Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?

Tools    





I've noticed there's always higher opinions of Spielberg, Nolan, Cameron, MCU and other blockbuster (except a few exceptions) with general audience and enthusiast compared to cinephiles.

What do you think? I've sen plenty of hate towards TDKR, Endgame etc back in the day



I think you can be a cinephile and not be a snob. Although I’ll also admit people who aren’t snobs are probably less likely to refer to themselves as “cinephiles”. I am one in the sense that I was brought up on high quality classics films, Cecil B. DeMille, silent films and blah, blah, blah, but I love blockbusters and horror even more. Though I’m sure some nerdier people will think, How dare she even consider she might be worthy of a cinephile’s title?

In short, OF COURSE some of them do.

But then I do hate Marvel just because… I don’t know, all these green and furry and winged and hammer-wielding people in one space are just a bit too much.



rbrayer's Avatar
Registered User
Depends on the blockbuster. Movies should absolutely be fun. There's a reason Ebert included Star Wars, Raiders, and Back to the Future in his Great Movies list. Movies do a lot of things and blockbusters, like any film, can be great. I would think a real cinephile would take each film on its individual merits.



Why would someone "hate" this type of films:








I think it's probably some "hipster" edgelord mentality, i can get not liking something but hate, lol, are you serious?



"How tall is King Kong ?"
Yes, cinephiles appreciate blockbusters like other films. Except that blockbusters can be great or awful movies. They can be analyzed the same way, to show artistic prowess or shortcomings. Spielberg or McTiernan movies are praised for the same reasons why Michael Bay movies are penned.

I often mention the CineFix youtube channel, which I appreciate for their in-depth analyses and the way they treat all genres of movies on the same level. There's also the nice CinemaWin channel which points out qualities in the cheesiest blockbusters.

I'm a terrifyingly snobbish person, which means that a movie can often tire me just by its promotion and omnipresence in medias and public discourses, in which case it can take ages until I come around to watch it and give it its chance (once the noise dies off). But even this means that I enjoy blockbusters after a certain amount of "buffer time". And the snobbishest cinephiles you'll meet will always praise old movies that were blockbusters in their time.

Good films are good films. A lot of different independent factors determine a film's success (star value, marketing, cultural symbiosis, target audience, accessibility, genre, quality, etc). Cinephiles just focus on some of these. Success isn't always deserved, nor always undeserved.



Why would someone "hate" this type of films:







Ugh, just those movie posters scream, extra greasy curly fries....Though Inception doesn't belong in that group, it's a bit better.



Yes, cinephiles appreciate blockbusters like other films. Except that blockbusters can be great or awful movies. They can be analyzed the same way, to show artistic prowess or shortcomings. Spielberg or McTiernan movies are praised for the same reasons why Michael Bay movies are penned.

I often mention the CineFix youtube channel, which I appreciate for their in-depth analyses and the way they treat all genres of movies on the same level. There's also the nice CinemaWin channel which points out qualities in the cheesiest blockbusters.

I'm a terrifyingly snobbish person, which means that a movie can often tire me just by its promotion and omnipresence in medias and public discourses, in which case it can take ages until I come around to watch it and give it its chance (once the noise dies off). But even this means that I enjoy blockbusters after a certain amount of "buffer time". And the snobbishest cinephiles you'll meet will always praise old movies that were blockbusters in their time.

Good films are good films. A lot of different independent factors determine a film's success (star value, marketing, cultural symbiosis, target audience, accessibility, genre, quality, etc). Cinephiles just focus on some of these. Success isn't always deserved, nor always undeserved.
I've seen a lot more "praise" and balanced opinions towards Raimi's Spider-Man compared to MCU's films and "Prestige, Memento" compared to Inception and The Dark Knight Rises though.

So i think, people save the ones that are more tighter and safe rather than epic and loved by the general audience? That's what it seems to me.

