The Sad State of Summer Blockbusters

JP Jones

New member
What happened?

I just finished watching two cool, colorful, fantastic, and FUN summer movies: The Mummy and The Mummy Returns. I absolutely loved every second of the innocent adventures, and I found that I loved them even more now than when I first saw them. Now I see why. I've trudged through so many heavy, dark, pretentious summer blockbusters in the years between viewings, that the Mummy films feel like a salvation. They hearken back to the days when summer blockbusters were inherently fantastical. When they took you on adventures and didn't ask for spoiler-filled discussions and critical analysis afterwards. They reminded me of Indiana Jones, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Sam Raimi's first two Spider-Man movies. They reminded me of a time when blockbuster were meant to be FUN.

So again, I ask genuinely, what happened?

Was it Christopher Nolan? I used to hail him as the savior of the Batman series. He gave Batman three huge, serious, and dark films. It worked. The thing is, it worked for Batman. I never asked for an overly serious Spider-man or a colorless, fun deprived Superman or James Bond. Why does every big blockbuster these days have to be the most important thing to ever happen to cinema? Why do all these directors seem to be cartoonishly snobby and pretentious? It drives me absolutely mad! And it won't be stopping anytime soon. Critics and audiences alike seemed to hate the recent Lone Ranger movie, a movie I skipped in theaters (because of the reviews) and came to find was spectacular entertainment, but they praised the deathly serious Dawn of the Planet of the Apes movie as one of the greatest things to happen to cinema. Can't movies unapologetically entertain? Can't Hollywood come out with an honest-to-goodness fun blockbuster anymore? The most important question, however, is ... "Can't audiences accept it anymore?"
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Wait, you're checking out reviews to decide whether you wish to see a film you're supposed to watch with all your higher brain functions shut down? That's your mistake right there.

It seems a complete crapshoot whether a blockbuster will gain favorable reviews or not. It's ALWAYS been like that. A case in point: You mention The Mummy Returns, which was universally panned by the hivemind. So just watch the trailer, and if it catches your interest, go see it.

And why did you bring up this topic anyway? To complain about the existence of more tonally serious superhero films? Because they and the kind of film you seem to be craving after certainly aren't mutually exclusive. While the trend seems to be to take some things down the "darker and edgier" route, we certainly do get our share of the old-fashioned "fun" romps as well. The last decade has given us four Pirates of the Caribbean films, the Transformers series, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull... it seems to be hard to recall a year when there hasn't been at least one. Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't see to take itself all too seriously.

Could be they're harder to spot these days with the other kind grabbing majority of the ad space, but it doesn't mean they've gone anywhere. Nope, still here and doing well.

I'd put out a list, but I feel it'd be grossly incomplete, because I'm by no means an expert. Therefore I feel this is the perfect time to refer to our resident connoisseur... kong?
 

JP Jones

New member
Finn said:
Wait, you're checking out reviews to decide whether you wish to see a film you're supposed to watch with all your higher brain functions shut down? That's your mistake right there.

It seems a complete crapshoot whether a blockbuster will gain favorable reviews or not. It's ALWAYS been like that. A case in point: You mention The Mummy Returns, which was universally panned by the hivemind. So just watch the trailer, and if it catches your interest, go see it.

And why did you bring up this topic anyway? To complain about the existence of more tonally serious superhero films? Because they and the kind of film you seem to be craving after certainly aren't mutually exclusive. While the trend seems to be to take some things down the "darker and edgier" route, we certainly do get our share of the old-fashioned "fun" romps as well. The last decade has given us four Pirates of the Caribbean films, the Transformers series, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull... it seems to be hard to recall a year when there hasn't been at least one. Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't see to take itself all too seriously.

Could be they're harder to spot these days with the other kind grabbing majority of the ad space, but it doesn't mean they've gone anywhere. Nope, still here and doing well.

