Elitist Hollywood

Surtur:
"But what makes a movie good is subjective."

Editing, camerawork, lighting, music, is the main actor charismatic enough to carry the role? Points of agreement can be found.

"I hate when people assume that "indie films" are somehow better or automatically "more artful". There is also no genocide being caused. The super hero movies being incredibly popular seems like logical progression. A lot of people at one point or another in their life want to be super heroes, even if it is just as kids."

They also want to be action heroes, soldiers, secret agents, womanizers, beauty queens...so on.

"
Technology has now made super hero movies able to be made. True, we had them before, but now they can truly be the big spectacles they deserve to be. I view it like video games. As the technology for games became better and better..it became more and more main stream.
"

Video games play in a much bigger sandbox.

"
People also make the mistake of thinking of a super hero movie is just going to be mindless action. Yet a movie like "The Dark Knight" has all that, but it also makes you think. It makes you think about the nature of people, and of good and evil.

If anything will spell the downfall of Hollywood it will be the constant remakes of movies that didn't really need to be remade in the first place. Actually, the downfall of Hollywood won't come because of any specific genre of movie. It will come because of the way people in charge run it."

Batman was always more like a Zorro type. The only difference between him and a vigilante in an action movie is the clothes and the gadgets.
You don't think movies based on board games, toy line and well known comic book characters follow the same logic as remakes?

But what makes a movie good is still subjective. What you consider charismatic or not is still subjective. What you might find to be a good editing technique another person might not, and so on. There is also a major major difference between being technically good and actually good. A movie can be beautifully shot, but still suck. I also do not understand how you can claim music in movies is not subjective. How could that even be possible when music itself is subjective?

I also don't get the point in saying people also want to be action heroes and stuff. I never said the only thing people ever want to be is super heroes. People do want to be those other things, which is why I don't think movies about those subjects are going anywhere anytime soon, and why I likewise do not find they will be the downfall of Hollywood.

Batman was a super hero movie. The whole "gadgets" thing is a huge part of the Batman character, and yet you act like it is such a small thing. You can make certain comparisons between him and Zorro, but that wouldn't change that Batman is a super hero movie.

I'm also trying to understand your overall intention. Is it that the article isn't nonsense?

All art is subjective at the core but most every art form has specific competitions for rewards. Cadlecott, Oscars, Grammys, etc. In order for a film, artist, or whatever to get rewarded for talent they must enter competitions. Competitions by their very existence must have standards and categories. Yes at the core it comes down to the subjective opinions of the critics selected to do the judging but that is part of the deal. And these guys(or gals) are usually chosen because of expertise. If someone was gonna judge your film for cinematography it would probably be most fair for, say, a Roger Ebert to do it rather than some random dude. There are problems with this system of course but overall it is the best ya got.

In short in order for a film to be recognized as important(like Citizen Kane) we must apply objective standards and narrow our focus to subjective opinions of "professionals". Likewise it helps people paid to review art to inform the common man whether a thing is worth seeing/hearing/reading/watching/whatever. We only have so much money so best be told a head of time whether the art in question is worth the investment.

Mind you in terms of cultural importance this is not an infallible system. Citizen Kane, widely considered the greatest film of all time, did not win Best Picture. There is a sweet spot where a film that is neither a critical darling or a hit at the box office can still rise to become a landmark. But that is tough and only feasible in hindsight(when film makers of the next generation can be influenced). Some films can be all those things, like the Star Wars.

But none of this makes comic book movies "cultural genocide" really. They are interesting in that they are the first film genre to really blow up in the age of the internet and thus it is chugging along with all the benefits that entails. This will probably last longer than the disaster movie craze for instance. But it will die and be replaced by something else once everyone realizes that they've seen enough super hero movies. Our culture will live just fine and actually has a lot to thank the super hero genre for, specifically the shared continuity aspects that Marvel brought us. It does open up a new-ish world for big blockbusters and puts films in a new light(for instance, how does Joss Whedon's use of Captain America differ from the Russo's? Is Evans giving the same kind of performance or can you notice minor differences based on the writing and directing?)

