Why Modern Movies Suck (Critical Drinker video series)

[Neil]

Althought he generalises, he's got a point I feel.

I mean if we look at things like Dr Who, that's gone in the direction he's discussing?


CQ92cggLMx8

[MinionZombie]

Aye, some fair points in there.

Dialogue and characterisation in a lot of mainstream movies these days is fucking cringe, riddled with extraordinarily blunt self-awareness that ultimately comes down to simply stating what is literally happening in front of them at any given second. Characters make stupid decisions for stupid reasons based on selfishness (either for their own benefit or the benefit of one over hundreds/thousands/millions).

I mean, look at the most recent Jurassic Park movie - when that annoying kid unleashes all the dinosaurs on a human population ... ... FUCKING WHAT?!?! And that's posited as a good thing?! Are you high?!

Indeed, I can't be doing with children making major decisions in a room full of adults and the adults just let them. Er, how about "fuck no"?

Now - compare these things to something like "Drive" ... ... now that is a great character from recent years. He loses his shit sometimes, but that's part of his otherwise very controlled and quiet nature. That movie is so chaste in many ways emotionally, yet as a result the small things gain huge significance and resonate with the viewer. That movie gives me chills.

I don't want to get too into watching videos like this as it could totally ruin any new movie potentially, but at the same time it's good to acknowledge some of these failings - either by watching videos like this or just analysing for yourself. It's certainly helped my own writing and I try to now write against some of these things - I don't have characters making stupid decisions for idiotic reasons, for instance.

Humour is another thing. I'm all for characters having a sense of humour, be it dry or sopping wet, but it also has to match the story and stakes. Marvel take the piss with the amount of undercutting their dialogue does to giant events with huge implications for countless innocent lives. It smacks of them not caring, so as a result, why the fuck should I care? Look at Joss Whedon's Justice League vs Zack Snyder's Justice League - biiiiiiiiiiiig fucking difference between the two (hint: former is shite, latter is pretty good).

That was an interesting point about the total disregard for the chain of command and characters basically having zero respect for each other (i.e. they'll just say and do whatever they like and act like poorly raised kids).

That clip of Tig Notaro waxing disrespectful reminded me of her character in Army of the Dead ... ... you know, the one who doggedly smokes cigars around copious amounts of fuel. Yeah. Fuck off.

[shootemindehead]

That "meta" ha ha bollocks has made pretty much most movies these days unwatchable for me.

I'm sick to death of that self aware nonsense in films. It wasn't funny the first time it was done and it's sure as shit not funny now.

[MinionZombie]

qY-GLeHS0Ik

A follow-up...

[MinionZombie]

Another follow up, this time on moral lessons:

Dnuqp4_K7ik

I've noticed this problem creeping into numerous mainstream movies in recent years. Not good.

[Neil]

Ta. Wasn't aware of the new one. And agreed!

[Neil]

This is applicable...

ciFAc10tFT0

[MinionZombie]

DY-zg8Oo8p4

The new one is about CGI overload ... yep ... way too much CGI these days. You feel too disconnected as a result, but when it's done for real you instinctually know the difference and the stakes are decidedly increased for the viewer. There's too many imperceptible details that are almost subconscious that a computer and the conscious decisions of a CGI artist will never achieve.

[Neil]

^ Totally agree with all of that!

[MinionZombie]

^ Totally agree with all of that!

I was watching the extras on Spider-Man: No Way Home and numerous shots were literally totally and utterly CGI, or the amount of 'real' footage was so minimal you might as well have not bothered. Other times you had real footage of, say, Doc Ock, but it wasn't used and instead replaced with a slightly different CGI character!

Sometimes you don't notice just how much CGI is used, but other times you just get the feeling the whole thing is made-up in a computer. You might get spectacular camera movies and all sorts of cosmic chaos crashing about the place, but it's so beyond any shred of reality that it's just a load of pixels. Ironically, a Pixar movie ends up feeling more real.

Mad Max Fury Road works so well because so much of it is real, and CGI is only used to stitch together multiple real stunts to make one single event that would simply be far too dangerous to do all together. Really, the bulk of the CGI in that film was just scenery and backgrounds, removal of wires and such. It's impressive just how much they did for real - and it makes an impact because of it, even after several viewings. You know it's real, but you also feel that it's real.

Marvel movies are drowning in CGI, so none of it feels remotely real most of the time. Sometimes you get swept up in the story/characters, but you never feel any sense of physical impact, any hint of jeopardy. It's all pixels and green screen and they seem to think that's impressive.

