses involved: I STILL enjoy the whole moviegoing experience by itself, not just the movie. Everything from planning the trip to eating snacks to watching the trailers to the movie to the ending credits to talking about it on the way home. If I just cared for the film I'd just wait for the DVD (which every year comes out sooner it seems.)

Sadly, everything from gas to tickets to even the snacks are getting too expensive nowadays. My friends and relatives are not available as often either, for the same reasons. So I pick carefully which films I will go see. This year only Avengers and Brave are on my theater-watching list. Possibly Madagascar 3 as well. Batman 3 and Amazing Spider-Man are 'maybes'. (Admittedly I haven't seen a full list of the movies coming out this year yet.)

Exactly! I saw The Avengers with about 15 people, and it was AWESOME!

I'm planning to do the same with The Dark Knight Rises midnight opening.

My mom has taught me that some movies are meant to be seen in a theater. I've learned that some movies are meant to be watched with friends.

I think the original posters argument is less, "Movies are shit. Why do we still see them?" and more like "With all the movies they make, why are only a few so good, and so many so bad?"

I mean we all agree, that there are loud, pointless, shoot-em-ups with no plot, no character, no acting, just two hours of explosions (Bad Boys II comes to mind). But as we're discussing you have a movie like The Dark Knight or Wanted that just completely makes the currently $12 ticket seem cheap, the movie is so good. Just as, you have serious, angsty, art films that also pull off the same thing (here I'm thinking of The Kings Speech).

I guess the problem is that movies are like sports teams, there a thousand variables to success, and only a handful of teams in every league with make their respective playoffs, and of course only one will one. Spending loads of money to get the best players, having an easy schedule...none of these things guarantees success.

Same with movies. Having a bunch of stars, with the latest visual effects, based on a proven property, all this doesn't mean the movie will be successful. And again, like sports, the winners become held up as the 'model' of how to do it right, but not everyone can replicate that formula. More to the point, not everyone should.

But many studios see a The Dark Knight shatter records and get respect Super Hero movies have never gotten before and now suddenly they all want to make a movie about a dark, brooding hero going up against an analogue of a terrorist. Or kinda like how Independence Day shattered box office records so now everybody wants to do an Alien Invasion movie. Or, one movie about The Holocaust wins a load of Oscars so now everyone wants to make one.

Some of the knockoffs are great movies in their own right, but they simply can't repeat that success.