[HN Gopher] The "Oscar movie" is dying
___________________________________________________________________
The "Oscar movie" is dying
Author : pmcpinto
Score : 45 points
Date : 2022-12-07 12:44 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.worldofreel.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.worldofreel.com)
| seydor wrote:
| Isn't it about time?
| SNosTrAnDbLe wrote:
| I think there are great directors and movies in the adult drama
| genre but a lot of them are not being made in English anymore.
| janmarsal wrote:
| > if Spielberg can't even bring people to a movie theatre
| anymore, then who can?
|
| Big shocker a 75 year old man can't attract kids to the theaters
| like he used to back in the 80s.
| stevage wrote:
| I've never really understood the hand wringing about this, or the
| assumption that movie theatres are real cinema, and watching at
| home is something lesser. As long as films are being made and
| people are watching them, what does it matter how big the screen
| is?
| GeekyBear wrote:
| I still tend to watch the best picture nominees, provided I don't
| have to go to a theater to do so.
| mc32 wrote:
| I wouldn't overdramatize it. The movie business didn't start with
| Oscar awards and it does not need them to continue. The Oscars
| are essentially a self-congratulatory award which often were at
| odds with the public. The critics and audience don't always
| agree. And now with less capture by the studios and cinema
| resulting in people having more choices of what to watch, people
| are choosing the more basic and entertaining "plotlines" or
| rather, content.
|
| The industry is changing, the audience probably didn't change too
| much, but the Oscars don't matter any more except to some (high
| profile) actors and some industry insiders and it looks like they
| are sad about it.
| baandam wrote:
| I quite enjoy the type of movie they are referencing and have
| almost never watched a super hero movie but The Fabelmans looks
| like a total bore. That is even with wanting to see Julia
| Butters acting evolve.
|
| We will see with Nolan's Oppenheimer next year.
|
| This is all over dramatized. Butters will probably be the
| biggest actor in the world in 10 years making "serious" dramas.
|
| Tarantino has even talked about how this goes in cycles and we
| have been going through a boring time like in the late 50s.
| slothtrop wrote:
| Yes, and one could argue it's just cyclical.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| > The Oscars are essentially a self-congratulatory award which
| often were at odds with the public.
|
| Not to state the obvious, but Oscars over the years have
| degraded into "who can wine and dine the voters the most".
| There was a time (more than a decade ago) when almost all "Best
| Pucture" nominees were really entertaining and fun to watch.
| You look at the more recent lineups and almost all of them are
| a drag to watch. I'm not sure what else did anyone expect with
| West Side Story? It's a movie adaptation of a Broadway show
| that has been adapted countless times. Anyone who has any
| interest in this genre has probably seen the story multiple
| times. What value add did the film have?
| pradn wrote:
| The new West Side Story is incredible. It's what a
| 100-million dollar musical looks like. Every frame is planned
| out, the actors are vulnerable, the songs are touching and
| super fun. The dance numbers are exuberant, some of the best
| ever produced by Hollywood. The film brings together the very
| best of American artists: Tony Kushner for the screenplay,
| Gustavo Dudamel conducts, the NY & LA philharmonics for
| recording, Justin Peck for choreo.
|
| There's no way it can be argued to be a bad movie. I have no
| idea why audiences didn't go to see the movie. But I had a
| ball bawling my eyes out for two hours at the iMax.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| My take from the post was less about the Oscar per se -- more
| about the decline fit the theater experience (sans Marvel/Pixar
| flicks).
| jfengel wrote:
| As an actor myself, I find that the Oscar bait is often the
| "Academy Award for the Most Acting". It has become a cliche
| that you seek an Oscar by playing a highly damaged character
| with obvious quirks.
|
| More subtle performances are usually passed over, even though I
| consider them more challenging. They're often nominated, but
| rarely win.
|
| Which is fine, since those kinds of films are usually not going
| to attract big audiences. The Academy Awards are a big industry
| advertisement, and they get the most bang for their buck by
| promoting a film that could catch the attention of an audience
| but hasn't yet.
|
| I find that audiences are often puzzled by the Oscar winners.
| They go see them, and don't see what the fuss is about. But
| that does at least fund the next round of movies that are
| different from the summer blockbusters (which make plenty of
| money and need no help).
| ggambetta wrote:
| Rare to find a fellow actor on HN :) You don't have contact
| details on your profile, but I do - would be interesting in
| knowing more!
| jfengel wrote:
| I'm just an amateur, and I only do local theater. I'm very
| glad to be able to do programming for a living so that I
| can do theater the way I want to do theater, rather than
| having my dinner depend on whether I win an audition
| against long odds. It sounds like a terrible way to suck
| the joy out of the craft.
|
| I have nonetheless helped a few actors build minor careers.
| Despite the fact that my main advice is "don't".
| boppo1 wrote:
| I'm not interested in acting as a career at all, but I
| realized I'd love to try playing in local theater. How do
| I get in with no/low (I once read 'an actor preparss')
| background? Last I looked at it the local place was a
| bunch of people who went to school and had credentials.
| As far as starting my own, I'm worried there would be too
| many who would join and make a farce* out of it instead
| of striving for a serious, if amateur, effort.
|
| *it's okay and ideal to have fun, but I've seen too many
| amateur bands/art projects/films/etc veer off due to
| members dismissing things 'cuz it's not for real' and
| just turning the effort into a hang-out
| PaulHoule wrote:
| To get acting gigs at any level the one thing you have to
| do is go to auditions.
|
| There is all kinds of training you can get which can help
| but ultimately you have to "just do it".
| jfengel wrote:
| Community theaters may have trained people in its
| management, but the cast and crew are usually untrained.
| Even reading Stanslavski once puts you ahead of most.
|
| If you're looking at a regional theater (the kind where
| they actually pay people, albeit a pittance and most of
| the actors have day jobs), there will usually be a
| community theater in the area. If there's enough of an
| audience to support a regional theater, there will be
| others who want to do it just for fun.
|
| Even if they don't have a place in the cast, they will
| often need techs of various kinds: lights, sound, props,
| costumes, stage management. It's a lot easier to cast
| somebody that you know can do things like "show up on
| time" and "be responsible". Actors... yeah. Even non-
| professionals.
