Over the course of the last twelve hours or so I've been bombarded at every turn with the news Jennifer Aniston is engaged to Justin Theroux. No matter where I turn it's "big" news, right there with the Olympics closing ceremonies and Mitt Romney choosing Paul Ryan as his running mate. These stories are perceived as equal in the eyes of today's news media. They're used to tease upcoming segments. "Stay tuned!" "Don't change that dial!"
Before that the big story was Kristen Stewart cheating on Robert Pattinson with her Snow White and the Huntsman director Rupert Sanders and surely the recent death of Whitney Houston will be used to sell this weekend's new opener Sparkle as the late celebrity's final onscreen performance.
Additionally, Pattinson has his own movie coming out this weekend in David Cronenberg's Cosmopolis, and we've already been made well aware that after he learned of Stewart's cheating ways he stayed with his Water for Elephants co-star, Reese Witherspoon, for a short spell. Witherspoon, again, is another actor that's enjoyed some time in the gossip rags after her public break-up with Ryan Phillippe.
What's most interesting about all of this, is that none of it has helped at the box-office. Where it has helped is in making these actors money as they are now perceived as stars when they are anything but.
The idea of the movie star is essentially dead outside of a few unique exceptions. Stewart isn't a movie star and yet, Forbes pegs her as today's highest paid actress ahead of Cameron Diaz, Sandra Bullock, Angelina Jolie, Charlize Theron, Julia Roberts, Sarah Jessica Parker, Meryl Streep, Kristen Wiig and Jennifer Aniston. Stewart defenders will likely point to Snow White and the Huntsman as evidence she can indeed open a film, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Snow White and the Huntsman is hardly the hit some would like to pretend it is, having made only $389.2 million worldwide on a massive $170 million budget before advertising, let alone accounting for theater splits. Sure, it will make some money for Universal, but we're not talking "hit" here folks. Looking at the rest of Stewart's releases there's nothing to suggest she should be paid any kind of real dough to open a film, and her number is obviously inflated as a result of what Summit had to pay to keep her and the rest of her Twilight co-horts together to finish off that franchise.
However, was that a necessary choice?
It's no secret the Twilight films are bad, but watching this woman to the right cry and scream as she lets go of her emotions upon hearing of Stewart's cheating ways she says something rather revealing, "I'm a fan of [Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson] because of the movies. And I'm a fan of them because of their acting in the movies, and the books and Stephenie Meyer." In short, these rabid Twilight fans aren't showing up to see Stewart or Pattinson, they're showing up to see Bella and Edward and their obsession with these characters has stormed the Internet. Their perceived "celebrity" gives a multitude of blogs reason to use their names in headlines to attain clicks and pageviews, which feeds advertising and pays the bills. (I am just as guilty of this as many others.)
So here we sit, with interest in movies on the decline and interest in tabloid gossip, rumors, story spoilers and the thought of sequels before a film is even released on the rise. Films with stars such as Stewart and Pattinson are fueled by gossip headlines and I expect even Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master will enjoy its own share of sensationalism to help it creep into the mainstream by using Scientology to sell its secrets.
Admittedly, I'm largely talking about Internet fandom, which is to say a small portion of society where there is a proclaimed appreciation and excitement for upcoming movies. But it's also a place where fans obsess over only a select few movies with superhero flicks and anything from Christopher Nolan gaining the most attention over the last few years.
I watch as attempts to spoil the story are not only read, but sought after. It happened with Prometheus and The Dark Knight Rises and I won't say I wasn't part of the problem because I was, posting rumored plot details for both of those films while doing my best to not spoil the films for myself. That said, is it any surprise neither was declared the life-changing cinema most expected considering the infinite lengths people went to know everything about both films before going in? Both generated conversation following their release, but derision fueled the conversation just as much, if not more, than anything else.
With The Dark Knight Rises an endless number of bloggers listed off what they disliked about the film, one blogger suggesting to me it was a good move because it got "over 700 comments". In the case of Prometheus, initial conversations were fascinating, exploring the themes and ambiguity of the film but as quickly as fans were apt to discuss the pros they were just as swift to deride it while also hoping for a sequel. Gimme more! But before you do, tell me what it's about and how it ends and I'll tell you if you're on the right track.
We live in an age of instant gratification. We want to know everything now. As we've seen, the news media is guided by this idea of first and even comment sections on websites can often be found with people rushing to be "First!" Thought is absent from society, patience non-existent and the idea of the unknown is scary to both studios and audiences. Risk has been abandoned.
