Summer Suckiness
So, is it just me, or are the pickins slim for summer film releases this year? If you agree, why?
posted by Wicked Little Critta at 11:27 PM
Grown from the fertile soil of theymightbecritics.blogspot.com, this blog is an open forum where movie lovers, likers, and tolerators can sound off on matters tangentially related to movies. Want in on the discussion? Throw an email to theymightbecritics@gmail.com
posted by Wicked Little Critta at 11:27 PM
19 Comments:
Yeah, I agree with this. There are normally about 6 or 7 movies I'm excited about in the summer, but this year there are maybe 2.
I think it's all the sequels. I don't want to encourage the studios to make a Shrek 4 or an Oceans 14, so I'm voting with my wallet.
I also agree. There are a few movies I am excited to see but as Doctor Worm has stated there are usually more than the two I plan on seeing. I feel that this "Summer of Sequels" is unfair to moviegoers. The sequels aren't even good!
Hollywood has displayed a serious lack of originality here, as well as let their hunger for money show in a way they haven't before. "Shrek, Pirates, and Spider-Man made boatloads of money before, so it stands to reason that the movie-going public would be stupid enough to spend their hard-earned on them again, right? hey, why think up new ideas when we can just recycle the old ones ad infinitum?" thanks, Hollywood, thanks.
however, it doesn't seem to be working this time. people are catching on that as sequels and more sequels come out, their quality continues to shrink. people are more and more going, "hey, this kinda sucks..."
As stated, when The Transformers is the most anticipated film around you know there is a problem with originality.
My theory is that Hollywood has stopped creating. Instead, films are being marketed to us on the base of "need": You don't really want to watch Pirates of the Something, Episode 48; you know it's going to be a bad film. But the way it's being pushed at you, you feel that you need to watch it to stay in touch with society and feel that you're cool and modern.
In an atmosphere such as this, where people don't go to the cinemas for the artistic experience anymore, there is no need to try and be creative.
interesting theory, Moshe. if that's true, then how do we break out of it?
I can't really tell. The obvious solution would be for the studios to stop dealing with movies the way you deal with other consumer products, but what are the chances of that happening as long as they keep on earning money and lots of it?
Some studios do have a wing for higher quality films, but rarely do any of those become a blockbuster, and I would really hate to see the good films go down the path of consumer product marketing.
Other than that we're up to the directors and the artists themselves to insist on maintaining the artistic merits of their creations.
There are, of course, other things that can be done when the market forces are unable or do not seem to want to deliver. Government intervention is a possibility, through grants given to promising projects. I doubt, however, anyone would have the power and the money to compete with one of your country's biggest industries, so a solution will probably have to come from within, and that will probably come when the cycle of sequels gets on people's nerves (as it seems to be doing now) and people realize there is money to be made on good quality films.
oh, how awesome would it be if even 1/20th of the money the government spends on the military were diverted to the arts instead? it would send Dick Cheney into apoplectic fits! that in and of itself would be worth it! ;-)
Well, it's none of my business (not my money, at least), but I fully agree...
We can also do our own part by not paying to see this crap.
Says the one that has just been to Evan Almighty? (needless to say, I am not without sin here)
Yes, yes, I know...I definitely didn't plan on seeing it originally. But I ended up with time to spare near a movie theatre on a Saturday night, and nothing else looked better.
Also, what I meant by "crap" was more along the lines of 2nd and 3rd installments of pretty inconsequential films.
And now that I think about it, I realize that Evan Almighty qualifies. Nevermind!
Then again, how can you know it's really bad without watching it?
I think Terminator 2 is a really good film and it's a sequel. I think Two Towers is a really good film and it's a sequel.
We, the audience, suffer through both ends of the stick.
just a moment, Moshe. while The Two Towers is technically a sequel, Lord of the Rings doesn't fall into the same category as the Shrek and Pirates movies. for one, all three movies were filmed at the same time, with no distinction during principal photography as to when one ended and the other began. for two, the entire plotline for all three movies was laid out before the first frame was even shot. so in that sense, The Two Towers and Return of the King aren't even really sequels. none of the three movies mean anything without the other two. that's very unlike the "let's do it again!" mentality that many other sequels have.
and incidentally, i agree with you that Terminator 2 is a quality film that is a sequel. the Indiana Jones movies are like that, too, though i have my doubts about the 4th one, which is coming. sheesh, Harrison Ford reprising a role he played almost 30 years ago. and Bruce Willis, too; acting in another Die Hard movie when he was just a young buck when he started that role.
There are tons of sequels that are arguable as good or better than the original: The Godfather 2, Aliens, For A Few Dollars More, The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly, Sanjuro, Spider Man 2, etc. I think the particular problem this summer comes from the individual directors, and poor script doctoring. Spidey 3 and FF2 suffered from poorly directed performances, as well as poor writing. Pirates 3 was missing a certain amount of dramatic tension. I saw nothing this summer that couldn't have been drastically improved with a few script tweaks. All of the above, I think can be attributed to a disconnect between what the studios THINK people want/can handle, and what the people actually want to see.
So, you're saying that filmmakers don't know what people want to see? Why? And what is that, exactly (if you think you know)?
I would say it's actually an exercise in risk management. The studios know they can easily earn a lot of money one way, why should they bother going for more on a riskier path that could mean they'd earn much less?
Post a Comment
<< Home