Are good films being made anymore ?

MisterAnarchy

Bit of a rant this but here I go.
Are there any decent films being made by film studios anymore ?
5% of films maybe,even less.

I've noticed a serious trend over the last few years.
The garbage being released in cinemas is getting worse and worse.
It can be classified into a few categories,most of which have formulaic plots that could be written on a match stick.

a)Teen/college slashers
b)Spoof comedies
c)Unfunny Romantic comedies
d)Dumbed down neutered Cgi fests
e)Chick flicks
f)Animated animal feature
g)Remakes/sequels/reboots/rehashes.

I'm not fussy really.
I just want something that has a bit of story to it .A bit of meat.
LA Confidential,Usual Suspects,Terminator,Trading Places,Predator even something half decent would do.
Are people becoming dumber ?
The genre of films being released certainly are.
Looking ahead over the next few months all I see that interest me are The Dark Knight and Traitor.
Now I have an extensive DVD collection of about 3000 titles but I've watched most of them already.
I'm actually finding myself going back and rewatching older films as the new stuff is just not good enough.

humanji

There's plenty of amazing films that have come out revently and are set to come out. But not all of them go to the cinema. And you also have to remember that it's Summer (apparently ), and it's the season of the blockbuster.

rednik

I would say you are being generous at 5%. Hollywood follows trends if a certain movie is sucessful all of a sudden all the studios are scrambling to bring outsomething on the same line. I am not looking forward tomany upcoming releases but some have possibilities. Righteous Kill, De Niro and Pacino. Pride and Glory with Colin Farrell and Edward Norton, only thing about this is it should have been released in March of this year but was put back to 2009.
I am looking forward to the new Bond. I think Craig is very good (so far),the reason I thought Casino Royale was given a new direction is Jason Bourne. The Bourne movies have set a new standard in how action movies will be made and was the kick in the a*se the Bond producers needed.
On the remake issue I hate nearly all remakes. Recently heard The Thing is going to be made again. I know Carpenter's film itself was a remake but it will go down as probably the greatest remake made. I just wonder do people like Carpenter have any say in whether or not the film goes ahead. I know he has been involved in some of them but a lot of his films are being remade and none of them are any bloody good.

BlitzKrieg

its not that its getting crapper, its just the older films have had the majority of the crap diluted away and buried by age.


Now you are facing two problems:

1. the new crap stuff is new so it sticks out in your face and its all you see most of the time.

2. The rise of DVD, blu ray etc etc has made crap stuff stick around longer (while back in the 70's early 80's there was only the cinema).

get the years all those classics you named and you'll find that they are spread out over 2 decades.

There are still good films being made, but because the crap hasnt been washed away by time, you've got to dig for it.

MisterAnarchy

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

its not that its getting crapper, its just the older films have had the majority of the crap diluted away and buried by age.

Hardly.
Up until 3 or 4 years ago I'd go to the cinema at least once or twice a week.
I'd always find something that would interest me .
I rarely go now simply because there is very little there that appeals to me.
I find myself watching alot of foreign stuff lately as there is some good stuff out there.

BlitzKrieg

Up until 3 or 4 years ago I'd go to the cinema at least once or twice a week.

Dont take this the wrong way...what age were you 3 or 4 years ago?

There were films that interested me 4 years ago that I wouldnt look at twice today because my tastes have changed since then (most notable being pretty much everything that comes out of the marvel franchises).


I still find 1 or 2 films each year that I would consider classic and hold very highly.

though I admit I did class last year the worse year in cinema I have ever experianced, but I believe thats down to personal taste as I slated films other people enjoyed.

even then there were still 1 or 2 films last year that i enjoyed (Ratatouille, no country for old men)


a good idea of how much or little things have changed is to look at the box office results for the last 28 years

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

its quite interesting, personnally I find with the exception that spielberg/lucas was on a roll in the early 80's the box offices match up, you'd see 1 or 2 films in every top 20 you love, others you never heard off and some you hate.


and thats only the studio blockbusters.

MisterAnarchy

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Dont take this the wrong way...what age were you 3 or 4 years ago?