This isn't a new idea and even Pauline Kael at one point wrote, "There's no audience for new work." She wrote that back in 1974. She, of course, was a little different than the rest of us in more ways than one, palling around with directors and also, notoriously, never seeing a film more than once. But she had a point, there is no audience for new work, at least there is rarely a large one.
Studios don't like "new" because it's a risk. There's an idea you have to spend inordinate amounts of money to bring in the audiences and you spend that money on known quantities. Look at the money spent on Snow White and the Huntsman, The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, Alice in Wonderland, the Harry Potter films, Spider-Man, Pirates of the Caribbean, Men in Black 3, etc. And when risks are taken and the films ultimately fail everyone looks to point the finger, such as the case with John Carter earlier this year while Battleship was able to only receive bits of shrapnel by comparison.
What surprises me out of all of this, and I feel this kind of a change is coming, is that studios don't take money spent on some of these films and just distribute it out to a collection of talented filmmakers to make smaller budgeted features. Why spend $125 million (the questionable budget reported for Total Recall) on one film when you could spend $20 million on six films?
Several films as of late were made for less than $30 million, films such as Magic Mike ($7 million), The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel ($10 million), Moonrise Kingdom ($16 million), The Devil Inside ($1 million), Young Adult ($12 million), Margin Call ($3.5 million), Contraband ($25 million) and Haywire ($23 million). Right there you have eight films for only $94 million and $31 million left for marketing or just a nice dinner out. Eight films for the price of one Total Recall. And if the idea of celebrity is still a big thing to you, with those films you get the likes of Channing Tatum, Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Charlize Theron, Kevin Spacey, Mark Wahlberg, Kate Beckinsale, Michael Fassbender, Tom Wilkinson, Judi Dench, Maggie Smith and Bill Nighy. However, I'd suggest finding fresh faces as it will keep talent costs down and production values and originality high. No, not all of them are going to be hits, but that's par for the course and in this case it won't cost a ton of money.
Recently a commenter took me to task for mentioning how films such as Total Recall and The Bourne Legacy were nothing more than cheap knockoffs of films that came before them. It was suggested I "pretend" each film exists on its own without any prior influence, as if each new film is a new experience. In a blissfully ignorant world that would work just fine, but as humans we are informed by our experiences and crave something truly "new" although we might not always know it. Studios would prefer to continue feeding us the same junk.
The majors have become the McDonald's of cinema, feeding us Big Macs with super-sized fries and only occasionally attempting to serve something that's not fried. People are comforted in this food, they know what they're going to get, so they keep coming back even though it isn't very good and not at all good for them. This is to say, yes, people can tell what's good and what's bad, but they will also tell you they don't care... just look at the obesity rate in both our population and our summer blockbuster budgets. Feeding us the same old, focus-grouped junk with the latest "celebrity" packaging.
As someone that has seen plenty of movies in his life, and still not nearly as many as more seasoned critics in the industry, I pray for something new. I want every film to stand on its own. Directors are informed and influenced by the past and I love to see that shine through in today's movies, but not in the form of copying such as you find in Total Recall or failed attempts at an homage such as Cop Out. Give me the Hitchcockian nature of Source Code or The Adjustment Bureau, the Kubrickian stylings of Inception or the French New Wave influence found in Moonrise Kingdom.
Instead, however, what we're getting are reports on what actors are being sought for The Expendables 3 before The Expendables 2 even hits theaters. If this is where the majority of interest lies it's going to be a long road ahead, but sooner or later the bubble will hopefully burst and someone with the power to change will step in and ask, "Why?"
'Before Sunset' Location Map - Celine and Jesse Reunite In Paris
'Behind the Candelabra' (2013) Movie Review - Cannes Film Festival
'Before Sunrise' Location Map - Celine and Jesse in Vienna
'The Last Days on Mars' (2013) Movie Review - Cannes Film Festival
First Look at Jennifer Lawrence in Her Mystique Body Suit for 'X-Men: Days of Future Past'
'Side Effects', 'True Blood', 'Beautiful Creatures' and 'Cleopatra' on DVD and Blu-ray This Week
Famke Janssen Turns Up in New 'The Wolverine' Trailer
Two New 'Wolverine' Posters Feature Yukio and Viper
Zod and Jor-El Featured in Four New 'Man of Steel' Posters
'As I Lay Dying' (2013) Movie Review - Cannes Film Festival
If I ever come to a point in my life where I make videos like that Twilight fan rant one, someone please find me and kick me as hard as you can. Thank you.
