Film fans are too cynical

Honeykid, someone who may be more cynical than me , said something in the unrequired sequels thread that's been bothering me for a few days. He implied that all movies are just money grabs by the studios, which I can't disagree with. After all, it's the job of the executives to make sure their studios keep earning a profit.

But, this got me thinking about how lucky we are as film fans to be film fans at this time in history. Despite the money making, soul sucking side of things, there are tons of creative people making films right now and there are tons of enjoyable entertainment in theaters right now.

For the purpose of this thread, I am talking exclusively about major releases and mainstream film. There's always going to be a warm, welcome place in the indie scene for film snobs.

While I'm starting to get superhero fatigue, I have to start there because, despite said fatigue, the Marvel films and Nolan's Bat-saga are just fun popcorn munching films. I love seeing The Avengers and Iron Man on the big screen because they are popcorn movies that don't feel as pandering and empty as something like the Transformers series. Plus, they occasionally allow someone with a bit of flash to direct them (Shane Black, James Gunn).

If that's not your thing, Hollywood is opening the doors to directors that wouldn't have had chances 20-30 years ago. Garreth Edwards made Monsters and was given Godzilla. Marc Webb made 500 Days of Summer and was put into the Spider-Man reboot. Colin Trevorrow made Safety Not Guaranteed and now he's making Jurassic World. Say what you want about the big budget films they're working on, it's still exciting that new directors are allowed to take on these tentpole projects.

Lastly, think of all the creative people who can basically do anything they want. Scorsese, Tarantino, the Coens, Spielberg, Nolan. Sure, there's a-holes like Bay and Zach Synder who are given obscene amounts of money to assault us with light and sound without soul, but there are just as many really creative people working in the mainstream and making fun and interesting films.

And we seem to take a lot of it for granted. There's a thread here for (some) people to complain about sequels as if a successful franchise is somehow a bad thing. There's too many generalizations that we just assume about films like remakes are always bad (they're not, just most of the time), or that there's not enough original content (there may be something to that but even adapted work is pretty decent). Also, there's still that idea that films are only getting made to grab money. At a certain level, yes, but the fact that creative and interesting people are making the creative decisions makes this alright in most cases.

So, am I way off base? Am I worried about something that's only driven by a few angry but vocal film fans? Are more people on my side about this than I'm aware?

__________________

Well, I would say that people in general have become more cynical in the last couple of decades. David Foster Wallace wrote about it - how snark and cynicism is a huge problem in our society, turning all of us into bitter, smarmy cynics. That said, I wouldn't let the comments of a few film fans with grim views color your perception of film fans as a whole.

In case you are interested, here is a Salon article that talks a bit about Wallace's views on the subject:

Irony is Ruining Our Culture

__________________

I once heard that a good review of a indie film can boost its audience but a bad review is unlikely to harm a blockbuster film because of a few different reasons including built in audiences.

I have in more than one place been told I am too much of a film snob, that I am too cynical and people have made assumptions because of this about films I watch and films I enjoy, I was told (and I think I mentioned this before) that I only enjoy films that are black and white, have subtitles or are in a foreign language to which I say I may be a snob if you wish to call me one but you are being presumptuous.

It is true that there probably is a certain percentage of people who may be too cynical about films and not like big budget films because they feel they are below them. I think there is a certain stereotype (based on a certain level of truth because I have seen it both ways) that if a film has a certain director or star in it it is going to be bad (for example a Bay film) without any prior knowledge of the film or the story; some people do think that way and you may not be able to change their minds.

With that being said I also believe there are just as many people out there who go the other way and point blank refuse to see certain films because of how they are presented (such as B&W or Silent) or if they have been reviewed by certain critics. So I guess the question is; Who is right and who is wrong? Well, neither is right or wrong really, it is up to them.

I tried to describe the recent film "Tracks" to someone who like so many people said "so it's about a woman who walks? woah, sounds exciting", well of-course if you only focus on that it is going to sound dull but that is not what it is entirely about or what makes it brilliant but hey, if that is the only way you can see things then it's your loss, not mine.

