Do you think movies these days are mostly garbage

Thelonious Monk

I hope Dune is good, great book. Best film I've seen this year was called Palm Springs, kind of a Groundhog Day theme.

Godeatsboogers

Hyperbollix wrote: »

Star Trek is a good microcosm of this whole subject.

Compare Roddenberry Trek from the 60's to the early 2000's, verse the Abrams style Trek of the modern day. Look at the Picard series!

Interesting storylines that were actually about something, removed and replaced by "PEW PEW PEEEEEEW, BIG SPACESHIPS EXPLODE --- CRASH BANG, LOUD NOISES --- SJW WOKEISM X100"

The first 2 Abrams Star Treks were class, loved em. Great storylines, good dialogue.

Potential-Monke

breezy1985 wrote: »

Gosling was brilliant before he became a sex symbol but maybe not your thing as he was a bit arty and I'll forever love Charlie Day for always sunny but his movies don't do much for me

I just don't think he can act. He's like Ryan Renolds, the same character in every show but minus the funny. It's a shame, I'd love to watch Apollo 11 for the story, but his face puts me off it. And I can't hack Charlies voice. Seems like I would like Always Sunny but can't watch it, I get annoyed.

Hqrry113 wrote: »

You sound like me as a child but as I got older them movies don't do it for me anymore.

I'm sorry you've "grown up" and lost your childish sense of wonder.

breezy1985

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I just don't think he can act. He's like Ryan Renolds, the same character in every show but minus the funny. It's a shame, I'd love to watch Apollo 11 for the story, but his face puts me off it. And I can't hack Charlies voice. Seems like I would like Always Sunny but can't watch it, I get annoyed.



I'm sorry you've "grown up" and lost your childish sense of wonder.

First Man (Apollo 11) is pretty boring but in fairness so was Armstrong. Gosling is a better actor than Remolds thought when he has the right movie but as I said they probably wouldn't be your thing.

Have you seen Gosling in Blade Runner. Decent movie if your into sci-fi and be plays a robot so his acting will make sense to you

Potential-Monke

breezy1985 wrote: »

First Man (Apollo 11) is pretty boring but in fairness so was Armstrong. Gosling is a better actor than Remolds thought when he has the right movie but as I said they probably wouldn't be your thing.

Have you seen Gosling in Blade Runner. Decent movie if your into sci-fi and be plays a robot so his acting will make sense to you

I don't see that, I think Renolds is better, even though he's the same character in nearly every single movie he's in. What is the right movie for Gosling, in case I've seen it.

And Blade Runner, I do love my sci-fi, but I found the original crap tbh. Must have been a film where you had to see it at the time it came out to have been good (like the original Star Wars trilogy, I think they're all crap but apparantly you had to be there at the time to really appreciate what they did for the film industry). So because of not liking the original, and not liking Gosling, no, I haven't nor will I watch 2049.

NoviGlitzko

OP - Yes they are 100%. I've very little interest in any movies that are released nowadays. What ever happened to films the likes of Con Air for example? Everything now just comes across as pretentious bull****.

Tony EH

Hqrry113 wrote: »

For me as someone who hates action/comedy movies and can only watch movies that have a good story drama/thrillers I find the films these days mostly mediocre with a few exceptions, there are a lot of good movies that have been made in the last 5-10 years but the quantity and quality of good movies has decreased dramatically over these years probably because it's far easier to make a basic action flick or a comedy than it is to make a decent movie.

You can go onto Wiki and look at nearly every Hollywood movie that's been made throughout the decades and while there are classics to be found in each decade, there are also tons of forgettable and outright bloody awful ones too.

That being said, there's been a definite increase in "product", with more films being made that ever before, so with that there comes an inevitable increase in the mediocre, which is always the result or more stuff.

The penchant for reboots, remakes, reimaginings, etc, has also contributed greatly the apparent drop off in general quality.

I feel, myself, that it is besoming harder to find modern classics or even just good films. But that's largely down to things being more difficult to find in the tyranny of content that is media today. As opposed to seeking out the great films of yesteryear, which have already been catalogued and discussed.

But they are there. There's just more rough covering the diamonds.

2020 being an exception of course, for obvious reasons.

Alejandro68

Independent films have a lot more to offer than the mainstream ones from Hollywood. Lately I have been watching very hard hitting ones and short films. Much prefer those than what has come out of Hollywood the last few years. It seems they have run out of creative writers/producers and instead remake/reboot classics for which there is no need, IMO.

breezy1985

Alejandro68 wrote: »

Independent films have a lot more to offer than the mainstream ones from Hollywood. Lately I have been watching very hard hitting ones and short films. Much prefer those than what has come out of Hollywood the last few years. It seems they have run out of creative writers/producers and instead remake/reboot classics for which there is no need, IMO.

They have reverted back to making movies by committee rather than a single writers vision which ends up with a lot of crap

Kaybaykwah

mikhail wrote: »

Most movies have always been rubbish. You just remember the good ones selectively. Everyone does it. It's why the golden age fallacy is so common.

Yours is a gold post.

1) good movies are indeed a rarity.
2) no such thing as a golden age of movie making.

