What is the point of movies like up in the air or descendants

CGI means anyone can inject hollow "scale" into anything, though.

I hate CGI in a movie.

These are movies about regular people doing regular things and the directors find a spin on daily routine and somehow they get recognized for their work. But in the end its still a movie about people doing stuff that is not particularly interesting or engaging.

Just because you make a movie about a bank teller that is trying to connect with his long lost daughter doesnt mean his bank teller life is interesting enough to be made into a movie. I just dont get why someone would even aspire to become a director like alexander payne or worse jason reitman. Its just regular people doing regular stuff.

Ohh i forgot about him - Richard Linklater is another one.....his movies are also so natural and non events and cheap.

Ohh i forgot about him - Richard Linklater is another one.....his movies are also so natural and non events and cheap.

A Scanner Darkly would love to have a word with you.

Linklater has made all kinds of movies. Some are pretty minimal and "not for all". Some are highly creative. I guess you're reffering to things like Boyhood? I wasn't too thrilled with it.

Waking Life is great, but maybe not your cup of tea. Try The Newton Boys. It's more the conventional entertainment type of movie and perhaps more up your alley. I saw it on TV by coincidence and really liked it. Had no idea it was made by Linklater before the movie was over so there was no bias.

Even that movie is made without any risk...it was a cheaply made movie because its experimental so that if the movie doesn't work...losses would be kept at minimal.

Ohh i forgot about him - Richard Linklater is another one.....his movies are also so natural and non events and cheap.

There is a solution to your distaste for these movies and it will keep some money in your pocket.....just don't go. I adopted that strategy for anything with the words Star and Wars anywhere in close proximity in the title and it's been working quite well.

The idea that a movie's worth is inherently tied to its budget (or lack thereof) is a fallacy. There are good cheap movies and bad expensive movies, so the idea that the latter automatically deserve theatrical release while the former does not would indicate a lack of concern for the actual quality of movies (or even just commercial success since cheaper movies are more likely to make their money back and turn a profit). This rule you suggest is not only extremely arbitrary (especially with an $80m cut-off, which seems like that would encourage a $70m movie to waste an extra $10m just to secure a theatrical release), but the idea that it would encourage directors and studios to make more epics would not be the solution you seem to think it is. I liked Inception and all, but I recognise that it (and Nolan's work in general) is an anomaly amidst the blockbuster landscape and that very few filmmakers could turn out work of that caliber if they were suddenly forced to work on that scale (and that's without accounting for how they may be compromised by studio interference anyway). Putting more money into bigger movies means that fewer movies get made and there's more pressure on those movies to succeed - we're already inundated with countless blockbusters whose success is meant to keep studios alive regardless of how good they actually are and your suggestion is that studios make more of them on the off chance that we end up getting the next Nolan out of it? To put it simply, bigger is not always better.

I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.

Like, seriously, why do you think they're there? You think theater owners aren't trying to make money? They have lots of screens. They exhibit the things they think will maximize the amount of money they make, and since they can't put the latest inane Transformers film on every single theater (and don't need to, since even blockbusters aren't selling out all those screens), they put other films that appeal to other kinds of moviegoers, albeit not as many. It's not complicated, or confusing, unless you completely lack an understanding of cinema economics and basic empathy.

I think that when most of us say this, we're actually talking about CGI that is noticeably CGI (ie bad or incomplete CGI). And for me, specifically, that usually means people or animals/creatures.

I found out that the baby in Children of Men was CGI!

Of course i do that..i just dont want these types of movies to be popping up in theaters at all...theaters are for spectacles or movies that have certain bite to them.