|
| (Bonus: I _still_ use a light board with an actual floppy
| disk. The thing it replaced is literally a box of dimmer
| switches that they call Old Sparky. It 's still in the
| closet. Theaters are fun places.)
|
| Some areas really don't have community theaters. Mine had
| plenty, but I did actually start a theater of my own on
| shockingly little experience. Rent a performance venue,
| find a place to rehearse, get a script, put some notices
| on the relevant Facebook groups, and get ready for some
| Drama!
| bmitc wrote:
| > It has become a cliche that you seek an Oscar by playing a
| highly damaged character with obvious quirks.
|
| Even more likely if it's a biopic, and even, even more likely
| if the character has a disability. For example, _The Theory
| of Everything_ vs _Birdman_ for best actor and supporting
| roles.
| jfengel wrote:
| Excellent example. Redmayne is a very talented actor, but
| that role was awarded for for its acting stunts rather than
| his understanding of who Hawking really was.
|
| _Birdman_ was very much an actor 's movie. I went to see
| it with my actor friends, and had a wonderful time. Even
| setting aside the wonderfully long (and tricky) takes, it
| was an incredible exercise in performing the same scene
| several times in different ways. It was full of great
| performances, and Keaton surprised the heck out of
| everyone.
|
| I notice that Inarritu has a new film coming out on Netflix
| soon, _Bardo_ , and I'm really looking forward to it.
| jrm4 wrote:
| This reminds me of Eddie Murphy's reaction to some "dramatic
| moment with a look he gave" in Showgirls that everyone
| reacted to as great acting, and he was like -- "Did you not
| see me in the Nutty Professor where I was FIVE PEOPLE AT THE
| SAME TIME? That was harder."
| jfengel wrote:
| It's such an odd comment. Doing that is a great stunt...
| but it's a stunt. None of those characters were really all
| that well developed. The makeup team did amazing work, and
| it was an extraordinary technical feat (especially at the
| time), but Murphy's biggest contribution was some
| caricature voice work.
|
| It must have been exhausting for him as an actor, and worth
| a ton of respect. But it's no surprise to me that other
| actors found it not to be his most interesting work.
|
| Compare Tatiana Maslany, who portrayed multiple characters
| over several seasons, without prosthetics. If you want a
| real acting stunt, watch her play some of those characters
| _pretending to be other characters_.
|
| I hope she doesn't get slotted entirely into genre films.
| Not that there's anything wrong with genre films, but all
| of the special effects tend to obscure what can be really
| great, subtle work. I'd love to see her do some theater.
|
| Tatiana, if you're reading this ... I'm directing Midsummer
| Night's Dream next year and you'd be a killer Titania...
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I cannot find a single accolade for J.K. Simmons' role in The
| Accountant. Heck, I don't even care to evaluate an entire
| role: that hallway scene[1] is seared into my head and that
| alone deserves an award if we're going to be giving out
| awards.
|
| Stephen Root has countless memorable scenes if not entire
| characters. They're not "acting a lot" or playing highly
| damaged, complex characters. But they're absolutely nailing
| the characters in a way that I think, "no other actor could
| play that character."
|
| Not that these actors don't get the credit they deserve.
| They're well-known and beloved. But if we're going to hand
| out awards, character actors like these, and countless
| others, are incredibly underrepresented.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRPvXbh-rLM
| dr-detroit wrote:
| gumby wrote:
| He's an underrated actor in general, finally getting some
| starring roles.
| gfxgirl wrote:
| > The critics and audience don't always agree.
|
| The Oscars are not decided by critics. They're decided by
| peers. Directors vote for best Director. Actors vote for best
| Actor. Composers vote for best Music. Etc...
| donmaq wrote:
| > The Oscars are not decided by critics. They're decided by
| peers.
|
| That's the Oscar nomination process: it's by peers.
|
| The entire Oscar Academy (ie all previous winners in good
| standing) get to vote on the winners in all categories.
|
| Which is why many in the industry consider "it's more
| important to just get nominated", & also why the final
| winners are often a popularity context. Many of the ppl
| voting aren't skilled in the areas being voted for. E.g.
| there's 4x more actors voting for technical categories, etc.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| The Oscars often don't agree with critics, either. I don't
| think anyone had Ordinary People, Dances with Wolves, Titanic,
| Shakespeare in Love, Crash, Green Book, even CODA at #1 on
| their year-end best of list. Best Picture is usually going to
| favor something that is at least _serious enough_ that the
| voters don 't feel like children for loving it, i.e. they're
| never going to award a tentpole or franchise entry, sci-fi,
| fantasy, horror genre-type stuff will only very rarely even be
| considered, but they're also going to favor relatively
| inoffensive, unchallenging, often feel good work that isn't
| particularly novel or ground-breaking, which is more what
| critics will lean toward. They also have a tendency to reward
| message movies and films about filmmaking and Hollywood itself,
| even if no one likes them.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Excuse me? Most if not all of these could easily end up on
| peoples year-end best of list. Some people don't even
| remember any other than Titanic from the 90s.
| prometheus76 wrote:
| When Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture over Saving
| Private Ryan, I quit the Oscars and never looked back. How
| many people still watch Saving Private Ryan vs. Shakespeare
| in Love?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >The Oscars often don't agree with critics, either. I don't
| think anyone...
|
| They're talking about critics.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Hugo. A movie I had mixed feelings about. I liked the
| stereoscopy in Hugo because it can add a lot to human
| interactions (for one thing the two eyes see a little bit
| more of the muscles around the edge of the face which are
| obscured in a single view), but unfortunately the business
| model of 'pay more for 3d' and the fact that 20% or so of
| people are stereo blind makes 3d a tough sell for most
| movies. But yet there is something a little sleazy and self-
| serving about movies that celebrate movies.
| Fricken wrote:
| "The Favorite" won best picture, director and original
| screenplay in 2019, and it's the first film in a long time a
| worthy film took the accolades. "The Favorite" is a black
| comedy and totally not the type of film you describe. I was
| astonished it did so well.
| kgwgk wrote:
| If you're talking about the Oscars and "The Favourite" it
| won (a different) one.
