You didn't quite make it to my second paragraph, did you?
Are negative reviews mostly by generally unhappy people these days?
...Reflecting back on movies I've seen from periods like the WW II era, those movies liked to have happy endings, something inspirational, maybe a song or simple escapism, followed by a patriotic logo. We haven't gotten back to that in recent movies, but it did serve a purpose in scary times.
WWII films made during the war often didn't have happy endings for every character. Often a main character is killed in the war. I've been watching war films nightly and I'm surprised at how brutally honest WWII films were back in the day. That's because the audience knew people were dying everyday in the war and most of them knew someone who had been killed.
I think it's a myth that WWII films were often "happy endings, something inspirational, maybe a song or simple escapism, followed by a patriotic logo." The most patriotic/heroic films (that I've seen) were made by the Soviet Union and Britain. Most Hollywood films at the time were amazingly balanced.
I like to see more period war films from Imperial Japan, Occupied China, Nazi controlled Germany & Fascist controlled Italy, but those are far and few between.
*Some of the best WWII films I've seen are British and Soviet made.
Last edited by Citizen Rules; 07-18-23 at 05:10 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Some people find relief in escapist films. Others find relief in seeing more starkly realistic films as it makes them feel less alone in their (accurate) assesment of the shitty state of the world.
But, also, using art exclusively for relief would be ****ing awful. Living with our heads planet further in the sand is only yet another way nothing ever can possibly get better (even though you can probably argue it never will anyways)
But, also, using art exclusively for relief would be ****ing awful. Living with our heads planet further in the sand is only yet another way nothing ever can possibly get better (even though you can probably argue it never will anyways)
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Since several years i often got the idea, people are probably not as happy with their lives as they used to be and this reflects in the way how they criticize "things" (movies, series, videogames, etc.)
showing yourself as anything else. People create whole personas and rate films according to them, or just copy some other user and follow their opinions verbatim. That's basically how circlejerks begin.
then there are all those gritty people who just love to jump on the rant-train and so the "shittiest movie of the year" is there again, when it in fact ain´t that shitty as they are trying to make it look like.
The best example is probably MARVEL and how all of the sudden more and more people are criticizing them MARVEL MOVIES.
So the question remains: Are those "bad" movies really THAT bad, or are people just reflecting their unhappy lives as soon they start to rate something and then "good" things turns way too easily "mediocre" and something "mediocre" ends up being "terribly shitty!".
As for Marvel movies, they seem like the contemporary equivalent of old westerns. You can only see so many of those, so many leotards and dramatic poses before the eye-rolling sets in.
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.
X
User Lists
Some people find relief in escapist films. Others find relief in seeing more starkly realistic films as it makes them feel less alone in their (accurate) assesment of the shitty state of the world.
But, also, using art exclusively for relief would be ****ing awful. Living with our heads planet further in the sand is only yet another way nothing ever can possibly get better (even though you can probably argue it never will anyways)
But, also, using art exclusively for relief would be ****ing awful. Living with our heads planet further in the sand is only yet another way nothing ever can possibly get better (even though you can probably argue it never will anyways)
Yeah, it was so good, it lost $$$$..
Blade Runner - basically my favorite film of all time, and considered by many to be one of the best and most influential science fiction films ever made. Did terrible at the box office and with critics at the time, as well.
Blade Runner 2049 - A sequel to the previously mentioned film, which was much better than it had any business being. Sure, Villaneuve can't seem to do wrong, so I figured it wouldn't be bad, but I have seen it several times, and find it to be an excellent film. Did poorly at the box office.
John Carpenter's The Thing - Excellent flick, one of my favorite horror films, and regularly appears near the top of "Best of" lists in the genre. Did poorly at the box office.
Children of Men - I saw this multiple times in theaters, but that wasn't enough to keep it from being considered a bomb. Now a very well-respected sci-fi gem with some groundbreaking cinematography by El Chivo himself, Emanuel Lubezki.
Fight Club - Now a cult classic, but did poorly at the box office.
The Iron Giant - Now considered on of the best animated films ever. Was a huge flop at the box office...
The list goes on! The point being - the quality of a film just isn't determined by its box office numbers, not even a little bit. How about we stop trying to make a clearly incorrect and silly point that it is?