I am 31 now .
I do not think my tastes have changed much over the years.
A good film is always a good film .
I'd agree last year was the worst year in cinema I have ever experienced.
Prob 10 good films off hand I can recall,most of which were low grossers at the box office.
Generally to be a success at the box office nowadays requires a dumbed down formulaic script .No risks .
Its not that bloody hard to write a decent script.
Some of the films I've seen lately have baffled me as to how they were greenlight as they have been so appallingly bad.

johnny_ultimate

Nah, I would say there as many good films being made today as they ever were. This year alone, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood would probably be up there with the timeless classics. Yes, there are a lot of formulaic rubbish out there, but thats always the way. But this year has been a very good one for films. It takes a little work to track down the good ones, but it's worth the effort. And as Blitz pointed out, you can never forget that there has always been a rather lobsided **** to goodness ratio in cinema. For every classic that is still fondly remembered, there are likely hundreds of others rightfully rotting in obscurity. Hollywood were churning out generic **** by the bucketload back in the thirties and forties, while I think we're better off not knowing about all those 70s horror films yet to find a re-release.

I think the main problem is that it's so hard to get at the good stuff. The best films are often relegated to a measly one small screen in Dublin (what about the rest of the country), Xtravision usually shove their single copy of a decent film down on the bottom shelf and to actually buy them will cost you a ridiculous amount. And I don't buy the arguement that the obscure stuff won't sell. If they were readily available and widely publicised, they'd be quite successful. Crossover successe like Little Miss Sunshine, There Will Be Blood and Crouching Tiger show that people don't always just consume lowest common denominator stuff. It's just that a lot of films don't get the opportunity to do well since they are forced into obscurity.

MisterAnarchy

rednik wrote: »

Hollywood follows trends if a certain movie is sucessful all of a sudden all the studios are scrambling to bring outsomething on the same line.

Very true.
They like to beat a dead horse

rednik wrote: »

Righteous Kill, De Niro and Pacino. Pride and Glory with Colin Farrell and Edward Norton, only thing about this is it should have been released in March of this year but was put back to 2009.

Yes they look good allright.

rednik wrote: »

I am looking forward to the new Bond. I think Craig is very good (so far),the reason I thought Casino Royale was given a new direction is Jason Bourne. The Bourne movies have set a new standard in how action movies will be made and was the kick in the a*se the Bond producers needed.

I enjoyed the first 2 Bourne films alot although the third was poor in my opinion,threadbare plot and unnecessary .
Didnt rate Casino Royale at all and I'm a huge Bond fan.
Daltons Bond for me was the reboot the series needed .
Craigs Bond is too cold,charmless,and wooden.
But the next film should be better.

Johny Ultimate wrote:

I think the main problem is that it's so hard to get at the good stuff.

Spot on.
I used to spend ages trawling the web for reviews of stuff I'd like then I'd rent it.
Its hit and miss though but very rewarding when you get a good film.
I've endured a fair few crap films though .
As for Xtravision they are a joke.
Their selection is pathetic and their adverts lies.
I remember they were billing Lions for Lambs as the 'Most explosive movie event of the year'
Its a slow burner,not bad but hardly Vin Diesel explosive.
Why do we have to search for good films when the ****e is right in front of us ?

BlitzKrieg

got a thread about testing your blockbuster compatability over here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=56455706#post56455706

give it a try (seeing as you were alive for all 28 of thoe years it would be interesting to see if your taste had an affect on the results)

Eirebear

Since the turn of the year i have seen (among many others) in the cinemas

No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
[REC]
The Kite Runner
Lars and the Real Girl
Son of Rambow
Mongol

And im sure there are others that i cant recall right now, but they are all good solid films which deserve praise.

Karl Hungus

Pardon me if I say poppycock, because films now are as good as they've ever been.

Over the last couple of years we've had fried gold such as The Prestige, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, There Will Be Blood, No Country For Old Men, Batman Begins, Eastern Promises, Inland Empire, The Departed, Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, The Last King of Scotland, Zodiac, The Life Aquatic... That's not even taking into account any world cinema, because there's been Pan's Labyrinth, The Lives of Others, Tell No One, and so many more.

Even if we're not talking cinematic gold, there's been plenty of very entertaining films like Iron Man, V for Vendetta, 3:10 to Yuma, Die Hard 4, Serenity, Crank, Rambo, I Am Legend, as well as some great animated films like Ratatouille, The Incredibles. Lets not forget the Bourne films and Casino Royale. There's even been some decent horror films as well, 1408, The Mist, 30 Days of Night, and some great comedies like Hot Fuzz, Superbad or The 40 Year Old Virgin. I could go on and on, but the fact is, there's been no shortage of absolutely brilliant films over the last 2/3 years alone.

