Why Movies Suck Now Part One: The Myths

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

I think movie Bob summed it all up in his last review: The producers of movies in general think the public doesn't understand 'difficult/intelligent' movies anymore. So it all needs to be very simple ans straight forward to understand. They probably have tunnel vision and think big movie hits equals dumb audience equals moneys.

"V (as in For Vendetta) hates Government so much he makes Glenn Beck look like FDR, but his enemies are thinly-veiled analogs for the Bush Administration. Which one's the liberal, again?"

Well, well, well, Bob. Apparently, you've only bothered to see the V for Vendetta film, which clearly pits V against a government that's a thinly veiled Bush administration allegory.

However, if you had even bothered to read the original comic series, you would note that Alan Moore (of Watchmen and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen fame - both originally graphic novels) paints V as an anarchist - a terrorist who wages brutal war against a fascist British government. V is no liberal avenger, as seen in the film version. He's a hero, a villain, and a psychotic madman - not unlike the Dark Knight's Joker. Nor are his enemies Bush-analogs. They're closer to some crossbreed between Mussolini and Stalin. Moore portrays a world spiraling into madness, a world devoured by insanity. V's fight is no liberal and just crusade. He fights heroically but madly, and is an agent of destruction and chaos, for the sake of murder and pillage against those just as evil.

V for Vendetta (film) certainly isn't a good case to illustrate political nebulosity. It's just a case of a Hollywood's liberals messing with excellent source material. Sure, V for Vendetta was an above-average graphic novel adaptation, and I enjoyed the film (went to see it twice, in fact). But you would be very wrong to use it as an example of political ambiguity without reading Moore's novel.

I found this highly informative. My favorite part was the "running out of ideas" part.

vivaldiscool:
The problem is the the political scale is in fact a square, and not a line. In america, people try to cut that square diagonally for the two-party dichotomy: Liberals are Left\Authoritarian, and conservatives are Right\Libertarian.

In the US, the political parties are divided badly. Many Democrat voters want the party to be Left/Libertarian or Centre/Authoritarian, but the Democratic administrations tend to be Centrist/Libertarian while Obama is more of a Centre-Right/Authoritarian. Republican voters want the party to be Right/Libertarian or Far-Right/Authoritarian, while the last few Republican administrations have been Right/Authoritarian.

I agree that the political spectrum is much too complex to view as a line. Even politicians from different parties can have essentially similar views on one political line, but radically different views in other areas.

OT: The fact is that we think movies suck nowadays, but it's not an accurate perception. Name 5 movies from 1972, and 5 movies from 2010.

Your 2010 list probably includes some shitty movies like Remember Me, Eclipse and Predators, as well as good movies like Toy Story 3 and Shutter Island.

As for the 1972 list, you probably remember classics like The Godfather and Cabaret. However, 1972 was also the year some unimaginably bad films came out. Films like The Dirt Gang, Night of the Lepus, and Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny.

We remember classics from long ago, but don't remember the shitty movies. With recent films, the classics seem to be buried under a deluge of mediocre movies, with a few really shitty ones as well. Even in the time of "classics", the same thing was true.

Villa Idiot:
Interesting article. You hear most of these myths a lot unfortunately. Oh, and not that it really matters but Philip Marlowe was a detective in Raymond Chandler's books. Sam Spade and the Maltese Falcon were written by Dashiell Hammett.

Useless info time! Since he mentioned GI Joe in the article, did you know that the character Flint was named Dashiell Fairborne after Mr. Hammett?

"A Demographic Timeline of Hollywood Movies"

Did you analyze the data yourself or is it consensus? Not that I really doubt it but considering you seem to have strong opinions on what works and what doesn't in movies I think it's reasonable to question even your motives. ;)

I think most people measure only take into account their favorite genres when they measure the overall quality of cinema. If the last three psychological thrillers you saw were ass then obviously movie-making at large is on the decline.

"But you would be very wrong to use it as an example of political ambiguity without reading Moore's novel."

But... he's not using the book, he's using the film :(

Same reason most games such modern media is made for witless masses its watered down and at best is either "pretty" and dumb or sloppy and well written.

One issue I have with the political message is that some critics/movie goers try and cram in some half-baked political metaphor or symbolism into films that never did.

The best example (or worst depending on how you look at it) of this was The Dark Knight and "terrorism".