I'd put out a list, but I feel it'd be grossly incomplete, because I'm by no means an expert. Therefore I feel this is the perfect time to refer to our resident connoisseur... kong?
I'm complaining less about the existence of these pompous, serious flicks and more about the fact that audiences seem to want more and more. I was so monumentally dissapointed by Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, because I was expecting to have fun. Little did I know, audiences seem to not want to have fun these days. We live in an era which people want to analyze films and TV way past the point that they should be analyzed. They can't have that unless the film has a thick veil of self-importance and seriousness. That's what upsets me most.

To your point that we can still find some old-fashioned romps, I agree (I really did LOVE the Lone Ranger), but the audience is buying into these less and less. That's the reason why the Amazing Spider-Man movies are obligated to provide a sense of "realism" to a character that absolutley doesn't need it. That's why we still need a James Bond that is grounded in "realism" after 3 movies. It's come to the point where movies put the "Dark Knight Treatment" on a character because that's what others have done and people eat it up. I don't know about you, but that type of unimaginative, assembly line, filmmaking doesn't sit well with me.
 

kongisking

Active member
Finn said:
Wait, you're checking out reviews to decide whether you wish to see a film you're supposed to watch with all your higher brain functions shut down? That's your mistake right there.

It seems a complete crapshoot whether a blockbuster will gain favorable reviews or not. It's ALWAYS been like that. A case in point: You mention The Mummy Returns, which was universally panned by the hivemind. So just watch the trailer, and if it catches your interest, go see it.

And why did you bring up this topic anyway? To complain about the existence of more tonally serious superhero films? Because they and the kind of film you seem to be craving after certainly aren't mutually exclusive. While the trend seems to be to take some things down the "darker and edgier" route, we certainly do get our share of the old-fashioned "fun" romps as well. The last decade has given us four Pirates of the Caribbean films, the Transformers series, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull... it seems to be hard to recall a year when there hasn't been at least one. Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't see to take itself all too seriously.

Could be they're harder to spot these days with the other kind grabbing majority of the ad space, but it doesn't mean they've gone anywhere. Nope, still here and doing well.

I'd put out a list, but I feel it'd be grossly incomplete, because I'm by no means an expert. Therefore I feel this is the perfect time to refer to our resident connoisseur... kong?

You rang? :D

I can sort of understand the frustration JP has here, because it can seem like there's a sad shortage of, um, 'fun' blockbusters, because the 'dark' ones all have the bias of critics and the more cynical audiences. Unfortunately, all of those films you list Finn, besides Guardians, were either mostly panned (Transformers), got harsh backlash from fans (KOTCS), or supposedly suffered sequel-itis (the Pirates series). So if one were naive, one could say these movies had these problems partially because they aimed only for 'fun', and by virtue of not being more 'artistic', they sucked. But that's asking for arguments about the virtues of snobbery, so I'll leave that alone...

I personally think part of the problem is a lack of such 'fun' movies that are done really well, according to majority opinion. That might be where the current 'dark, edgy' trend comes from. I know I personally associate a darker, more serious tone with greater artistic relevance depending on the material, so maybe that's it? These blockbusters are trying to look 'legitimate'. And they think being 'darker' automatically means they are higher quality than a Sahara or a Sky Captain or whatnot. Thanks to the Law of Snobbery.

And I struggle with this a lot actually: part of me loves just completely unabashed fun movies that want only to entertain and be a good time, but the cinemaphile in me also loves very serious, dramatic fare too, and so I generally don't mind so much the 'serious, dramatic' attitude seeping into blockbusters that would otherwise be silly fun.

This is one reason I really respect Marvel for trying to treat their movies as more light, frothy roller-coasters. Because it guarantees at least two movies a year that we can count on to be aiming for 'fun.' But we still can count on some darker, more serious blockbusters too, and since I enjoy them as well, I'm not completely depressed by their existence. I wish there was a little more of the 'fun' movies, sure, but I'm okay with both sides, so...I'll probably live.

Really, I'm more angry over the absence of adventure-themed movies. But that's for different threads than this.

But something occurs to me now: could we be excluding animated films from our perception of 'fun blockbusters'? Because if we include them...then holy cow, there's been a pretty excellent number of 'fun' movies in theaters holding their own. You telling me most Pixar films, or Kung Fu Panda, or Frozen, aren't really fun movies and weren't embraced by audiences? That goes back to what I said earlier, that for 'fun' movies to, uh, matter, they probably need to be done very well. Even exceptionally well.