| Fricken wrote:
| I misread the wiki, you're right. The Favorite was
| nominated for 10 awards, it won only for Best actress.
| cainxinth wrote:
| > The Oscars are essentially a self-congratulatory award which
| often were at odds with the public.
|
| The Oscars is Hollywood's prom and Best Picture is the Prom
| King. It's a popularity contest.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| True, but at least its a popularity contest among _peers_. As
| noted elsewhere in the comments here, actors vote on the best
| actors, etc.
| donmaq wrote:
| Nominations are by peers. Overall winners are voted on by
| the entire academy, & thus often a popularity contest.
| trts wrote:
| Arguably many "Oscar movies" are not that great. There are often
| good films nominated but I am always surprised to look back
| post-1980s or 90s and see how many fairly mediocre films, many of
| which have since receded from critical awareness, have won "Best
| Picture"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture
| danem wrote:
| Which films are you referring to? I wouldn't say that an Oscar
| nomination is definitive proof of quality, but it certainly is
| a strong signal of quality, which can't be said about similar
| award shows (Grammys).
| racl101 wrote:
| Oscars are meaningless anyways.
| havblue wrote:
| I would think film criticism is dying as well. Was there a true
| successor to Ebert? When I think of film criticism now I think of
| YouTube reviews and not writers who eloquently describe what
| makes a good movie good.
| karaterobot wrote:
| There are plenty of good film critics and film reviewers. I'm
| actually pretty happy about that. It's just that they're all on
| places like Youtube, or Letterboxd, among others. Ebert
| commanded attention and ultimately became the go-to reviewer to
| reference because he had a major newspaper column and one of
| the only film review television shows, but now there are so
| many options that nobody can really be that anymore.
|
| While there are plenty of good critics and reviewers, there are
| even more _terrible_ ones. But that 's just the basic problem
| of content on the internet recapitulating itself.
| mc32 wrote:
| Mr Plinkett is not everyone's cup of tea for various reasons.
| But it does some deep dives into some key movies.
| messe wrote:
| I think Half-in-the-Bag (also from RLM) is closer to the
| Siskel and Ebert style reviews than Plinkett.
| havblue wrote:
| The rlm guys are very insightful and have great taste in
| movies. I think the difference is that they do a great job
| explaining why a movie is entertaining while Ebert was great
| at explaining why a movie is art.
| gota wrote:
| RLM guys (at least the main ones) seem great at pointing
| out when a movie sucks, mostly because of:
|
| - poor structure. Bad setup/payoffs, useless sequences,
| confusing narrative without any merit behind it
|
| - poor pacing. Too much "brain-off" action, shitty dialog,
| too fast/slow for the theme
|
| - uninteresting characters, with no redeeming
| characteristics (e.g. a great actor or enough plot quality
| to compensate)
|
| These in decreasing order of importance for them -
|
| They will certainly critize other things (plain scenes, bad
| framing, technical flaws, bad lighting, etc.) but I don't
| think I've ever seen them give a purely negative review
| based only on these.
|
| If any of those three criteria above are met, though, (and
| god forbid all three) they will absolutely pile on a
| terrible rating with complaints on how the scenes are ugly
| and general filmmaking is lazy.
|
| Oh, and also, they'll point out most editing errors, seeing
| as they are editors too.
|
| And insert pointless Star Trek references no matter what,
| of course
| standardly wrote:
| Could someone kindly establish what "RLM" is? Some of us
| have a enough acronyms in the database already.
| gota wrote:
| I'm sorry - I swear I thought the post above mine used
| the full name.
|
| You are absolutely right (YAAR) about acronyms
| mc32 wrote:
| Red Letter Media. The clue is "Mr Plinkett"
| staticman2 wrote:
| Part of the joke with Mr Plinkett is nobody sane would do the
| sort of "deep dive" he is doing. It's not really meant to be
| an example of film criticism at its best.
| et-al wrote:
| In addition to YouTube reviewers, I enjoy reading Emily St.
| James'critiques.
|
| E.g. Hollywood's hot new trend: Parents who say they're sorry
|
| https://www.vox.com/culture/23025832/everything-everywhere-a...
|
| https://twitter.com/emilyvdw
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Critics are on YouTube (for better or worse). I rather like
| "Terry Talks Movies" but he rarely talks about current films.
| mynegation wrote:
| I don't think it is going to end the culture of famous actors and
| directors but will at least level the field a bit. The amount of
| available quality entertainment on streaming sites is immense and
| it affects the balance of the decision between going out to the
| cinema and see an outstanding movie or stay home in the couch and
| see and okay TV show.
| yoz-y wrote:
| For me this is mainly because the home cinema experience is
| getting better. I want the big screen for good visuals, sound and
| music. I can watch a story driven movie at home, where I don't
| need the speakers to drown out the sound of somebody wolfing down
| popcorn.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| In the pandemic I got a lot more sensitive to 'disgusting' and
| the thought of people making dirty popcorn and coke messes
| makes it hard for me to go back to the theatre. It is going to
| take something really special to get me to go. I wish they had
| real 3D IMAX movies at the theatre in Syracuse instead of '4d'
| movies that seem really cheesy.
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| Maybe it is about the cost of tickets and availability of
| streaming services
| 0x445442 wrote:
| I don't want to spend my entertainment dollars subjecting myself
| to political gaslighting. I want to be entertained by a good
| story. Sadly, this seems to be an insurmountable hurdle for
| Hollywood at the moment.
| lacrosse_tannin wrote:
| are you one of the people replying in the comments of the
| article?
| DeetrixDotter wrote:
| Nothing quite breaks the immersion for me like having so many
| gay and interracial couples crammed into the cast that I end up
| sitting there wondering if there is any place on Earth that's
| anything like the "normal" town Hollywood is presenting to me.
| wilg wrote:
| Personally, I am not bothered by seeing gay and interracial
| couples in films.
| valarauko wrote:
| As a member of an interracial gay couple, I get plenty of
| that at home.
| jmull wrote:
| Movies, nor any other story-telling, is really about
| representing statistical averages.
|
| Anyway, there are plenty of gay people and interracial
| families out there, so these aren't exactly bizarre.