He mentioned Fast & Furious in that video - again, the most impressive stuff is the stunts you know are done for real. The CGI stuff makes for a moment, but those moments keep getting bigger and more silly. The 'swing a mucle car on a rope bridge' moment from FF9, for instance, or the punch-up on the truck driving through a mostly CGI location in Hobbs & Shaw just dial down the sense of risk that the characters are going through.

It's also annoying when they shoot something for real and then cover it in CGI ... so why did you bother doing it for real at all? *cough* The Wolfman or The Thing 2011 *cough*

[JDP]

Mad Max Fury Road works so well because so much of it is real, and CGI is only used to stitch together multiple real stunts to make one single event that would simply be far too dangerous to do all together. Really, the bulk of the CGI in that film was just scenery and backgrounds, removal of wires and such. It's impressive just how much they did for real - and it makes an impact because of it, even after several viewings. You know it's real, but you also feel that it's real.

Baloney. That movie looks almost cartoonish. It looks like it's taking place in some weird alternate alien place, not our planet or even universe. There's tons of CGI involved everywhere. Even some of the characters are CGI. Nothing like the proper Mad Max movies from the original trilogy, which were 100% real, done with nothing but good-old fashioned (and dangerous) stunts and clever camera work, that's why those films truly look believable.

[MinionZombie]

Baloney. That movie looks almost cartoonish. It looks like it's taking place in some weird alternate alien place, not our planet or even universe. There's tons of CGI involved everywhere. Even some of the characters are CGI. Nothing like the proper Mad Max movies from the original trilogy, which were 100% real, done with nothing but good-old fashioned (and dangerous) stunts and clever camera work, that's why those films truly look believable.

It's set in an apocalypse, much like the sandy and dusty open spaces seen most particularly in the 2nd and 3rd movies.

The physical stunts and action were all carried out for real. It's backgrounds and landscape (and the giant storms, natch) that are CGI. Similarly, as previously stated, stunt work was augmented only when it was too dangerous to do it for real as it appears on-screen (i.e. stitching together several live action plates to form a whole). For example, there's a huge explosion of a tanker with numerous vehicles and goons surrounding it - naturally that'd be simply deadly to achieve in real life, so numerous live action plates (e.g. the explosion on its own, the surrounding vehicles on their own) were shot and then composited.

The main rig crashing involves CGI - mostly to remove any rigging and to provide the landscape, which didn't exist (they were shooting in areas that were basically flat nothingness - which would be fucking boring as hell, and deny various scenes to happen, such as the baddies who live in the rocky hills), and stick in the couple of elements that fly at the screen. The truck was toppled for real with a stunt driver behind the wheel performing that feat.

The way the world looks in the original Mad Max looks very different from Mad Max 2: Road Warrior. In the original movie it's just outback Australia. The 2nd and 3rd movies - with their larger budgets and expanded filmmaking tools - are able to make the post-apoc world look more like it should from the filmmaker's POV. Same thing with Fury Road.

[JDP]

It's set in an apocalypse, much like the sandy and dusty open spaces seen most particularly in the 2nd and 3rd movies.

The physical stunts and action were all carried out for real. It's backgrounds and landscape (and the giant storms, natch) that are CGI. Similarly, as previously stated, stunt work was augmented only when it was too dangerous to do it for real as it appears on-screen (i.e. stitching together several live action plates to form a whole). For example, there's a huge explosion of a tanker with numerous vehicles and goons surrounding it - naturally that'd be simply deadly to achieve in real life, so numerous live action plates (e.g. the explosion on its own, the surrounding vehicles on their own) were shot and then composited.

The main rig crashing involves CGI - mostly to remove any rigging and to provide the landscape, which didn't exist (they were shooting in areas that were basically flat nothingness - which would be fucking boring as hell, and deny various scenes to happen, such as the baddies who live in the rocky hills), and stick in the couple of elements that fly at the screen. The truck was toppled for real with a stunt driver behind the wheel performing that feat.

The way the world looks in the original Mad Max looks very different from Mad Max 2: Road Warrior. In the original movie it's just outback Australia. The 2nd and 3rd movies - with their larger budgets and expanded filmmaking tools - are able to make the post-apoc world look more like it should from the filmmaker's POV. Same thing with Fury Road.

Huh? The world of the first movie is the exact same one as the one of the two sequels, except that now a global war has devastated society. Everything else is the same. The three Mad Max movies plainly take place in Australia (pre and post apocalypse), not some bizarre alien world like Fury Road.

[MinionZombie]

Huh? The world of the first movie is the exact same one as the one of the two sequels, except that now a global war has devastated society. Everything else is the same. The three Mad Max movies plainly take place in Australia (pre and post apocalypse), not some bizarre alien world like Fury Road.