I think the problem is that people tend to forget the bad films from years past, but trust me, it was just as awful as it is now. Yep, you're ranting about the crap like Epic Movie now, but was the seemingly endless stream of Police Academy sequels in the 80's really that much better? Go watch this and then tell me with a straight face that there wasn't as much garbage as there is now. For every White Chicks I can give you a Soul Man, for every lame romantic comedy today, I can give you a lame Molly Ringwald film from yesterday... and I'm not even sure there's a modern counterpart that's anywhere near as awful as this.

BlitzKrieg

and I'm not even sure there's a modern counterpart that's anywhere near as awful as this.

*cough*

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395699/

Karl Hungus

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

*cough*

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395699/

I've seen it, and no, it's not as bad.

BlitzKrieg

really i thought it was

(as in they were both really shyte!)

Mackman

I love watching old movies like Tremors, Planes, trains and automobiles, Midnight Run etc. Now these movies are not the greatest ever made, but they're entertaining, fun. They're just good movies. I dont think they make movies like that anymore, they are all trying too hard to make the next blockbuster or whatever, and of course cut out all the swearing and make it 12's :rolleyes:

speedboatchase

Karl Hungus is completely on the money, even the big budget summer movies are surprisingly good this year (take a look at the amount of "fresh" summer hits on Rotten Tomatoes - Iron Man, Hulk, Kung Fu Panda, Indiana, Wanted), and we've got nowhere near the amount of sequels that were rammed down our throats compared to last year. Wanted and Hancock are even big budget original titles - gasp (Wanted was a comic but nobody heard of it). And we've still got original titles like Pineapple Express and Tropic Thunder to look forward to whilst the biggest event of the summer, The Dark Knight looks as far from "neutured and watered down" as they come. Its a good time to be a film fan IMO

BlitzKrieg

its very easy to outdo last year

Karl Hungus

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

its very easy to outdo last year

Last year was great. It was the year that brought us Eastern Promises, Grindhouse, Zodiac, Mr. Brooks, and Stardust was a very enjoyable romp altogether.

BlitzKrieg

i think me and speed are talking more about blockbusters, last year left a horrible taste in my mouth.

but I agree stardust was very entertaining

zAbbo

Is this argument more to do with the types of movies shown at cinemas, in that there's very little risk taken by the larger cinemas?

Heavily promoted movies generally do well, which is the main reason why a cinema will show it.

We're relatively spoiled here in Dublin, with 4-5 cinema's within a short distance catering for a wide audience (Cineworld/Savoy/IFI/Lighthouse/Screen)

There are still great movies being made, sure they don't all go on general release - but doesn't that add to the enjoyment of a movie in that you can go watch it in a smaller cinema (like The Lighthouse in Smithfield) and enjoy it more than having some little turd on his mobile annoying you for most of the movie.

Failing that, the market is so open now, that you can easily order some obscure low release arthouse film, and have it within a few days for home consumption.

I certainly wouldn't rant about the 'crap' being shown in cinema's when it's clear that this isn't really the case, a quick glance at what's available in cinemas today includes: Lars and the Real Girl, Persepolis and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.

L31mr0d

to answer the threads title, yes good films are still being made. But this in itself is very subjective as what might be considered amazing by one (like The Fountain for me) might be considered tripe by another.

If you are narrowing the scope to blockbuster movies widely released in the US (given your movie examples I would have to assume this) then again I would have to disagree with you . Like others have said, every year sees its highlights in Cinema, the last few years being no exception, due to many of the movies Karl has already mentioned.

faceman

I expect that film output has increased decade upon decade which would see an increase in rubbish but i imagine the ratio of good vs bad is still the same.

i do feel though that as the years have passed, the studios have retained more creative control over movies, more so than the past, and as a result have influenced plot etc to a greater degree. Granted the studios have nearly always retain final cuts (with some exceptions depending on the director) but as films become more expensive, and the ancillary spin offs and products just as important from a revenue perspective, the studios need to retain control and influence to a larger degree.

