RIP mainstream cinema.

Technocentral · 02-01-2012 10:30PM #1

Mainstream cinema is pretty much dead, now to cap it all we have a ****ing film based on a board game you play with pegs (Battleship), how sad, its all Transformers 3, Spiderman 5, MI 4 and other endless unoriginal sequels or films based on toys with almost 100% CGI and 0% story and character development. I think TV is where all the writers and directors/producers of original, edgy and exciting human based dramas aimed at intelligent people over 10 yrs of age and with at least a bit of an attention span have migrated to and are making shows such as Mad Men, The Wire, Breaking Bad, Shameless and Battlestar Galactica etc, such a pity, at least we have one or two things like The Artist to look forward to.

Edit: Not to mention remakes of foreign language films a few months later (sometimes by the same directors!) for the cretins who won't read subtitles or look at actors who aren't American or British (Funny Games, Let The Right One In, Dragon Tattoo etc). Thats just as dispiriting.

Victor · 02-01-2012 10:45PM

While there had long been concerns about studios stealing concepts / screenplays from each other, e.g. Deep Impact v Armageddon, they have now started stealing scenes.

MI4 v Tower Heist - how to climb out a window of a skyscraper - "we're going to need a bigger building".

MI4 v Unknown - how to crash a car through a bridge parapet, even thing such a scene would never happen in real life.

Planet of the Apes v Limitless - mind improving drug.

Johnny English v Sherlock Holmes - finale at conference in Swiss mountaintop fortress.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows Poster - loads of stuff taken, the camouflage is modern and while interesting, isn't very practical.

nyarlothothep · 02-01-2012 10:49PM

100% agree, when I found out Mr Popper's Penguins and Jack and Jill were real films and not South Park p1sstakes I realized it was the end. Nearly everything is sh1t though I do enjoy the odd gross out/fratboy comedy. Everything else is an insult to me.

Links234 · 02-01-2012 10:50PM

and this is why I only watch korean serial killer movies!

Victor · 02-01-2012 10:56PM

Actually, I wonder if they've done a Moneyball on it. The studios make their money with the high profile movies that get lots of people in for the first 3 weeks (Transformers), where cinemas make their money on the well thought-out, slow burning ones (The Kings Speech).

johnny_ultimate · 02-01-2012 10:59PM

Meh, I've gotten over Hollywood cinema. A competent blockbuster or two a year is just swell, and as long as the odd auteur like Malick, Nolan or Fincher gets some of the profits, it's all good.

There's enough brilliant cinema - and there are vast amounts of great movies every single year - being made to more than make up for it. The only solution is to raise one's standards: the realisation that there's more films being released than the multiplex shows is always a satisfying one. Bollocks like Your Highness gets multiple screens, whereas the likes of Cold Weather, I Saw the Devil and Summer Wars get buried with low profile DVD releases. The harder you look, the more rewarding the treasure.

sillo · 02-01-2012 11:09PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Meh, I've gotten over Hollywood cinema. A competent blockbuster or two a year is just swell, and as long as the odd auteur like Malick, Nolan or Fincher gets some of the profits, it's all good.

What he said. There's never been a better time to be a lover of cinema - the amount of choice if overwhelming. If you're not into mainstream cinema, stop going to maintream cinemas.

Technocentral · 02-01-2012 11:10PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Meh, I've gotten over Hollywood cinema. A competent blockbuster or two a year is just swell, and as long as the odd auteur like Malick, Nolan or Fincher gets some of the profits, it's all good.

There's enough brilliant cinema - and there are vast amounts of great movies every single year - being made to more than make up for it. The only solution is to raise one's standards: the realisation that there's more films being released than the multiplex shows is always a satisfying one. Bollocks like Your Highness gets multiple screens, whereas the likes of Cold Weather, I Saw the Devil and Summer Wars get buried with low profile DVD releases. The harder you look, the more rewarding the treasure.

I agree with everything you said, there are loads of great films which as you say end up on dvd, not because they are like the inferior STV fare of years ago but because the muck is filling most of the available cinema screens. Still, its a pity that the major studies which used to produce great mainstream stuff are just concentrating purely on the lowest common denominator and remaking good foreign language films for imbeciles instead of fostering new talents and stories.

