Do Modern Movies Suck?

[Orius]

I originally wanted to talk about this in my "Upcoming Movies" thread rather than create an entirely new thread, but I feel it's unrelated to that topic and merely serves to derail the discussion more than it already has.

 

What inspires this thread ultimately is not just @brycec's good point about modern movies, but also this particular video, which I feel has also made a lot of good points about the problems I have with modern cinema:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW3o2JYoK6Q

 

To put it simply: marketing. A lot of Hollywood movies today (emphasis on "Hollywood", an emphasis I'll explain later) are less pieces of artwork than they are gigantic tent-pole marketing mediums. While they spit out the occasional great story, most of them merely serve two hours of decent entertainment that's more or less worth your seven bucks, but wouldn't serve as some world-changing cultural-molding Mona Lisa.

 

Yes, the MCU has shaped geek culture in significant ways, but I feel they've contributed to the same problem of filmmaking as described in the video, which is withholding important information in a story so that you could come back next movie. Joss Whedon in particular has talked about this in an interview to his work, "The Age of Ultron". When asked why he didn't like the ending to The Empire Strikes Back, he said this:

“Well, it’s not an ending. It’s a Come Back Next Week, or in three years. And that upsets me. I go to movies expecting to have a whole experience. If I want a movie that doesn’t end I’ll go to a French movie. That’s a betrayal of trust to me. A movie has to be complete within itself, it can’t just build off the first one or play variations.”

I agree to a certain extent with his quote. I prefer it when a movie has a complete story on its own, as what movies are doing nowadays with incomplete movies are the same exact problems with video games leaving us with an incomplete game, forcing you to buy DLCs for the complete experience. A story's fundamental golden rules are not meant to be broken - a beginning, a climax, and a resolution. They are there for a reason. And even if they should be broken, it certainly shouldn't be done so in such a way, for the sake of cheap marketing ploy, forcing you to watch the next film.

 

While the MCU isn't the main culprit of this terrible filmmaking process, being able to conclude almost every movie without leaving a trail of unsatisfying stories (aside from those sloppy Avenger movies, Civil War included), it has certainly influenced other filmmakers and Hollywood studios to lazily slap together cinematic universes (and otherwise, like Fox's X-Men movies) for the sake of earning a larger profit from a supposed demanding audience. There is no longer an intention to create art among Hollywood. Gone are the days when filmmakers had to get creative when profit wasn't as abundant as it is today. Both executives and filmmakers alike seem to be so brain-dead with the pursuit of money that they seem to no longer care about creating something that truly speaks to the audience, and not just give a good time for two hours.

 

THAT BEING SAID...

The reason I placed emphasis on Hollywood is because not every movie studio and filmmaker are like that. A lot of the smaller studios and indie filmmakers still retain their creative rights. The problem lies not with the executives and filmmakers (as my italicized emphasis on the word, "seem" hopefully tells you), but with the system of Hollywood itself, and how it green lights movies. The system is becoming more flawed with each passing year, and nobody is bothering to fix it because money is flowing in at a healthy rate, and then some. I couldn't say whether if the executives ever cared about the artistic pursuit at all, even back then, but I could say that the filmmakers' hands are definitely tied by this system, forcing them to create stories under a very restrained set of rules Hollywood executives set out for them. In particular, I could imagine those rules would be along the lines of "Create a movie that attracts the audience to come back for the next movie."

 

However, as all good movie fans know, Hollywood is NOT cinema itself. There are other good movies beside your mainstream Hollywood films, even today. So the question is an interesting one depending on what kind of movies you've been watching, and what negative influences they might have given you. Do you think that modern movies are no longer salvageable, or is there still a chance for good movies to exist?

