The End of Great Films

[Yeah_Baby]

also if you want to talk about movies from a craft perspective, Barbie did mostly everything practical. Including all the stuff in car.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Sweet ass.

EDIT: I went the no electricity route, but I'm backtracking on it. Come the zombie apocalypse we'd still have enough solar and battery to go for a bit.

DOUBLE EDIT: Fwiw, argument aside, I personally do find when people do stuff with your list its way more interesting than any movie, anyway. People vote with their money, and I usually spend my money on seeing weird stuff as it is. But that is just me.

Same. I express different parts of myself with different forms of art. I think if you spoke with most filmmakers, they are probably multi-disciplinary artists. I think that's why we are drawn to making movies because you can bring all those things together. Sometimes an idea is bigger than a painting or a song.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Also, anyone in this thread who actually thinks any musician ever sacrificed "heart" for "technical proficiency" is completely insane. The only people who say this are failed musicians, or really insecure amazing ones.

It's not a matter of sacrificing, it's that the people who are the most talented musicians are rarely the same ones who are the most creative and there are a lot more of them. The guy who can play Zeppelin covers note for note at the jam night at the local pub simply isn't as rare of a commodity as someone who can create music that people love, even if he's often a more technically proficient musician than the latter person.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

There are a lot of great films being made these days, but also a lot of crap that you have to navigate through to find the gems. A lot of the crap also gets marketed and pushed so hard as if it convince the audience that they are watching something great. It's the same thing in the music industry.

Production companies have become proficient in gaslighting audiences into thinking that if something is popular, it must be good, and if you don't like it, you just have no taste. The films or musicians become popular before they even see an audience in many cases. They have formulas that work and don't want to stray from them often.

Is that anything new?

It's pretty easy to, for example, pull the 100 best movies from the 1970s and use them as an example of how great filmmaking was then. Comparing those top films to all of the movies made now isn't a fair comparison. The bad movies in the 1970s are unwatchable. Not only are they bad, but the production values and acting are so beyond bad. The average high school kid now could probably make a better movie than some of the stuff coming out of actual movie studios in the 1970s.

[sketchyt]

I prefer things shot on film but don't think it has caused the end of great films. They're definitely still being made and there's some good lists in this thread.
However, I do feel storytelling has changed significantly post 9/11. Stories are progressively darker, more anti-heroes, heavy handed messaging, etc...

[Jiri Hrdina]

Yeah go back and look at movie releases by year and you will see huge amounts of mediocre films that were heavily pushed.
Those movies get forgotten but each era has them. They are forgotten more quickly now in the non video world, but who amongst us didn't rush to the theatre to watch Bridget Fonds in "Point of no Return". There was tons of that stuff. Still is. Always will be.

[timun]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

It made it so that Super hero movies were not longer just for nerds and children. It made them mainstream. While there were always super hero movies they were never something you had to see to understand peoples cultural vocabulary.

Hwat!? I think you're massively understating superhero movies that came before 2008.

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

I would attribute that more to Spider-Man (2002).

It may not seem like a big deal now, but it was the first movie ever to break a $100M opening weekend.

Or let us not forget that the highest-grossing movie of 1978 was Superman, and 1989's was Batman. Those movies were incredibly popular. And there were a slew of pretenders that came out afterward trying to capitalize on the mainstream popularity of "comic book movies". Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Dick Tracy came out in 1990, The Addams Family in 1991, Batman Returns in 1992: these were all top-10 box office bona fide hits. And then you had a bunch that weren't hits, like The Rocketeer (1991), Judge Dredd (1995), The Phantom (1996)...

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's not a matter of sacrificing, it's that the people who are the most talented musicians are rarely the same ones who are the most creative and there are a lot more of them.

Are you 12? Is this what they teach in public school music class now?

The guy who can play Zeppelin covers note for note at the jam night at the local pub simply isn't as rare of a commodity as someone who can create music that people love...

Still with you until....

, even if he's often a more technically proficient musician than the latter person.

You're comparing the guy playing Zep covers in a bar in Calgary to "someone who can create music that people love." How many people are we talking about?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by blankall

Is that anything new?

It's pretty easy to, for example, pull the 100 best movies from the 1970s and use them as an example of how great filmmaking was then. Comparing those top films to all of the movies made now isn't a fair comparison. The bad movies in the 1970s are unwatchable. Not only are they bad, but the production values and acting are so beyond bad. The average high school kid now could probably make a better movie than some of the stuff coming out of actual movie studios in the 1970s.