We dont have as many auteur directors emerging that we used to have. we could probably count on 1 hand the great directors who emerged in the last 10 years?

wearing my "popcorn movie" hat, blockbusters give more bang nowadays than they used to due to higher budgets and better technical effects. But when they fail, they fail big time! last year was just appauling bar Transformers IMO.

Still though, we havent had a film like Back to the Future in a long time.

MisterAnarchy

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Pardon me if I say poppycock, because films now are as good as they've ever been.

Over the last couple of years we've had fried gold such as The Prestige, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, There Will Be Blood, No Country For Old Men, Batman Begins, Eastern Promises, Inland Empire, The Departed, Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, The Last King of Scotland, Zodiac, The Life Aquatic... That's not even taking into account any world cinema, because there's been Pan's Labyrinth, The Lives of Others, Tell No One, and so many more.

Even if we're not talking cinematic gold, there's been plenty of very entertaining films like Iron Man, V for Vendetta, 3:10 to Yuma, Die Hard 4, Serenity, Crank, Rambo, I Am Legend, as well as some great animated films like Ratatouille, The Incredibles. Lets not forget the Bourne films and Casino Royale. There's even been some decent horror films as well, 1408, The Mist, 30 Days of Night, and some great comedies like Hot Fuzz, Superbad or The 40 Year Old Virgin. I could go on and on, but the fact is, there's been no shortage of absolutely brilliant films over the last 2/3 years alone.

I've seen most of those films ,most are good,some very good but some were poor (Die Hard 4,Serenity,I am Legend,Flags of our Fathers,40 Year Old Virgin,Hot Fuzz)
Most of the good films you mentioned were limited releases and not mainstream .
Perhaps I watch too many films, 2 or 3 new ones a week ,so I guess 20 good films a year considering I watch 130 isnt great.
I often find you get a rush of good films together and then you may go weeks without a decent one.

Eirebear

zAbbo wrote: »

Is this argument more to do with the types of movies shown at cinemas, in that there's very little risk taken by the larger cinemas?

.

I think Cineworld take a lot of undeserved flak from film fans TBH.

Granted, they show the blockbuster/overhyped crap thats going around, but i know that, over here anyway, they also show a lot of other films.

Cineworld in Glasgow has a weekly bollywood feature, has regular "festivals" themed around films from certain countries such as the (now no more) tartan asia festival and is a big player in the Glasgow Film festival.

Karl Hungus

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Most of the good films you mentioned were limited releases and not mainstream.

So what if some of the were limited releases, or not mainstream? The question was if there are good film being made anymore, and there wasn't any stipulation of mainstream films, or blockbusters in that question. Are you going to dismiss a good film because it wasn't as successful as Batman Begins?

MisterAnarchy

Karl Hungus wrote: »

So what if some of the were limited releases, or not mainstream? The question was if there are good film being made anymore, and there wasn't any stipulation of mainstream films, or blockbusters in that question. Are you going to dismiss a good film because it wasn't as successful as Batman Begins?

The point I am trying to make is that most of the good films that have come out over the last few years have been low profile .
The garbage that is pumped out in the multiplexes is movie making by numbers.
Studios seem to be eager to pump huge amounts into poor film concepts yet reluctant to give money to good scripts.

Karl Hungus

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The point I am trying to make is that most of the good films that have come out over the last few years have been low profile.

What exactly is your definition of low profile? Because I think a lot of great films lately have been very much in the mainstream view, such as There Will Be Blood or No Country For Old Men. Even some of the more low key films I've mentioned I had gone to see in the cinema, such as Eastern Promises, so I really don't see your issue. You can still see good films, and even if they're not granted a cinema release, films are released on DVD faster than they've ever been, and internet prices means that it costs as much to buy a film as it would to go see one in the cinema.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The garbage that is pumped out in the multiplexes is movie making by numbers.

6 Police Academy films pumped out between 1984 and 1989, 8 Friday the 13th films pumped out between 1980 and 1989, 6 Nightmare on Elm Street films between 1984 and 1991, and all those god-damn Ernest films like Ernest Saves Christmas...

Wow. Hollywood used to be so creative. Just like you say, it's movie making by numbers today. :pac:

Galvasean

People are too harsh on cinemas. they are just giving the people what they want. If people come en mass to see Epic Movie, they will put on Meet the Spartans. If the arthouse classics arent doing well financially of course they wont give them the major screenings. Nothing personal. Its just business.