Not only have they run out of ideas, but some of the movies are being re-released as a 3D Film. The cool thing about Dark Knight and Transformers was all of the visuals. During the 1990's and such the stuff we see in movies nowadays just wasn't available then. I personally liked both of them, though Transformers had some plot issues.

MovieBob:
See, in case you hadn't heard, the political leanings of the U.S. entertainment industry are overwhelmingly Liberal - a word which, here in America, is used as a slur to describe anyone slightly to the left of Yosemite Sam.

WHY IS EVERYTHING YOU SAY SO AWESOME!?

Mattel doesn't make Transformers. Hasbro does. You may as well said Sony makes Wiis.

I just checked out and cried when I saw who was running Big Hollywood and the people who are contributing. Laughed at the op-ed writer of "Death of the Movie Star:Why we don't need you anymore". Especially after looking up the person to be a right-wing hack that didn't make it into the big time. Also considering that Hollywood is one of our few industries where the United states produces and exports something worthwhile to the rest of the world.

EDIT: On retrospect and how much I try to stay informed about politics and political history I actually completely forgot that old canard that Moviebob made that "Hollywood is liberal".

Funny thing is the reason I forgot that is because as a republican everything on the extreme whenever they hear some criticism they don't like they go on a branding crusade to call that person a liberal. I've seen in the past years some of the biggest wonks and thinkers go from being and working by the sides of republican Presidents from Reagan to Bush Jr. be known today as "liberals".

I think that is why I have a healthier side about politics is because I just look at movies and industries as just that without politics. You hear so many witch hunts that it gets so old that I've grown to simply question the motive of those who make the accusations and normally it is to ensure cohesion of a narrative that brings conformity with little to no dissent.

RowdyRodimus:
Useless info time! Since he mentioned GI Joe in the article, did you know that the character Flint was named Dashiell Fairborne after Mr. Hammett?

I did not but that's awesome. Since you mentioned GI Joe, does that mean we're supposed to play the Knowing is Half the Battle clip or something?

electronic wolf:
Meh, i don't really care about movies anyway. It's a dying industry that leeches off other types of media.

How exactly is a multibillion dollar industry dying and what's killing it?

I agree a bit with the earlier comment about political ideology still being on the table for why movies suck (with the 25%). I see it as a problem of subculture and group think rather than politics though. I come from a lit crit background to some extent, and you see the distinction between high and low writing, technical prowess vs storytelling, etc. Hollywood and the movie industry are, in a sense, like the academics on writing: the concerns of the critics and desire for proficiency and simple time required to be accepted at the professional level by the artists are so demanding in themselves they do not leave much time or geographic location to really connect to an extremely diverse audience through shared experience (it happens, but it takes a special kind of effort that I personally don't see too often). If, for example, a "liberal political concern" is extremely popular with people in that circle (when most people don't care and as many disagree as agree outside the circle), it becomes easy to be ham-handed or condescending without understanding how or why that actual person out there disagrees or doesn't care. This is certainly not limited to left leaning causes or hollywood, but as a somewhat insular group required to spend enormous amounts of time dedicated to a few people on a specific project, Hollywood is probably more vulnerable than average.

sweetdude:
Hollywood movies are usually bad, I don't know what the issue is. Outside of Hollywood, American cinema is pretty strong as it's always been, with indie directors such as Tarantino, Soderbergh, and Spike Lee showing Hollywood how it's done. British cinema has retained its quality in terms of acting and direction. French and Belgian cinema has become better and more adventurous, I would argue, in recent times than in the past, with films such as Irreversible and Ex Drummer. The Japanese horror genre has exploded in popularity and quality over the past two decades. We've been lucky to be importing a lot of quality Korean cinema in recent times also, Park Chan-wook's films in particular.

I suppose if you go to big-money cinemas showing Hollywood films all the time you're bound to think films are in decline.

This could go into the myths as well:

Hollywood is declining while other countries produce great stuff, Hollywood = bad.

Wrong. Other countries produce just as much, or even more (Japan, India, Korea, China) of crap as Hollywood. But the reason you only get to see the really good stuff (or in the case of Asian horror, the bad stuff), is that nobody wants to distribute the countless amounts of bad flicks that come out. Sure we get the Chan Wook Park films, but that's three korean films out of the hundreds produced every year.

Britain and Scandinavia churn out countless upon countless horrifyingly dull and bland kitchen sink dramas, but it's only the Millennium Trilogy and the few rare Brit-flicks that you really hear about outside the countries.