I guess what I am trying to say is that you will always have people be cynical and potentially snobbish about all films, not just art films etc but I don't think that is entirely a bad thing, it pushes people to do things and create films that may have not be born otherwise.

I remember one massive bit of snobbery I heard when Peter Jackson made the LOTR films and they brought out a boxset (I think these films are correct) of Bad Taste, Braindead & Heavenly Creatures and some started lapping it up saying he was the greatest director and how wonderful these films are despite have no prior knowledge and to go against them fans who liked PJ before hand were saying "well we liked him first, you are just cashing in on him because of LOTR". I don't think you can win.

I know you are not alone in this because I have met people who think along the same lines but I think what people need to be careful of is not being a snob towards the snobbish if that makes sense?

For example you said:

Now I cannot say for certain that not all of the people who go to see indie films are snobs, I have better things to do with my life but is this opinion not as bad as people who watch indie films to say "oh people who watch Transformers don't understand art in cinema, silly uninformed people"? This is not to say this is how you think or how I think but merely suggesting that is how it could be seen.

What I have also heard so many times people hate on critics for their reviews and opinions and then say "well their opinion doesn't matter anyway" to which I wonder "then why does it bother you so much? Is it really that important?" and it is simply not. I don't think it is just film where we are cynical but potentially society over all, we see it in film because it is something I think everyone on MoFo is passionate about - but I think that passion can get people into a position where people break it down and become cynical.

I hope some of that made sense...

__________________
twitter: @ginock
livejournal film reviews: http://windsoc.livejournal.com/
photos: http://www.instagram.com/christopherwindsor

I see myself more as an optimist, rather than a cynic (although I appreciate cynical humor, but that's a whole other issue), but I do however have certain problems with the complete lack of creativity of certain mainstream blockbusters. That's not the fault of the business of course. It's the "fault" of the public.

I study economics, so I know that people who are in the film business purely for the sake of making money will create products that answer to the public's demand, so in my opinion they are not really to blame. The problem is today's demand!

Look at all the pictures that get big budgets nowadays. They are ALL action-based films (mostly superhero movies) that all have similar plots, 3D animation films (with these I have the least problems, because they can still be inventive story-wise), adaptations of extremely popular books or sequels/prequels/remakes/offsprings of already popular franchises.
Not all of these films are necessarily bad of course (Toy Story 3 for instance, is in my top 101 favorite films of all time), but I do think it gets pretty monotonous after a while and therefore I don't get why people are still going to see these films in such high numbers, because most of these blockbusters are pretty much the same film, but only with a slightly different dressing. Are people so eager to see certain stories done over and over again? Aren't they willing to see something new? Something challenging?

Sure, once in a while there's a great big budget film that gets released, like for example last year's Gravity (which I loved) and as you already mentioned, there are a handful of great directors (like Scorsese, Spielberg, Fincher, Tarantino, ...) and good natured stars (like Leonardo DiCaprio) that are able to receive a decent budget for their bolder projects, but there are still way too few of them, in my opinion.

As a result, most of my favorite films that get released nowadays are from the independent scene, are minor budget releases or are from one of those few priviliged directors.

Have I lost my hope in the major film industry because of all this? Definitely not. I do hope, however, that the public will eventually get tired of those repetitive blockbusters and that the film industry will have to invest more in original and inventive filmmaking again to gain the public's interest. In that way, we may perhaps enter an era again that makes it possible that films like 2001: A Space Oddysey (1968), The Godfather (1972) or Jaws (1975) are the highest grossing films of their years, in stead of POTC sequels and Marvel superhero flicks. Wouldn't that be just great?

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

I agree. My generalization about movies right now is this: More movies being made so there are both more good and bad. The internet has made it so anyone who loves movies can be a critic so we get more over reaction. I know that when I tell people that I rate a blockbuster less than three stars my friends tell me I am being harsh. I think the fact that a lot of people feel now that if you dont love something as much as them you hate it is part of the problem. Markf will tell you most films probably fall in the middle of great and horrible but few people live in that middle ground. Incidentally I feel like you can flesh that out into all aspect of life not just film criticism. Maybe it has always been that way, the main difference being we all have a public voice now because of social networking.

