taffer

High school/college age is still very young and the target demographic of Hollywood blockbusters. You're just old now and no longer part of the target demographic.

Also, saying no 2000's blockbuster will be a timeless classic is just stupid. You don't think something like Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy will be remembered? I also bet dollars to donuts the Nolan Batman trilogy will be remembered much more fondly than the Burton/Schumacher Batman movies.

Saying that the comic movie genre is all generic is also stupid. Sure, some of them are bad, but don't lump them altogether. Fantastic Four and Amazing Spider-Man will be forgotten. The Marvel Cinematic Universe will be remembered though, if for nothing else simply because nothing like the MCU has ever been done before on the big screen.

mcnabb

But I started hating summer blockbusters WHEN I was in Highschool as I saw the dumbing down of these movies then. Batman '89 was the first summer blockbuster that I thought was WAY overrated, unlike most of my friends who loved the movie. I have been saying for 20 years that the Summer Blockbuster died after Jurassic Park, as that was the advent of CGI in movies. Once directors were able to use CGI for whatever they wanted on screen, the story and characters suffered because of that.

I was speaking in general terms for all movies, as I said I can count the memorable movies on my hand. Sure, LOTR and Nolan Batman were great, but there wasn't much more after that from the blockbuster genre. Just tell me 5-10 movies from since 2000 that you would consider classics and you think will be revered 20 years from now, as I have a hard time doing that.

When these kids grow up and their tastes change, they will be forgotten. Now I am not saying they're bad movies, as they are entertaining, but there aren't classics like Jaws, Star Wars, Back to the Future, etc.

I will give you an example as my friends and I LOVED Rocky IV when it came out (we were in middle school). We said it was the BEST Rocky, and would watch it on HBO whenever it was on. 30 years later, the movies is utterly laughable now, and as I got older I realized how great the Original Rocky is. Rocky IV in its day was like these comic book movies, as they are entertaining and play to a specific audience and make alot of money. But that audience will get older and look at them differently years later.

DaveyJoe

Hollywood is dead. Long live the new flesh.

Groucho

Time to retire the useless 3D gimmick?

Solid Snake

Tell us what only 10 great films from 2000 onward we've had.

I'd argue it's more about talent today than before. If you're JUST going for mainstream Hollywood. Then yes... you will find more mindless shit cuz it HAS to cater to as much mass appeal as possible now... more than ever. If you're even going to bring up looks you've got to bring up the Hollywood Studio system of the past. They'd create looks for actors. There were probably less talented actors in that period than now. SINCE the "school of acting" switch up we got in the past acting is probably more looked at than before. Do you JUST watch mainstream? Do you even branch the fuck out to international film? Seems like you isolate yourself to Hollywood mainstream studios. Which sounds like a bad fucking idea if that is what you do.

The 90s sucked as much as it rocked. Action films, this may hit across international cinema too, were in a grand decline in quality as a quantity. That's one bit I will remember specifically for US cinema but for Hong Kong as well. One could argue it was decade of extremes in some ways. But it also had a shit ton of mediocre crap. Your golden view for it is flawed. Do you know how much crap came out in the 70s? A LOT. And that was a great decade for film. I'm pretty fucking sure that era had way way more crap than it needed.

You bring up teenagers as a thing that is catered to. That is true. That has been like that as long as I can remember. Teens are the stupidest demographic w/ the most cash to waste cuz they're dumbasses. This is nothing new.

taffer

I loved Rocky IV as a kid, and I still love it today.

The Rocky franchise is my all time favorite franchise. I marathon watch it every year or two. Although I prefer Rocky III over IV because I like Clubber Lang better than Ivan Drago. Also, III had Thunderlips THE ULTIMATE MALE VERSUS THE ULTIMATE MEATBALL!

Yes, Rocky I and II are better movies objectively, but who cares. III and IV are still fun movies to watch and rewatch. Not everything has to be so serious all the time. Learn to lighten up and live a little. III and IV will never be forgotten.

Many movies may not be objectively as good nowadays, but again who cares. Movies like the Marvel Cinematic Universe won't be forgotten despite your personal feelings for them. There's room for both "serious" movies and "popcorn" movies.

taffer

That is true and it demonstrates the danger of nostalgia.

Yes, the 70s and 80s had great classics like Jaws, Star Wars, etc. but it had even more crap. Sturgeon's Law says 90% of everything is crap, and that is definitely true. For any decade, 90% of the movies have been crap.