An amazing decline in only 50 years. How old is Bach again?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Playfair

We just don't get the movies like we used to, the epic, well acted, directed stories.

Schindler's List
Life is Beautiful
Gone With the Wind
Forest Gump
Braveheart
Bridge Over the River Kwai

I don't know, just to name a few. I realize it is all subjective. But the point I am making is you don't get the performance of a Tom Hanks, or a story telling of Life is Beautiful in most movies these days. Times change I guess, so do our tastes.

talk about overrated movies.

[Coach]

I think becoming a well-known artist in any form is a combination of talent, effort, and lucky timing. You can control the first 2, but whether or not people connect with your work isn't really up to you, particularly music. Having the right person hear it at the right time who happens to be able to give you a break is a big part of it. But you actually have to do it and be good enough to express yourself in a way people connect with to be seen/heard. I do agree that there's something that feels soulless about stuff like Steve Vai vs Cobain. One is more rooted in composition whereas the other is rooted in emotional expression and I think people, by and large, connect more with the latter. Probably because it seems attainable, whereas watching an incredibly talent musician is more of a wonder (like I can't do that, wow what talent vs man this person is just barring a soul up there and I understand how they feel).

Just because someone's playing Zeppelin covers in a bar doesn't mean they aren't/weren't also great artists themselves. Maybe they're on their way, maybe they're just enjoying themselves after the dream is gone. Doesn't really matter. I almost always enjoy live music regardless of "quality". It's just fun to watch people give it their all.

The interesting thing about film vs other art forms, is you can actually make a living in it without being a household name. It employs so many varied people it's crazy, and the one who painted the sets is as much of an artist as the CGI animator as the person shaping the light, as the person controlling the focus. Sometimes it's more involved than other times. Sometimes you're painting a wall white, sometimes it's a mural. Sometimes you're animating dust, sometimes you're animating a crucial part of the character expression. You can be a session musician, but even that's a tough go. Most people playing live music in bars are just wanting to have a good time and hopefully someone enjoys it.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

So using your premise that "The Dark Knight is the last time a studio blockbuster captured the world’s imagination on the strength of its artistic merit."

what makes that movie so special other than the effects were "real"?
I saw it once and don't recall it being an all time masterpiece. Just a good bit of filmmaking like we see every year.

maybe you could say it was the beginning of the end of practical special effects over CGI or something, but it's no signpost for a generation or era of filmmaking.

The Dark Knight is special because, first and foremost, it is a piece of art. Warner Brothers gave their most high-value property to an auteur filmmaker with the freedom to tell his story his way. It also happens to be an extremely profitable Hollywood blockbuster, but it’s art first.

It’s special because it reaches a level of quality few films ever do. From the direction, to the action set pieces, to the acting (not just Ledger - Christian Vale, Aaron Eckhart, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, the dude who plays Lau, Maggie Gyllenhal, Michael Caine - everyone brings their A-game), the music, the pacing, the writing… it is

The conflicts in this movie are all the result of opposing ideas and world views. They are not contrived - they’re thermodynamic. The mob ruins Gotham. Batman hits the mob hard. Mob turns to Joker to kill Batman. Joker tries, realizes Batman won’t kill him even when he has the chance, and then makes it his mission to break the Batman.

Joker realizes Harvey Dent’s success at cleaning up the streets of Gotham would be Batman’s greatest victory, so he destroys Dent. He knows Batman loves Rachel (“the way you threw yourself after her…”) so he destroys Rachel - by deliberately giving Batman Harvey’s location instead of hers. He twists the knife every chance he gets.


That’s a far cry from “X wants revenge” or “bad guy has the same power set as the hero.” Or even “purple man wants to kill half the universe because balance.” I liked Infinity War/Endgame, but that’s a stupid motivation that any reasonable person (and most unreasonable ones) would oppose on general principle.

The Joker is a dazzling character and performance, no doubt. But the finale of the film is a direct rebuke of everything he’s said and done.

“Their morals, their code? It’s a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They’re only as good as the world allows them to be. I’ll show you - when the chips are down, these so-called civilized people? They’ll eat each other.”

So the man who wants to watch the world burn gives two boatloads of people the means and justification to blow each other to kingdom come.

Except, the longer things go on, the more each boat realizes “they haven’t killed us yet either” and when push comes to shove, everyone would rather let the Joker kill them than be the reason a boatload of other people who didn’t do them any harm (even if one boat is full of criminals) gets incinerated.

They literally beat the Joker by allowing each other the space to be good, and Batman has almost no direct affect on the outcome (other than preventing the Joker from using his detonator).