When I dont like a movie it is usually because of poor written characters. Tent pole movies seem particularly susceptable to this because a lot are made for spectacle. Nothing wrong with that, many love it. I expect more from my movies and I think that is true of a lot of film fans. Most of us watch in the hundreds of movies a year as opposed to the casual movie goer who watch much less.

__________________
Letterboxd

In art, there's always going to be friction between Taste and Skill. It's a grey zone and what matters most is attitude. People who approach film with a very rigid and narrow expectation of 'how' it should be are setting themselves up to be let down. They inevitably are disappointed and get jaded.

I try to be objective about skill but taste is too personal for that. You can argue a film is shallow compared to your preference of what constitutes depth but ultimately it comes down to expectation relative to what you like. If you're too fixated on your established ideas of what films are good, you may miss out on enjoyment of a film that doesn't meet your criteria for enjoyment based on past experience.

Lucky for me, I have broad taste and keep a child-like attitude toward art. I'm still able to analyze sophistication, and I value ideas, but I'm also open to accepting the internal "reality" of a film on its own terms, and I will try to judge it fairly by its own purpose as I understand it; whether that purpose is simply to appeal to my love of hyperbolic action and weird creatures or an attempt to isomorphize ideas to objective reality in order to illuminate an aspect of the human condition and existence in general.

Even then, there are shades of grey since a person may find the latter's value in the former, so it's possible to judge superficially while another person finds depth you did not. That often seems to be a matter of how intensely each individual relates or allows themselves to relate to a film or specific elements therein.

So you can't remove the personal and subjective entirely from it, but IMO that's actually a good thing since art should be about perspectives, not just re-presenting the objective.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

I dont disagree with most of what is being said but I do have a question I often wonder about. Are the stories in smaller films actually all that unique?

Personally I dont think so. I think the way these stories are being told is usually more intimate and thus more emotionally resonate. Of course this is a generealization but it mostly applies I think.

I definitely believe there is more experimental uniqueness in the smaller industries today, than there is in the big movie industry, but you're right that this doesn't necessarily means that the uniqueness is on the level of the story. It can just as well be on the level of execution (it mostly is actually).

My point was that most big budget blockbusters are very similar plot-wise and execution-wise (with the very few exceptions) and that we have to turn to the more lower budget films for more differentiation. I want more boldness, more surprises. It's not a good sign that I (and many people with me) can predict the course of practically every modern blockbuster that is coming out these days, by just seeing their trailer. Again, there are exceptions, but to me it feels like most of these modern big budget films can be easily categorized among a certain kind of blockbuster with very prescribed rules and expectations (both plot- and execution-wise). I want more big budget movies that think out of the box, more risks!
The only way that can be achieved, is if audiences start buying tickets for the more unusual films and start getting tired of the safe and regulative films (not all of them, but at least the ones that are too obviously made for merely money-making purposes).

I agree with Cobpyth. My top five films of last year - Upstream Color, Blue is the Warmest Color, Under the Skin, Enemy, and Oculus - were all independent.

I agree with you 100% on this. I knew a few different people who loved the Marvel/DC so much so that they watch them almost weekly etc. When I announced I thought the third Batman film was not as good as the first so I might as well have said "I have just shat in the babies cot" for the amount of abuse I got over it, they all demanded why, I didn't understand it etc etc, but I thought "chill out! You liked a film more than me! There is nothing wrong with that, j**us" but so many do take it personally.

I learnt a long time ago that if you even slightly go against the main stream cinema wise you need to have a thick skin because son, cos otherwise you gonna get your ass whooped son; but the worst thing? The very worst thing for me is when people try to force you to watch a film because "you don't understand why it is so good", f**k off, I don't force ANYONE to watch the films I do so do not try it on me.

Why not give them arguments on why you think their kind of movies are not all that great? I always do that and then people tend to empathize with my point of view more, even if they don't totally agree with it.