Sad Professor · 02-01-2012 11:11PM

Links234 wrote: »

and this is why I only watch korean serial killer movies!

Yeah, as I've said before, South Korea is wiping the floor with Hollywood at the moment. It's all very American-inspired and mainstream-friendly stuff too. There's no reason not to watch it unless you've got some inexplicable opposition to subtitles, and even then the films are usually made with foreign audiences in mind, so they tell their stories visually.

As johnny_ultimate said, it's silly to limit yourself to Hollywood blockbusters. Although I sympathise with people who don't have much selection at their local multiplex.

Technocentral · 02-01-2012 11:15PM

sillo wrote: »

What he said. There's never been a better time to be a lover of cinema - the amount of choice if overwhelming. If you're not into mainstream cinema, stop going to maintream cinemas.

All I'm saying is that its a pity that unlike the past, mainstream cinema is no longer popular and good, I rarely do go to mainstream films anymore, in fact Inception and Avatar were the final nails for me.

Links234 · 02-01-2012 11:15PM

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah, as I've said before, South Korea is wiping the floor with Hollywood at the moment. It's all very American-inspired and mainstream-friendly stuff too. There's no reason not to watch it unless you've got some inexplicable opposition to subtitles, and even then the films are usually made with foreign audiences in mind, so they tell their stories visually.

definitely, some of the best movies I've ever seen have been south korean, it's amazing!

I was horrified to see that Jee-Woon Kim will be directing an Arnold Schwarzenegger film next tho! :eek: really hope he doesn't pull a John Woo on us

johnny_ultimate · 02-01-2012 11:20PM

I'll admit to a 'Dublin-centric' point of view. We are quite spoiled with the IFI and even The Screen. Heck, I was in the IFI today and the choices were Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Tabloid and Mysteries of Lisbon. Not a bad choice at all. Of course, wandered over to Cineworld after my choice was sold out and there was sweet F-A playing. I fully appreciate that sub-Cineworld quality is the norm pretty much everywhere else, and one must rely on home entertainment options.

It's the age old conundrum, really - is it that the audience don't know better, or that the audience doesn't want to know better? You can't blame Hollywood for making the films that make money (masses of people went to see Transformers 3, after all, despite every sign pointing to the fact that it would be a piece of crap). But I also think people have been trained into being 'risk adverse' where film is entertainment as opposed to art. But that's an argument without an end or any clear answers.

All you can do is just go against the grain. There's a big enough audience out there for non-mainstream cinema - a 270 minute long film comfortably selling out was a new, enlightening experience for me today - that there'll always be alternatives.

And there's always Chris Nolan.

Sad Professor · 02-01-2012 11:28PM

Cineworld isn’t even that bad. I mean, they had quite a number of screenings of Another Earth, Take Shelter, The Tree of Life and even Melancholia. Vue in Liffey Valley is far, far worse when it comes to selection. I’m amazed they are even showing The Artist. Or at least I think they are.

johnny_ultimate · 02-01-2012 11:31PM

I'm conflicted on Cineworld. Sometimes they'll be the only place to get a gem of a film in - The Chaser and Snowtown are the two that spring to mind. And it's a great venue for festivals and the like as all the screens are of pretty good quality.

But the cost of the place is frankly absurd (and don't go enough to justify the Unlimited), and it is basically franchising cinema. Given the amount of space they have, they should offer more variety more frequently.

Technocentral · 02-01-2012 11:31PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'll admit to a 'Dublin-centric' point of view. We are quite spoiled with the IFI and even The Screen. Heck, I was in the IFI today and the choices were Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Tabloid and Mysteries of Lisbon. Not a bad choice at all. Of course, wandered over to Cineworld after my choice was sold out and there was sweet F-A playing. I fully appreciate that sub-Cineworld quality is the norm pretty much everywhere else, and one must rely on home entertainment options.

It's the age old conundrum, really - is it that the audience don't know better, or that the audience doesn't want to know better? You can't blame Hollywood for making the films that make money (masses of people went to see Transformers 3, after all, despite every sign pointing to the fact that it would be a piece of crap). But I also think people have been trained into being 'risk adverse' where film is entertainment as opposed to art. But that's an argument without an end or any clear answers.