Anyways, great article Brad! I agree with everything said here.
You hit it right on the head Brad. People go to the movies anymore just expecting perfection. Anything short is shot down. Even DKR faced this...
Actually, I don't think that's the point he's making. Quite the opposite. He's saying that, in many cases, people know movies are going to suck but they're going anyway (the fast food analogy). In many ways, I think expectations have come down so low that any generic remake would impress many people. I think that was one of the biggest problems with TDKR. Instead of taking the genre in a new or bold direction, Nolan felt the pressure from the studios to give us the same old comic-book ending. Nolan was better than that, but unfortunately the pressure from the higher-ups was too great. And the response? The people in at my screening applauded.
And so inevitably, the first word out of everyones mouth is: "I wonder when WB will green-light the reboot." REALLY? We've just had 7 years of Batman. The most critically lauded adaptation, by the way, and the first thing people are thinking about is "when are we getting the next one?" Same thing with Bourne. Damon gave us 3 great movies with a pitch-perfect trilogy-ender but people just want more and more. So naturally, the studio reciprocates and throws together a quick script and hires the hottest young action star and boom, The Bourne Legacy. And the result? A $40 million weakened. And the comments? "Can't wait till Bourne 5." The issue is not the studio's lack of creativity, it's the audiences desire to watch them same thing over and over again into infinity. Sure, every now and then some original piece of filmmaking will do well, like Inception. But remove the explosions and gun fights and you'll see the box office take a massive drop.
The problem is that there are over 6 billion people on the planet and most of them are stupid. And this is nothing new. I recently watched Planet of the Apes for the first time and it was awful. The film was, naturally, a box office hit. The big thing to do when 2001: A Space Odyssey came out was to go see it high on acid. It was never about the art or the brilliant ideas behind it. Even back then it was just "let's just get high and watch some wild images." People will always be more interested in the trivialities surrounding their favorite stars like Kstew and Rpatz. I saw countless articles being written about the NC-17 ratings dished out to Blue Valentine, Shame and Killer Joe. But of course, no one went to see those films. It's all just a distraction. Something to sit around the office and chat about during coffee breaks. No one cares. The masses have never cared about art. Just consumerism. Consume consume consume, until you die and go off to meet your friend in the sky. Meanwhile, the CEO's are laughing all the way to bank, just like they always have and always will... Time moves forward, but nothing changes.
Either way, I think both mine and Brad's take and subsequently your agreement are at play in todays movie watching world and are both things that should be talked about. Nobody goes to the movies anymore with sincerity.
But the question is, did they ever?
Fantasic piece and completely spot on. The market is choked with sequels/prequels/remakes/reboots. Sure, they're fun, they're easy, but not particularly meaningful. I want the hardy, compelling storytelling.
"One fine day a predatory world will consume itself "......a line from the novel Cloud Atlas and a very fair and true summing up of todays society i feel.
We can analyse and discuss the state of cinema all we want, but then we also have to look at the other side of things, the human condition, to figure out why people are still going to see these films. Yeah the market is flooded with remakes, sequels and other unoriginal material, but the fact is in most cases, people are still flooding to the theatres or getting home releases to see these films.
Really if we want the system to change up, then we gotta stop watching these films altogether. And that's hard to do for people who love cinema.
Well said, Brad!!!
Referring to the idea of people spoiling films/wanting to know everything, isn't it down to the ubiquity of the internet (obvs) and the seemingly apparent fact that people have less self-control these days?
Far too often people run the rule over marketing materials/dissect it and so on instead of watching it: seeing if it interested them and then moving on (and never watching another trailer for the film again until they see it). I did that for my blog and then I thought to myself that there's no real reason for having an opinion on every single trailer. If the first trailer worked then you've got my interest and that should be enough.
And on the debate of that Total Recall comment, I might side with the commenter on that one; only if we're talking about different styles of criticsm/catering for the reader. I'm not saying that comparisons should be avoided but for people who come to the site and have never seen, for example, the original Total Recall, comparing them isn't particularly informative and often feels like the reviewer has a bit of a grudge/has made their mind up.