From my perspective this is one of those "yes" with a "however" & "no" with a "but". I can't remember who said it but I once heard there are no original stories any more when they are broken down. One film I wanted to see recently was "Upside Down", I mainly wanted to watch it because I loved both Jim Sturgess & Kirsten Dunst. here is the story:



Strip away all the plays on the world, sci-fi and amazing graphics and basically you are left with Romeo & Juliet (I also wonder if this was a play on religion as you have Adam (of Adam & Eve) and Eden (where Adam & Eve were meant to be) but maybe I am looking into it too much.

One of the greatest indie films with one of the most original story-lines for me this year is "a long way down", that and films like it give me faith that maybe Hollywood can sometimes bring me back in.

Quite simply I don't think it is my place to do so. Who am I to tell them I do not think the films they watch are not very good or of lesser value than the films I watch?

You are you and you are entitled to your opinion. There's nothing wrong with explaining your point of view to other people, especially if it's done in a constructive manner.

It's not OK to mock people because of their tastes (unless it's in a joking and unharmful manner of course), but it is definitely OK to express your disagreement with their opinions if it's done with enough tact and proper explanation.

I know lots of people who love films that I don't think are all that great and I never shy away to give my own constructive, but opposite opinion whenever I feel like it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Good discussions might even bring people closer together and make them understand eachother's views better.

I think it's worthwhile to at least try to articulate why you hate or dislike a film or maybe even just like it less. There are lots of possible reasons why you'd want to do that, but the simplest may be that it's part of a movie forum's raison d'etre. Nothing is stopping you from explaining your POV nicely of course, not that that guarantees nobody will get offended anyway.

Personally I find the attitude of not wanting to be exposed to criticism very strange and useless in this context, and that equally applies to the attitude of not wanting to criticize as well. People should be willing to entertain other views on films regardless of their own feelings or else why the heck are we even here?

This is where we have to realise that, while love film, this cinema isn't made for us. It's for the casual cinemagoer. The ones we complain about. The kids, the people with the phones, texting, eating, talking and everything else. You don't want a complex plot or a lot of dialogue with this crowd, because they won't follow what's going on. Not because they're stupid, but because they're not paying enough attention.

Exactly, because they're all spectacle and dialogue light. Slapstick/gross out comedy is big for the same reason. You don't need the words to get the point, therefore, non English speaking people can pay less attention/find it easier to follow. People don't like subtitles regardless of language and, with basic education standards lower (especially in rural areas) and multiple languages spoken in many areas (which can mean two or three sets of subtitles onscreen) less reading is better. They're made with the non-English speaking market in mind, as it's now the bigger share of the films BO. It's also why stars are still worth they're while in non-branded films. When you're wondering why Eddie Murphy, Nicole Kidman or Sly Stallone are still getting well paid, this is the reason.

Remember that joke Ricky Gervais did at the GG about not seeing The Tourist? Well, that worked really well in the US and UK, but across much of the world I doubt they were laughing because that film made the vast majority of its money outside the English speaking world and it did so, partly, because people went to see Johnny and Angelina. You don't need big stars for franchises/branded films, so they rarely have them. You get those on the up, those with some buzz or those who aren't quite A-List. Think Tobey MacGuire, Andrew Garfield, Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Tom Hiddleston, Christian Bale, Henry Cavill, etc This is exactly why Spider Man was 'rebooted'. The stars had signed on for three films. Those films were done, on the fees agreed before the first film, now they had to renegotiate with people who were much bigger stars and were the characters. It was too expensive. The third Spider Man film had cost $250m, so it had to make about half a billion dollars before it turned a profit. A sequel would probably cost more, then you add the new star fee? They could've been looking at another $50m+, which'd mean it needed about $600m before they saw profits. They decided it was too big a risk/they wouldn't make enough.

It's the same with directors. That's not to say you don't get good directors, just that they're not the selling point, so you get someone to do the job, which is possibly why both of BB's examples of young, talented directors got their shot with big brands. If anything, you could argue that Edwards work with Monsters worked for him. If he could make a good, well liked monster film with no money, imagine what he could do with hundreds of millions? TBH, the answer is, probably, about as well as most, (I'm talking strictly money here) but there's no doubt the link makes for a nice opening question during the endless promotion you have to do for a film of that size.