Most movies or series are about repeating clichés, and actors are just talking heads for whatever script has been greenlit or greenlighted, if you will.

Even though moviemakers fall over themselves claiming to debunk clichés, this only serves to reinforce said clichés.

Kaybaykwah

Just glanced "Cell" on Amazon Prime with Cusack and Samuel Jackson. Couldn't even get through the trailer. Garbage, sorry, I meant; rubbish.

I can't get over this insane custom of using any premise available to foist zombies on us. Stephen King, uhhhh!

IAMAMORON

I watched the Roald Amundsen biopic on BBC4 last night, thought it was good and well worth a watch. It's quite simply called Amundsen.

Man Vs ManUre

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I don't see that, I think Renolds is better, even though he's the same character in nearly every single movie he's in. What is the right movie for Gosling, in case I've seen it.

And Blade Runner, I do love my sci-fi, but I found the original crap tbh. Must have been a film where you had to see it at the time it came out to have been good (like the original Star Wars trilogy, I think they're all crap but apparantly you had to be there at the time to really appreciate what they did for the film industry). So because of not liking the original, and not liking Gosling, no, I haven't nor will I watch 2049.

Lars and the real girl and the place beyond the pines are 2 great films that he is very good in.

Hqrry113

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Yours is a gold post.

1) good movies are indeed a rarity.
2) no such thing as a golden age of movie making.

Most movies or series are about repeating clichés, and actors are just talking heads for whatever script has been greenlit or greenlighted, if you will.

Even though moviemakers fall over themselves claiming to debunk clichés, this only serves to reinforce said clichés.

I don't agree, the last ten years top quality films have been a rarity.

El_Duderino 09

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Just glanced "Cell" on Amazon Prime with Cusack and Samuel Jackson. Couldn't even get through the trailer. Garbage, sorry, I meant; rubbish.

I can't get over this insane custom of using any premise available to foist zombies on us. Stephen King, uhhhh!

It depends on what you’re looking for. I don’t buy the idea that films are shyte nowadays. There are plenty to good films and loads and loads of 5/10 films that will pass the time if that's what you're looking for.
Samuel Jackson is only in shyte movies because he is a kind of parody of himself at this stage. And that can be great at times as long as it's what you're looking for.

If you can’t find films you like then it’s more of a case of failure of your own ability to work out what you like and how to find it. If you’re going to passively consume whatever movies Netflix suggests for you and then complain that you don’t like them, then it’s your own
fault for not looking for the films you like.

Kaybaykwah

Yes sure, I mean, Netflix is what it is, most of what is available is middle of the road with a dash of shock value. Same with Amazon. We are not in
a cinémathèque environment, but rather a commercial venue trying to attract a regular audience for entertainment.

But my point is not so much what movies are outstanding within that venue. I am plainly saying that it doesn't matter what era, films are for the most part imitative and timid and this goes for other Arts as well. No point looking at movies and expecting more than a small fraction to be masterpieces. But that is alright. Museums and galleries are filled with duds, too.

Hqrry113

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It depends on what you’re looking for. I don’t buy the idea that films are shyte nowadays. There are plenty to good films and loads and loads of 5/10 films that will pass the time if that's what you're looking for.
Samuel Jackson is only in shyte movies because he is a kind of parody of himself at this stage. And that can be great at times as long as it's what you're looking for.

If you can’t find films you like then it’s more of a case of failure of your own ability to work out what you like and how to find it. If you’re going to passively consume whatever movies Netflix suggests for you and then complain that you don’t like them, then it’s your own
fault for not looking for the films you like.

I know what I like I like thrillers and dramas films that rely on good direction and storytelling and the last ten years have been a joke for these genres.

If the types of movies you like are action and comedies or whatever then it's unlikely you will notice any change in quality, the real issue isn’t Marvel movies it’s a funding model that prioritizes easy blockbusters over riskier, daring films as a good drama/thriller is a lot harder to make than an action or a comedy, action movies tend to sell no matter what but dramas and thrillers can easily flop.

El_Duderino 09

Hqrry113 wrote: »

I know what I like I like thrillers and dramas films that rely on good direction and storytelling and the last ten years have been a joke for these genres.

If the types of movies you like are action and comedies or whatever then it's unlikely you will notice any change in quality, the real issue isn’t Marvel movies it’s a funding model that prioritizes easy blockbusters over riskier, daring films as a good drama/thriller is a lot harder to make than an action or a comedy, action movies tend to sell no matter what but dramas and thrillers can easily flop.

Sure but if you’re looking for the best modern drama and thrillers in the movie section, then you’re probably looking in the wrong place. Greater effort is going into tv series.

Mister Vain

Most modern action films are crap because they use that fast choppy editing and/or shaky camera. Older action films generally used long continuous takes which was more expensive and time consuming but looked much better. Producers are less likely to take financial risks now. An exception would be the Mission Impossible films. The bathroom fight scene in Fallout for example took a month to shoot. Compare that to the fight scenes in the Taken films. There's a huge difference.

silverharp

the one I notice is for me anyway, anything in the last 5 years or so has zero re-watchability , while the production values might be getting better everything else has gone downhill.