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
It's a tale as old as time. Company makes a lot of money on something cheap, then they reproduce the results with more money which nets even more money. They rinse and repeat until they start loosing money. And then they blame their audience for not "getting it"
We now call this the Marvel Equation
We now call this the Marvel Equation
__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
It's a tale as old as time. Company makes a lot of money on something cheap, then they reproduce the results with more money which nets even more money. They rinse and repeat until they start loosing money. And then they blame their audience for not "getting it"
We now call this the Marvel Equation
We now call this the Marvel Equation
Marvel didn't start off cheap, though. It was an investment and they did a good job with that investment. Every other studio that has attempted a massive "universe" has failed. Everything tied together with Infinity War and End Game.
Would also mention films that help correct a skewed or imbalanced view on a subject, or perhaps offer a modicum of catharsis when dealing with grief etc. Those are the ones that tend to stick with me in the long run.
You aren't the first person to stop by that has a bizarre preoccupation with equating the quality of a film with its box office numbers, and you probably won't be the last. It's odd, because consider the following list of films, all of which didn't do well at the box office, while still being of obvious good quality, many of which have stood the test of time, and some only gaining in popularity over time:
Blade Runner - basically my favorite film of all time, and considered by many to be one of the best and most influential science fiction films ever made. Did terrible at the box office and with critics at the time, as well.
Blade Runner 2049 - A sequel to the previously mentioned film, which was much better than it had any business being. Sure, Villaneuve can't seem to do wrong, so I figured it wouldn't be bad, but I have seen it several times, and find it to be an excellent film. Did poorly at the box office.
John Carpenter's The Thing - Excellent flick, one of my favorite horror films, and regularly appears near the top of "Best of" lists in the genre. Did poorly at the box office.
Children of Men - I saw this multiple times in theaters, but that wasn't enough to keep it from being considered a bomb. Now a very well-respected sci-fi gem with some groundbreaking cinematography by El Chivo himself, Emanuel Lubezki.
Fight Club - Now a cult classic, but did poorly at the box office.
The Iron Giant - Now considered on of the best animated films ever. Was a huge flop at the box office...
The list goes on! The point being - the quality of a film just isn't determined by its box office numbers, not even a little bit. How about we stop trying to make a clearly incorrect and silly point that it is?
You aren't the first person to stop by that has a bizarre preoccupation with equating the quality of a film with its box office numbers, and you probably won't be the last. It's odd, because consider the following list of films, all of which didn't do well at the box office, while still being of obvious good quality, many of which have stood the test of time, and some only gaining in popularity over time:
Blade Runner - basically my favorite film of all time, and considered by many to be one of the best and most influential science fiction films ever made. Did terrible at the box office and with critics at the time, as well.
Blade Runner 2049 - A sequel to the previously mentioned film, which was much better than it had any business being. Sure, Villaneuve can't seem to do wrong, so I figured it wouldn't be bad, but I have seen it several times, and find it to be an excellent film. Did poorly at the box office.
John Carpenter's The Thing - Excellent flick, one of my favorite horror films, and regularly appears near the top of "Best of" lists in the genre. Did poorly at the box office.
Children of Men - I saw this multiple times in theaters, but that wasn't enough to keep it from being considered a bomb. Now a very well-respected sci-fi gem with some groundbreaking cinematography by El Chivo himself, Emanuel Lubezki.
Fight Club - Now a cult classic, but did poorly at the box office.
The Iron Giant - Now considered on of the best animated films ever. Was a huge flop at the box office...
The list goes on! The point being - the quality of a film just isn't determined by its box office numbers, not even a little bit. How about we stop trying to make a clearly incorrect and silly point that it is?
What is super depressing about this fallacy of equating box office success or failure with the quality of the film, isn't simply that it's wrong.
It's because it is so unbelievably easily refutable, like you just did (and we could go on and on), and yet people keep saying it.
Which means that people are literally putting zero effort into their arguments. Like, literally not a single ounce of though. It's as grossly dumb as it gets.
And yet, somehow, these sorts are always the loudest and most inflexible with their opinion.
It's almost like they are incapable of learning new information. Even when it is low hanging fruit information like this.
It's embarrassing. Modern discourse should be ashamed of itself
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
What is super depressing about this fallacy of equating box office success or failure with the quality of the film, isn't simply that it's wrong.