The danger of nostalgia is that we tend to forget the crap and only remember the good. So we remember the classics like Jaws and Star Wars but have forgotten everything else. The 2000s are fresher in our minds so we haven't forgotten the crap as much. But honestly though, the 2000s are just the same as the 70s, 80s, and 90s with a handful of classics surrounded by a mountain of crap.

Iron_Giant

Your comments are well thought out and correct.

If I could say, the 2000s were the start of the Sequels big time, there were others sequels before...but the 2000s is now the time ALL studios were looking for any kind of sequel to make $$$.

The greatest sequel in 2000s...IMHO
-The Lord of the Rings...Wow that was great, they put so much heart into that, Jackson was on his own and the Studio stayed out of his way.

Tech has replaced great story telling or writers now are just trying to write books that can be made into a Series of movies (Twilight, Hunger Games and the terrible Divergent...Hunger Games want to be).
-Avatar, great tech and I loved it, but no more well written non-tech stories anymore.

Geofferson

5-10 years ago I probably went to the theater 20 times/year. Last year I went twice. Not anticipating any significant changes in 2015.

mcnabb

No one is arguing there isn't shit movies from every decade, I'm just saying there are very few CLASSIC movies in this day and age. You still haven't named me just 5 movies from the past decade that you feel that people will look at 20-30 years from now and say its a true classic movie.

I can easily rattle off classic movies from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's, but I honestly can't think of many from the 2000's-present.

Strevlac

That's because there are maybe 5 or 6. None of which I can even think of right now.

...No Country For Old Men......aaaaannnnnnd........?

Strevlac

You don't know much about the 70s.

fumanstan

While I don't necessarily disagree with the folks arguing about a decline in movie quality or classics or lack of actors or whatever (nor do I necessarily agree, either), I don't think any of that has resulted in any major downward trend or decline. The slight decline over the last decade is easily attributable to other forms of media consumption, as others have mentioned. The handful of people exclaiming about how movies aren't as great as they used to be and that they don't go to theaters any more is a pretty small slice of the pie and not really indicative of any big movement away from theater going.

At least based on these charts -

http://www.the-numbers.com/market/

Just happened to be a weaker year 2011 looks like it was a down year too, but the following years didn't continue any sort of trend either.

EDIT: Adding a chart for reference.

RichC2

Or they just have a different opinion. I feel like the 2000s started out really strongly with stuff like American Psycho, Mulholland Drive, Memento, Crouching Tiger, Traffic, Gosford Park, Lord of the Rings, Pianist, Master and Commander, Sideways, Munich, Brokeback, Almost Famous, Minority Report, hell even the Harry Potter movies were largely well made and I love Black Hawk Down, But then took a nose dive in 2011.

It's a bit frustrating that everything seems to be an adaptation of a comic book or very similar YA novel anymore.

davidh777

I don't think the quality of movies really affects my moviegoing. Sure, if I hear great buzz on Gravity I'll make an effort to see it, but that's a small drop in the bucket.

For me the big difference is the quality of home theater, the high prices, and the obnoxious moviegoers. I saw Interstellar last night, and I was worried about the dude next to me playing a game on a huge phone and cracking jokes with his companion during the trailers, but it turned out he was fine. The problem was a few couple behind me commenting to each other.

I still see major family films like Pixar and Frozen, but my kids are too big for the peripheral stuff like Free Birds or Rio 2. Their favorite genre is romantic comedy, which is pretty much pointless to see in a theater. So I mostly see event movies: Hunger Games, The Hobbit, Interstellar, etc.

RichC2

I haven't had to deal with obnoxious moviegoers in a long time thankfully, and the theaters around here are nice enough, I just have no need to see every movie on the big screen anymore.

notkevinbacon

Yes, some of us are just getting old. Face it. It's the truth.

It's pretty hard to refer to a flick that is 5 years old as a "classic," though you can certainly predict what may become one.

Hollywood was as much a business 50, 70, years ago as it is today. And there has always been naysayers to technology as it advances, people said the same about colorization, sound, 3-d (over and over) as some here are saying about CGI.

Sequels? Come on, that's nothing new. Look at the 80s, where I'd argue sequels were more of a cash grab. It's true that movie makers are thinking of franchising and sequelizing their tent pole flicks, but they are doing it with moreforethought now. Maybe some have forgotten the days of Friday the 13th part VII, or Rock one million. Even great movies, like say Chinatown, had stabs at sequels. I think the Harry Potter series is a triumph of increasing quality, or even the marvel universe. How about Linklater's Before Sunrise trilogy? Great flicks, and sequels too.