All you can do is just go against the grain. There's a big enough audience out there for non-mainstream cinema - a 270 minute long film comfortably selling out was a new, enlightening experience for me today - that there'll always be alternatives.

And there's always Chris Nolan.

Don't get me going on him!

Technocentral · 02-01-2012 11:34PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm conflicted on Cineworld. Sometimes they'll be the only place to get a gem of a film in - The Chaser and Snowtown are the two that spring to mind. And it's a great venue for festivals and the like as all the screens are of pretty good quality.

But the cost of the place is frankly absurd (and don't go enough to justify the Unlimited), and it is basically franchising cinema. Given the amount of space they have, they should offer more variety more frequently.

To be fair to them they do show a fairly broad range of stuff, its more a problem for discerning cinema fans in other parts of the country such as Cork who have little of interest to see.

johnny_ultimate · 02-01-2012 11:35PM

I forgot Pixar too - the shining light of mainstream American cinema!

We forget that what we consider arthouse here is actually mainstream elsewhere. I recall having a broken conversation with a Japanese fellow about how I couldn't wait to watch Ponyo on the Cliff as I was a big Ghibli fan. Him and his friends gave me the weirdest look and replied 'But that's for children'.

Sad Professor · 02-01-2012 11:42PM

With regard to American cinema, what is mainstream anymore? Blockbusters, crappy comedies and slasher films? What would have been considered mainstream in America 30-40 years ago would probably be considered arthouse by today's standards.

sillo · 02-01-2012 11:51PM

Sad Professor wrote: »

With regard to American cinema, what is mainstream anymore? Blockbusters, crappy comedies and slasher films? What would have been considered mainstream in America 30-40 years ago would probably be considered arthouse by today's standards.

Top 10 grossing movies of the 1970's (Source)

Crikey, hell of a hurdle to clear if you ask me -

TOP TEN FILMS OF THE 1970s
(unadjusted domestic gross totals)
Star Wars (1977)
Jaws (1975)
The Exorcist (1973)
Grease (1978)
The Sting (1973)
National Lampoon's Animal House (1978)
The Godfather (1972)
Superman (1978)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977/80)
Smokey and the Bandit (1977)
Blazing Saddles (1974)
Rocky (1976)
The Towering Inferno (1974)
The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)
Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

Galvasean · 03-01-2012 07:28PM

It looks to me like many of the better writers have moved on to TV. Big shows like Walking Dead, Game of Thrones etc. have budgets and production values comparable to middle-large Hollywood movies. There's probably good money in them too, not to mention multiple episodes give good writers the opportunity to flex their writing muscles in terms of character development and multi-layered storylines.

Victor · 03-01-2012 07:40PM

Sad Professor wrote: »

With regard to American cinema, what is mainstream anymore? Blockbusters, crappy comedies and slasher films? What would have been considered mainstream in America 30-40 years ago would probably be considered arthouse by today's standards.

It that because all the dodgy stuff has been forgotten about and only the "good" ones are remembered? I've seen at least half of the films listed below, but I haven't seen half the films made in the 1970s.

sillo wrote: »

Top 10 grossing movies of the 1970's (Source)

Crikey, hell of a hurdle to clear if you ask me -

TOP TEN FILMS OF THE 1970s
(unadjusted domestic gross totals)
Star Wars (1977)
Jaws (1975)
The Exorcist (1973)
Grease (1978)
The Sting (1973)
National Lampoon's Animal House (1978)
The Godf-+ather (1972)
Superman (1978)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977/80)
Smokey and the Bandit (1977)
Blazing Saddles (1974)
Rocky (1976)
The Towering Inferno (1974)
The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)
Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

Strange, they list 15 films in the top 10.

Sad Professor · 03-01-2012 08:25PM

There's a great deal of variety in that list, which reflects the broad taste of mainstream audiences in the '70s. Look at the top grossing films of the 2000s and it's all big spectacle films that had huge marketing campaigns behind them. It's hard to imagine The Godfather or The Exorcist enjoying that kind of box office success today. Word of mouth would still travel and people would still see the films, but probably on DVD or Blu-ray rather than in the cinema. Even something like Rocky would have difficulty building up enough steam. The modern blockbuster is designed to make its entire budget back in the first couple of weeks.