But those three were made by cinema giants, arguably at the top of their game. They were also made when films were made for adults (though Jaws is the watershed moment here) and before Hollywood found their current formula, which, again, Jaws was at the forefront of, before Star Wars and ET sealed our fate.

However, when Hollywood next finds itself unable to confidently invest its money, they might go back to throwing money at whatever moves (as they did in the mid/late 60's - late 70's/early 80's) trying to find the new way of making it work.

Oh, and don't think for a second that people are dying to throw money at Scorsese. I think he's fought for the money for every film he's ever made. Even now. I've said it before, but when Shutter Island was released over here he did an interview with Di Caprio and he was saying how difficult it was for them to get the $70m they originally wanted for the film. Scorsese. And Di Caprio. Based on a book which sold well, by a name author who's previous work, Mystic River, had won Oscars. And they still had trouble getting the money. Not because it wouldn't make money. But because it wouldn't make enough.

Money is king in Hollywood. That's not new, it's always been that way. The difference atm, for the big boys at least, seems to be that making millions isn't enough anymore. Unless a film is going to make $300m/$400m+, they're really not interested.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Nice responses from everyone, thanks!

To address a few ideas, the big one being that blockbusters are all very formulaic. I'll agree completely. I, too, can tell the majority of a films plot by the preview (a Transformers 4 commercial is on my TV right now...how fortuitous!), but I watch these movies because some of them are *gasp* fun! Yeah, I had a blast watching Iron Man 3, but my favorite film last year was The Great Beauty.

Honeykid, all great points. I still prefer to remain optimistic in general. One of the reasons I love Nolan is because he challenges those casual people we hate to actually pay attention to his films even though his films are still very mainstream friendly.

One thing I did hear (I stress hear because I don't know it to be fact) was that part of the reason we may have been seeing so many re-makes, sequels and re-boots etc is that in the financial climate we are still very much in since the mid 2000's very few studios wished to invest in brand new projects but projects where it was none money would be made because of a built in audience.

Now I don't know how true this but to be fair, like it or not it does make a certain amount of sense and I don't blame the film industry for doing it. I don't agree with it.

I think their is a level of laziness in this but that being said it doesn't really affect me; or does it?

If I don't want to watch these films I don't have to

If I don't go to see any films and if everyone took this same attitude no money would go in and no new films would be made

So what is that answer? Is there a future? Has this level of cynicism got the power to disrupt the film industry?

I am perfectly fine with the money grabs out there. If (and usually when) these movies succeed, they line the coffers enough for the execs to take a chance on things they normally wouldn't have. Without the surge of the comic movie, we would have never seen anything like Guardians coming to screen.

I will state I am a homer for this film, which I have no clue about other than the premise. That said, a movie with a reassembled raccoon, walking-talking tree and who knows what else is one that thing that fuels my passion for movies. The fact that this film got the budget it needs is due in part to all the formulaic grabs before it.

Guardians could end up being just like everything else, but I find that hard to believe. For that, I say long live Michael Bay and his Transformers/ Turtles interchangeable formula.

I don't totally agree with the underlying assumption that "money = less quality." Sometimes that's true, but as a generalization it's just another way of implying you're part of some elite with vastly superior tastes than the lowbrow masses out there.

But I think money also often works as a quality control for film. It's basically darwinism; popularity indicates interest and more money goes to genres, directors, ect. who are popular and pull interest, so if you like Peter Jackson's LOTR for example, studios notice. It's "survival" of the fittest in the sense that money will obviously go where there's the best chance of a return on investment.

Whether HK or anybody else likes it or not, fantasy is very popular, as are superheroes, and success isn't automatically a dire omen of the industry's future ruin. This constant implication that because Hollywood caters to popular tastes (duh) it somehow shows a devolution of art or taste is just silly and snooty. There are ALL KINDS of films released every year; just because your favorites weren't smash hits or just because films you don't like WERE smash hits, that's no cause to play the prophet of doom or act like money is satanic.