Reviewing in a total vacuum is impossible but I do think a film should be taken on its own merits, as a standalone piece of work. Sequels/prequels/related films are fair game but I'm not a fan of reviewers/writers who bring added baggage to a film experience (esp box office baggage). It's like another barrier to get through in terms of finding a critical appraisal of the film.
This is the most amazing article I've read about the current states of movie. This is exactly how I feel.
Great article Brad!
It reminded me of semi-recent comments Simon Pegg made about the new Star Trek movie in regard to the rumor about Benedict Cumberbatch would play Khan. He made a pretty interesting comment that I believe completely relates to your article: "It masquerades as interest in the movie but really it's just nosiness and impatience".
really good read. it's truly sad to see the state we are in, concerning film, and the garbage we are fed every friday in the cinemas.
on a lighter note...that youtube video is completely hilarious! part of me thinks that there is NO WAY that that is real. does that girl have any idea how many times she contradicts herself? "LEAVE THEM ALONE!!!....HOW COULD YOU DO THIS?!?!...but it's their business, and no one else's...so, let me read you her statement...".
wow.
great article.... i almost feel like the bigger the budget, the worse the movie is gonna be, I'd rather see a thought-provoking independent movie than these mega-million blockbusters that bring nothing new to the table, just more explosions
Though I agree with just about everything Brad said, I feel like this kind of attitude is a reductive example of the "Either/or" dynamic we see in criticism, politics, and far too many other instances. Either a film "has a small budget/is a thought-provoking indie" or it's "a bad film/nothing new except bigger explosions". I realize that it's not nearly as common and it's more difficult, but films can and sometimes are both.
From the older blockbuster days of Jaws and Star Wars to more modern fare like Casino Royale, The Bourne Ultimatum, The Dark Knight, Inception and The Avengers, great films can be made that also happen to have large budgets and a decent chunk of explosions, and that's not even getting into animated films like Pixar's mostly-stellar work. Hell, even some of the films that are more prestige-attracting, like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo ($90 million budget), Hugo ($150 million), War Horse ($66 million) and Moneyball ($50 million), have sizeable budgets.
My point is, yes there's a lot of crap getting made, getting money, and getting all of the attention over more deserving films, but that doesn't mean that occasionally one of those blockbusters easily dismissed as populist schlock actually deserves some of that money/attention. In a "perfect world", people would see and appreciate Transformers and The Artist, The Dark Knight Rises and The Hurt Locker, The Avengers and Amour. But we're not getting there anytime soon...so, in the meantime, can we just appreciate great films, no matter where they came from or how much they cost?
Ok, maybe not Transfomers...with the exception of the first movie those things were painfully bad. Substitute Fast Five, a well-made, simple yet fun action film, for it.
I would tend to plus 1 James.
We all have many different reasons for liking a film but there are a lot of perfectly good 'expensive' wide release films and plenty of perfectly bad ones. There are also plenty of perfectly good low budget films and plenty of perfectly bad ones.
I'm not willing to play this simple minded game of because it's a costly blockbuster it's always bad and because it's cheap it's always 'thought provoking'.
It just isn't the case.
I understand what you're saying, but with articles like this I always hope people understand there are exceptions for everything. People can't always write with caveats or opinion pieces end up loaded with "in my opinion," "generally," "most of the time," "the majority seem to believe," etc. There is also never enough space to present evidence for everything. You use of the word "occasionally" is perfect and most often you can tell what films are going to make up that exception against the boatloads of others that won't.
Yes, big budget movies can make for good films, there are plenty of examples, the point is there is clearly (in my opinion) dreck out there that could very easily not be made and that money could go to more thought-provoking material and perhaps Hollywood studios would end up back on top rather than scraping the bottom of the barrel waiting for the next Nolan, Scorsese, Mann, Cameron, Fincher, etc. to come along with an idea that's easier to sell on credits alone.
Oh I fully understand that. My post was actually more directed towards antoni, not you Brad - thought there might be confusion on that point.
I guess the situation is somewhat self-explanatory. You're not going to make an effects-driven, star-laden blockbuster for $10 million (rare exceptions like Paranormal Activity notwithstanding), so naturally those filmmakers and studios try to do something a little different, a little more interesting. They can take chances because, well, it's not hitting their bottom line as much. I don't think that's ever really changed.