| boppo1 wrote:
| >Anyway, there are plenty of gay people and interracial
| families out there, so these aren't exactly bizarre.
|
| That's true! But it seems like there's a new Hayes code
| where _every single new show_ must have x, y, z
| "identities"[0] and they _have_ to be represented in
| particular and empowering ways. Frequently also that the
| fact of their 'identity' has lent them a special
| advantageous approach to the situation at hand. Feels like
| all good ideas need to be edited by the HR department
| before they get on screen these days.
|
| [0] this is, IMO, a really shallow way of understanding
| individuals' identities.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I think the greatest beneficiaries of the
| "representation" push seem to be diplomat's kids. They
| usually tick multiple (or mystery) racial boxes, have
| exotic accents, and are of the class where the people who
| greenlight movies socialize.
| mehlmao wrote:
| Toutouxc wrote:
| The post you're replying to is very easy to comprehend,
| maybe even a bit blunt. Why are you replying to something
| that they clearly didn't mean to say?
| mehlmao wrote:
| Go ahead and downvote me; sorry my existence ruins your
| immersion.
| 8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote:
| Are you saying that the Vikings weren't actually led by
| empowered African women? /s
| ajkjk wrote:
| It does seem like a bit much, but it's definitely better than
| the former state where none of that stuff existed, as far as
| Hollywood was concerned. I imagine it'll equilibrate over the
| next few decades.
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| "interracial couples" wow.. Perhaps this really speaks to our
| difference in perspectives based on where we live. I live in
| Vancouver, and find the increased representation of gay,
| queer, nonbinary, interracial people very true to my lived
| experience. Of course, lots of film and television is filmed
| here so maybe it's not that surprising.
| [deleted]
| pimlottc wrote:
| I get what you're saying, but think what it was like for non-
| white and non-straight people who saw practically nobody like
| themselves on screen in a "normal" role for decades.
| davexunit wrote:
| Oscar should start listening to Gregg Turkington from On Cinema
| if they want to save mature cinema and their awards show from
| declining box office earnings and ratings.
| dangus wrote:
| This article feels so very out of touch, like a car enthusiast
| telling parents with 4 kids that their minivan should have a
| manual transmission since it's a better driving experience.
|
| It gets the whole situation backwards: it blames the modern
| audience for not wanting to take the time and money to go out to
| the theater unless they get a theme park-style spectacle.
|
| In other words, the article is blaming the customer. How dare
| they look to their Internet-connected 4K television in their
| living room to get Oscar-quality storytelling? How dare they turn
| to long-form television story arcs to deliver deep character
| development rather than Oscar-winning directors who pack it all
| in to a two hour movie made to be watched in a sticky theater?
|
| The article laments that things aren't right in the world when
| Steven Spielberg can't draw a theater crowd. Well, Steven
| Spielberg is an old, wealthy man now, and he is making movies for
| himself, not for the kind of audience that made Indiana Jones and
| Jurassic Park massive successes.
|
| The Fablemans might be a good movie, but it's still at its core a
| piece of Steven Spielberg fan service. It's the deepest of the
| deep cuts. If you didn't know who Steven Spielberg was, The
| Fablemans is supremely skippable.
|
| The article continues on to describe a theater environment where
| the vast majority of Oscar contending movies are financial
| failures, but to me this is the natural evolution of film as
| technology advances. When you look at things like 4DX, IMAX 3D,
| and the kind of advanced sound systems you can find in theaters,
| it's quite obvious that the most beneficial movie for that
| experience involves action-packed escapism. Yes, it is a mini-
| theme park, that's what people want, and that's okay.
| allturtles wrote:
| > The article laments that things aren't right in the world
| when Steven Spielberg can't draw a theater crowd. Well, Steven
| Spielberg is an old, wealthy man now, and he is making movies
| for himself, not for the kind of audience that made Indiana
| Jones and Jurassic Park massive successes.
|
| I sort of agree. I've enjoyed many of Spielberg's movies, but I
| have no interest in watching a fictionalized Spielberg biopic.
| West Side Story was meh, I tried watching it on Disney+, and
| gave up after 30 minutes or so. The music was dull and old-
| fashioned.
|
| But the most obvious counter-argument to this is Schindler's
| List, a black-and-white Spielberg movie about the Holocaust
| (granted it has some 'feel-good' elements, but still). That
| movie made nearly $100M in the domestic box office in 1993.
| It's hard to imagine box office success for that kind of movie
| today.
| dangus wrote:
| If Schindler's List was made today it would be best suited as
| a streaming mini-series.
| havblue wrote:
| It's funny that the column implied that West Side Story's
| failure was a surprise. It was a remake of a classic movie
| that never should have been made. You can't compare this to
| the ground Spielberg movies of the 70's through the 90's.
| bitwize wrote:
| Fun fact: Spielberg didn't get his bachelor's degree until
| 2002, having dropped out in the 60s for a hiatus to, you
| know, have a successful filmmaking career.
|
| He submitted _Schindler 's List_ as his senior project and
| got an A on it.
| prohobo wrote:
| It's not that people only go for theme park rides, they'll also
| go for "kino" movies. That's why Tarantino can still do it. His
| movies are all about completely immersing the audience in the
| movie's world and making use of tech and techniques that make for
| an epic viewing experience.
|
| No one wants to go to the theater for a "basic" (maybe intimate?)
| movie where the cinematography doesn't really matter, the sound
| and visual effects aren't interesting, there's no grand cinematic
| vibe, etc. Don't get me wrong, it might be a great movie, but why
| would I want to see it in theater instead of at home?
|
| People will go to theaters for Spartacus and 2001: A Space
| Odyssey, not for Life Is Beautiful or The Pianist.
|
| A more modern example: I'm really stoked to watch The Whale, but
| I will absolutely watch it at home. I don't see any point in
| going to the theater for it.
| sheepdestroyer wrote:
| Don't say "No one".
|
| Usually the sound of action movies is too strong for me in
| theaters and I hate the experience ; I also never got the
| argument about special effects being better there. I can see
| them as well detailed on my computer screen, unless you're
| going to one of those ultra rare 8k laser room.