It's because it is so unbelievably easily refutable, like you just did (and we could go on and on), and yet people keep saying it.
It's because it is so unbelievably easily refutable, like you just did (and we could go on and on), and yet people keep saying it.
It's not simply "wrong," but rather a weak sign. It is evidence. It just isn't definitive, being neither necessary nor sufficient to establish a strong claim of quality. However, it's not a "zero" either.
If we are looking to pool available evidence about film we haven't seen,
we might see that a film is doing killer box office over a few weekends. That IS a promising sign. We can see that people are paying money to see it, which implies that they like it, which implies that there is a preponderance of public opinion in favor of it. If people are paying money over a series of weekends, then this shows that the film has "legs" and that the success is probably not just a matter of marketing hype.
It is good to see that a film one has hopes for is performing well at the box office. It is bad to see that a film film has hopes for is performing poorly at the box office. Let's not pretend that this isn't so and that box office returns are meaningless and out of court entirely.
Your subjective experience of a film may not reflect the generally positive intersubjective response indicated by strong box office returns. After all, the Spice Girls sold more albums than the Beatles. On the other hand, if a lot of people like the experience of "X" and you are a "person," then there is also a statistical likelihood that you will like it too.
If everyone I meet in a new town tells me never to eat at Mother's, but that Comfy Cafe is great and I have no further information either way, I will have some justification in hitting the Comfy Cafe first and learning a bit more about Mother's before I chance it.
This sort of evidence is suggestive and defeasible. As you note when other information is available and enters the picture, it doesn't really work to keep crowing about box office returns. What if there wasn't any competition? What if the film had an intense marketing campaign? What of returns drastically dropped off after word of mouth got out? What if the returns simply reflected some background cultural condition, a cause apart from "quality" that was driving people to the theaters (e.g., protest, ironic viewing, the obligation of the faithful)?
As I have said before, films are not "pure" works of art. They are financial investments. A film that fails to make money has failed the intentions of investors. If you want to paint pretty pictures in your garage without a care in the world for delighting an audience or making a buck, that's fine. Movies, however, involve multiple artists, unions, distributors, marketers, etc. Films are made for audiences. If some pays for your product, that's an endorsement.
Box Office matters.
Gary Larson was once compelled to apologize for one of his comic strips - captioned "Hell's Video Store", the entire store is stocked with nothing but copies of Ishtar. He hadn't seen the film, and when he did he actually enjoyed it. It's not one of the greatest films ever made, but it's by no means a bad film. Certainly doesn't deserve to have the reputations it has.
I once went through a Top 100 at the Box Office for a year I chose at random - 1980 - and found that many of the best films were near the bottom, and near the top were the likes of The Blue Lagoon, Smokey and the Bandit II and Stir Crazy. Box Office returns give you absolutely no clue as to a film's worth - when you read through a top 100, you'll find it's a mix of good and bad throughout.
Yeah, I really think that honest and popular don't go hand in hand
I once went through a Top 100 at the Box Office for a year I chose at random - 1980 - and found that many of the best films were near the bottom, and near the top were the likes of The Blue Lagoon, Smokey and the Bandit II and Stir Crazy. Box Office returns give you absolutely no clue as to a film's worth - when you read through a top 100, you'll find it's a mix of good and bad throughout.
Tellin' the truth is dangerous business
__________________
Remember - everything has an ending except hope, and sausages - they have two.
We miss you Takoma
We miss you Takoma
Latest Review : Le Circle Rouge (1970)
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Box Office returns give you absolutely no clue as to a film's worth
Determining the "worth" of a film is like constructing a raft at sea from floating bits of debris that, more or less, "float" when it comes assessing quality. We use signs, local agreements, background assumptions, traditional standards, anything we can use to cobble together a presumptive case for or against the quality of a film.
One of these "clues" is Box Office performance. The film makes a large sum of money (intensity), especially over a series of weekends (duration), this is a sign of quality. Sure, there are weaker films with box office numbers stronger than some of your favorites. So what? It's not an absolute sign. It's not a guarantee. On the other hand, it's not a bad thing either! Tell a director that his/her movie is doing well at the box office and s/he won't despair that this is no proof that the film has achieved anything of worth. Rather, they will be happy. They want people to go to the theater. They want them to spend money. They want them to be happy enough with the film to spend many millions of dollars watching it. That is, strong box office performance is a promising sign. Stop pretending that it isn't.