Aye, I'm sure in a world where there are giant storms the size of mountains, that they would actually leave the land untouched so it still resembled the outback in 1982. :rockbrow:

[Neil]

ngqO9Hp19_4

[MinionZombie]

:lol:

I was literally just coming here to post that video. :p

Hopefully this nonsense will get more and more exposed, the predictable engineering of the 'news story' that is the making of the IP itself. It's incredible the studios and the media at large haven't figured this all out yet, that they haven't noticed the repeating cycle - it's even more surprising considering how it was various portions of the media who were hysterically bashing Joker as some 'dangerous' movie (never mind that we've already been through the nonsense of 'media makes violence' in the past several decades - books, music, movies, games - and that it's always been found to be bullshit).

Is it so hard to understand that fans want their beloved material treated with respect, crafted with actual skill, and not used as a puppet for the clunking fist of 'identity politics' in the shifting sands of the 'culture war'?

Always bag to the well of ists and isms. Is that so, eh? Well explain the positive reaction (at least now that the show is being broadcast) to Lord Corlys Velaryon in House of the Dragon. :rockbrow:

[Neil]

F2ngB-zjVmM

[MinionZombie]

heh, I was about to post this here. You beat me to it. :D

Usually, any sort of "message" should either be through analogy or there to find if you want it. These days it's all about a sledgehammer on the nose, but it's interesting to see Hollywood starting to wake up to how 'heavy messaging' movies and shows are struggling to be profitable or are flat out box office bombs. You can't run a business on stuff like that.

I mean, really, by way of example, who on earth really wants to see "our world" reflected in the fantasy lands of Middle Earth? Too often it seems to be about removing the property from its own context and then transplanting it into our literal real world context, and it just doesn't work.

I don't think they really know what a "modern audience" actually is, either, much like they have no clue what a "strong female character" actually is.

What they should be paying far more attention to, in terms of a "modern audience", should include things like viewing patterns, box office trends, how long it takes people to watch a new series (are they binge-viewing, are they spreading it but keeping a regular viewing pattern like one-episode-a-day, or are they trailing off and giving up and so on), which movies/series are most profitable in terms of budget outlay and profit intake, and what things are people talking about most (although that's not something to necessarily put a huge amount into as Andor is getting low chat but positive feedback from viewers - no doubt caused by how poor Obi-Wan Kenobi was and the damage it did to the brand).

The industry seems to be somewhat out-of-touch with reality too often. Just look at how many streaming services there are. Here in the UK Paramount+ was recently introduced (with massive amounts of advertising money splashed on it) and yet there's not much on it really (a "mountain of entertainment"??? Come on, now), while Lionsgate+ (you wot?) has just been launched and there's even less on it (and nothing I've ever heard of or have any interest in seeing at all) - and this at a time when household budgets are tightening and only getting tighter, and when there's never been so much "content" (ugh, what a grotty term for creative endeavours) competing for eyeballs. Financially speaking, so many streaming services make no sense and are gobbling up money with no real return - why not just license your "content" off to big streamers and not have to invest huge amounts into an inferior streamer to a no doubt limited audience pool? Crazy stuff.

[Neil]

tUWe11I_7Oo

[MinionZombie]

While I agree with a fair bit of what's being said there, I found it to be a bit too 'all or nothing' - e.g. men as either silent blocks of stone ("good") or babbling cry babies ("bad"), or writing off the Daniel Craig era of Bond because they dared to make the character more complex and conflicted and beaten up by the world that he inhabits and the job he does. There's a bit of a downward spiral of closed-loop thinking going on with certain movies (such as "No Time To Die") within some critical circles, and I don't believe it's particularly fair or broad minded.

Now, yes, there are annoying styles of how men are written these days, but for instance, the 'constantly talking to fill silences' thing has sprung out of the Judd Apatow school of comedy where everyone's gotta be talkin' all the damn time, and it infects all characters, not just the male ones.

Also, I think it's pretty narrow-minded or simply ignorant to suggest that men in general don't have deep emotions. In the past men weren't allowed to express emotions, so it was always suppressed (surely some cinematic moments of explosive emotion were reflecting that very constraint?). Now, do I also think that there has been a decided over-correction? Definitely, because there's no such thing as a gradual correction these days, flip-flopping with all the subtlety of the BBC during a crisis. However, just allowing male characters to have more emotions and explore their feelings isn't a bad thing. Has it been handled well in recent cinematic years? Not always, that's for sure, but there's also been some added complications to male characters that have provided a greater breadth of character development.