MisterAnarchy

Karl Hungus wrote: »

What exactly is your definition of low profile? Because I think a lot of great films lately have been very much in the mainstream view, such as There Will Be Blood or No Country For Old Men.

Those 2 films you mention only received limited cinema releases in Ireland and that was mostly on the back of publicity arising from the Academy Awards and the fact that Daniel Day Lewis an 'Adopted' Irishman was in one.
The US box office business for both films is moderate at best,while the business of Eastern Promises was very poor.

No Country For Old Men
Budget
$25,000,000 (estimated)
US Gross
$74,273,505 (USA)

There Will be Blood
Budget
$25,000,000 (estimated)
US Gross
$40,218,903

Eastern Promises
Budget
$50,000,000 (estimated)
US Gross
$16,866,286

There are alot of poor films that have grossed far more than these films this year (Prom Night,Fools Gold,Cloverfield,Meet the Spartans,Made of Honor,the Happening etc)

Look at the top 50 grossing films in the US this year and honestly tell me that there are 10 memorable films there .
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2008&p=.htm
Some are decent enough but there are only a few I'd call memorable.
Then again maybe its mediocrity for the masses .

Galvasean

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Look at the top 50 grossing films in the US this year and honestly tell me that there are 10 memorable films there .
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2008&p=.htm
Some are decent enough but there are only a few I'd call memorable.

I counted maybe 4 that I will remember fondly 5 years from now.

Fighting Irish

The whole world is being dumbed down

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Bit of a rant this but here I go.
Are there any decent films being made by film studios anymore ?
5% of films maybe,even less.

I've noticed a serious trend over the last few years.
The garbage being released in cinemas is getting worse and worse.
It can be classified into a few categories,most of which have formulaic plots that could be written on a match stick.

a)Teen/college slashers
b)Spoof comedies
c)Unfunny Romantic comedies
d)Dumbed down neutered Cgi fests
e)Chick flicks
f)Animated animal feature
g)Remakes/sequels/reboots/rehashes.

I'm not fussy really.
I just want something that has a bit of story to it .A bit of meat.
LA Confidential,Usual Suspects,Terminator,Trading Places,Predator even something half decent would do.
Are people becoming dumber ?
The genre of films being released certainly are.
Looking ahead over the next few months all I see that interest me are The Dark Knight and Traitor.
Now I have an extensive DVD collection of about 3000 titles but I've watched most of them already.
I'm actually finding myself going back and rewatching older films as the new stuff is just not good enough.

Black Swan

So many of today's blockbuster films seem to have replaced strong acting and creative plots with sheer violence. Best Picture Oscar film "No Country for Old Men" is an example of this trend. The best supporting Oscar actor ran about killing people whenever the plot began to drag, replacing acting with an I'm bad, I'm cruel, I'm a crazy killer role that started to get old half way through the film. If they were attempting to create a thriller, they did not come close to the 2000 "What Lies Beneath" shocker, which relied on the acting of Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer, rather than a cylinder of air, hose, and head plugger (used to slaughter animals?). Oh great, who needs to act, when things start to slow, let's plug another forehead or shoot someone (or let's borrow a chainsaw from the Texas Chainsaw sick gore film and make it even more violent...maybe in the Old Men sequel?).

MisterAnarchy

Fighting Irish wrote: »

The whole world is being dumbed down

Sadly it is .

Pride Fighter

Films are sh1te now.

Karl Hungus

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Those 2 films you mention only received limited cinema releases in Ireland and that was mostly on the back of publicity arising from the Academy Awards and the fact that Daniel Day Lewis an 'Adopted' Irishman was in one.
The US box office business for both films is moderate at best,while the business of Eastern Promises was very poor.

It seems like you're flip-flopping from excuse to excuse in order not to accept the vailidity of the claims of good films... With that kind of attitude, I'm not surprised you're dissapointed; you're flippantly excluding films on shoddy grounds.

Oooh, Eastern Promises didn't do too well. Do you know how many of the films we consider as classics today were complete flops at the time? Blade Runner completely bombed when it was released, didn't even make it's budget back, but over the years gained success. By your logic, Blade Runner wasn't a good film because of it's initial business success!