(as an aside, I thought The Lone Ranger was a complete mess and its failure was sad but justified, but whatever...)

And I think putting up a 'list' would be fruitless, since, as the very 'problem' we're discussing proves...'fun' is a subjective thing. And Lord knows, I enjoy movies that some think are utter trash, ahem...

The real question is: since when was I expected to do list duties? Look, Herr Mac, just because I hang out down here a lot, doesn't mean you can just toss me a rag and make me wipe down the bar! :p
 

Montana Smith

Active member
JP Jones said:
Can't Hollywood come out with an honest-to-goodness fun blockbuster anymore? The most important question, however, is ... "Can't audiences accept it anymore?"

Those are very subjective questions. What audiences and filmmakers define as "fun" can be very different depending upon the individual. "Fun" can be 'chewing gum for the eyes' (Frank Lloyd Wright), or it can be something that delves deeper that leaves you with something to ponder on beyond the end of the film.

It's not really a question of "fun" or "dark", but the execution that defines whether a film is enjoyable or not on a personal level.

There must be plenty of purely "fun" blockbusters out there. The kind of inane fun like the Transformers films, which were fun on a silly level, as with the toys that originally gave rise to the 1984 cartoon series. Apart from the second film they were well executed.

KOTCS looks like it set out in the same direction: to be purely inane, as indicated by the scenes that are oft referenced as being detrimental to its success as part of the series. However, it was fun for a while. Until the landing of the fridge it was tight, and even with a shade of darkness: the murder of the gate guards; the older Indy thrown to the ground from the boot of the car. After Doom Town it sadly fell to pieces. Story and execution sucked the fun from it.

Once in a while filmmakers try to do something different, and less inane. But it seems that the general audience isn't always ready for it.

A film can be both fun and dark, as with Sucker Punch which set out to play with the idea of expectation, and turned it on its head. On the surface it appeared to be a regular 'fun' action movie. Then literally sucker punched the audience, which attributed to its poor reviews. Viewers either didn't understand it, or they just didn't like being tricked.

The Lone Ranger was also overtly "fun", but there was another message running through it.

It's Pirates of the Caribbean meets the more recent entries of the The Fast and Furious series. But without the pirates. Or the cars.

Whimsical, quirky and laugh out loud funny in a silly kind of way. (Silver stops to drop a few and...)

It was shaping up to be a fine western until the train jumped the fridge. I also had a hard time telling myself that Tonto wasn't Jack Sparrow reincarnated - the mannerisms and voice were so similar.

It looks nice, very nice in parts, but it plays both sides of the fence, half wanting to be a genuine western, and half comedy. The sum total is something in the vicinity of the surreal.


Oh, and not to forget the Once Upon a Time in the West allusions: from the villains waiting at the station at the beginning; the build-up to the attack on the ranch; and the music that strikes up every now and then, such as when the railroad reaches the Commanche Border.

Once Upon a Time in the West, as with this Lone Ranger, was concerned with the building of the railroad, and of modern America itself. It's sequel, Once Upon a Time in America, depicted the future that the railroad built. And in The Lone Ranger we see that in the 1933 segments.

Encompassing everything is the myth, not just of The Lone Ranger, but of the building of America itself. So I think this story is being told by the boy in the museum, and not by Tonto. It's the boy's imagination running wild, which would account for the inconsistencies in the tale and the surreal elements. (Hi-Yo Silver! Silver? ... What are you doing up a tree?)

The story was set in 1869 yet the were 1873 Winchester rifles and plenty of 1873 Colt revolvers; and electric model railways didn't appear until the twentieth century. All of which would suggest that all of this was in the boy's imagination.

Not only did it play with these themes, but it also played with expectations for the character of the Lone Ranger himself. It was essentially another sucker punch to the audience.



Films: your mileage may vary.