After decades of Bond, to just do the exact same thing all over again - yet again - wouldn't have been all that great. The likes of Casino Royale and Skyfall really pack a wolloping punch, both in terms of traditional Bondian tropes, espionage, and action, but also in terms of the depth of the character. Sometimes I feel the folks slagging off No Time To Die have either not watched it at all, or half-watched it once and then formed their opinions based on the reaction from their personal echo chamber, or indeed, they're so caught up in the politics of identity themselves, that they're seeing about as clearly as the biggest proponents of extreme identity politics (ironically enough).

Now, is there also truth in how men are increasingly being portrayed negatively? Absolutely. I've seen plenty of adverts on telly that show the men as bumbling fools fucking something up or being silly or idiotic etc, and there's been an awful lot of presentations of men in mainstream films that, if they had been applied as such to female characters, they would (justifiably) be hammered for being misogynistic - so why not for being misandrist? The example of Janine Melnitz vs the exasperatingly stupid Kevin from GB2016 is a perfect summation, in many ways.

There is a problem in cinema and TV in recent years of a decline in male heroes and role models, with too many 'positive males' in movies and shows actually being nothing to aspire to at all. How refreshing it was to see Maverick back in the new Top Gun movie, and that style of character, just goes to show how the zeitgeist has shifted poorly - but at the same time, the Maverick we get in TG2 is much deeper as a character by comparison to the first movie ... ... in fact, upon recently re-watching Top Gun, Maverick is a bit of a fucking cocky prick, always grinning and skirt-chasing, while Ice Man is quite sensibly concerned with things like safety and the cost to the taxpayer (not risking their machinery), rather than the bastard he's often been considered to be. Top Gun is a bloody good like of 80s cinema, no doubt, but I think TG2 is the superior movie, not just in terms of story and character depth but also in terms of action and how it was shot.

Is there also a problem with how women are written? Oh, yeah, that's a big YES on that one - just as Emily Blunt was pointing out. Female characters have too often been reduced to half-assed male clones in many ways, their femininity torn away from them, reduced to being smug, arrogant, actively horrible and spiteful arseholes with no moral compass, characters who can never do wrong and even when they do it's either ultimately the fault of a man (who's also usually white and also usually 'old') or it's okay because they suffered something so making extremely poor decisions or torturing a whole swathe of innocents (*cough* WandaVision *cough*) is totally fine.

The idea of a complex character seems to have gone missing to most of cinema and TV lately, be they male or female. The best female characters in the past have always been complex, had emotion, balanced their femininity with their needs & wants, saw them overcome hurdles, learn from mistakes, and struggle towards a hard-won but entirely justified win.

People can and do get on board with that and have done so for generations. Now the template seems to be one-note arseholes or morons, or thinly-veiled fan fiction and self-inserts ... with a franchise-destroying, fan-hating cherry on top.

Gosh, I wonder why such projects continually fail to make money? :p

[Neil]

Basically agree; It's a very extreme view displayed in the piece, but it is reflective of a negative trend/agenda.

[JDP]

It's that whole "Woke!" thingy, it's killing us manly men, what no other archvillain or deadly creature/monster/machine could ever do.

[Neil]

xPE7-PRL0M8

[MinionZombie]

With the great female characters of movie history "strong" meant "complex" ... the writers of today, or the ones who aren't worth a damn at least, think "strong" means "like so totally awesome at punching and brilliant at everything else as well, death to the patriarchy *insert garbled noises of self-righteous indignation*"

The former you can completely invest in, the latter is boring as fuck self-inhalation of one's own farts.

I will say, because I'm not sure how the use of it in this video is intended, but Atomic Blonde was awesome and handled an arse-kicking female spy quite well. Theron is 5ft10, so she's not some totty wee thing running around like a squirrel, and you can see the fight training she did for the movie working well. She also uses the environment around her to get an advantage (e.g. a garden hose, or a stairwell), and you can see the physical effects of the fights she gets into - she, much like her enemies, gets the proverbial beaten out of her throughout the movie. It works on-screen and sells it ... unlike, say, Birds of Prey for the most part.

[MinionZombie]

9FQgp_sLGjg

[Tuqueakin]

I totally agree with your take on modern movies. It's like they've lost their soul, you know? Everything feels so cookie-cutter, like they're more concerned with ticking boxes than telling a damn good story. And don't even get me started on the whole identity politics mess – it's like they're using our beloved characters as pawns in some bigger game.
But hey, amidst all this chaos, there's still some cool, good stuff in the movies (https://wealthofgeeks.com/movies-out-now/) if you know where to look. Personally, I've been diving into some indie flicks lately, and let me tell you, they're like a breath of fresh air compared to the big-budget blockbusters.