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Look at the top 50 grossing films in the US this year and honestly tell me that there are 10 memorable films there .
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2008&p=.htm
Some are decent enough but there are only a few I'd call memorable.
Then again maybe its mediocrity for the masses .

2008 isn't even over and done with yet, with the best films yet to come, and you're looking for me to make an assessment of the year compared to other years?

...

Seriously man, what I'm taking away from this thread is that you're refusing to accept the awful box office turds that have always existed in cinema, and refusing to dignify great films because they've not met some hidden criteria (that won't disclose) you need in order for them to be clasified as "good"... I think you've got a rant in mind, and you're sticking to it. It seems like if an absolutely terrific film, an absolute bona-fide modern classic, came along and danced infront of your face, you'd probably refuse to aknowledge it.

I think you might want to address your own attitude towards films, rather than lamblasting modern cinema.

MisterAnarchy

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I think you've got a rant in mind, and you're sticking to it. It seems like if an absolutely terrific film, an absolute bona-fide modern classic, came along and danced infront of your face, you'd probably refuse to aknowledge it.

I think you might want to address your own attitude towards films, rather than lamblasting modern cinema.

You are the one who is blatantly missing the point I am trying to make.
I have already stated that there have been good films made over the last few years including many of the ones you have mentioned.
Some I would categorise as classics,The Prestige,Mr Brooks ,American Gangster,Michael Clayton ,off the top of my head.

A films rating has nothing to do with its box office business.
I am not so ignorant or shallow to base my viewing habits on box office performance and as I have already said I watch films across all spectrums.
I watch 150 new films a year perhaps more.

The point I am trying to make is that many of the best films are ones that have been
a)low profile
b)non mainstream or
c)performed badly at the box office.

As other people on this thread have said Hollywood are trying to copy film plots .
Horror/Slashers/Spoof movies are prime examples .
They are killing these genre films by literally flooding the market.
The vast majority of these films are poor.

Likewise alot of the films getting cinema releases here are poor while good films do not get a release.
I take on board your point that DVD releases are becoming more important, I myself have a huge collection of DVD's .

Perhaps my point should be is cinema being dumbed down ?
The number of different genres are merging and becoming formulaic.
Films are aimed at the widest possible audience and given a 12 cert .
Thats why it was so refreshing to see Rambo this year ,completely unpc and glorious action.

I'm sure once Hollywood has exhausted the current plotlines it may go back to making thinking mans movies .

L31mr0d

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I'm sure once Hollywood has exhausted the current plotlines it may go back to making thinking mans movies .

this has nothing to do with it. The movie companies and cinema plexs are businesses first and foremost, they are not bastions of good quality film making. If a 2 hour movie of a guy getting a football thrown at his groin made 400m and cost a shoestring to make, you'd see movies like this being made ad nauseum until that cash cow dried up. The cinemas make what people buy.

Karls point is, and one I agree with, is that this has always been the case. The masses have always endorsed low brow, poor acting movies. But that being said, the percentage of good movies released each year has always been the same.

But like Karl said, your opinion is very subjective as you have not really given us a definition of what you believe to be a "good" movie.

What would be helpful is if you could back up your argument with a graph of declining numbers of good movies over the years. Listing the movies that where good in those years and showing how for successive years there was less good movies released. Under your own limitations you need only list blockbuster movies in this graph as your argument is that movie companies themselves are no longer endorsing good movies.

Karl Hungus

This is a great thread, and I haven't had a good discussion like this on here in a while.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

You are the one who is blatantly missing the point I am trying to make.

Am I? You're the one who's leaving out most of the content of my posts, and completely refusing to aknowledge many of the points I'm making.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I have already stated that there have been good films made over the last few years including many of the ones you have mentioned.
Some I would categorise as classics,The Prestige,Mr Brooks ,American Gangster,Michael Clayton ,off the top of my head.

I have already stated that there have been good films made over the last few years including many of the ones you have mentioned.
Some I would categorise as classics,The Prestige,Mr Brooks ,American Gangster,Michael Clayton ,off the top of my head.

The point I am trying to make is that many of the best films are ones that have been
a)low profile
b)non mainstream or
c)performed badly at the box office.