The indie scene is certainly important though. A lot of risks that big budget Hollywood wouldn't normally take can be taken here and turning a profit is not as big a deal as creating something worth while. As such yeah one can see an indie film maker considering big budget flicks to be garbage since one way or another it is geared towards making a splash at the box office but Shakespeare proved that profit and good art are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Originally posted by Surtur
But what makes a movie good is still subjective. What you consider charismatic or not is still subjective. What you might find to be a good editing technique another person might not, and so on. There is also a major major difference between being technically good and actually good. A movie can be beautifully shot, but still suck. I also do not understand how you can claim music in movies is not subjective. How could that even be possible when music itself is subjective?

I also don't get the point in saying people also want to be action heroes and stuff. I never said the only thing people ever want to be is super heroes. People do want to be those other things, which is why I don't think movies about those subjects are going anywhere anytime soon, and why I likewise do not find they will be the downfall of Hollywood.

Batman was a super hero movie. The whole "gadgets" thing is a huge part of the Batman character, and yet you act like it is such a small thing. You can make certain comparisons between him and Zorro, but that wouldn't change that Batman is a super hero movie.

I'm also trying to understand your overall intention. Is it that the article isn't nonsense?

Steve Buscemi wil never be cast as atraditioally macho action hero. It won't happen, people agree that is not his charisma. Besides theaction shaky cam debate what big editing debates are raging nowadays? There is a lot of subjectivity, but there are common points of agreement. Also people who watched a ton of diverse movies and seek them ut are better at judging quality.

Movies about people who are not superheroes won't dissapear but they are moving into a ghetto as far as Hollywood is concerned.

The whole gadgets thing was big in spy movies for a while. Batman is so grounded he is barely a superhero just like Arrow who can probably trace back his roots to Robin Hood.

There might be common points of agreement, but we are still left at the end of the day with it being subjective. Especially since..who decides which opinions are valid? Who gets to decide which elements are less subjective and the standards to which we hold them? For example, who gets to decide which editing techniques are good and which are not? Furthermore, whoever does get to decide that, what are their qualifications for it? Why them?

Also, Batman might have stuff in common with other types of movies, but it was still a super hero movie. Just like Arrow, who yeah has things in common with Robin Hood, but it doesn't make him any less of a super hero. You can even take the least grounded super heroes like Superman or Thor and still find they have stuff in common with other non-super hero stories.

As for non super hero movies going into ghettos, I don't see it. It's not like every other movie you see an ad for on tv is a super hero movie.

cant blame hollywood. Its supply and demand.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
cant blame hollywood. Its supply and demand.

Exactly, if a lot of people want to see super hero movies then that is that. It is neither good nor bad, it just is.

It's not going to ruin Hollywood. Frankly, the only true thing that will ruin it is saying silly things like a certain genre of movie will RUIN Hollywood. Movies adapt to the times. We have a lot of super hero movies, yes. Go back in history, look at movies during WW2. It seems like every other movie was a crappy war movie. Why? Mofo's had war on the brain. Same thing here.

This is the same crap people were spouting about reality tv shows years and years ago. Yet...tv is still here, with plenty of great tv shows out there.

Well there is a difference but in the grand scheme of things it probably won't be that big a deal.

Originally posted by Surtur
There might be common points of agreement, but we are still left at the end of the day with it being subjective. Especially since..who decides which opinions are valid? Who gets to decide which elements are less subjective and the standards to which we hold them? For example, who gets to decide which editing techniques are good and which are not? Furthermore, whoever does get to decide that, what are their qualifications for it? Why them?

Also, Batman might have stuff in common with other types of movies, but it was still a super hero movie. Just like Arrow, who yeah has things in common with Robin Hood, but it doesn't make him any less of a super hero. You can even take the least grounded super heroes like Superman or Thor and still find they have stuff in common with other non-super hero stories.