To vilify Hollywood as an entity that is somehow the source of problems or a generalization that covers everything made in and around it's vicinity is short sighted and ultimately very wrong.

Also, arguing about V for Vendetta the book in an article strictly talking about films is like countering a debate about types of meat by saying; "them vegetables, now they sure are something!"

soapyshooter:

electronic wolf:
Meh, i don't really care about movies anyway. It's a dying industry that leeches off other types of media.

How exactly is a multibillion dollar industry dying and what's killing it?

I hear that radio is making a big comeback any day now.

double post - my bad!

A very interesting debate. I personally think to a very small extent MovieBob is on to something. But at the same time there is this lingering feeling in the back of my mind that the Sheep have finally won out and we are seeing a larger number of sheeple aimed movies. In the 40's-60's you had slow drama styled movies that had feeling, thought and in my A.D.H.D. way of thinking were boring as hell good but boring. The 60's and 70's saw a huge push for ethnic movies that they could point at the "new" audience. In either cases they were mistaken it wasn't that they were a new audience, they weren't given the same rights to see movies at the same rate as the "in charge white males" of the previous generations of movies.

Today's films are about the bottom line, will it turn a profit? Politics get lost constantly. Though I don't doubt that there is often political agenda's hiden in most movies these days. I just choose to ignore them.

Being a 36 yr old White Male that has grown up on bad movies, Good movies, Horrible movies and Star Wars, I've watched how my favorite stories get beaten down and left for dead, due to the Directors views of what he thought it should look like. The Saw (why wont they just let it end) franchise started out as a good idea, it was different as far as horror flicks had been to that point. Now due to the success of such gore fest flicks as Saw, we have to suffer through the overly predictable Hostel PoS movies. Star Wars rocked the foundation of Movies in its time for how much was done with so little. There are spots where the acting isn't that great, but everything else stole our breathe as we watched and became enamored with the story and the mythology that was wrapped into the story. I was 3 in the theater when SW came out the first time, My mother said it was the first movie I sat perfectly still for, you say it was aimed at teenage boys, I say Bah! Most of my friends round my age have been in search of our very own light saber since 1977.

I believe this : Hollywood has always found a good idea and beaten it till it is retarded(not the slang but the real definition of retarded: to slow, hinder, make less effective).. which is to say Hollywood = do it till you get it wrong, then try again with a re-boot.

They force feed us movie after movie in a franchise that WAS good till they have milked every cent out of it. I'm personally getting sick and tired of the Comic book movies playing out the secret identity angle that is supposed to be a huge portion of the Heroes issue early in every movie. Honestly the best superhero movie of recent history is the re-release of DareDevil, where the cut out the love scene the studio added after for the theater, it was never necessary, in fact I was insulted they put it in originally, and was pleased that the Director and Producers were as appalled as I was. In the Comics it took YEARS for MJ to find out Peter Parker was Spidy,(but they can't pay Kirsten Dunst and Toby Miguire costs) which is another reason movies are failing. Barely talented actors are getting WAY too much money to make a movie. So they cant afford to play out a story line as it is intended by the source material. NO ONE should be paid more then $1 million to act in a movie... NO ONE!

It happens in Novels to Film as well as TV to film. Sex and the City? WTF is that for? The show blows... lol literally, they glorify prostitution and then wonder why there's so many whores in the world. Black people want to be accurately portrayed in film and TV, then why do you keep excepting roles that only perpetuate stereotypes? My friends if we want the films to change we have to make them make the change. Movies suck because the people going to see movies are sheep, they have no thoughts for themselves and they see what the idiot box tells them too. I how ever see movies because I like to be entertained. I i hate a movie I warn everyone around me to see the movie at their own risk and what sucked about them, I don't see a movie because MovieBob told me too, or Roger(Video Games are too Art)Ebert told me too. Actually As far as Ebert goes, I think he's only ever given 1 review that I agreed with and it was back in the early 80's when he was still had a fat ass. For the most part if he says it was good I avoid it cause his definition of good is always a ballistic missile launch away from my idea of good. 80% of the time I completely disagree with movie Critics. But I watch their reviews to find out what a "trained" person thinks, then I either see the movie and lamb baist it myself or praise it for its qualities.