Again... I have adressed this point. Did you not read where I pointed out that Blade Runner, an absolute classic among classics, performed very badly at the box office when it was released?

Sergio Leone's film Once Upon A Time In America, easily one of the greatest gangster movies ever made, classis as they come, yet upon it's release it bombed unbelievably, it was considered a criticial and commercial failure. It's not until later that people began to realise what an absolutely fantastic film it was, and it slowly gained it's classic status.

Good films not being particularly mainstream, low key, or performing very poorly when they came out, that's nothing new at all. It's not something that is symptomatic of the 00's, and more often than not, classic status isn't bestowed immediately. A lot of great films are only recognised in mainstream circles for what they are in hindsight, and it's hardly fair to criticise films today for not acheiving legendary status without the benifit of hindsight.

You mention The Usual Suspects in your opening argument as an example of a great film, yet the irony is that it's a perfect example of a low profile, non mainstream film that didn't even make a blip on Hollywood's radar when it came out, yet has gained classic status. Batman Forever made millions at the box office the same year as The Usual Suspects was released.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

As other people on this thread have said Hollywood are trying to copy film plots .
Horror/Slashers/Spoof movies are prime examples .
They are killing these genre films by literally flooding the market.
The vast majority of these films are poor.

Flooding the market like they did with all those dozens of Friday the 13th, Halloween, Nightmare On Elm Street and Child's Play sequels, as well as the many cash-in slasher clones? Apart from the kitsch appeal of some of the those sequels, they've been very poor indeed.

Or how about when the market was flooded with lame slashers after the success of Scream, such as Urban Legend, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Cherry Falls, Valentine, as well as the various sequels some of those films spawned. Honestly, was this not a case of Hollywood trying to copy film plots, flooding the markets with poor films?

You mention spoofs, because as we all know, we've never had bad spoofs before, right? No, wait... There's been some abominably bad spoofs like Spy Hard, Mafia, Dracula: Dead and Loving it, Fatal Instinct, Robin Hood: Men In Tights, and lots more... Thankfully, bad films seem to die away from the public viewpoint quick enough, so all the likes of White Chicks and Epic Movie will be safely brushed away, and we can all forget about them.

You honestly need to take off those rose tinted specs, markets flooded with ****e is nothing new, it's been happening for years.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Perhaps my point should be is cinema being dumbed down ?
The number of different genres are merging and becoming formulaic.
Films are aimed at the widest possible audience and given a 12 cert .
Thats why it was so refreshing to see Rambo this year ,completely unpc and glorious action.

I'm sure once Hollywood has exhausted the current plotlines it may go back to making thinking mans movies .

Cinema isn't being dumbed down, it's as dumb as it's always been. There was no golden age of films where everything that was shown in cimenas was 100% gold, and the same year where you probably wouldn't have seen The Usual Suspects in the cinema, Batman Forever, Casper, Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls and loads of other crap films were showing everywhere.

You mention LA Confidential as a good film, well hate to break it to you, but when that was released, Batman & Robin did a hell of a lot better at the box office.

People didn't flock to see these masterpieces when they came out, The Terminator did fairly well when it came out, but a hell of a lot more people went to see Police Academy. Likewise the year Predator came out, Three Men and a Baby was what topped the box office, and in the year of Action Jackson, Crocodile Dundee 2 was raking in the money. Audiences still went to see complete **** in their droves, while films we now consider classics went by without great success.

In the year 2000, Memento didn't get shown at the cinema, but I got dragged by friends to see Nutty Professor II: The Klumps twice! Yes, I saw that turd of a film in the cinema twice. :pac:

We'll always have **** in the cinemas, and I think that classic films will always need time before they're considered classics.

faceman

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Perhaps my point should be is cinema being dumbed down ?
The number of different genres are merging and becoming formulaic.
Films are aimed at the widest possible audience and given a 12 cert .
Thats why it was so refreshing to see Rambo this year ,completely unpc and glorious action.

Cinema always had an element of being dumbed down. I think the difference now is films like Dumb and Dumber (being the lowest common denominator type of humour), do seem to do remarkably well in the box office. Is that the film maker's fault though or the audience who pay to go see it?

wrote:

I'm sure once Hollywood has exhausted the current plotlines it may go back to making thinking mans movies .