- when you read through a top 100, you'll find it's a mix of good and bad throughout.
You speak as if a film's "worth" is an objective feature that we might find with a scientific instrument or Google search. Regrettably, we cannot.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
we might see that a film is doing killer box office over a few weekends. That IS a promising sign. We can see that people are paying money to see it, which implies that they like it, which implies that there is a preponderance of public opinion in favor of it. If people are paying money over a series of weekends, then this shows that the film has "legs" and that the success is probably not just a matter of marketing hype.
It is good to see that a film one has hopes for is performing well at the box office. It is bad to see that a film film has hopes for is performing poorly at the box office. Let's not pretend that this isn't so and that box office returns are meaningless and out of court entirely.
If everyone I meet in a new town tells me never to eat at Mother's, but that Comfy Cafe is great and I have no further information either way, I will have some justification in hitting the Comfy Cafe first and learning a bit more about Mother's before I chance it.
What if there wasn't any competition? What if the film had an intense marketing campaign? What of returns drastically dropped off after word of mouth got out? What if the returns simply reflected some background cultural condition, a cause apart from "quality" that was driving people to the theaters (e.g., protest, ironic viewing, the obligation of the faithful)?
As I have said before, films are not "pure" works of art. They are financial investments. A film that fails to make money has failed the intentions of investors.
If you want to paint pretty pictures in your garage without a care in the world for delighting an audience or making a buck, that's fine. Movies, however, involve multiple artists, unions, distributors, marketers, etc. Films are made for audiences. If some pays for your product, that's an endorsement.
Anyway, fame corrupts souls, too. So does money. Think of all those artists who went to America to start making worse movies. Stars who got famous and started losing it. Paradoxically, the luckiest are artists who are poor and who can hardly make their art, who have to slave for every penny to make their film. Because their resolve to actually make it the way THEY want it is the greatest. The moment an artist starts thinking "What do I do to make the audience like it?" is when they've betrayed themselves.
X
User Lists
Yeah, that's not gonna work for me. A film's worth isn't some unfathomable mystery that can never be found, and if it could be through some kind of app then that would be regrettable, not the opposite.
And again, I have only argued that box office is one source of evidence and that it is defeasible. I have offered no reduction of some automatic "A is an infallible sign of B."
If people are paying money over a series of weekends, it means normies are swarming to see something they've been mouth-fed through ad campaigns or other normies' opinions.
At the end of the day, the paying audience is THE audience. And if they're not pleased, the industry suffers.
I submit that the longer a film performs well at the box office, the more evidence this is the mists of marketing lifting to reveal how audiences actually appraise the film. You, on the other hand appear to chalk it all up to hype.
Sure, the public opinion might be this or that, and that might even encourage other normies to go and see the movie. But any person who truly sees cinema as art doesn't give a hoot about what your average Joe thinks. Your average Joe doesn't think cinema is an art and so the chances they'd champion a disposable piece of trash only because it worked quite well as a companion to his popcorn digestion is quite high.
Again, this art is made for them. The industry is trying to sell them tickets. If the art does not work them, that's a problem.
As a broad measure of that thing called "entertainment," the average Joe can be called upon to report if the juice was worth the squeeze. Maximus can ask the crowd, "Are you not entertained?!?" and if they are, the movie Gladiator will turn a profit. It's a question that cuts through the bullsh*t. You're either willing to spend fifty bucks to see it or you're not. They're quite literally putting their money where their mouth is. Internet commentators, on the other hand, have "hot takes," memes, and the vocabulary they remember from their film appreciation class or favorite YouTube essayist.
For producers - absolutely. For filmmakers - unfortunately, too, because they know that if this isn't the case, they'd have smaller chances of getting another film made. But true auteurs HATE money at their heart. They HATE they have to whore for that money and give up their artistic liberties only to appease some idiot who happens to have money and a rabble of instant gratification-seeking Joes.
Again, if you want to do private art that you never share and hold out a cup to gain your income, that's fine. However, if you propose to earn your living as an artist by making art, then you'd better find some Johns willing to pay for your services.