Galvasean · 03-01-2012 09:03PM

Paramount was 2011's top earning studio (main output: Transformers 3), with Warner bros. in 2nd place (main output: Harry Potter).

http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/paramount-dominates-the-world-with-transformers-dark-of-the-moon-174072/

"This achievement reflects the combined efforts of our entire team across the globe and the careful process by which we select the projects and partners we believe in," said Paramount Pictures chairman and CEO Brad Grey. "We produce pictures that aspire to entertain audiences around the world, while at the same time we have sought to find innovative ways to reach moviegoers in this changing entertainment environment."

That quote pretty much sums it up IMO - use marketing to put bums on seats in the name of (fickle?) entertainment.

sillo · 03-01-2012 09:56PM

Top 10 of the 2000's (the most recent eligible decade) - same source as before:

TOP TEN FILMS OF THE 2000s
(unadjusted domestic gross totals)
Avatar (2009)
The Dark Knight (2008)
Shrek 2 (2004)
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Spider-Man (2002)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
The Passion of the Christ (2004)

In my opinion that list makes for some pretty grim reading. While some of them are passable entertainment, I wouldn't consider many of them worth a place on the equivalent 70's list.

Galvasean · 03-01-2012 10:05PM

I certainly think the Dark Knight would not look out of place in terms of quality. The Return of the King would probably be next in terms of quality. After that though, its a long way down...

sillo · 03-01-2012 10:09PM

Galvasean wrote: »

I certainly think the Dark Knight would not look out of place in terms of quality. The Return of the King would probably be next in terms of quality. After that though, its a long way down...

Basically this, yeah

If nothing else the comparison illustrates quite nicely the death and repeated violation of the musical.

johnny_ultimate · 03-01-2012 10:18PM

I wouldn't fully agree with this line of thinking, but there's also potentially the argument that film viewing habits have shifted significantly enough to make like-and-like impossible to compare. The advent of DVD and satellite TV means that the cinema box-office is merely one meter of commercial success, and that 'the cinema' has, to mainstream viewers, become a place of spectacle and escapism. More offbeat and obscure stuff has been known to attract a more significant cult down the line. Donnie Darko, for example, would have been unable to enjoy its wide success anytime other than the 2000s. Or: people have just grown stupider

I think both are valid lines of thinking.

But generally speaking, we just have to look at a list like this to show how box-office is far from the most adequate barometer of quality.

1. In the Mood for Love
2. Mullholland Drive
3. Yi Yi (which I'm still dying to see, but is a pain in the arse to get legally)
4. Eternal Sunshine
5. Spirited Away
6. There Will be Blood
7. Lost in Translation
8. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon
9. A History of Violence
10. Talk to Her
11. Y Tu Mama Tambien
12. Far from Heaven
13. Sideways
14. The Hurt Locker
15. The Social Network

Quality wise, that list is in every way comparable to the 70s one. And the likes of Pixar's output, Zodiac, LotR etc... are still mainstream diamonds in the rough. Ultimately it is certainly depressing that mass popularity appears to be undergoing a stupefying of sorts (not that the 70s weren't chock full of idiocy

) but I don't think it's worth getting down about.

Syferus · 03-01-2012 10:44PM

To put it simply: I just watch what I want to see, and there's plenty I want to see.

You're the grandpa in the corner bemoaning how 'ahh, 'twas such better back in the day, laddie'. People tend to blame their own bad choices on the 'industry', but we live in the time of easiest access to films in history so that argument fades away rather quickly by any objective measure.

03-01-2012 11:26PM

Mainstream cinema is a long way from dead. While big budget blockbusters may get the bulk of a studios marketing/energy that does not mean that they ignore smaller, more intimate films. People complain about how much of a disgrace it is that Avatar or Transformers made a billion dollars, forgetting that it is from these profits that studios are able to finance/distribute smaller, riskier ventures.