|
| However, I genuinely really enjoyed seeing Michael Moore and
| Woody Allen movies in theater. I also loved seeing Lost in
| Translation on a big screen (and it's opening!, but you could
| argue that scene was going for the cinematic experience :p)
| andrewclunn wrote:
| Mature films rarely require huge budgets anyways. And are we
| really lacking in good stories? Hell there's such a back catalog
| of entertainment I will never get to. We've saturated the market
| so now movies will be more like the fashion industry. Perhaps if
| they were to fill the gaps, with say historical dramas from
| perspectives that aren't usually shown, but that would require
| real research and work, and true creatives stay as far away from
| "the industry" as possible these days because that's not what
| it's about.
| cocacola1 wrote:
| One of my favorite subscriptions is Regal Unlimited. ~$25 a month
| and I can see as many movies in theaters as I want. Going to the
| movies is still something I do pretty often, and it's certainly
| one of my greatest joys.
| jdlyga wrote:
| Going to the movies was always a habit left over from an earlier
| time. Of course when all you have is a standard definition tube
| TV and VHS movies, going to see something on the big screen is
| exciting. But nowadays, large 4K HDR TV's are cheap now, and you
| can get almost everything on streaming. Covid really hit the big
| reset button and made people question a lot of their habits,
| including still going to movie theaters. What's the point of
| spending $15 per person for tickets to a movie I could see in a
| few months on my own equivalently good screen for a subscription
| I'm already paying for?
| nandreev wrote:
| For me, it depends on the movie. I'm glad I saw Mad Max: Fury
| Road on the big screen - it grabbed, and didn't let go until
| the credits. And the audio is a big component of that (at home,
| I just have regular headphones).
|
| But for 90% of dramas, comedies, etc.? The 4K TV in the living
| room will do just fine.
| rockostrich wrote:
| Eh, I disagree on comedies. Seeing a good comedy in a theater
| is much more enjoyable than watching it at home. Laughter is
| contagious.
| goatlover wrote:
| There are still reasons people might want to go to the theater
| (and they do since there are some movies like Top Gun and
| Wakanda Forver have raked in money). One is you don't want to
| wait. Another would be that you like going to the theater,
| particularly if you have a nice one nearby. It's an afternoon
| or night out. A third would be that some movies you want to
| enjoy with a crowd. End Game or Avatar come to mind.
|
| There are also dates, and it's a place teenagers can hang out,
| and you something for your kids to do away from the house. The
| socializing stuff you might not get as much of at home.
|
| I went to the theater a couple months ago because Smile looked
| like a good enough horror movie that I wanted to see it when it
| came out. I enjoy the theater experience for certain movies.
| Dune was a really nice theater experience. There's been a few
| that were great to see in IMAX 3D, like Prometheus or Tron:
| Legacy. Infinity War and Endgame were magical becuase of the
| audience reactions and just they incredible excitement around
| them across the globe. Granted, that was pre-pandemic, but
| maybe the latest Avatar recaptures some of that.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| The ability to pause, rewind and get up to go to the bathroom
| changes the experience for the worse. You just don't have to
| get serious about watching a movie anymore. You don't have to
| prepare to settle down, be quiet, and focus.
| autoexec wrote:
| > The ability to pause, rewind and get up to go to the
| bathroom changes the experience for the worse. You just don't
| have to get serious about watching a movie anymore. You don't
| have to prepare to settle down, be quiet, and focus.
|
| I disagree. Nothing is stopping anyone from staying at home
| and acting like they're in a theater. If that's what you
| really value you can choose to just ignore any important
| dialog that you didn't catch the first time instead of
| rewinding to hear it again. You can be distracted by the fact
| that you have to pee without pausing the film to run to the
| bathroom. You can divert your attention while you try to be
| as silent as possible while eating or opening snacks so as
| not to annoy anyone else in your virtual theater.
|
| I think that it's far easier to focus on a movie when I'm at
| home and don't have anyone else talking or kicking seats or
| getting up and walking between me and the screen. While I
| have the option to obsessively check my phone while the movie
| is playing at home somehow I see fewer screens blaze up like
| beacons when I watch movies with the family than when I'm at
| the theater.
|
| I can also fully control the lighting and temperature, and
| all while not spending a fortune on crappy food and drinks.
|
| The one time I actually prefer to see things in a theater are
| live performances or special events where part of the fun is
| being in a crowd. I have some good memories of special
| showings and long awaited releases where the whole audience
| was buzzing with excitement while lined up outside and
| cheering and clapping while the film was rolling. None of
| that is getting serious about and focusing on the movie
| though, it's more about being a part of a shared experience
| and that's something genuinely harder to replicate at home.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| "Nothing is stopping anyone from staying at home and acting
| like they're in a theater"
|
| This is incorrect. The temptation to use the deleterious
| conveniences stops me. Going to the theater forces me into
| a certain posture.
| oramit wrote:
| While framing the watching of a movie as "serious" is
| probably a bit much I do agree that going to the cinema is a
| great exercise in focus. The whole place is setup for
| watching movies and when I'm there I feel engrossed in a way
| that doesn't happen at home for me. At home everything I
| watch sort of blurs together into a smear of "content". I can
| think back on the things I've watched and I do have favorites
| but I don't have the same visceral memories I have for movies
| I've seen in the theater. I remember where I was, who I was
| with, and all the feelings the movie conjured up.
|
| It is certainly less convenient than streaming at home and
| does cost more but I get the same amount (at least) of
| entertainment in the moment and the memories are certainly
| more vivid. That has to be worth something?
| tzs wrote:
| But what about the children?
|
| A movie in a theater was great for early stage dating. It gets
| you in a dark place in neutral territory with the other person
| where you sort of have some privacy but still public enough
| that it is safe, and you have a good excuse for sitting right
| next to them.
|
| There you can do things that try to inch up the intimacy but
| with plausible deniability, such as the classics we've all seen
| a billion movies and TV shows like hand touching while reaching
| into a shared extra large popcorn ("it was a better deal than
| buying two smaller sizes...yeah, that's why we have to share!")
| or the arms resting on the back of the seat that sort of turns
| into a side hug.