This isn't whoredom, it's the whole point. Art is supposed to resonate with us, connect us, inform us, enrich us. It is communal. It circulates. It is made for the culture in which it circulates. 99% of that culture is made of the very people you hold in contempt. The point of the art is to serve culture, to be part of the dance of inter-influence, the unending stream of symbol use. It is not the private province of some self-appointed genius who holds the outside in perpetual contempt.
Enter into that stream, release that artwork to the public, and it will be judged. Sometimes this hurts. Sometimes an artwork is rejected or (most painful of all) never even noticed. Sometimes an artwork fumbles as it seeks out its audience. The process is imperfect. Some good stuff is overlooked. Some bad stuff which get lucky in catching a current. Nevertheless, the name of the game is circulation. Box office is a measure of circulation. High circulation is a sign that, "Hey, maybe there's something to this?".
I have an issue with comparing film (a form of art) with food/drink (a form of consumerism, and utility). But continuing with your example, what if you were a coffee gourmet and the majority of people told you Comfy Cafe is better but a bunch of other coffee gourmets told you that Mother's is better?
I think the main driving cause is people wanting to get entertained, and this is fair. The thing is the quality level is so low now, and the entertaining movies look and feel so bad, that people who know a thing or two about cinema would rather stay at home and rewatch a classic.
You're again seeing films as utility first, art second. A lot of classical music or painting was made for money, too. But that doesn't stop them from being "pure" art, eh?
At best, art runs the gamut of low art (street hookers and strippers), middle-brow art (escort services and exotic dancers), and high brow stuff (courtesans and ballerinas), but all of it is servicing an audience. You can can be a high class hooker, but if you're an artist, you're always a hooker and you should be.
Your job as an artist is to serve others, not yourself. A good artist is a good servant. He serves the needs and desires of the people of his time. He elevates their sight. He connects them to the issues of the day. He offers them a way to imagine a way out of the nightmare of history. The romantic theory of art is a derangement of egotism and narcissism. If you just want to write love letters to yourself, there is no need to ever make such letters public.
Painters need to eat and pay bills, too. I think that any artist is tortured by how important money is.
Box office matters inasmuch as money matters. But money always corrupts art.
Oxygen is a killer. We've been sold on anti-oxidants to extend out lives. But try living your life without oxygen and see how long you last. Is oxygen a "corrupter" or simply an element of life? Money, as a metric of circulation, is part of what art is supposed to to (i.e., connect with a public).
Paradoxically, the luckiest are artists who are poor and who can hardly make their art, who have to slave for every penny to make their film.
All this does is establish your contempt for the common person
True artists are either mirrors (they reflect reality) or innovators (they want to change the world). The rest are paratroopers who jump down the ground and the camera is already rolling. These paratroopers are the servants you're talking about.
X
User Lists
Lets see how many more times Corax equates artists with servants. And prostitutes. Let's call it a fetish.
Now to be clear, Corax is the only John here. He wants things that make him feel inferior down on their knees. This isn't about defending the tastes of any other common man but one. One who believes art must service the values of the establishment or be diminished as the threat he clearly views it as. Anything else is an affront. To him.
He believes modern art to be an attack on beauty. He says it all the time. But has he ever defined what beauty is? Has he ever even seen it? Or is its face already payed for and buried in his crotch?
He likes to consider someone like me a zealot, but the only one who has any agenda here, who wants them to uphold his specific demands (which, to be clear, are political...just give him time), is this pathological case study.
Now to be clear, Corax is the only John here. He wants things that make him feel inferior down on their knees. This isn't about defending the tastes of any other common man but one. One who believes art must service the values of the establishment or be diminished as the threat he clearly views it as. Anything else is an affront. To him.
He believes modern art to be an attack on beauty. He says it all the time. But has he ever defined what beauty is? Has he ever even seen it? Or is its face already payed for and buried in his crotch?
He likes to consider someone like me a zealot, but the only one who has any agenda here, who wants them to uphold his specific demands (which, to be clear, are political...just give him time), is this pathological case study.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
So the question remains: Are those "bad" movies really THAT bad
I think they're that bad and always have been
People in capes flying with super powers!! don't waste my time I'm not a 10 year old
__________________
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're rational, should change your beliefs" Ricky Gervais
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're rational, should change your beliefs" Ricky Gervais