 

Personally, I of course think that there are still a lot of underrated gems out there today that go unnoticed because they weren't marketed as heavily as Hollywood films. Stuff like Sicario, Arrival and Moonlight show the kind of potential filmmakers still have today to tell a good story without cheap marketing techniques influencing their writing. So I do think it would be a bit unfair to dismiss all modern movies as inherently bad, when it's the system that's the real problem here.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Guest

[existentiallylostdumbell]

Foreign films tend to be pretty good, of course they have to be, to make it here

Edited June 9, 2017 by Guest

[Orius]

Foreign films tend to be pretty good, of course they have to be, to make it here

Actually, it's because they didn't make it here into the hands of Hollywood executives that they ended up much better than your standard American movie.

[zoop]

Eh, I can't really say that I think modern movies are any worse off than older movies in terms of average quality. While it is true that a lot of junk gets put out these days, I think the same has been true at basically every point. Perhaps its just the case, at least in small part, that our exposure to flops has been increased due to the powers of the internet?

 

Looking over my Letterboxd log, it actually looks like the average number of movies released per year that I really, really enjoy has only gone up as time has gone by... though whether or not that says anything about me other than that I might have questionable taste in movies is another matter all together.

 

Foreign films tend to be pretty good, of course they have to be, to make it here

 

Foreign films are basically the greatest thing on the damn planet.

[Orius]

Eh, I can't really say that I think modern movies are any worse off than older movies in terms of average quality. While it is true that a lot of junk gets put out these days, I think the same has been true at basically every point. Perhaps its just the case, at least in small part, that our exposure to flops has been increased due to the powers of the internet?

That, and the heavy marketing the mediocre and terrible ones constantly receive.

 

IMO, MCU is part of the problem I'm trying to emphasize here. While they're entertaining movies, they don't serve as anything else meaningful. I don't feel they shape our culture as significantly, or rather, as meaningfully as older movies used to.

[brycec]

I agree with a lot of what you said, and the video was hilarious.

 

As for my take on the subject, many modern movies are terrible, but not unsalvagable.

 

One of the big things I emphasize when I review books, anime, and manga is that a work of fiction can feel original and unique, even though it might not be either, as long as things are executed properly, and a lot of the things that make a great book also apply when one wants to create a good movie, although movies are a lot more involved.

 

However, the current movies being released, with a few exceptions, have that feeling of being yet another rehash and capitalizing on the popularity, instead of trying to make it stand out on its own.

 

You and I find different movies good and bad, but I wish we had more movies that would have as much feeling as Clannad and Narcissus had, instead of this feeling of a complete lack of originality.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Guest

[Cy~]

I disagree with the premise here.

 

Modern movies don't suck. Comic book movies and other massive franchises suck with regards to writing and overall storytelling, because that's kind what they have to do to make money. If you are willing to look outside of comic book movies, then you'll find a lot of gems lurking around. Also, if you are just watching movies for sfx, acting, and other non-writing attributes, then comic book and franchise movies can scratch that itch.

 

Just remember, our current impression of past movies is subject to a degree of survivorship bias. What are we really selecting to compare to today's movies? Are we looking at a controlled slice of all past movies, or are we just picking a few choice anecdotes? How do we decide what makes a film "suck"?

 

Just saying "modern movies suck" is making a broad statement that is completely unproven. Where's the data?

 

In my own opinion, mass-market movies are of a lower quality than they used to be, in terms of writing. However, there's a wide world of cinema that takes place outside of that environment, and those movies seem to be just as decent as they have always been.

 

Note: I'm tired and my hands hurt, so I can't be damned to make a more well reasoned post, atm.

[Orius]

You and I find different movies and bad, but I wish we had more movies that would have as much feeling as Clannad and Narcissus had, instead of this feeling of a complete lack of originality.

That's actually one of my biggest complaints about modern movies, that they are not setting new trends in filmmaking and storytelling (cinematic universes don't count, and I find it a superficial marketing). I feel like instead of finding new ways to change people's perspectives, there are a lot of movies, even non-comic book ones, that play safe. A bold movie I could think of was Miracle on 34th Street, a Christmas movie about a court case of all things. That's original and never seen before, not to mention damn interesting.