Twilight is so strong because... well ... I honestly have no idea. There's more acting in a Leonardo D-crapio(I'm not a fan) movie then in those, so I guess I have to thank the Twilight series for making my like an actor I thought was shit a lot more then those dry, lackluster, shitty acted movies, with a story line as thin as the superficial women that flock to those films to watch them over and over and over and omg will it ever end, over again. Twilight = death of the film industry. If those are good acted movies with a lasting moral then I'm an fungus spore.

twm1709:

Quick: Can you think of a functional premise somehow involving a hungry, hungry hippo? Because that might be worth money right now.

Been watching robot chicken lately Bob?

Gah, ninja'd.

It would appeal to overweight people, make it about a pie eating contest. :)

I tend to agree with the above posters who note that Hollywood has always produced crap and we only remember the good stuff (I've had the same argument with people over "classic" rock), because Sturgeon's Law applies in all things. I remember when I heard they were making a Battleship movie, and I thought, "a movie based on board game? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard!" Then I was reminded of the movie Clue, which was one of the best ensemble comedies of the 1980s. Even a diamond started out as a lump of coal.

As for the politics in films--that's a load of crap. Most people don't care about the politics in film, or even notice them. I mean, look at some of the ideology the majority of Hollywood films would have me believe:

-If you are a parent and work a very busy job to put food on the table and give your children every opportunity in life, your kids are going to resent you for not being at all of their soccer games and school plays and you should feel guilty. Notwithstanding there were (and still are) whole generations where parents had to work long and hard just to scrape by and society didn't collapse.

-If you are fighting vampires or demons, you better be a Catholic with access to a Bible. Only a Catholic with a command of ludicrous interpretations of scripture can fight vampires and demons in the movies. Sorry, Protestants, but in compensation, have some birth control and enjoy sex.

-In all major historical events, there were only two sides. One was amazingly close to early 21st century liberal democratic ideals, even if the film is set 2500 years ago. This side was led by a handsome white Anglo-Saxon male who was a cross between George Washington and Chuck Norris. The other side were therefore tyrants or fascists surprisingly similar to America's current bogeyman du jour, whatever their actual historical circumstances or actions were. They were led by a mustache-twirling braggart who was a cross between Darth Vader and Hitler.

Does anyone actually believe any of that?

But if there's one thing I can add to the quality discussion, it's this (because I've seen it happen to music and publishing as well): In the "good old days", movies were made by people who liked movies. Yes, they were capitalists and they were trying to make as many bucks as they could, but they did have an appreciation for the craft of film. They wanted to make good movies, for the most part, even if this meant that producers called all the shots and directors and actors were basically wage slaves.

Today, movie studios are small pieces of huge corporate pies--multinational corporations whose primary concerns are stock futures, or wine, or insurance, or home electronics, and movies are just another line item in their budgets. While directors, actors and writers might still see themselves as craftsmen and artists, their corporate overlords see them as a commodity. You either produce, or you don't.

why movies suck the short list:
Uwe Boll
Michael Bay
Recently M. Night Shyamalan (especially for Last Airbender, i mean he just took the story and flung it against the wall)

vivaldiscool:

Axolotl:

Onyx Oblivion:

Axolotl:
V? Really using V for Vendetta as an examplem against movies being too political?

I'll admit I'm not expert on the movie but the comic is about as political as it gets.

I think he meant as in divided politically. It mixes right and left wing ideas.

I've never seen it or read it, and have no intention to. But interpreting Moviebob, that's what I got.

Yeah but the comic at least is very left wing. About as left wing as you can get. It's basically Alan Moore ranting about Thatcher. It had moral ambiguity but not much political ambiguity.

The problem is the the political scale is in fact a square, and not a line. In america, people try to cut that square diagonally for the two-party dichotomy: Liberals are Left\Authoritarian, and conservatives are Right\Libertarian. V for vendetta challenges this notion by making the hero Left\Libertarian.

Of course, it's an entirely false dichotomy, but that's just where the chips at the present.

This. yes, because i totally understand everything he said, but that many long words in a sentance cant be wrong :P

DannibalG36:
"V (as in For Vendetta) hates Government so much he makes Glenn Beck look like FDR, but his enemies are thinly-veiled analogs for the Bush Administration. Which one's the liberal, again?"

Well, well, well, Bob. Apparently, you've only bothered to see the V for Vendetta film, which clearly pits V against a government that's a thinly veiled Bush administration allegory.