As for non super hero movies going into ghettos, I don't see it. It's not like every other movie you see an ad for on tv is a super hero movie.

[

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
cant blame hollywood. Its supply and demand.

That might create a bubble that will hurt the industry.

Originally posted by Surtur
Exactly, if a lot of people want to see super hero movies then that is that. It is neither good nor bad, it just is.

It's not going to ruin Hollywood. Frankly, the only true thing that will ruin it is saying silly things like a certain genre of movie will RUIN Hollywood. Movies adapt to the times. We have a lot of super hero movies, yes. Go back in history, look at movies during WW2. It seems like every other movie was a crappy war movie. Why? Mofo's had war on the brain. Same thing here.

This is the same crap people were spouting about reality tv shows years and years ago. Yet...tv is still here, with plenty of great tv shows out there.

Mofo's don't think about Superheroes otherwise their comics would sell much better or there would be more animated series with them. Considering how expensive these movies are why is this good for film?

This is the same crap people were spouting about reality tv shows years and years ago. Yet...tv is still here, with plenty of great tv shows out there.

After the critics of that bs were proven right and the audience wanted something better.

This is like me wanting every fast food joint to close down because I enjoy eating at small mom and pop delis, and then wanting for those fast food joints to convert to the restaurants of my liking.
Very stupid and selfish way of thinking. Forcing and dictating what I think is good and what others should be enjoying based on my preferences.

Originally posted by Inhuman
This is like me wanting every fast food joint to close down because I enjoy eating at small mom and pop delis, and then wanting for those fast food joints to convert to the restaurants of my liking.
Very stupid and selfish way of thinking. Forcing and dictating what I think is good and what others should be enjoying based on my preferences.

What am i arguing for exactly? That superheroes should not dominate blockbusters as they are planning to. Why would that be bad? This is like me wanting competition for the 2-3 fast food franchises. I am not forcing you to think anything i am just questioning your ideas.

Originally posted by Shey Tapani
What am i arguing for exactly? That superheroes should not dominate blockbusters as they are planning to. Why would that be bad?

You think directors like Edgar Wright, Wes Anderson, or indie, small budget independent directors dont have plans on their upcoming movies they are going to work on?
Just because they dont announce their "to do" list to the public doesn't mean they dont have "plans" on what films they are going to make.

You cant be this dense. "OH NO, its the end of the world because they announced the comic book movie roadmap" The comic book movies that are coming up are a SMALL fraction all the blockbusters that will be released.
Anyhow this hollywood conspiracy is bullshit.

If blockbusters died down then why go to the movies? Im not going to waste money on some quirky drama that looks like it was filmed on an iphone.
Ill just watch those films on dvd or stream them online.

Originally posted by Inhuman
You think directors like Edgar Wright, Wes Anderson, or indie, small budget independent directors dont have plans on their upcoming movies they are going to work on?
Just because they dont announce their "to do" list to the public doesn't mean they dont have "plans" on what films they are going to make.

You cant be this dense. "OH NO, its the end of the world because they announced the comic book movie roadmap" The comic book movies that are coming up are a SMALL fraction all the blockbusters that will be released.
Anyhow this hollywood conspiracy is bullshit.

If blockbusters died down then why go to the movies? Im not going to waste money on some quirky drama that looks like it was filmed on an iphone.
Ill just watch those films on dvd or stream them online.

People with the above mentioned public brand will find a way for a while or rather go into tv like Sodebergh. You think it's an accident Sodebergh went into TV? You can find him complaining about studios wanting to sell theme arks instead of stories.It's an undeniable fact that studios drastically lowered their budgets for their sister companies who financed/produced/distributed smaller movies.

6-7 is not a lot for next year for these kind of movies?

I am arguing for more different blockbusters and more mid sized movies. Where did i say quircky dramas should own theaters? Plenty of mid sized movies are a treat in theater.