It is no "cool" to like Avengers or Inception anymore? ^^

Ugh, just those movie posters scream, extra greasy curly fries....Though Inception doesn't belong in that group, it's a bit better.
Of course Inception is a lot better, but the other two are imho two great films.



rbrayer's Avatar
Registered User
Ugh, just those movie posters scream, extra greasy curly fries....Though Inception doesn't belong in that group, it's a bit better.
A bit. It's not great though. It's just a live action Paprika without the heart. .



rbrayer's Avatar
Registered User
Why would someone "hate" this type of films:








I think it's probably some "hipster" edgelord mentality, i can get not liking something but hate, lol, are you serious?
All the MI movies are incredible. I've never seen one that didn't blow me away. I also love the John Wick films. As I said above, I think Inception is good but not great - it pales to Paprika.

I haven't seen a single Marvel movie besides Avengers. I just haven't been interested, but that will change soon. I'm not closed to the idea, but it just seems like a huge time investment when there are so many other great things to watch.



All the MI movies are incredible. I've never seen one that didn't blow me away. I also love the John Wick films. As I said above, I think Inception is good but not great - it pales to Paprika.

I haven't seen a single Marvel movie besides Avengers. I just haven't been interested, but that will change soon. I'm not closed to the idea, but it just seems like a huge time investment when there are so many other great things to watch.
Inception and Paprika are different films -- one is an heist film, that revolves on two people "changing" their life, and the other is a mystery one.

Not like it matters, since Inception just blows it away out the water.

It's like comparing Mario to Alex Kidd.

Being said, what's your "issue" with MCU films?



I've noticed there's always higher opinions of Spielberg, Nolan, Cameron, MCU and other blockbuster (except a few exceptions) with general audience and enthusiast compared to cinephiles.

What do you think? I've sen plenty of hate towards TDKR, Endgame etc back in the day
I consider myself a cinephile and I love the MCU as much as I love Last Year At Marienbad.
TDKR sucks, though.



I would imagine most 'hate' that is directed towards these films, is really more annoyance directed towards the fanboy mentality that props them up, and seemingly can't deal with legitimate criticism against them.

There is not some shadowy cabal determined to spew hatred towards them. There is no mental gymnastics necessary in dismissing them. Some people just don't like them. It's that simple.

Maybe the fact that they are so uninteresting to be thought of as 'hate proof' by some, could be one reason not to like them. Maybe they play it too safe. Maybe to some, they are just boring as ****.

And, no, 'cinephiles' do not avoid blockbuster movies. They just generally don't talk about the ones that leave no lasting impression.



Yes, cinephiles appreciate blockbusters like other films. Except that blockbusters can be great or awful movies. They can be analyzed the same way, to show artistic prowess or shortcomings. Spielberg or McTiernan movies are praised for the same reasons why Michael Bay movies are penned.

I often mention the CineFix youtube channel, which I appreciate for their in-depth analyses and the way they treat all genres of movies on the same level. There's also the nice CinemaWin channel which points out qualities in the cheesiest blockbusters.

I'm a terrifyingly snobbish person, which means that a movie can often tire me just by its promotion and omnipresence in medias and public discourses, in which case it can take ages until I come around to watch it and give it its chance (once the noise dies off). But even this means that I enjoy blockbusters after a certain amount of "buffer time". And the snobbishest cinephiles you'll meet will always praise old movies that were blockbusters in their time.

Good films are good films. A lot of different independent factors determine a film's success (star value, marketing, cultural symbiosis, target audience, accessibility, genre, quality, etc). Cinephiles just focus on some of these. Success isn't always deserved, nor always undeserved.
Haha, ooh Lordy, now I fear what I’ve been getting into in the other thread… 😂

I agree with you on this one.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
I love movies but not sure I'd use the term cinephile. Anyhoozle, I'm game for a good blockbuster but I must admit that I haven't been able to trust Will Smith since Independence Day. Harsh life lesson, that one, to learn to pace my expectations and to approach each movie on its own merit and efforts. Might as well throw Jurassic Park and its spawn into that group. I try to reflect on what I want vs expect vs what's actually being presented and whether what is GIVEN aligns with what was marketed. Or something like that. With the example of ID4, I (think) I was marketed a dark sci-fi alien invasion and got.... a lot of camp, IMO. Similar vibe with Jurassic Park, for me. No aliens of course