Hollywood as always cared about pretty people, and you know what? Pretty people can be pretty talented. Interesting that some mention folks like Clooney, or DiCaprio, since I think a lot of us might agree they are talented in front of, and in some cases, behind the camera. This is nothing new, Cary Grant was an incredible looker and actor. Faye Dunaway, Paul Newman - I really don't have to think hard to list good looking, mainstream and talented actors from all decades, but to assume that physical appearance is something new to Hollywood... come on.

Older generations didn't all embrace Star Wars, there were plenty of people that thought it was rubbish. Or a special effects geek show. As one example.

Right now we have some of the most talented filmmakers creating cinema across all genres. Technology doesn't just allow for realistic looking Smeagols and orcs, it also allows for independent filmmakers to create and distribute films in ways that were never possible. And in ways that are much more affordable than ever. It allows artists to realize their vision in way never before possible. I support that.

The argument about the theatrical experience? True, I don't see as many movies outside my home anymore. Sure. But I purchase digitally on VOD services or wait for home video, or netflix. I agree the experience of going to the movies can be unpleasant, but I also live in a pretty crazy metropolitan area, the experience going to the grocery store, the bank, to work, etc can be quite unpleasant too.

PhantomStranger

I generally agree with the premise that Hollywood isn't producing the classic blockbuster anymore. Let's face it, when hundreds of millions are at stake on a movie, you are not going to take chances. A movie like Star Wars does not come out in the same form as it did in the 1970s.

That means pandering to international audiences with wildly different cultural values, using proven star actors guaranteed to draw audiences that may not fit the characters, and a script by committee approach that simply doesn't produce compelling entertainment. Transformers is such a big brand now that Bay could literally put anything on screen and still make millions on each sequel.

Adults used to be a much larger theatrical audience, but that segment has increasingly shifted to premium cable for their most satisfying entertainment. It's easier to fit into their lives and the quality is almost always higher in terms of acting, writing, etc.

taffer

Yeah, because GOTG wasn't a big risk or anything, and the upcoming Ant-Man isn't either.


What do you mean by that? Just practical effects and no CGI whatsoever? Episode VII may have some CGI, but it's still appears to be in mostly the same form as the OT.

Hokeyboy

Challenge accepted!

Synecdoche, New York
A Serious Man
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Munich
No Country For Old Men
Her
There Will Be Blood
Inglorious Basterds
The Prestige
Once
The Fountain
Persepolis
Cloud Atlas (Mark my words on this one...)
Midnight In Paris
True Grit
The Incredibles
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Moon
Let The Right One In
Bronson
Skyfall
The Social Network
The Intouchables

Just off the top of my head

PhantomStranger

Guardians of the Galaxy took very few chances. That marketing hook was carefully crafted by Hollywood's publicity machine to make it seem like the little movie that could, if anything. It was a crowd-pleasing sci-fi vehicle made for the masses.

Making it an R-rated feature, now that would be taking a huge risk.

taffer

So now people are saying GOTG wasn't a risky movie? That's some fine revisionist history at work there.

What's next? Ant-Man becomes the highest grossing movie of 2015, and people suddenly say they knew it was going to happen all along because the movie wasn't a big risk at all?

Solid Snake

so much truth to Cloud Atlas. Great film or not... I think it is a film that was worth the risk to just do a movie differently like that. I fucking loved that one.

Ash Ketchum

I only saw six of those in theaters. A lot of those are niche films. Yes, there are a lot of interesting niche films being made in the 21st Century, but they don't often get wide releases and they tend not to attract large numbers of ticket buyers, even if the audience does, in fact, see the films eventually in other venues (cable, Netflix, etc.). I think the issue here is that large numbers of adults don't go to the movies much anymore because there aren't a lot of mainstream films being made for them, i.e. studio-produced intelligent, adult dramas or thrillers with ample budgets that appeal to an older general audience, the demographic needed to boost the number of actual ticket buyers. There are a lot of such films out right now that fit this profile (e.g. UNBROKEN, SELMA, AMERICAN SNIPER, THE IMITATION GAME, THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING, MR. TURNER, BIG EYES, A MOST VIOLENT YEAR, etc.) but they've all come out at the end of the year to drive Awards Season and many are only in limited release. It would be nice if they'd spread them out over the course of the whole year. Once upon a time, films of this level of quality and adult interest were made regularly for general release throughout the year.

Solid Snake

I think the change is the studios that release those. Big studios can't risk those anymore for the most part. They need the moneymakers to get those films made...and they still don't want to risk profit. Smaller studios make them all the time. They never went away.