|
| I don't think that would work with movies at home. It is not
| neutral territory. There might be parents, or worse, obnoxious
| siblings around limiting privacy or even actively trying to see
| how your date is going. For the person who is the guest it
| isn't as safe as a theater. There isn't an excuse to sit right
| next to each other so the arm trick is out. You probably each
| have your own bag of microwave popcorn.
| schaefer wrote:
| I went to the movies last weekend. I was one of 5 people in the
| entire theater.
|
| The posted movie start time was 1:30. At 1:50, the movie still
| hadn't started. Even the previews hadn't started. They were
| still spamming us with TV quality advertisements for Coke-a-
| cola and other stuff I couldn't care less about.
|
| 20 solid minutes of ads. Under no circumstances is that
| acceptable. If I hadn't been with other people I would have
| walked out and lobbied for a refund. But as it stands, It's
| hard to imagine why I would go back.
| unwind wrote:
| That sounds horrible and rather disrespectful, what a bad
| experience.
|
| That said, is "coke-a-cola" a humorous spelling (like
| "Micro$oft") or just a misspelling of Coca-Cola?
| nayroclade wrote:
| Cinema's latest brainwave, at least in the UK, is to run
| patronising adverts about how great the "big-screen experience"
| is, and how we shouldn't ruin films by watching on our TVs,
| laptops, phones, etc. Except, like the old anti-piracy ads,
| they run these adverts _in cinemas_ before movies, to a group
| of people who 've literally just made the decision to go to the
| cinema. Like a priest ranting at his congregation about the
| evils of not attending church.
|
| Every time I see one of these adverts, I think that cinema
| deserves to die.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| They probably run those ads as placeholders until they find
| some real advertisers. Youtubers employ this practice
| sometimes.
| betamaxthetape wrote:
| To add some context for those not in the UK or Europe...
|
| I am guessing the advert you are referring to is the "Get
| lost in great stories" one [1] run in Vue cinemas. Other UK
| cinemas (Picturehouse, Odeon) mention the "big screen
| experience" but I think the Vue one is the only one that
| singles out that watching on a phone / laptop / TV can lead
| to a negative experience.
|
| It's certainly one of the longer "please switch off your
| phones" messages, at over two minutes in length.
|
| I used to enjoy seeing the adverts and trailers before a film
| at the cinema, but that was when I rarely visited. Now that
| I'm going much more regularly (sometimes multiple times a
| week), the lack of variety is very obvious: when I am forced
| to sit through the exact same collection of four or five
| adverts / trailers multiple times, it gets a bit old.
| betamaxthetape wrote:
| Of course, in my haste to post, I forgot the most important
| bit - the link to the advert itself!
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6jrYeBA7BA
| vanilla_nut wrote:
| Funnily, the big picture is the least interesting part of the
| experience for me.
|
| Back when I lived in NYC, I used to go to Nighthawk cinemas
| every once in a while for a date night. We'd pick a movie,
| shell out for some fancy cocktails and dinner, and enjoy the
| drinks and food while watching the movie. It was a great
| experience, really loved their menu. They even had a really
| smart ordering system, where you wrote your order down on a
| piece of paper and the servers picked them up silently so as
| not to disrupt the movie.
|
| But most cinemas are just typical garbage big chain locations
| with way-too-loud, poorly balanced speakers, crappy food,
| crappy drinks, full of screaming children. Why would I go to
| all the trouble and expense for an experience that's just
| worse in every way?
|
| I also prefer watching all content with subtitles, which
| makes me want to go to the cinema even less because so few
| showings have subtitles. Given that something like 70% of Gen
| Zers watch content with subtitles most of the time, I wonder
| how long it will take that to change?
| valarauko wrote:
| > Back when I lived in NYC, I used to go to Nighthawk
| cinemas every once in a while for a date night. We'd pick a
| movie, shell out for some fancy cocktails and dinner, and
| enjoy the drinks and food while watching the movie. It was
| a great experience, really loved their menu. They even had
| a really smart ordering system, where you wrote your order
| down on a piece of paper and the servers picked them up
| silently so as not to disrupt the movie.
|
| This is essentially how the Alamo Drafthouse works as well,
| and I loved their FiDi location (opened just over a year
| ago). The Alamo also has a monthly membership for 30 bucks
| that I used for a long time. Unfortunately, both of their
| NYC locations are inconveniently located for me, and I
| eventually switched over to AMC - and the amount of
| screaming children is insane - why are people bringing
| children to a PG-13/NC-17 movie?! The Alamo staff will come
| and shush people talking or disruptive in any way, while my
| most recent AMC experience had somebody in the theater
| smoking/vaping pot.
| sheepybloke wrote:
| Went to the movies recently and was disappointed about how bad
| the screen looked compared to my TV at home. I've got a nice
| OLED TV, but I was still shocked about how muted the colors
| were on the screen.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| I wonder if anyone here has the AMC A-List subscription. I have
| had it for years and overall while I don't think I have gotten
| my money's worth across the entire lifetime of the
| subscription, overall it is still good value since when some
| really favorite movies come back I am going multiple times a
| month in the most premium format. For 25$ a month you get
| access to all movies playing(with exception to special third
| party events they play once in a while like "Fathom" events) in
| all formats. Three movies a week every week. You'd make your
| money back in essentially one or two of the premium screenings.
|
| Despite this offer in the last two years I still have seen so
| many non-superhero comic book movies play to an audience of
| 1-2. (Me and a friend). I sometimes walk by a theater that has
| literally no one watching. I once watched with the lights on
| because why not? (there is a light switch located near the
| entrance)
| fetus8 wrote:
| Like many others, there's a lot of reason still, today, to go
| sit down in a dark theater after spending $15 on a ticket.
|
| Yeah, we have large 4K HDR TVs, but they aren't as large as
| what's down at my local movie theater. I have a decent sound
| system in my house, but it's not as loud or tuned as nicely as
| what's in that theater. Being able to see a film on a large
| screen is still a unique experience that very few people can
| truly replicate at home. I still love that experience as it
| provides a much more immersive way to experience a movie.
| Certain movies I think require that kind of screen and sound to
| work properly.
|
| Plus, depending on the movie, the energy in the room of a
| packed movie theater also plays into that experience.
