Tarnower

I am 42. When I was in high school and college, myself and my peers would go out to see movies such as "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," "Dog Day Afternoon," "Network," "Annie Hall," "Chinatown," etc. I mean, you'd look around inside a movie theater and half the audience was pretty young for these type of movies. But today, you have films that mirror that same grown-up aesthetic ("Mystic River," "Master and Commander," "The Last Samurai," "Cold Mountain," just to name a few current ones), and when I look around at the audiences attending these films, virtually no one is under 35. If those previously-mentioned films at the beginning of this post were released today, would they be financial bombs? What has happened along the way to turn young people away from grown-up, more serious-minded movie fare? And if this continues, when this current generation is middle-aged, will Hollywood even bother releasing anything that's not an obvious sell to teenagers? Will films like "Mystic River" or "Lost in Translation" be relegated to HBO or cable? I know a lot of people automatically blame MTV for things that seem to go wrong with youth, but maybe MTV is to blame for this. I have been around long enough to witness things before and after MTV and, let me tell ya, the music channel has had a big effect on youth culture and its likes and dislikes. I know that its effect on attention spans has been very negative.

Michael Corvin

2 things:

Ticket prices are one guess. I'm 28 and I will go see anything that looks pretty interesting. But pushing $10 a ticket, I would rather take my chance with an 'event' movie than taking my chance on a dramatic film. An 'event' film can be mediocre and still give you a laugh or some enjoyment at some point. Where as a dramatic films are usually good or bad. No middle ground. IMO.

Marketing is a problem as well. For all the movies you mentioned the trailers didn't make the movies look remotely interesting. Cold Mountain? A civil war flick marketed to women. Mystic River? What is that about? the only thing marketed in the trailer is who is in it and who directed it. Last Samurai? Looked decent enough, but Tom Cruise in that role? They are asking a lot of the audience.

Granted I have not seen any of these mentioned, they could be great. But anyway...

joeydaninja

darn kids. *shakes fist*!

Groucho

Do any of those films feature "BulletTime"?

yecul

I think the fallacy in your argument is that you're basing it on a poor foundation that Master & Commander and Mystic River are comparable to Annie Hall and Chinatown. People watch good movies. I bet there were a lot of mediocre films back then that did poorly whereas the cream of the crop were more successful.

It's not about age or generational differences, it's about good and bad.

jayson1017

I don't think it has anything to do with good and bad. I think the youth nowadays are more interested in movies with big explosions, steamy-sex scenes and the all-kool ultra-violence. The moviemakers are aware of this and they try to adjust their movies to these tastes.

If it is about good and bad, then its good and bad according to the taste of the teenagers, which is intellectual thought-provoking is bad, disposable consumption is good.

devilshalo

A D D

talemyn

I'm also wondering about the times that you go see films. Do you "avoid the crowds"? If so, that is probably why you are not seeing the "youngsters". They are likely to go to movies on weekend evenings, occasional weekend days (although far less often), and from time-to-time, during school hours (yep . . . skip classes to go see a movie). Also, many of them are likely to see movies around the opening two weekends becuase they "can't wait to see" XYZ movie. If you wait until later in the run of a movie, you are likely going to see the older, more patient, crowd.

Also, to calm your "fears" , kids are still going to see movies. I work with a youth group (ages 12-18) and it is a regular activity in all of their social schedules.

Pants

I agree with yecul. Your basing you arguement upon a rediculous concept. Mystic River and The Last Samurai do not equal Network and Chinatown. Those college students in 1974 were smarter than the so called "adults" who think this stuff today is genious.

I don't confine my criticism to teens, I'm more critical of the taste of modern audiences as a whole.

Starting a thread complaining that young people don't "appreciate" The Last Samurai

I mean really

scroll2b

I'd have to agree about the marketing, which is a real shame. That's why Robert Altman wants zero 14yr old kids coming to his movies, because he's fed up with having to play to them....

Inverse

The fallacy is in thinking that the early 70s was somehow normal, and that today is the aberration.

But the reverse is true: the early 70s were the aberration. Lightweight popcorn pictures have almost always ruled the box office, as George Lucas is fond of pointing out.

The reason more adult pictures were more prevelant in the early 70s had purely to do with the desperation of the studios, who were rapidly losing their audiences to television. The unexpected success of movies like Easy Rider and MASH led the studios to give unprecedented power to a younger generation of filmmakers, who used that freedom to tackle more adult subject matter than had been previously possible. Taboo subject matter like sex, drugs, and violence could now be addressed, and more sophisticated and complex themes could be addressed.

For a brief period, complex adult-themed movies ruled at the box office (though the box office was pretty anemic overall.) But it could not last. For one thing, as Roger Corman noted, there were many in the audience who didn't give a rat's ass about sophisticated and complex themes: what they really wanted was the previously banned sex and violence. That audience turned away from artier flicks and instead headed to the exploitation pictures that gave them exactly what they craved.

For another thing, people like Lucas, Spielberg, and Friedkin had finally figured out a way to give movie audiences something they just couldn't get on TV: the big budget, special-effects driven popcorn picutre. Movies like The Exorcist, Jaws, and Star Wars pulled far more people into theatres than Network or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest ever did. Star Wars was especially important, as it showed that the teen and pre-teen audience could be far more lucrative than the college audience ever was.