087.jpg
 

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
JP Jones said:
I'm complaining less about the existence of these pompous, serious flicks and more about the fact that audiences seem to want more and more. I was so monumentally dissapointed by Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, because I was expecting to have fun. Little did I know, audiences seem to not want to have fun these days. We live in an era which people want to analyze films and TV way past the point that they should be analyzed. They can't have that unless the film has a thick veil of self-importance and seriousness. That's what upsets me most.

Somewhat bad timing on your part for making this thread. If you made this thread a week or two ago it'd be one thing but: go see Guardians of the Galaxy.

I was skeptical of it at first...but having seen it, I can honestly say in the 21st century this film was easily the closest(aside from probably the Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl) a film has come to capturing the same sense of magic the blockbusters of the Lucas and Spielberg era of the 1970s-1980s created.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
JP Jones said:
To your point that we can still find some old-fashioned romps, I agree (I really did LOVE the Lone Ranger), but the audience is buying into these less and less.
If the grand audience digs the new style, guess you're in the minority then. I suppose that's part of the issue with this thread. You make it sound like it is some universal problem, when in reality it is a single man's gripe, and a highly subjective at that. Even more so, because they still DO make films like that.

I'm actually not crazy about all the gritty stuff myself, but I'm not so much into blockbusters in the first place. I catch most of them late or not at all. I can always vote with my wallet, but at the same time I know that if enough people line up to watch 'em, they will keep making 'em. And it's not really my place to argue with said line.

kongisking said:
I can sort of understand the frustration JP has here, because it can seem like there's a sad shortage of, um, 'fun' blockbusters, because the 'dark' ones all have the bias of critics and the more cynical audiences. Unfortunately, all of those films you list Finn, besides Guardians, were either mostly panned (Transformers), got harsh backlash from fans (KOTCS), or supposedly suffered sequel-itis (the Pirates series). So if one were naive, one could say these movies had these problems partially because they aimed only for 'fun', and by virtue of not being more 'artistic', they sucked. But that's asking for arguments about the virtues of snobbery, so I'll leave that alone...
Eeghhh... way to go missing the point. Since JP mentioned The Mummy Returns, the whole point was that for once, we don't really have to care how many stars the hive grants it. Which I why I directed him to you. He is obviously a kindred soul, so would you just give him some suggestions, based entirely on what YOU like? Critics be damned.

kongisking said:
The real question is: since when was I expected to do list duties? Look, Herr Mac, just because I hang out down here a lot, doesn't mean you can just toss me a rag and make me wipe down the bar!
The one time I find some actual use for you instead of shooting you down from whatever grand goose-chasing mission you're on, and you still complain? Friggin' princess.
 

JP Jones

New member
Finn said:
If the grand audience digs the new style, guess you're in the minority then. I suppose that's part of the issue with this thread. You make it sound like it is some universal problem, when in reality it is a single man's gripe, and a highly subjective at that. Even more so, because they still DO make films like that.

I'm actually not crazy about all the gritty stuff myself, but I'm not so much into blockbusters in the first place. I catch most of them late or not at all. I can always vote with my wallet, but at the same time I know that if enough people line up to watch 'em, they will keep making 'em. And it's not really my place to argue with said line.
I don't expect everyone to agree that the new trend in Hollywood is a problem, but you can't argue that it isn't a trend. I started this thread not to gripe, as you say, but to ask, "What happened?" Your assesment that they still do make those movies is pretty far off. I look at the biggest movies, the most popular TV shows and not one of them can be considered innocent or fun. That brings me back to the audience. I think you're missing my points. I'm here to discuss why audiences are begging for more of this type of movie. Maybe you could enlighten me.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
I wasn't arguing it's not a trend. Like I said, the line is there, so obviously it must be.

But I don't agree with your assessment that they just don't make the other kind anymore - or that they are in somehow "sad state". Trying to figure out why there has been a shift in the trend is a worthy topic, but tying it in with the loss of the "fun" kind is barking at wrong trees. Before I typed my first response to this thread, I went back to the records from the last decade and seemed to spot at least one piece from every summer that certainly falls more within the line of "fun" and less within "gritty", as defined in this thread. They definitely still make them, which is why your complaint is so puzzling. It's almost as if you're asking "what happened?" not because they don't still make them, but because you can't spot 'em anymore by just looking at the tallest billboard on the Times Square.