Unless you count all the work he’s done to establish himself as a symbol to stand up against injustice, and inspire the people of Gotham to remember that good a) exists and b) can win. Without Batman’s (and Dent’s) very public examples of defiance in the face of evil, things probably turn out differently.

The Joker’s story concludes with him not falling to his death, but with Batman saving him - the message being “you can take everything from me, but you won’t break me, you won’t change me, you won’t make me do the wrong thing.”

It’s a middle finger to nihilism.

And even though Batman does end up causing Harvey’s death, Dent made the equation “Harvey or a child” and Batman still chooses right and saves the kid.

Then, he takes the blame for Harvey’s crimes to allow Gotham the chance to save itself through the courts and due process rather than vigilantism. Because it’s not about Batman being a hero. It’s about Gotham being a just and safe place to live for its everyday citizens.

“Sometimes, truth isn’t good enough.

Sometimes people deserve more. (Said while Alfred burns the letter Rachel left for Bruce)

Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded (said while Fox is walking away from the destroyed Batvision computer).”

There are bigger ideas at play in this film than a simple Batman v the Joker story, and those ideas resonate with tens of millions of people around the world, from all different walks of life. All wrapped up in the guise of a top-tier blockbuster on the level of Empire Strikes Back.

That’s why the Dark Knight is special.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Are you 12? Is this what they teach in public school music class now?

No, just an adult with significant experience in the music industry.

You're comparing the guy playing Zep covers in a bar in Calgary to "someone who can create music that people love." How many people are we talking about?

Just based on my own personal experience, probably the most technically proficient guitar player I know is a metalhead who doesn't even really play publicly anymore. And probably the best drummer I know plays in a crappy cover band. They both have pretty suspect taste in music and can't write good songs, so they never really went anywhere. Or my cousin who is a phenomenal classical musician who teaches high school band.

Whereas I know a bunch of people who are lesser musicians technically but who have been able to carve out successful multi-decade music careers playing original music. They're not household names or anything, but within their genres (mostly indie and folk music) they've been relatively successful (play to 2-3K people a night around the world, 1M+ monthly listeners on Spotify, etc.).

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Also, anyone in this thread who actually thinks any musician ever sacrificed "heart" for "technical proficiency" is completely insane. The only people who say this are failed musicians, or really insecure amazing ones.

Let me guess: you’re a musician

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The answer is no more VHS or DVDs. Movie companies only have one shot to make money now which is at the theater. There is no longer a secondary market to recoup, almost like another open 6 months later. There are many movies that bombed at theaters and became DVD cult classics. I had dates where we went to the video store and rented a movie to watch.

That can't happen anymore. The movies today need to make $100 million at the theater to even consider profit and those aren't going to be about two people falling in love.

Interestingly, Matt Damon made some very good points on this topic during his visit on Hot Ones, eerily similar to the above. I had never thought of it that way. Hopefully, the release to streaming service matures to a point where it can recapture this dynamic and film makers can thrive. I loved Oppenheimer, but then I also wondered whether it was because it was THAT good or because there's been virtually nothing of interest to watch in the theatre for so long... and average is the new amazing.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by opendoor

No, just an adult with significant experience in the music industry.

Just based on my own personal experience, probably the most technically proficient guitar player I know is a metalhead who doesn't even really play publicly anymore. And probably the best drummer I know plays in a crappy cover band. They both have pretty suspect taste in music and can't write good songs, so they never really went anywhere. Or my cousin who is a phenomenal classical musician who teaches high school band.

Whereas I know a bunch of people who are lesser musicians technically but who have been able to carve out successful multi-decade music careers playing original music. They're not household names or anything, but within their genres (mostly indie and folk music) they've been relatively successful (play to 2-3K people a night around the world, 1M+ monthly listeners on Spotify, etc.).

The best we know is filled with a lot of bias. I'm just as guilty of that thinking as the next guy. Whereas I know a bunch of sounds like you "know of" artists, that in your biased opinion are lesser skilled, that are carving out careers. But lets assume both are true.

So what?

By this logic, the best filmmakers don't make films and the reason cgi infested budget hole movies suck is because they're in the hands of lesser weights.

It doesn't matter if your buddy is better than Steve Vai if he's too pusillanimous (or just doesn't care) to show it. And just because someone's show might not present as super technically demanding, you better believe that mofo is a monster. Nobody would be backing a horse with the money needed to have a career like you described any other way. Monster at their instrument, monster writer, monster charismatic draw, a combination, whatever. They're a monster.