From my perspective, the main differences between earlier days and now are competition and, well, the rose-colored glasses of time. Back in the 30s, Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz were two of the most popular films and two of the best reviewed. They were also adaptations of two extremely popular novels, then still the main way people consumed fiction. Now, there are so many different sources that go untapped, in addition to - obviously - original works. Frankly, I'd like to see a small, indie take on some of the more critically hailed comic book/graphic novel stories, or some video games with deeper plotlines (which, contrary to critical belief, do exist). The viewing public has always liked what they are already familiar with, especially if it's good. The problem is that Hollywood has been slow to adapt, quality-wise, simply finding the easy way out.
And also, maybe I'm naive or too much of an optimist, but I don't think that filmmakers, actors, etc go into most films knowing "this is going to suck but I'll cash a good paycheck". Sure, those instances likely exist, but bad films will always exist, and some will always make money. But I think that most ideas, done right, can say something thought-provoking, can come out well...it's just a matter of luck, really. Will the right people get the right script at the right time?
I typically advocate for "films can be both" because, well, I'm skeptical of a) Hollywood abandoning this model as long as it keeps making them money (and I don't think this model is what's killing receipts, I think it's media fragmentation and 3D/IMAX surcharge-fueled greed more than the actual film quality) or b) the general populace suddenly becoming smarter.
They're not going to decide, "Let's not make Transformers 4, let's make 5 other movies"...so "our best hope" is for Transformers 4 (well, movies like it...no hope for Michael Bay) to be helmed by someone who can turn it into a fine example of filmmaking, which would then give them the freedom to pursue other projects. But if the people who care about more than a film's entertainment value stop taking notice of movies that can do both, then Hollywood will stop taking notice of them...and if that happens, we'll really be screwed.
I absolutely loathe that the view in this article is that all Twilight fans are rabid and that I´m only a fan of Kristen and Rob when they play Bella and Edward. This is simply not the case. The majority of us are not rabid at all and the majority of us are fans of Kristen and Rob thanks to the Twilight movies but not merely in those roles. It´s sad that the rabid screaming ones make the rest of us look bad. As for the Twilight films being bad, well, to each his own.
So tell me again ,why did you make that video brad posted ?
Brad, I couldn't agree more. I find myself less and less interested in the majority of new films, most of which don't even pretend to exist for anything more than making money. I know cinema is a business, but it's also an art form, and it saddens me that so few realize that there can be an overlap, that movies can be artistic and also successful.
Great article and mostly true. But you are wrong in that we are all fans of Bella and Edward. I, for one, am a fan of Rob; I think he is developing into a great actor. He has charisma, and is the most interesting man to come around in a long time, based on his interviews and thoughts, not looks. He is also undeniably good looking and charming.
And yes, we go see his other movies because of him. His post-Twilight movies have made more than most of Aniston's and other movie "stars" you cited. So it is your opinion, of course, of who is a star and who is not. But we are entitled to our own opinion as well; and for Rob's fans, he is indeed a big star. Eat your hearts out!
"His post-Twilight movies have made more than most of Aniston's and other movie 'stars' you cited."
Based on what evidence? Clearly not based on actual amount of money they've earned. That's a very weird lie to make up since it's factually inaccurate.
Drive, 13 Assassins, Zombieland, Haywire, Gran Torino, Bridesmaids, The Social Network, The Wrestler, Super 8, Superbad, Moneyball, Inception, Religulous, The Hangover, The Blindside, The Hurt Locker, The Avengers, Iron Man, Young adult, Black Swan, Attack the Block, Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World, The Artist, Eastern Promises, The Town, Kick-Ass, The Dark Knight, Moon, Wall-E, No Country for Old Men, H.Potter and Deathly Hollows II and Half Blood-Prince, Slumdog Millionaire, X-Men:1st Class, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Let the Right One In, Thor, Taken, Avatar, Star Trek, The Help, Dark Knight Rises, Prometheus, Inglorious Basterds, The Cabin in the Woods, Appaloosa, District 9, Doubt, Juno, Knocked Up, Invictus, The Descendants, Toy Story 3, Red.
These are just some of the excellent movies made in the last five or so years, add to that the many "good" movies that I enjoyed either at the theater or on Netflix and you all seem a little cynical about movie making. There has been crappy films made since the first year studios produced them over a hundred years ago but I bet you in the last 30 or so years there have been more outstanding movies that made or broke genres than all of the other years before combined. Old doesn't mean better all the time. If anyone would like to some examples I would be glad to make my case.