And I'm still talking about AAA stuff. Not some obscure indie things you have to know are there to look for. While they may make you dig occasionally, the amount of extra work is hardly all that much to really warrant complaints. It's a habit of mine to look past the superficial, so I seem to recall quite a handful of them being made over the past decade. Like I said, I could write a list but I fear it'd be grossly incomplete because I'm by no means an expert. Which is why I referred to kong, who could probably write a whole encyclopedia on the things.

I don't really know what's in the mind of the line, because I'm not part of it. When I find the occasional craving for a summer blockbuster, I actually prefer the "fun" kind, too. I just do my homework beforehand so that I don't have to walk out of the theater feeling that the thing I saw was not what I wanted it to be.
 

JP Jones

New member
Finn said:
I wasn't arguing it's not a trend. Like I said, the line is there, so obviously it must be.

But I don't agree with your assessment that they just don't make the other kind anymore. Before I typed my first response to this thread, I went back to the records from the last decade and seemed to spot at least one piece from every summer that certainly falls more within the line of "fun" and less within "gritty", as defined in this thread. They definitely still make them, which is why your complaint is so puzzling. It's almost as if you're asking "what happened?" not because they don't still make them, but because you can't spot 'em anymore by just looking at the tallest billboard on the Times Square.

And I'm still talking about AAA stuff. Not some obscure indie things you have to know are there to look for. While they may make you dig occasionally, the amount of extra work is hardly all that much to really warrant complaints. It's a habit of mine to look past the superficial, so I seem to recall quite a handful of them being made over the past decade. Like I said, I could write a list but I fear it'd be grossly incomplete because I'm by no means an expert. Which is why I referred to kong, who could probably write a whole encyclopedia on the things.

And I don't really know what's in the mind of the line, because I'm not part of it. When I find the occasional craving for a summer blockbuster, I actually prefer the "fun" kind, too. I just do my homework beforehand so that I don't have to walk out of the theater feeling that the thing I saw was not what I wanted it to be.
The audience, Finn, is what I am trying to focus on. I acknowledged that, yes, there are movies out there that are meant to entertain and do nothing more (Pacific Rim comes to mind). The thing that confuses and saddens me is that almost all of the most popular movies of the last decade are these epic melodramatic blockbusters. It seems like Hollywood and audiences alike have forgotten that campy, adventurous movies can be made with quality. It's led to dark re-imaginings of characters that were not meant to be dark. That is a problem in the industry today.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
JP Jones said:
The thing that confuses and saddens me is that almost all of the most popular movies of the last decade are these epic melodramatic blockbusters. It seems like Hollywood and audiences alike have forgotten that campy, adventurous movies can be made with quality.
But Hollywood obviously hasn't forgotten the fact because, for the umpteenth time, the "fun" kind of movies are still being made. In healthy numbers.

It does make an interesting discussion why the dramatic epics seem to be so popular these days, but I really see no reason to pit them against the light-hearted kind. Because if you do, you're really not complaining about the lack of the product, but the lack of marketing for it. Which, in my opinion, seems quite a frivolous thing to pay attention to. Unless you really are of the kind who has trouble finding suitable entertainment if it's not thrown at your face.
 

JP Jones

New member
Montana Smith said:
Can you throw out some examples for discussion?
Spider-Man, Superman, James Bond (to a degree), Planet of the Apes, Star Trek, Wolverine, Hunger Games, Godzilla. All too serious and self-important.
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
JP Jones said:
Planet of the Apes

I wouldn't say that the original Planet of the Apes films were set as particularly "fun", "innocent" or un-"pretentious". They were about slavery, civil rights and the dominance of species. Recall the hunting scene from the first film, and the human who's stuffed for a museum display?

JP Jones said:
Wolverine

Often an extremely serious character in the comics. The Wolverine film was one of the few recent Marvel blockbusters in which "serious and self-important" worked well. In Avengers the sentiment was misplaced amidst a film trying to have fun.