Most multiplexes are going to show whatever fills the theatre and more often than not that is the latest blockbuster but there is nearly always at least one smaller film in the mix. Drive for all intents and purposes is far from a major film in the studio system yet it recieved a pretty substantial release and did very well. Unfortuantly the same can't be said for Warrior, which received a wide release yet did terribly at the box office. How many people chose to simply download the film when it leaked rather than wait the few days and see it the way it was intended to.

Anyone who says that mainstream cinema is dead would do well to take a look through the shelves of DVDs and Blu-Rays in HMV. There is a wealth of great cinema being released to the home market every week, much of it in part is thanks to the smaller off shoots of the major studios aswell as a number of fantastic little companies who routinely release hidden gems from all around the world. In the past week alone Kill List and Elite Squad 2 were released on DVD/Blu. In the next few weeks we have Troll Hunter, Arrietty, Adam Resurrected, Hara Kiri: Death of a Samurai, The Debt, Cell 211, The Big Picture, Project Nim, Tyrannosaur, Tabloid, Whistleblower, Hesher, Warrior, Vanishing on 7th Street and many, many more.

Mickeroo · 03-01-2012 11:35PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I wouldn't fully agree with this line of thinking, but there's also potentially the argument that film viewing habits have shifted significantly enough to make like-and-like impossible to compare. The advent of DVD and satellite TV means that the cinema box-office is merely one meter of commercial success, and that 'the cinema' has, to mainstream viewers, become a place of spectacle and escapism. More offbeat and obscure stuff has been known to attract a more significant cult down the line. Donnie Darko, for example, would have been unable to enjoy its wide success anytime other than the 2000s. Or: people have just grown stupider I think both are valid lines of thinking.

But generally speaking, we just have to look at a list like this to show how box-office is far from the most adequate barometer of quality.

1. In the Mood for Love
2. Mullholland Drive
3. Yi Yi (which I'm still dying to see, but is a pain in the arse to get legally)
4. Eternal Sunshine
5. Spirited Away
6. There Will be Blood
7. Lost in Translation
8. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon
9. A History of Violence
10. Talk to Her
11. Y Tu Mama Tambien
12. Far from Heaven
13. Sideways
14. The Hurt Locker
15. The Social Network

Quality wise, that list is in every way comparable to the 70s one. And the likes of Pixar's output, Zodiac, LotR etc... are still mainstream diamonds in the rough. Ultimately it is certainly depressing that mass popularity appears to be undergoing a stupefying of sorts (not that the 70s weren't chock full of idiocy ) but I don't think it's worth getting down about.

You've pretty much summed up my thinking here johnny.

I see where you're coming from OP, but I don't think films are any better now than they were back then in general. There's just more of the big budget spectacle than there was back then, plus more films are made and there's a much wider variety of films on offer now.

Regarding the list from the 70's put up, the likes of Jaws, Star Wars, Animal House, these wouldn't be out of place nowadays either tbh. To say mainstream cinema flat out sucks now is to ignore all the actual good movies that come out, you could have made the same argument 5,10,20,25 or 30 years ago as long as you ignored all the good movies that were popular too.

It works with music too, I could easily make an argument that music sucks and the art is gone out of it by taking a look at the charts now with the likes of people from the x-factor knocking around. Thats because the charts is not an accurate representation of the quality of music on offer. There's loads of good stuff out there.

the main reason it always seems like film or music was better before is because nobody remembers the crap, once its had its 15 minutes it dissappears. Its only stuff with quality that actually captures peoples minds that has any longevity. Thats why people still listen to Led Zeppelin but not Bucks Fizz, The Pixies and not New Kids on the Block and thats why people still watch the likes of The Godfather and not some crap film I've never heard of that came out back then.

Mick990 · 03-01-2012 11:50PM

Hey , I don't think my knowledge of cinema is any where near as any of yours but I think the big problem with mainstream cinema now is that they try and dumb everything down or sugar coat it to try get the 12s cert thus making sure everyone can pay into see it.

For example I read the book Bringing down the house which i taught was very good but when the film came out (21) it was terrible totally sugar coated the book for that very reason

RIP mainstream cinema.

Comments