90% of music has nothing to do with operating instruments. But its by far the most important 10%.

Movies feel real when problems are solved and obstacles overcome using as much of the humanities as possible: acting, sets, costumes, make up, music, etc etc etc and in the name of the all-mighty dollar its been assimilated by the box. The artform as it is now is just stale and boring.

[nik-]

Joe Satriani is incredibly talented and makes terrible ####ing records.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

also if you want to talk about movies from a craft perspective, Barbie did mostly everything practical. Including all the stuff in car.

One of the reasons it’s not one of the worst movies ever made.

The production design is top shelf.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

The Dark Knight is special because, first and foremost, it is a piece of art. Warner Brothers gave their most high-value property to an auteur filmmaker with the freedom to tell his story his way. It also happens to be an extremely profitable Hollywood blockbuster, but it’s art first.

It’s special because it reaches a level of quality few films ever do. From the direction, to the action set pieces, to the acting (not just Ledger - Christian Vale, Aaron Eckhart, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, the dude who plays Lau, Maggie Gyllenhal, Michael Caine - everyone brings their A-game), the music, the pacing, the writing… it is

The conflicts in this movie are all the result of opposing ideas and world views. They are not contrived - they’re thermodynamic. The mob ruins Gotham. Batman hits the mob hard. Mob turns to Joker to kill Batman. Joker tries, realizes Batman won’t kill him even when he has the chance, and then makes it his mission to break the Batman.

Joker realizes Harvey Dent’s success at cleaning up the streets of Gotham would be Batman’s greatest victory, so he destroys Dent. He knows Batman loves Rachel (“the way you threw yourself after her…”) so he destroys Rachel - by deliberately giving Batman Harvey’s location instead of hers. He twists the knife every chance he gets.


That’s a far cry from “X wants revenge” or “bad guy has the same power set as the hero.” Or even “purple man wants to kill half the universe because balance.” I liked Infinity War/Endgame, but that’s a stupid motivation that any reasonable person (and most unreasonable ones) would oppose on general principle.

The Joker is a dazzling character and performance, no doubt. But the finale of the film is a direct rebuke of everything he’s said and done.

“Their morals, their code? It’s a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They’re only as good as the world allows them to be. I’ll show you - when the chips are down, these so-called civilized people? They’ll eat each other.”

So the man who wants to watch the world burn gives two boatloads of people the means and justification to blow each other to kingdom come.

Except, the longer things go on, the more each boat realizes “they haven’t killed us yet either” and when push comes to shove, everyone would rather let the Joker kill them than be the reason a boatload of other people who didn’t do them any harm (even if one boat is full of criminals) gets incinerated.

They literally beat the Joker by allowing each other the space to be good, and Batman has almost no direct affect on the outcome (other than preventing the Joker from using his detonator).

Unless you count all the work he’s done to establish himself as a symbol to stand up against injustice, and inspire the people of Gotham to remember that good a) exists and b) can win. Without Batman’s (and Dent’s) very public examples of defiance in the face of evil, things probably turn out differently.

The Joker’s story concludes with him not falling to his death, but with Batman saving him - the message being “you can take everything from me, but you won’t break me, you won’t change me, you won’t make me do the wrong thing.”

It’s a middle finger to nihilism.

And even though Batman does end up causing Harvey’s death, Dent made the equation “Harvey or a child” and Batman still chooses right and saves the kid.

Then, he takes the blame for Harvey’s crimes to allow Gotham the chance to save itself through the courts and due process rather than vigilantism. Because it’s not about Batman being a hero. It’s about Gotham being a just and safe place to live for its everyday citizens.

“Sometimes, truth isn’t good enough.

Sometimes people deserve more. (Said while Alfred burns the letter Rachel left for Bruce)

Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded (said while Fox is walking away from the destroyed Batvision computer).”

There are bigger ideas at play in this film than a simple Batman v the Joker story, and those ideas resonate with tens of millions of people around the world, from all different walks of life. All wrapped up in the guise of a top-tier blockbuster on the level of Empire Strikes Back.

That’s why the Dark Knight is special.

You could write this same type of depth about Barbie if you wanted to.

Especially

Barbie is special because, first and foremost, it is a piece of art. Warner Brothers gave their most high-value IP to an auteur filmmaker with the freedom to tell her story her way. It also happens to be an extremely profitable Hollywood blockbuster, but it’s art first.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GGG

You could write this same type of depth about Barbie if you wanted to.

Especially

So do it, nobody’s stopping you.