Kurosawa always said there are only 7 possible plot lines in story telling. Lucas did some study on this when writing Star Wars

MisterAnarchy

faceman wrote: »

Cinema always had an element of being dumbed down. I think the difference now is films like Dumb and Dumber (being the lowest common denominator type of humour), do seem to do remarkably well in the box office.

Dumb and Dumber is actually one of the funniest films I have ever seen .Its a classic.
From beginning to end, Dumb & Dumber is sheer hilarity.
Films like that arent being made anymore,well I dont see them.
Last one I saw was probably Old School.
A rarity these days is a comedy with a decent number of laughs.
Films like Knocked Up and the 40 year Old Virgin ,so called comedies are more drama than comedy,with only a handful of laughs.

Karl Hungus

So have you just taken to completely ignoring all the points I've made now MisterAnarchy?

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Films like Knocked Up and the 40 year Old Virgin ,so called comedies are more drama than comedy,with only a handful of laughs.

Lets get this straight, you're complaining about cinema being dumbed down, but when there's actually clever comedies that have a little more meat to their stories, you complain about them too...?

MisterAnarchy

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Lets get this straight, you're complaining about cinema being dumbed down, but when there's actually clever comedies that have a little more meat to their stories, you complain about them too...?

Clever comedies ?
I wouldnt call them clever or funny in the slightest.
Comedies can be deep and thoughful (Squid and the Whale,You Kill Me) but those 2 were just vacuous and boring.

L31mr0d

Karl Hungus wrote: »

So have you just taken to completely ignoring all the points I've made now MisterAnarchy?

Karl I wouldn't even bother responding to him until he rebuts your previous post which pretty conclusively proves that he is, without a doubt, wrong in his opinion.

What's so incongruous is that his whole opinion is purely subjective, being held up merely by his own personal opinion of what makes a good movie, yet he will nit pick at meaningless arguments such as what defines a "clever comedy" which adds nothing to his initial postulate.

This is quickly degrading into your typical internet argument where the person proved wrong won't admit it and keeps trying to change the subject so as to win other minor arguments until the thread eventually dies a death and they have the last word out of boring every other poster into submission.

For me this will be my last post in this thread until the OP provides a simple graph (or even just the numbers and names, I'm not picky) of declining "good" movies in cinemas over the last decade. At least from this I could get an understanding of what the OP is defining by "good"

Parrish_Crooks

Nothing to do with this war of words that is happening now..... but OP check out Babel! Recommended!

Karl Hungus

I know L31mr0d advised me not to reply, but I think there's a lot more discussion left in this thread.

What does everyone else think, is there as many great films being made now, or does it all pale in comparison to yesteryear? I think there's always been the same amount of great/crap films are there are now.

BlitzKrieg

heh this year has blown last year out of the water in the quality of films for the most part (blockbusters at least)

overall I have enjoyed my trips to the cinema and dvd purchases etc more this year though yes.

Nolanger

I'm sure they're still making good movies (though not in this country).
Problem is all we have now are multiplexes and once the latest superhero picture/Hollywood rom-com/animation fills up their screens there is little room to show anything else.

dr.bollocko

I don't think of film as having a good year or a bad year. For me, it's just a little unreality to dip in and out of. The best films are timeless, or at least of their time enough so you love them anyway. I have seen some fantastic films in the cinema in the last year. Most have been mentioned.
So my answer is that I reject the argument. So long as films are being made, good and bad movies are being made. And I still haven't seen most of the good ones.

shenanigans1982

Not all of the "great" films are as great as people like to think they are. They are only considered great because people have been saying/hearing they are great for years, people were not as critical about their films years ago so a lot wouldn't stand up to standards for todays audience. Thats not to say that there were not great films being made but there are still great films being made. It's just harder to find them amongst all the sh1t that studios constantly pump out.

Vokes

Karl Hungus wrote: »

What does everyone else think, is there as many great films being made now, or does it all pale in comparison to yesteryear? I think there's always been the same amount of great/crap films are there are now.

I actually think we've never had it better, and there is an element of rose-tinted glasses for some people.

For me, I've never enjoyed cinema releases more than I have in the past couple of years.

It seems to me (and this is just my opinion remember ) that there is always at least one film being released per week at the cineplex or smaller independent cinema or IMAX that's worth my hard-earned dosh.

I love film