I said before, quote, I'M NOT GOING TO PROVE IT TO YOU, there is no way to prove popularity, I'M NOT GOING TO BRING UP BOX OFFICE NUMBERS because they don't tell anything close to what is really happening. Box office numbers say that Avatar is way more popular than the Dark Knight or that Twilight is more popular Dawn of the Planet of the apes. You're a straight-up moron if you believe that. Stop trying to prove me wrong because you can't. If you don't think movies today are grittier on the whole than they were years ago, we can't talk.Montana Smith said:
The Sad State of Summer Blockbusters
- Thread starter JP Jones
- Start date
kongisking
Active member
JP Jones said:
Jones, come on, man...its obvious a lot of us don't exactly agree with your view on this. How do you expect us to come to your side if you don't show some hard proof for what you say? Saying you basically 'shouldn't have to prove' what you're talking about to skeptics is just stubborn, and doesn't help you any.
How can you not agree? My proof is that Nolan's Batman movies, Craig's Bond movies, Man of Steel, Dawn of the Apes, hell even the newer Marvel movies, have been the most popular blockbusters of recent years between audiences and critics and they have all profited by being grittier than previous entries. This seems so mind numbingly simple. That was the part of this thread that was supposed to come easily. Of course movies are grittier, but WHY?kongisking said:
You people are telling me that movies aren't grittier! How can you say that! What happened to Bond, what happened to Apes, what happened to Superman, what happened to Spider-Man, what happened to Captain America?!? They have gotten grittier, more mature. You can't tell me that it is not the trend with those movies! You can't!
I know that not every big movie is gritty, but that doesn't stop me from asking why so many ARE! You seem to want to disprove me and end the conversation. That CAN'T happen!!!!!!
Why don't we limit the conversation to established franchises, just so we can start a real conversation, and not try to disprove each other. Please, tell me why you think those franchises I brought up have become more serious and gritty. And for the love of God, don't tell me they aren't.
Let's review the discussion thus far...
The OP starts the discussion by stating that they make too much "dark and gritty" movies these days. He gives some examples of the kind of movies he likes.
- The audience responds that hey, they actually still DO make movies like that. In great numbers.
The OP practically says that they don't count because all the POPULAR movies are "dark and gritty".
- The audience responds that many of those movies are quite well-known and popular. They even point the OP towards the most recent addition to that line, the Guardians of the Galaxy.
The OP now says that said movie doesn't count, because it's TOO fun.
- The audience points out that it seems to fit the very definition the OP presented earlier.
The OP practically dismisses that point, his only argument being that the audience is simply making fun of him. The OP then repeats his point of most popular movies of our day being too dark and gritty, despite said point being proven wrong already.
- The audience does not wish to repeat its argument, so it pushes the dismissed argument.
The OP finally responds by calling it a "niche movie", indicating it does not count because of that.
- The audience responds by citing several recent films that are very much like the Guardians of the Galaxy.
The OP points out that he has talked from a subjective point of view all this time, indicating that the audience has been wrong by hampering him with the numbers. He introduces a whole new concept, a "subjective trend".
- The audience points out that unlike the OP asserts, it's not the first time something like this happens, citing several movies from the late 80s and early 90s that have taken grittier turns.
Doesn't disprove a trend, says the OP, changing the rules again. Because despite being darker and more mature, they ALSO know how to have fun. He also, finally, consents that "after reviewing", he has found out that they still make the kind of movies he likes, but goes back to arguing that they don't count because they aren't popular. Or popular enough, when compared to the other type.
- The audience breaks out the numbers yet again, very elaborately pointing out that the fun kind have actually been leading the BO for the past 15 years, being very popular. Someone in the audience throws the OP a very obscure bone, referring to a vague event.
The OP goes after the bone, completely ignoring the numbers he should be concentrating on.
- The audience, however, is not interested in the bone and tells the OP to focus on the numbers.
The OP flat out says he has the right to ignore the numbers - because they don't agree with his personal of view of what's popular.
- The audience is puzzled now. What other way there is to prove popularity than actual statistics?
The OP wants to change the rules... yet again... now by limiting the topic to established franchises. Because he wants to have a "real" discussion, instead of... what? The fake one he originally started?
---
You know, I'm almost inclined to recommend the OP a career in politics. His skills in flip-flopping and dodging all the dung thrown at him are nothing short of phenomenal. And even more importantly, when some DOES stick, he just keeps on pretending that it didn't.
The OP starts the discussion by stating that they make too much "dark and gritty" movies these days. He gives some examples of the kind of movies he likes.
- The audience responds that hey, they actually still DO make movies like that. In great numbers.
The OP practically says that they don't count because all the POPULAR movies are "dark and gritty".
- The audience responds that many of those movies are quite well-known and popular. They even point the OP towards the most recent addition to that line, the Guardians of the Galaxy.
The OP now says that said movie doesn't count, because it's TOO fun.