| Personally, I am willing to spend that $15 for a ticket to
| support the kind of films I want to see as well. I feel like
| I'm throwing a few bucks at the director and saying, thanks for
| making this, I appreciate it.
|
| (I'm the kind of person who still has a large physical media
| collection, buys blurays, 4K blurays, etc.)
| j-bos wrote:
| Has anyone crunched the numbers on what percentage of Oscar
| winning movies are themselves focused on Hollywood and it's early
| days vs the overall percentage?
| fullshark wrote:
| This has been at least a 5 year long trend, exacerbated by the
| pandemic. The Big Picture is basically about this
| https://www.amazon.com/Big-Picture-Fight-Future-Movies/dp/05...
| and that came out in 2018.
| jedberg wrote:
| During the pandemic a few movies that were supposed to be in
| theaters launched as expensive paid streams (mostly Disney, but
| also stuff like Bill and Ted).
|
| I gladly paid for every one of them.
|
| My wife and I used to go to the movies every weekend, sometimes
| twice, before we had kids. After we had kids we went to theater
| maybe three times. I was perfectly happy to pay $30 to watch a
| movie in my house, where I can watch it after I put the kids to
| bed but don't have to hire a sitter, can pause if I need to pee,
| can rewind, turn on subtitles, or watch it again.
|
| The only advantages the theaters provide is a bigger screen,
| louder speakers, and the psychological effect of knowing that I
| will be watching a movie for two hours and doing nothing else
| (which I can replicate at home after everyone is asleep if I want
| to). And participation in the cultural zeitgeist.
|
| I used to love going to see movies in a theater, and will still
| do it occasionally (we watched Top Gun 2 in a theater, but we
| brought the kids because it's cheaper than a sitter!), but I much
| prefer to watch at home.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| Hell is other people.
|
| Last time I went to the cinema there was an annoying gang of
| teenagers having fun in the row two ahead of me. I'm not angry
| at them; we were all teenagers once. But they were annoying.
| And the guy to my right thought so too, and let them know. The
| "movie-going experience" was the drama that this confrontation
| generated.
|
| Thanks, but no thanks. I'll watch it on my inferior screen,
| with my inferior sound system, but my massively superior
| solitude.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Meanwhile, I haven't spent thousands of dollars on a home
| cinema, because I have neither the room, time, or spare cash to
| buy a giant 4k TV, really good internet, 37 independent
| streaming services at their max tier, $14 a pop to buy a movie
| on a streaming service, etc etc etc.
|
| $20 to see a movie on a local 50ft IMAX screen is such an
| incomparable experience.
| jedberg wrote:
| Sure that's true if you never use TV otherwise. But most
| people are already getting all those things anyway. And I
| also I very clearly said that having kids is what made home
| streaming worth it. Because for me to go to a movie, I have
| to pay a babysitter $25/hr for 4 hours (to cover driving,
| waiting in line, previews, etc), and my wife likes popcorn so
| I have to pay $10 for that instead of popping an instant one
| at home for 20 cents. And I have to pay for two seats. So now
| a movie trip costs me $150.
|
| And I already have all the streaming services because kids.
| verdenti wrote:
| dfxm12 wrote:
| This isn't necessarily different from previous years. Hollywood
| has always had tentpole films fund these types of dramas that
| they know aren't going to make as much money.
|
| _The result is a fall movie season that has manifested the total
| disinterest of mature moviegoers, who are now unwilling to watch
| any of the well-reviewed /Oscar contenders._
|
| The author then lists 10 Oscar movies.
|
| They are not dying. The Oscar movie exists & will exist well into
| the future, even if people aren't necessarily watching it _in
| theaters_. Theaters are kind of a bad experience for a few
| reasons and the home viewing experience keep improving.
| raydiatian wrote:
| I mean, one part of the problem I see at a local level is Black
| Panther 2 is currently occupying 50% of available projectors at
| all of my local movie theatres. I'm sort of just waiting and
| hoping the silly capeshit phenomenon will die out already. I
| think we need to see that the cinematic universe concept was a
| novelty and is extremely difficult to execute, especially when
| it's driven by soulless profiteering.
|
| I mean, it's not at all difficult or dishonest to argue that the
| MCU was 80 years in the making. More importantly, it was made by
| people that genuinely cared about comic books and their
| characters, as opposed to caring about (and subsequently
| engineering for) shareholder satisfaction.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| > I'm sort of just waiting and hoping the silly capeshit
| phenomenon will die out already.
|
| Ha ha, _capeshit_. I confess, I can 't stand super hero movies
| either.
|
| Instead I've been working through the "1001 Film to See Before
| You Die" and it regularly reminds me what film _can_ be (has
| been).
|
| As an aside, I also remember wondering when rap music would die
| out. We may both be waiting a long time.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| It IS capeshit. The majority of the fans of capeshit today
| we're bullying the old school capeshit fans 20+ years ago.
| bitwize wrote:
| I used to not take people who grouse about capeshit too
| seriously. I would go okay, maybe this whole superhero thing is
| starting to get played out, but I'll go see the next Marvel
| just to be sure.
|
| Up until _Captain Marvel_ (2019), the Marvel films were solidly
| entertaining if not great, and very respectful of the
| characters. There were still some Marvel films like that after
| that, but most of Phase IV has been a hard skip for me.
|
| Now I'll sometimes watch anime or science fiction on streaming,
| but the last movie to make me really want to go to the theaters
| was _Maverick_.
| raydiatian wrote:
| Agree on all points.
|
| Avengers Endgame had its visible flaws that I was straight up
| willing to forgive because the seams had just started to rip.
| Phase 4 just feels like Disney-owned Marvel going
|
| "And for my next trick, uh, uhhhhh, uhhhhhhhh, here's a
| twerking She-Hulk? Hello fellow kids."
|
| Maverick made me finally go watch Top Gun.
| bitwize wrote:
| The only other movie I really wanted to see on the silver
| screen this year besides _Maverick_... had frickin ' Sonic
| the Hedgehog in it.
| dcchambers wrote:
| Are they even marketing these movies?