McGinniesta

I'm not a huge movie person and don't have a great knowledge. I tend to watch documentaries but I cant remember the last time I watched a movie and was really impressed a by it.

Randy Archer

breezy1985 wrote: »

Radio is not worse nowadays. Radio has spent the vast majority of its existence playing bland popular crap ask anyone who was into any form of rock in the 60/70/80s. There was no Pink Floyd, Clash or Bowie on the radio back then with the exception of the odd pirate channel. It is way better now because you have a ton of radio stations so you pick the one that caters to your music tastes

Very true , even RTE digital radio stations are good . Like wise BBC and many of the other British radio stations . More choice

I kinda see what the other person was saying but you made a good point. Remember Atlantic 252 ? In the 1990s? Depending on our age , some of us might have loved the Brit Pop scene but my god listening to the same tunes in the same order 2-3 times in the space of 3 hours

2Fm was great in the 1990s but ... maybe it was due to what was mainstream then and what we liked ?

One thing though I’m very strongly critical about though was MTV on the telly - back in the glory days of the early 1990s compared to the last 10 years is a travesty . . I had access to that channel (on basic cable package) since about 1992 . Use to remember all the MTV European music awards shows / when they actually were good ! The European top 40

What was good about it ? Between 1992-1996 (slightly just before the death of Brit pop and move into RnB ) the viewer of MTV was shown music videos from very diverse bands and not necessarily sung in English . All the presenters were from all over Europe and they had their unique twist in style etc - then you had a young pilled out of his head it Russell Brand (never saw the appeal) doing the club scene . It was diverse . I think U2 captured the European scene well with their two albums in the early 1990s - zoo and achtung baby (brilliant albums and Pop was decent too)

MTV did the “real world” - (which led to god awful geordie shore etc type programmes) which naturally as a 13 year old I dodged but their animation stuff like Daria and Beavis n Butt head (I know, American) was class

Sadly, by 1997 all that diversity went out the window with creation of MTV U.K. and Ireland and thus RnB / garage (they way music scene was going) and pop bands like West life - argh . It’s got worse since - sure they don’t even bother with music now and it’s too American (for European viewers) Catfish ? Wtf ?

Alas at least the digital music channels were cropping up in the early 2000s that made getting Sky digital worth it ie MTV 2 , Kerrang , Q (Christmas week with 500 greatest indie songs - bliss) VH1 and VH2 - the choice was endless - music channels seem to have died a death now eg Q is gone

You are right , look hard enough you will find what you want but I guess many of us are still programmed into the lazy search ie tuning into the mainstream tv and radio channels

I think they are rubbish. Because I am old and discriminating

breezy1985

Just on MTV that change is shocking. It's not just a channel now playing music I am too old for but a channel that has completely changed its remit. It has nothing to do with music now and has gone from being more for alternative people to swinging way over into the mainstream

silverharp

Has there been any new music styles since 2010? its like culture has just hit a brick wall when it comes to energy, innovation or creativity.

eviltimeban

Great films released in the last two - three years include:

The Gentlemen
I, Tonya
Parasite
Once Upon a Time In Hollywood
Baby Driver
Isle of Dogs
Vice
Blackkklansman
Paddington 2
1917

El_Duderino 09

breezy1985 wrote: »

Just on MTV that change is shocking. It's not just a channel now playing music I am too old for but a channel that has completely changed its remit. It has nothing to do with music now and has gone from being more for alternative people to swinging way over into the mainstream

I don’t remember MTV starting out but I’m pretty sure it played big, established bands. It’s not as though they were seeing what’s going on in the Belgian punk scene or anything like Bucuresti. They played globally famous bands who’s supporters considered themselves into alternative music. Music and music on demand have naturally outgrown scheduled programming. Spotify can suggest loads of music and you can search through more music than ever before. The radio has to adapt by only playing music that’s broad and generic, completely unchallenging and can be played in then background without anyone changing stations until the ads come on.

On radio, the music is just the fill between the ads but that’s not the case with on demand services because they’ve already made their money upfront -same goes for scheduled TV vs on demand tv)

Daz_

eviltimeban wrote: »

Great films released in the last two - three years include:

The Gentlemen
I, Tonya
Parasite
Once Upon a Time In Hollywood
Baby Driver
Isle of Dogs
Vice
Blackkklansman
Paddington 2
1917

Does anyone else think baby driver is completely overrated ? People seem to love it and loose their minds over the soundtrack . I really didn’t think it was anything special at all .

eviltimeban

Daz_ wrote: »

Does anyone else think baby driver is completely overrated ? People seem to love it and loose their minds over the soundtrack . I really didn’t think it was anything special at all .

It was a great film. That's all. No need to be rated, under or over or otherwise.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

Has there been any new music styles since 2010? its like culture has just hit a brick wall when it comes to energy, innovation or creativity.

Oh, you’re just not in touch with new music when you begin to think there’s nothing new anymore. I’ll bet lots of genres were decades old before they actually took off and even more genres sit on the fringe and never become popular.

Irish rap has gotten bigger. British grime music has gotten much bigger in recent years. But I’m not really plugged into these things either.