- The audience points out that it seems to fit the very definition the OP presented earlier.
The OP practically dismisses that point, his only argument being that the audience is simply making fun of him. The OP then repeats his point of most popular movies of our day being too dark and gritty, despite said point being proven wrong already.
- The audience does not wish to repeat its argument, so it pushes the dismissed argument.
The OP finally responds by calling it a "niche movie", indicating it does not count because of that.
- The audience responds by citing several recent films that are very much like the Guardians of the Galaxy.
The OP points out that he has talked from a subjective point of view all this time, indicating that the audience has been wrong by hampering him with the numbers. He introduces a whole new concept, a "subjective trend".
- The audience points out that unlike the OP asserts, it's not the first time something like this happens, citing several movies from the late 80s and early 90s that have taken grittier turns.
Doesn't disprove a trend, says the OP, changing the rules again. Because despite being darker and more mature, they ALSO know how to have fun. He also, finally, consents that "after reviewing", he has found out that they still make the kind of movies he likes, but goes back to arguing that they don't count because they aren't popular. Or popular enough, when compared to the other type.
- The audience breaks out the numbers yet again, very elaborately pointing out that the fun kind have actually been leading the BO for the past 15 years, being very popular. Someone in the audience throws the OP a very obscure bone, referring to a vague event.
The OP goes after the bone, completely ignoring the numbers he should be concentrating on.
- The audience, however, is not interested in the bone and tells the OP to focus on the numbers.
The OP flat out says he has the right to ignore the numbers - because they don't agree with his personal of view of what's popular.
- The audience is puzzled now. What other way there is to prove popularity than actual statistics?
The OP wants to change the rules... yet again... now by limiting the topic to established franchises. Because he wants to have a "real" discussion, instead of... what? The fake one he originally started?
---
You know, I'm almost inclined to recommend the OP a career in politics. His skills in flip-flopping and dodging all the dung thrown at him are nothing short of phenomenal. And even more importantly, when some DOES stick, he just keeps on pretending that it didn't.
kongisking
Active member
Part of me is honestly tempted to pity JP Jones, because I can't tell if he's really as moronically nonsensical as Finn's facts show, or he's just really not good at expressing what he wants to get at. If nothing else, he seems to be sincerely passionate about his love for 'fun' cinema and wants to see it embraced, even if he's blind to the evidence that it still exists. I respect that passion, at the absolute least.
And with that said...yeah, Finn's on the money. JP, you ought to start a campaign in that space between spaces.
And with that said...yeah, Finn's on the money. JP, you ought to start a campaign in that space between spaces.
Something's obviously wrong here. I never, repeat, NEVER, said that they don't make fun movies anymore. I never said that. I have REPEATEDLY acknowledged that they exists. That is not what this thread is about. It is also not about numbers and facts. "They don't make them like they used to" is not something you can prove with box office figures. Stop trying to disprove me for Christ's sake and listen to what I'm saying.kongisking said:Part of me is honestly tempted to pity JP Jones, because I can't tell if he's really as moronically nonsensical as Finn's facts show, or he's just really not good at expressing what he wants to get at. If nothing else, he seems to be sincerely passionate about his love for 'fun' cinema and wants to see it embraced, even if he's blind to the evidence that it still exists. I respect that passion, at the absolute least.
And with that said...yeah, Finn's on the money. JP, you ought to start a campaign in that space between spaces.
You can't deny that the newer Batman, Bond, Spider-Man, Superman, and Apes movies are more realistic, mature, serious, whatever. Tell me why or get the Hell out. I'm absolutley sick of dealing with you people. I come to the Raven to discuss movies because my actual friends don't like movies. I don't come here to have grown men insult my intelligence. What's truly worthy of pity, is that you folks seem to devote your life to this kind of thing. Find someone who has an opinion and try to prove it wrong. I've asked real, actual questions, and instead of answering them, you have tried to get to the "root" of my discussion, and pull the rug out from under it.
It's not like I've brought up some controversial opinion. I've come up with multiple examples of franchises that have gotten more realistic, gritty, what have you. At this point, just to get you people to participate, I've asked you why these movies are the way they are. Can we keep this simple now? There's no reason for you to argue with me or resort to backhanded insults. If you can't answer why, or at least provide me with an opinion, then please leave. I have a life to get to.
Montana Smith
Active member
JP Jones said:
Well actually you did. And remember, we were all speaking about blockbusters (or films which intended to bust blocks):
JP Jones said:
Meaning that blockbusters are not now made with the concept of "FUN" in mind.
JP Jones said:
Meaning that Hollywood doesn't make "fun" blockbusters now.
JP Jones said:
I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
JP Jones said:
I'm coming to conclusion that other factors are involved in their not wanting to discuss the subject with you.
JP Jones said:
So you came here to insult ours instead?
If you're looking for professional insults on the subject I'd highly recommend the IMDB Forum.
JP Jones said:
You can't discuss an opinion until you've established whether the opinion has any foundation in fact.