|
| > The result is a fall movie season that has manifested the total
| disinterest of mature moviegoers, who are now unwilling to watch
| any of the well-reviewed/Oscar contenders. The list keeps piling
| up: "Till" ($8.6 million total), "The Banshees of Inisherin"
| ($7.8 million), "TAR" ($5.1 million), "She Said" ($4.2 million),
| "Triangle of Sadness" ($4 million), "Bones and All" ($3.7
| million), "The Fabelmans" ($3.4 million), "Armageddon Time" ($1.8
| million), "Aftersun" ($790,000).
|
| This is the first time I have heard of any of these.
|
| Anyway, my wife and I used to love going to movies...but life
| changes (COVID followed by young kids) make that a lot harder.
| Our date nights are much fewer and far between and we prefer to
| spend them doing more high quality activities together. If we
| want to sit in silence in close proximity eating some tasty
| treats staring at a screen why wouldn't we just do that in our
| own home after the kids are in bed for the night?
| Timwi wrote:
| I kinda stopped reading where it started to equate a movie's box
| office revenue with its success. A successful movie is a movie
| that entertains its audience, not one that makes a few people
| rich. The correlation is there, but it's weak.
|
| I don't consider it problematic to see movie theaters go out of
| fashion and movie makers take a deeper look at what makes their
| art an art.
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| I'm astounded that this article doesn't mention what to me seems
| like a no-brainer: We're in the golden age of television. People
| don't want to watch 10, unconnected movies now. They want 10-20
| hours of a continuous story. Netflix, Apple TV, Prime, and other
| streaming platforms have been delivering a quality experience
| that immerses the viewer in an engagement that film can't compete
| with on depth, world-building, etc.
|
| I'm not trying to suggest film isn't an art form in itself, that
| often has significant differences from television, but watching
| trends have been favouring television over film lately,
| especially by hour watched.
| sheepybloke wrote:
| 100% agree with this. TV has allowed writers to take more time
| with their characters, develop them more, give more time to
| other storylines and plots, and write more complex and
| interesting tales. People are also starting to expect more
| story and plotlines in their content, which I think is another
| reason movies are getting so much longer, since more time is
| needed to meet those expectations(see The Irishman). In the
| end, it's hard for movies to match the potential of a good TV
| series, just because a TV series has more time available to
| explore the universe of the series.
| bmitc wrote:
| Almost all modern TV series are just a movie spread out over
| entire TV seasons. They are filled with nothing but teasers and
| cliff hangers in order to artificially stimulate intrigue and
| extend the relatively thin plots. I can barely imagine
| something more boring than modern streaming TV series. They
| also tend to devolve into characters forming romantic
| relationships with each other, because there's usually nothing
| else to do with a small and finite character set once the
| initial ideas are exhausted.
|
| Movies are far deeper because they try to focus on a coherent
| story and character development. The incentives for TV series
| are all wrong aside from episodic comedies and docuseries.
|
| The trends of TV have more to do with attention span,
| addiction, marketing/advertising, etc. than it being a
| supposedly more wanted format for actual content reasons.
| stevage wrote:
| It honestly doesn't sound like you have watched many modern
| series at all.
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| I'm sorry, but I think this is an incredibly reductive take
| on television.
|
| You could make all the same arguments about novels vs. short
| stories. The fact is that they're both related forms of art
| which take different approaches to developing narratives.
|
| > Movies are far deeper because they try to focus on a
| coherent story and character development. The incentives for
| TV series are all wrong aside from episodic comedies and
| docuseries.
|
| Here you seem to be arguing that movies, as a form, are
| superior (or perhaps that TV can't practically compete with
| film because the incentives are wrong, so that in practice,
| films are higher quality than TV).
|
| I wasn't making an argument about the potential of the form
| though, merely about what viewers want. It should go without
| saying that in long-form writing you have more of an ability
| to develop characters, stories, and plot arcs than in short-
| form writing. These more fully developed characters, stories,
| and plot arcs are more compelling to readers/viewers.
|
| Historically, this is why we've _rarely_ seen short stories
| achieve the same level of commercial success as the
| successful novels, and now that we have the internet, the
| barriers[1] to television asserting the same dominance over
| videographic media have been torn down.
|
| edit: And to be clear, I also disagree that in practice,
| television (as produced) is inferior to film (as produced).
| Of course there is plenty of filler and contrived drama in
| television (this has always been the case in film too), but
| we're in a renaissance of television shows which are
| incredibly tightly written and even dense, from a
| storytelling perspective.
|
| [1]: namely, that you couldn't run a movie/episodes for 10+
| hours on television, due to the complexity around scheduling
| slots, so you'd have to break it up, leading to confusion and
| fragmentation of understanding among the viewership
| aliqot wrote:
| There never were Oscar movies. Maybe for the first or second, but
| now it's just a good-boy's club of who was a good-boy this year.
| ryanlitalien wrote:
| I'd disagree. There are a few (or more?) actors, directors and
| producers that make movies solely for receiving the Oscar
| nomination/win. One example is "The Deer Hunter".
|
| Note, on looking into provide specifics, this came up:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_bait
| mc32 wrote:
| I can't tell from the summary and have not read IMDB to
| follow the timelines, but it appears that the Deer Hunter had
| already been made, but flopped in initial screenings, so they
| held it back and instead of an initial wide release they
| showed it to critics who loved it and got it nominated. In
| other words it wasn't initially made-to-order to cater to an
| Oscar, but ex-post did it that way because initial audiences
| hated it.
| wmorein wrote:
| The people who used to watch an "Oscar Movie" want to watch
| independent films right now.
| simonblack wrote:
| Too much unrealistic computer graphics in US movies. Also
| melodramatic story-lines. I no longer watch them.
|
| British movies, on the other hand probably can't afford too much
| CGI and have more realistic story-lines as well. I've watched
| several of those in the last few years.
|
| But overall, movies are just no longer on my 'to-do' list.
| kazinator wrote:
| Could it be that people consume too much online video to have
| spare video cycles to see a movie. There is just a glut of audio-
| visual material out there.
| topkai22 wrote:
| IMO a big part of the issue is that these media products simply
| don't need a full theatrical experience like a more
| commercialized "popcorn movie" does, so consumers who want an
| "film" experience don't go to the expense and hassle of going to
| the theatre. They just watch it on their TV
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-07 23:02 UTC)