 

And I can't agree that it's just comic book movies that suck. Look at the many movie reboots and remakes today. They are symptoms of an ongoing problem in Hollywood, playing safe and making the movies that would appeal to the broadest audiences. They remake these movies because the original movies made money. It's as simple as that.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Guest

[brycec]

I disagree with the premise here.

 

Modern movies don't suck. Comic book movies and other massive franchises suck with regards to writing and overall storytelling, because that's kind what they have to do to make money. If you are willing to look outside of comic book movies, then you'll find a lot of gems lurking around. Also, if you are just watching movies for sfx, acting, and other non-writing attributes, then comic book and franchise movies can scratch that itch.

 

Just remember, our current impression of past movies is subject to a degree of survivorship bias. What are we really selecting to compare to today's movies? Are we looking at a controlled slice of all past movies, or are we just picking a few choice anecdotes? How do we decide what makes a film "suck"?

 

Just saying "modern movies suck" is making a broad statement that is completely unproven. Where's the data?

 

In my own opinion, mass-market movies are of a lower quality than they used to be, in terms of writing. However, there's a wide world of cinema that takes place outside of that environment, and those movies seem to be just as decent as they have always been.

 

Note: I'm tired and my hands hurt, so I can't be damned to make a more well reasoned post, atm.

 

You make some good points here.

 

Our biases do affect our ability to judge, and there were some terrible movies released in the past, especially considering we have books that are now considered classics, but were not well-received when they were originally released.

 

Thing is, we, as humans, seem to always give people in the creative fields an incentive to create and put out works that should not see the light of day.

[Orius]

Thing is, we, as humans, seem to always give people in the creative fields an incentive to create and put out works that should not see the light of day.

With marketing as prevalent as it is today thanks to the invention of the Internet, it's another reason why so many bad movies are being paid for, and why Hollywood manages to get the wrong idea about what audiences want.

[brycec]

With marketing as prevalent as it is today thanks to the invention of the Internet, it's another reason why so many bad movies are being paid for, and why Hollywood manages to get the wrong idea about what audiences want.

 

Not to mention, a lot of how I hear marketing works is in the fact that they use data from the past, whether it be as recent as a few months to a year or much longer.

 

I might not be great at marketing, since my own books have not sold well (though there are more reasons than just marketing), but I sure do not feel like I am following the herd, like many Hollywood studios and book publishers are.

[Moe]

There are gems here and there but now a days, no effort is put into a story, and if there is effort they usually edit out key scenes of the story. They are good, but not comparable to movies of old.

[Cy~]

why Hollywood manages to get the wrong idea about what audiences want.

 

I'm going to play devil's advocate, though. That means that this is not what I believe, but it is part of a reasoning process that I sometimes use to try to understand a problem in a deeper way.

 

Pretend, for a second, that I'm a Hollywood Executive . I think that I would say to you, "We don't have the wrong idea! We have the right idea. Look how much money is being made by all of these recent movies! We've had more blockbusters lately than ever before! Everyone that said that the movie industry was dying has been proved wrong! We're giving the audiences what they want, now more than ever!"

 

What's a good response to that? I guess one thing to consider - Is it really the case that Hollywood is getting dumber or is the audience getting dumber and Hollywood is meeting the average audience member at their level of expectation?

[Orius]

I'm going to play devil's advocate, though. That means that this is not what I believe, but it is part of a reasoning process that I sometimes use to try to understand a problem in a deeper way.

 

Pretend, for a second, that I'm a Hollywood Executive . I think that I would say to you, "We don't have the wrong idea! We have the right idea. Look how much money is being made by all of these recent movies! We've had more blockbusters lately than ever before! Everyone that said that the movie industry was dying has been proved wrong! We're giving the audiences what they want, now more than ever!"