JP Jones said:
Nobody's stopping you getting on with your busy life.
What it seems to boil down to is that you leapt into something you hadn't properly thought out, as Finn summarized so well:
Finn said:
kongisking
Active member
JP Jones said:
I am not in denial about that. But what separates us is that I don't think it ruins those properties.
I suspect part of this is because you think being dark, moody and gritty means a movie can't still be entertaining or gripping. It almost sounds like you equate 'dark and gritty' with a complete borefest. Which really is not true, and is like reverse-snobbishness.
Example: The Daniel Craig Bond films are treated as actual real-life espionage thrillers, and have a Bond more faithful to the books by Ian Fleming, where he was quite a cold, nasty thug. And yet, they have thrilling action, excellent acting and are a really good character study of Bond. But it sounds like anything less than the outlandish, campy Bond of yesteryear is 'not fun' to you, when part of the reason these new Bonds are so well liked is because it treats the material seriously, not as a big joke like the Moore films did.
Hell, even the Connery Bonds, while slick and fun spy movies for their time, would be hard to pull off nowadays in this age where feminism has a massive presence in media and there is lots of controversy over government actions concerning spying. Craig's Bond speaks to the current generation, that would never allow James Bond to prosper unless if he were treated as what he is: a messed-up human being who's not nice at all, but is forced by circumstance to be a hero.
That is compelling drama, and keeps him relevant. But...hey, its dark and gritty, so its boring and an affront to 'fun' cinema, right?
Has it occurred to you that moviegoers just aren't innocent anymore? Its like bemoaning grown adults no longer embracing the story of Santa Clause, and their desire for more mature, serious, dark storytelling is some awful loss of respect for good ol' childlike wonder. Apply that to this argument, and hopefully you'll see why its not fair to act like more serious, dramatic takes on stories is a sign that people all have sticks up their behinds.
And again, I remind you that the Marvel superhero films try to be fairly fun and light-hearted romps...and currently rule the box office and hearts of most moviegoers. Just because Captain America 2 did the awful crime of doing a genre shift into political thriller doesn't suddenly mean Marvel's now becoming dark and 'boring.' Guardians proves that wrong like crazy.
And you seriously think Dawn of the Planet of the Apes would have benefited from a lighter tone and more 'fun'? Its being praised precisely because its done as a spectacular tragedy with exceptional execution. Because it treats it seriously. Because it actually tries to treat the material with the same gravity as an Oscar-worthy drama. Is that not something to be excited about, that the stigmas around genres are being torn down and allowing for higher-quality movies made about the subjects? Sheesh.
featofstrength
Member
I don't like living in a time where most big blockbuster movies do not come with fast food and cereal tie-ins.
Hit or (S)hit...a movie ain't nothing without a plastic drinking cup, at the least!
Hit or (S)hit...a movie ain't nothing without a plastic drinking cup, at the least!
kongisking
Active member
JP Jones said:
Montana Smith
Active member
Trying to keep up with the Joneses was fairly trying in itself.
Le Saboteur
Active member
JP Jones said:
We (as in you and I) aren't discussing this because I understand that these things are cyclic in nature; a decade or so from now, fans of the Emodark Nerdgasm™ will bemoan that everything is lightness and gaiety. I suspect that the audience isn't chatting about it because you framed the question/argument/whatever incorrectly. The title of this thread and your opening post indicate a personal preference for something more glib and self-aware when that's not what you should be asking. Hence the inverse signal to noise ratio.
There are a myriad of reasons why cinema (and media as a whole to a lesser extent) have taken a turn towards the more emotionally complex, but that event I alluded to was the global economic meltdown and the destruction of a massive amount of personal wealth (as precariously based as it was). That might put a damper on somebody's mood and give them a more sombre outlook. For the United States specifically, war fatigue has added to that outlook. It's also pushed people in the other direction which is why you see a lot of comedic outings in the upper rankings. Nobody wants to be miserable all the time, and the movies have always been escapist.
General output and the middle rankings are where you'll find validation for your hypothesis. For example, post economic meltdown horror flicks have seen an increase to about 50 per year. Between 2002 and 2008 there were roughly 35 titles per year. Going back to '95 you're looking at ~18.
Why is the national psyche this way? Human nature. Fake fears and thrills are better than facing the real thing; realizing that you've been scammed for some thirty-odd years is a rather frightening proposition don't you think?
I could go on, but it gets rather old doing the heavy lifting.
Get it from the mainline.
Most viewed new series of 2011?
Montana Smith
Active member
Le Saboteur said:
"Everything's going to be all right."
Before you know it we'll be back to the good old days, when men were men and women were women. And you good have a good fun romp without any consequences.
Dr. Gonzo
New member
Allow me to stir the sh!t-pot for a moment...
http://www.slashfilm.com/no-jokes-in-dc-movies/#more-250775
http://www.slashfilm.com/no-jokes-in-dc-movies/#more-250775