So the early 70s bubble burst, and Hollywood went back to making fluff, just as it had before--but now with bigger budgets and more special effects.

See the book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls by Peter Biskind for more information.

DodgingCars

While I liked movies like Chinatown and One Flew Over the Cuckoos nest, there was nothing about the films that would have have me spend $10 to see it on the big screen. I'm much more interested in paying $10 to see LOTR or some epic, action, or sci-fi flick on the big screen with awesome sound and then just rent Mystic River when it comes out on DVD.

DGibFen

Ditto. If I do go to these types of films, it is because I'm that interested to pay that kind of money to see these films, or I wait till they get to the 2 buck theater in town. (A local company owns both the art-house theater and the 2 buck theater, so we get some of the art-house films there for a week or so)

I'll usually rent more adult-themed dramas than I see in the theaters.

wendersfan

While the examples given may not be quite comparable, there's more to it than just film quality keeping kids away. Film culture has completely changed since the mid-70's. These days, films like Annie Hall or Chinatown would probably open in (for lack of a better term) art houses, and only if they did REALLY well would they make it to cineplexes. Because they are quality films with no (or, well, few) explosions, they are simply marginalized.

As far as the big screen/small screen thing, I'd rather see a quality film on a big screen, and just skip the action flick altogether.

jekbrown

i wish kids couldnt go to movies at all. all the lil bastards do is make noise and ruin other peoples movie going experience.

j

Rogue588

Hell, it doesn't just apply to dramas. Comedies are much different compared to the past.

Nowadays, everything is more celebrity driven than ever. It's sad that whomever happens to be the "Flavour Of the Month" has a lot more options/opportunities thrown at them than someone who isn't.

Makes me wonder how many great movies from the past we'd have if it had always been like this...

RyoHazuki

Because dvdtalkers bitch about them so much.



Maybe its just where you are but among my friends (16 & 17 years of age) we watch many Grown-up movies on a regular basis.

Grimfarrow

I don't know about others, but I certain support grown-up movies.

But the notion that the Last Samurai is a grown-up film (rather than a grown gaijin boy's fantasy) is exactly the problem. Epic does not equate maturity.

I was the only one under the age of 30 when I saw films like "Ten" and "The Son". And while those "adults" were either sleeping or complaining, I was taking in some of the most fulfilling and mature cinema of my time. And I'm grateful for that.

HistoryProf

because, overall, each and every year American kids get a little fatter, slower, and dumber....they are spoiled and there's apparently no stemming the tide.....

Tommy_Harn

I am way under 35, as is my wife. We've been going to see movies like those for years (We've seen 3 of the 4 you mentioned in the theater). But, you're right- most times we don't see too many people around our age or younger. Which is good in my opinion- they're more likely to be rude, obnoxious and answer their cell phones.

Corvin

RyoHazuki isn't alone. I'm 19, and my friends and I see close to every movie that's widely released.

Groucho

I don't think that teens who post on Internet movie boards are representative of teens in general.

Corvin

All too true, but what I'm trying to say is that I think the support for "adult dramas" is there.

Besides, many of the movies originally posted about (The Last Samurai, Cold Mountain, Mystic River) are all rated R. It isn't likely you'd see a huge teen population in these films. A majority of teens cannot get it, and even if those interested somehow wanted to get in, it'd still be easier to see something with a PG13 rating.

DodgingCars

You are in the extreme minority and IMO you're no different for thinking all action flix are dumb than someone thinking all dramas are boring.

There are plenty of well made action films (Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Gladiator -- to name a few). I don't go to the theater JUST to see a film early... I also go for the theater experience. I'm not as interested in seeing a drama at a theater (paying $6-10/person) than I am in seeing a movie like Lord of the Rings, where the big screen and the sound add a lot to the movie experience.

I'll go see some so-called "adult" films at the theater, but only if I'm REALLY interested in them. I saw American Beauty on opening day because I was really interested in it. I can wait for Cold Mountain and Mystic River. While I want to see them, I don't need to spend the money for my wife and I to see a drama on the big screen (which would cost us anywhere from $12-24).

But to be honest, many of those film only have a small appeal to me. I liked Chinatown, but it's not in my collection. The Italian Job is though. I liked One Flew Over the Cuckos nest, but have no desire to own it. I will be picking up School of Rock when it comes out though.

Not everyone has the same taste in movies. I like comedy and action -- dramas like October Sky or Erin Brockovich. I'm not into Artsy films (though I like some of them).

People's tastes change and so do genenerations -- My wife's Grandfather's girlfriend thinks that Lord of the Rings is "too loud" and that it "only appeals to kids" -- kids being anyone under 50.

B.A.

The wife and I are both 25 and we enjoy a good drama as much as my parents or anyone else, but we like to see films in the theater that are usually more enjoyable to us w/ the theater experience (big screen/sound) and that is usually an action flick. We see comedies and dramas once in a while at the show (we were glad we saw Cold Mountain at the theater because the cinematography was great), but most of the time we prefer to view those in the privacy of our own home.

I think a lot of it might be that the last few generations of young Americans grew up at home w/ a Beta player, VCR, LD or a DVD player (and possibly a home theater system). Whereas older generations had to go to the theater to see a movie, they couldn't wait a few months to buy it or rent it and then watch it at home.