You are now talking about taste. You are also pointing out both studio and independently produced films. You are also talking about a tiny selection of films over the last several years. There are exceptions to all scenarios, no one is arguing that. In fact, in my example I only talked about eliminating one bad movie, not an entire slate of films.
I have watched over literally thousands of movies in my forty plus years, from Nosferatu to the Bourne Legacy last week, if it is even remotely interesting I will see it. Do you know the percentage of Outstanding movies there are it's kinda small? Do you know how hard it is to make a great original film? Brad I understand your frustration with some of today's films but when I go to see a movie, if it's funny or thought provoking or creeps me out in a good way then it is a good movie. They don't all have to be Citizen Kane, which is the most overrated movie in history but that is another story.
It just seems that most critics nowadays find some reason to compare this movie or that to something else instead of enjoying the experience and giving a real common sense review. The new Spiderman movie wasn't great by any means, but it was a good night at the movies.
What Brad is missing is that the major production houses have lot's of overhead. I just read Universal Pictures has nine thousand employees, though that includes their television production employees.
Studio overhead can be $400 million dollars a year. Films that don't swing for the fences can't pay their share of that kind of overhead, especially since studios don't own the theaters. Neither can they pay for expensive lawsuits that are a cost of doing business. Like the Japenese investors who sued the makers of "The Quick and the Dead", on the theory that Sharon Stone should have been scantily clad to help sell the movie. Ridiculous? That doesn't mean you don't have to hire additional attorneys.
Hence the independantly financed film. Which financing requries lot's of unpaid time by the films makers in lieu of the paid staff the studios have. And no company assets that can be attacked by lawsuits.
To be honest, Brad, I've suspected something like this has been in the works for a while. From lower scores to mainstream films, to disillusioned off-hand comments about attempts to bring talented people to blockbusters (Affleck on Justice League), it seems like you're really not into "it" anymore.
I'm a huge follower of this blog. I think you're one of the best critics working today, but lately you seem almost fatigued and exhausted. I apologise if it's not my place to comment - but reading your recent reviews and commentaries on films like The Dark Knight Rises and The Raid, it seems like you're just a little worn out.
I empathise. Plugged into the net every day, it seems like we're hooked into a constant wave of nonsense. It's tough to process. I don't care about RPatz. Aniston might appear on my radar if she can land a role as solid as The Good Girl. (Hell, if she was consistently as good as she was in Horrible Bosses, that would at least be something.)I won't pretend that mainstream cinema is especially fantastic of late... but it hasn't really been since the seventies.
There are about 100 to 150 major releases every year. We can rhyme off maybe twenty to thirty from a given year. We just forget about crap like the Blade Runner "sidequel" Soldier because it was twenty years ago, while The Bourne Legacy is this week, right now. Soldier is - at best - a bad memory like Psycho III because it was a long time ago.
All the things you complain about have been around decades. Remember when it was Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman? Or when Matthew McConaughey was "the next Brad Pitt"? Talking about film by rote? How about the countless Halloween films, the dire Police Academy movies, the "Look Who's Talking" films, the Disney sequels, the Leslie Neilsen comedies from the nineties?
My own movie-going satisfaction is simple: can I find at least five movies this year that I would recommend to friends or family forty or fifty years from now? Inside or outside the system, it doesn't matter.
2012 is already doing quite well for me. Shame and the Muppets, because I live in Ireland. Arguably The Artist, which got a wide release here this year. The Dark Knight Rises and The Cabin in the Woods. The outliers, so far: Samsara. Monsiuer Lahzar. Grabbers. I'm seemingly alone in loving Prometheus, despite (or perhaps because) of its obvious flaws.
Maybe my standards are lower. I prefer to think they're different. Even if they are, ut I think that's perfectly fair. Fifty two weeks in year. 100 to 150 films. Find five truly great ones. Celebratate them.
"Fifty two weeks in year. 100 to 150 films. Find five truly great ones. Celebrate them."
The number can vary from person to person, but this is an excellent perspective, in the midst of an insightful comment. Granted, I'm assuming that in your case (and mine as well) it's not our job to watch and analyze films and the industry, like it is Brad's. However, at least for me, 2012 already seems to be a much better year than 2011, and regardless, these things go in cycles.
I can only hope that the film industry is like the stock market...it has its ups and downs, but over time, things gradually do indeed get better.