JP Jones said:
James Bond

Remember Timothy Dalton?

Go even further back. Ian Fleming's original stories were far more brutal, sadistic and serious than many of the Bond films portrayed.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
JP Jones said:
I'm here to discuss why audiences are begging for more of this type of movie. Maybe you could enlighten me.

Show me a campy* movie that is turing a profit, and then we can talk about if audiences are begging for them. To that end, show me a film that wants to be taken seriously, that too, is turing a profit.

Hollywood is (and always has been) about recycling stories. With only 36 to choose from, they've become very VERY lazy in how they've repackaged them.

________
*The Twilight Series should not even be mentioned here, or the one who does will be forever sent to banana island. Only a most thought out post will be saved if teenage chick angst film is being used as a measuring stick for discussion.
 

JP Jones

New member
Montana Smith said:
I wouldn't say that the original Planet of the Apes films were set as particularly "fun", "innocent" or un-"pretentious". They were about slavery, civil rights and the dominance of species. Recall the hunting scene from the first film, and the human who's stuffed for a museum display?



Often an extremely serious character in the comics. The Wolverine film was one of the few recent Marvel blockbusters in which "serious and self-important" worked well. In Avengers the sentiment was misplaced amidst a film trying to have fun.



Remember Timothy Dalton?

Go even further back. Ian Fleming's original stories were far more brutal, sadistic and serious than many of the Bond films portrayed.
I was fully prepared for a darker Planet of the Apes movie, but what Dawn did was ridiculous. There was an absolute dead serious tone throughout every second of a film that featured talking apes for christ's sake!

I'm not a Wolverine fan, so I can't argue too hard against the newest Wolverine movie. It was just too dark for me.

As for James Bond; Casino Royale is my Favorite Bond film because it does return the to a place closer to Flemming's original character and tone. However, the series has gone nowhere but darker and more serious since then. Quantum of Solace was a spit in the face to anyone who enjoyed the excitement and fun of the older Bond films. I expected Skyfall to take itself a little less seriously, but what I got was by far the most serious Bond movie ever.

I don't see why people love this type of Nolanized, ultra-gritty, style, and I may never really understand it. I grew up with Indiana Jones, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Jurassic Park, and that type of movie is what I love.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
JP Jones said:
I grew up with Indiana Jones, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Jurassic Park, and that type of movie is what I love.

You're lucky. I grew up with the likes of Popye, Xanadu, Meatballs, and Rhinestone. Consider yourself lucky.
 

Grizzlor

Well-known member
Guardians of the Galaxy I think will be very popular. The Michael Bay-ish garbage, it's gotten so bad that all the studios care about is how much money can they make in China?
 

kongisking

Active member
Finn said:
Eeghhh... way to go missing the point. Since JP mentioned The Mummy Returns, the whole point was that for once, we don't really have to care how many stars the hive grants it. Which I why I directed him to you. He is obviously a kindred soul, so would you just give him some suggestions, based entirely on what YOU like? Critics be damned.

Right. I did indeed miss the point. I was mostly speculating out loud. Whoops.

And are you implying my taste in movies makes me an expert on films that are generally considered sucky by most, but technically count as 'fun' movies? Ouch! :p

Off the bat, movies I personally consider 'fun' (and I previously acknowledged this is probably pointless, given my taste is exactly that: mine, and not objective) would be stuff like the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, the latest Star Treks (though Into Darkness does try for a more serious approach, but nevertheless is brimming with fun and charm), the Hellboy movies, Pacific Rim, Edgar Wright's Cornetto trilogy (though they also count as very black comedies), the Hobbit trilogy, which goes for a deliberately lighter, more adventurous tone than the original Rings films, and I might be possibly missing one...damn it, I think it starred some guy in a hat...

Finn said:
The one time I find some actual use for you instead of shooting you down from whatever grand goose-chasing mission you're on, and you still complain? Friggin' princess.

I have some Willie Scott in my genes. ;)

But in honestly, I did appreciate not being a wholly useless member of the human race for once. But this is me we're talking about, I've got an ego to protect! :p
 
Top