 

What's a good response to that? I guess one thing to consider - Is it really the case that Hollywood is getting dumber or is the audience getting dumber and Hollywood is meeting the average audience member at their level of expectation?

You're kinda repeating the same thing I just said. When I said that Hollywood's heavy marketing attracted the dumber audiences to pay for bad movies, I meant exactly that. Both Hollywood and the audience are at fault here. Hollywood for not recognizing that what's popular isn't necessarily quality, or even a proper gauge for "good art". Then again, I truly believe that all Hollywood cares about is making a profit and doing business. It's not necessarily a bad thing. It's just business and how Hollywood operates, as much as I dislike it. It's just how the working world works. It's not "good" or "bad". It's just against my own values of artistic integrity, though I could understand the pragmatism to make money regardless of creative intent.

 

Then again, with how subjective movies can be, I suppose it is rather self-righteous to call them "bad movies". I don't know. I don't want to sound like some Siskel wannabe snob. I want to love fun mainstream movies by the way. I'm not one of those uptight artsy fartsy pretentious douchebag who only thinks movies like Citizen Kane are the only worthwhile movies. My favorite movies are all mainstream movies, some of which are rather shallow popcorn entertainment (looking at you, Independence Day, as good as your characters are)! But it's not my place to dictate what is the proper gauge for a good movie. All I could offer is an opinion, as biased an opinion as anyone could offer, about what I like and dislike - objectiveness be damned.

 

To answer your question, I don't think there's really a good response. I'll piss off Hollywood executives either way by going against everything they stand for - making money for money's sake. That doesn't mean I'm right and they're wrong. It just is. An opinion.

[RepentantSky]

That's not an easy question to answer. On the one hand, it's easy to argue that because so little is being done that's new or innovative in any way, that yes, modern movies are bad. On the other hand, from Actors like Alan Tudyk, James McAvoy, Micehal Fassbender, Laura Bailey, Romi Park, and Eddie Redmayne to name just a few, we have some of the best actors the world has ever seen, who make these redone tropes as interesting as possible and in many different fields. The talent that is in acting today might be the best there's ever been, but they only have so much to work with at the same time. That said, there are a few modern movies that are really good like Rogue One, or Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them. With that said, there also plenty of movies that are supposed to be good that have not gone well such as most of the DCEU, and let's be honest, most of Marvel's movies are falling into a pattern that's easy to follow as well.

 

Then when you get to animated films you have a huge problem. For every Zootopia or Your Name, there's a Norm of the North or an Angry Birds film, and never you mind all the video game and mobile game movies still being worked on now that are probably going to be fairly poor. I mean seriously, there's an animated film coming out that's all about Emoji's, which of course means it's gonna have a bunch of characters who only have one trait, and then maybe the main character will find out how to have two or more traits and everything the film is built one will be rendered useless, resulting in a bad film. Offsetting that will hopefully be Mary and the Witch's Flower, but my point is, it's all perspective at this point.

 

With a limited amount of ideas to work off of or that directors and studios are will actually try, it's hard to argue one way or the other, and it also depends on which kind of films you like. If you're set on only watching certain kinds of films, and they are getting stale because of repetition or some other problem, it might be hard to defend modern film making. Perhaps if moves are simply getting too stale at this point, the best way to do things is to go and try movies you've never seen before, and see if that fresh take reinvigorates films as a whole for you.

[Orius]

Snip

Yeah, that's about the gist of what I was getting at, that there are still good movies out there, just not over at Hollywood. Like I said, Hollywood is not cinema, but Hollywood is clearly getting stale and formulaic.

[brycec]

Yeah, that's about the gist of what I was getting at, that there are still good movies out there, just not over at Hollywood. Like I said, Hollywood is not cinema, but Hollywood is clearly getting stale and formulaic.

 

I think that is what many of us were pointing out.

 

Still, this has been a fairly fun discussion, and is one that makes you think.