Thanks James. I run a small blog in my spare time. Obviously nothing as great as this - I do it for pleasure, so I'm not wading through the PR releases and everything like I imagine Brad is. Still, I spend what might be deemed an unhealthy amount of time movie-watching. If I ever get worn out, I can just take a break. (A luxury I don't think Brad quite has.)
A lot of these ideas have been banging around in my head for a while and I wouldn't necessarily say it's fatigue, but it very well could be. Though I'd argue it's fatigue as a result of mediocre films, not the job. Cannes was such a blast, but it has seemed like ever since then I haven't found anything to truly celebrate outside of some recent documentaries and I'm just not the hyperbolic type to try and find greatness where I really don't find any.
Best thing is Toronto is just around the corner along with more highly anticipated films. I think this last month has just been one big brick wall for me.
Comments like yours, however, is the reason I do this. Thoughtful, aware and full of hope and love for movies. Thanks for posting it!
And just wait, with the new design was come a lot more excitement and that launches this Saturday. I can't wait.
Thanks Brad. That means a lot. This really is one of three places I check each morning, which gives you a sense of how fond I am of it.
I generally find that, with a rare highlight, July through October is soul-destroying. The studios tend to front-load the stronger blockbusters so they can earn more over summer, with the odd exception. So those later summer and autumn months are painful.
Especially for us non-Americans. Because of Oscar rules, you guys get your Oscar contenders in October through December to be eligible for the race. We have to wait until January-February. So we just get a drip-feed of disappointing films until then - barring the occasional Christmas family film. (Which, for obvious reasons, can't be delayed.)
Enjoy Toronto, Brad. I hope you find at least a few films to treasure there.
I totally agree with you Darren, I am a Cinephile, I love the experience of movie watching. If I can find 10 or so movies a year to add to my collection then I am very happy. It seems nowadays critics try to find a reason to dislike a film more than a reason to recommend it.
You talked about a bunch of different stuff at the same time. The state of the news media, the state of Hollywood's celebrities, the money studio wastes on films and the desire to see "new" material. It's a lot to take in.
But I think you hit the nail on the head on all these issues. I don't see anything changing. The business is like this because the people prefer it this way. Twilight has made over a billion dollars and Moneyball hardly made a dime. It's sad, but it's how the world is right now.
Movies are an art form, but since they're made by people as a career, I don't fault them for trying to make money. Reminds me of a quote by Joel Silver, "What are movies ABOUT? Movies are about asses in seats!"
Other art forms (painting, sculpture, music, etc.) don't require the massive manpower, funds, and time that studio moviemaking does. Only in the movie business is twenty MILLION dollars considered cheap. Lest we forget, that's a sh*t-ton of money in almost any other context.
If I were a studio executive, I would appreciate artistic, innovative movie ideas, but you better believe I'd put my money behind projects that would stand the highest probability of helping me pay off the house (and the summer home, the Bora Bora vacations, etc.) Any of you would honestly bet the farm on unique, provocative movies instead of safe bets if your job was on the line, which it would be from movie to movie? It's easy for the audience to complain. We don't have a dog in the fight, other than wanting to spend a couple hours of leisure time enjoying a good flick rather than a turd.
I don't expect to want to pay for more than five or six movies a year, so the dearth of great projects doesn't bother me as much as someone who sees five or six every month, I guess.
The studios have openly stated that they intend to just focus their time and resources on a few big films each year. The decision was obviously arrived at after reviewing their Profit & Loss statements on previous films and no doubt with an eye to the foreign markets which love big spectacles and have been growing while domestic has been stagnant. The big stars like Depp, Cruise, Smith, Pitt, Jolie, diCaprio earn their pay in the foreign markets where they can help their films make 2X domestic.
Studios have subsidiaries that support the small indies like Fox Searchlight and Sony Pictures Classics. But even among the films you listed not all were hits. Haywire made just $31M on a $23M budget.
The studios heads answer to their boards and stockholders and their decisions are based on the numbers they get back from their accountants.
Simply splendid take here, Brad, and you're right on the money -- more ways than one.
Great article Brad. I've been saying this stuff for years. I don't even waste my money or time on the remakes and I only see the comic book superhero stuff when I'm with a group of people. I refused to even see the new Spiderman movie.
I think the current mess in Hollywood happened for three reasons:
1) It's a lot harder to get a huge audience for a movie because there is so much more forms of entertainment now (mostly internet and video games).