Side note tangent thingy: I think the MCU run and maybe the Batman reboot with Bale are mixed bags and probably deserve more criticism than my rant on ID4. The only real problem with ID4 was what I expected based on its marketing at the time. Had I known it was going to be what it was, I would have likely enjoyed it more (though I still probably wouldn't watch it again) in that it at least was consistent with itself throughout. Completely implausible action and death-defying escapes? Eh, that's goofy as hell but whatever. That's this fiction so I can deal with it. I just didn't expect that. I mean, didn't I see the White House friggin explode!? Death was EVERYWHERE!!!! But it wasn't. MCU/BM stuff, in contrast, presented ridiculousness in a somewhat serious tone. I could buy it and it felt anchored and approachable and reasonable---at least for what it presented itself to be. I think both did a pretty good job of that, but in doing so I think the contrast of that consistency against spikes of at times awkward character motivation, plot devices, or whatever made those moments stand out more from the movie's average. I felt that with Nolan's Dunkirk and (OMG I don't even want to type this word) Annihilation. dfgafga gfjanfhg a....

Rough edges become more apparent, IMO, when the product is generally so well made. If I buy a coffee table from Walmart and it's kind rough in structure and finish, eh, fine. It's Walmart and I went in with realistic expectations. I mean, table leg mounts don't align with the metal bracketing, bolts are too short, and there's a massive gouge on the side where a loading lift rubbed against the packaging in a warehouse. Whatever. Its average is pretty low quality to begin with so none of these issues stand out as major problems, to me. If I buy a similar table from a local custom, hand-made furniture store where attention to such details are important and marketed, then finding a subtle rough edge (even if that edge is far better of a defect than the multitude of defects found in the previous table, and then only just the ONE defect at that) would stir much more frustration in me and would hold my attention much longer in comparison simply for my level of expectation and the original presentation of quality.

Now don't go off shouting I'm saying Nolan's Batman is like custom, hand-built sculpted work of furniture art. It's not. I'm only using that as example to reinforce what I am actually trying to say: Batman is a well-packaged movie. As such, and because I perceive a level of professionalism in its acting, directing, staging, etc., I then begin to expect a consistent level of standard throughout. When it misses that bar, I notice it more and call it out for presenting itself as more. Sort of. I have a more difficult time finding those inconsistencies with other movies that people might consider to be more cinephiley. It's just a different level. Those movies seem to already start at that "other" movies' bar (shh, I don't want them to hear me talking smack about them) and only go up from there. For me, it's harder to find fault at that level as the measures I then use are more philosophical in nature. Not that there is a gouge in the wood, but why this particular wood was selected. Is it a statement on our environment? Is it symbolic of a capitalist society?? Are the legs representations of our mental stability (or lack thereof)? Those would be better suited for conversation than criticism, relative to my objective criticism of say my earlier custom built table. Or worse, the Walmart surfboard.

Hey. None of this is really an active thought process. It's more gut level I guess. I don't want you thinking I'm a nut, sitting in the back row of a theater drawing graphs searching for some S-curve level of balance. Well. I am KINDA doing that, but not quite that bad. Too, it's hard to see the graphing paper and most people frown on flashlights during a movie. hm... I just think all this sort of shows how I approach different movie types. Or at least how I try to. And maybe why you think there's more criticism to one set than another. If a movie is bad, I'll say it's bad. If a movie is good, well, it should have been to begin with I think, so no real need to draw attention to it in criticism? That could be part of it too, iderno.

OK, so I did warn you that that was a tangent. Like that one kid on the news, about turtles? Well, "I like movies." Classics, arthouse, blockbuster, B, straight to DVD, whatever. It's all good. I'd LIKE to think I measure each within its own limitations vs how it is marketed. Loosely speaking. See above, else I have to start in again and repeat it all.
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you."
- Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy."
- Captain Steel



I consider myself a cinephile...and I love horror films. Frankly for me it's the redundant "Oscar" bait films I can't stand. Nothing is worse that to be bored by predictability.


As for Blockbuster films I won't see a bad blockbuster film but an average one..sure who cares I got a stubs membership.



I'm not a cinephile...

I consider myself a classic film fan which includes foreign language and silent films.

I don't watch blockbusters or MCU/Marvel stuff...It all looks stupid to me. I 'hate' it because it's being produced while more substantial & serious cinema goes unmade.

Luckily there's so many older classics, that I don't need to watch assembly line movies.