2) The crumbling economy is hurting everything including movies in Hollywood.
3) The public audience has been desensitized by the epic explosions and action sequences in movies to the point where peoples' attention spans have been ruined. Therefore there is no longer a market for the little artistic films. Michael Bay and studio owned filmmakers like him are responsible for that.
Film critics were worried back in the 1970s when Jaws and Star Wars came out because they were afraid that once the Studios figured out the formula for a blockbuster, that is what they will try to replicate for every film to ensure profits. Those critics were right in their predictions.
But I think there is hope. I think that people are eventually going to get sick and tired of the "fast food" and they will be hungry for real food again. Hopefully when that happens, the economy will finally recover under a new Presidential Administration. Studios will be able to allow the filmmakers to come forward and make real movies again. It will be a Renaissance of film.
One thing keeps me awake a night though. Before every Renaissance, there is always a crash, and a Dark Age. Did we already experience the crash and are we currently in the Dark Age, or is the crash and Dark Age still coming?
Brad, I kind of agree with Darren above.
I honestly don't know where to start with this editorial, so let's begin with this ...
"In the case of Prometheus, initial conversations were fascinating, exploring the themes and ambiguity of the film but as quickly as fans were apt to discuss the pros they were just as swift to deride it while also hoping for a sequel. Gimme more! But before you do, tell me what it's about and how it ends and I'll tell you if you're on the right track."
Yep, it was the audience's fault they didn't understand the film's brilliance: it couldn't have been the lousy acting, monotone direction, lazy dialogue, the 'big ideas' that are actually stupid ones (The Chariot of the Gods is an idea others have frequently rejected as bad science AND bad history), nonsensical character decisions, twists that don't impact the story at all ('fa-therrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr'), dreadful structure (is the last act meant to be action? Horror? Science fiction? Like Pierce Brosnan, it tries to be everything, ends up as nothing), bad casting (why is Patrick Wilson playing a British scientist for a flashback within the first ten minutes of the film? Oh wait, I already mentioned structure. OK then, why is Pearce playing an old man instead of casting, ummm, an old man?).
The audience just didn't understand the DEEPER MEANINGS of a character saying "I like money, see, and I don't like friends, 'cause I like money and don't like friends etc." A good story is a good story, and this ain't it.
We (Americans)are not fat junk food obssessed wasterels, Brad. Did you see how many medals we just won in London 2012? We put the world to shame and the world loves our movies. They don't watch anything other than brand USA. We rule!
I can rant and rant and then rant some more on this topic, something which has haunted me since the last few years but where should I start?
I am an Indian(as in from India) who had spent the last 3 years in Canada and had to return? Why....art and intellectual passion is dead in the west. We are the first wave of the "stupid ADD ridden" generation and it will only worsen. Creativity is dead and cinema is dead. This is what I experienced in my two years I spent in Toronto. Who do I blame... perhaps the internet? maybe.
All I can say is thank god for DVD's. I live in the year 1960-1995...have sworn off anything new.
There is crap, conventional entertainment, and art because different people want all those things. Sometimes people want more than one thing or something goes wrong and crap is art or art is crap. Nothing new is really going on. There's just more crap because there are more people now, and most people just go to the movies for passable entertainment, and then go back to work on Monday.. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't expect the art form to further itself on a mass level that way. We, as film buffs, have to understand that when you're really interested in a particular thing, there's only going to be so much of that thing BECAUSE IT'S PARTICULAR. So let's be appreciative for what we have and for those who are trying to do new, challenging, and artistic things in cinema. It can be hard to not want it all. But you gotta remember if everyone else doesn't also want it, it's only going to happen on a small scale or not at all. I love Jean-Luc Godard, but if you don't love movies, why would you like his movies? They're basically movies that deconstruct the very notion of movies, genre, convention, etc. and play with form? I'm thankful that sort of thing exists at all! Isn't is great? Most people don't care, but some do. So that's that. It's ok.
There are as many disappointingly terrible art house "labor of love" films as there are surprisingly enjoyable studio genre-movies. One's not better than the other. The only thing that matters is the soul. Taste is taste. If you've seen a lot of movies and are interested in filmmaking, you'll want to see more unique, challenging stuff, if you don't care you'll want to just be kind of entertained, maybe connect with a character. It's fine that way. It's better than everything being perfect. Now we can enjoy the stuff that appeals to film buffs even more. Hooray!