However, if you had even bothered to read the original comic series, you would note that Alan Moore (of Watchmen and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen fame - both originally graphic novels) paints V as an anarchist - a terrorist who wages brutal war against a fascist British government. V is no liberal avenger, as seen in the film version. He's a hero, a villain, and a psychotic madman - not unlike the Dark Knight's Joker. Nor are his enemies Bush-analogs. They're closer to some crossbreed between Mussolini and Stalin. Moore portrays a world spiraling into madness, a world devoured by insanity. V's fight is no liberal and just crusade. He fights heroically but madly, and is an agent of destruction and chaos, for the sake of murder and pillage against those just as evil.

V for Vendetta (film) certainly isn't a good case to illustrate political nebulosity. It's just a case of a Hollywood's liberals messing with excellent source material. Sure, V for Vendetta was an above-average graphic novel adaptation, and I enjoyed the film (went to see it twice, in fact). But you would be very wrong to use it as an example of political ambiguity without reading Moore's novel.

Not the bush administration, its about the thatcherite administration in britain

H0ncho:

vivaldiscool:

The problem is the the political scale is in fact a square, and not a line.

A larger problem is people who sincerely believe they can reduce complex situations to simple geometric figures.

Seriously dude, your statement pretty much embodies the Dunning-Kruger effect.

First of all, please don't presume to diagnose me with a superiority complex on the basis of a 16 word sentence. Secondly, I obviously wasn't making a holistic statement on the political process: the line and plane metrics are very popular, common, and succinct methods of representing the political spectrum insofar as they are relevant in casual conversation. Of course I wouldn't write a treatise on the 4 point political scale, but don't be so obtuse as to consider yourself above using simplified graphs in very casual conversation- especially considering that, whether you like it or not, most people do still apprehend politics on a linear left\right scale.

Also of note is that you assume the Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't apply to you, and that you happen to be the only one so interested in asserting your superiority over others.

Airsoftslayer93:

DannibalG36:
"V (as in For Vendetta) hates Government so much he makes Glenn Beck look like FDR, but his enemies are thinly-veiled analogs for the Bush Administration. Which one's the liberal, again?"

Well, well, well, Bob. Apparently, you've only bothered to see the V for Vendetta film, which clearly pits V against a government that's a thinly veiled Bush administration allegory.

However, if you had even bothered to read the original comic series, you would note that Alan Moore (of Watchmen and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen fame - both originally graphic novels) paints V as an anarchist - a terrorist who wages brutal war against a fascist British government. V is no liberal avenger, as seen in the film version. He's a hero, a villain, and a psychotic madman - not unlike the Dark Knight's Joker. Nor are his enemies Bush-analogs. They're closer to some crossbreed between Mussolini and Stalin. Moore portrays a world spiraling into madness, a world devoured by insanity. V's fight is no liberal and just crusade. He fights heroically but madly, and is an agent of destruction and chaos, for the sake of murder and pillage against those just as evil.

V for Vendetta (film) certainly isn't a good case to illustrate political nebulosity. It's just a case of a Hollywood's liberals messing with excellent source material. Sure, V for Vendetta was an above-average graphic novel adaptation, and I enjoyed the film (went to see it twice, in fact). But you would be very wrong to use it as an example of political ambiguity without reading Moore's novel.

Not the bush administration, its about the thatcherite administration in britain

Bob was referring to the (shit) movie version.

DannibalG36:
"V (as in For Vendetta) hates Government so much he makes Glenn Beck look like FDR, but his enemies are thinly-veiled analogs for the Bush Administration. Which one's the liberal, again?"

Well, well, well, Bob. Apparently, you've only bothered to see the V for Vendetta film, which clearly pits V against a government that's a thinly veiled Bush administration allegory.

However, if you had even bothered to read the original comic series, you would note that Alan Moore (of Watchmen and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen fame - both originally graphic novels) paints V as an anarchist - a terrorist who wages brutal war against a fascist British government. V is no liberal avenger, as seen in the film version. He's a hero, a villain, and a psychotic madman - not unlike the Dark Knight's Joker. Nor are his enemies Bush-analogs. They're closer to some crossbreed between Mussolini and Stalin. Moore portrays a world spiraling into madness, a world devoured by insanity. V's fight is no liberal and just crusade. He fights heroically but madly, and is an agent of destruction and chaos, for the sake of murder and pillage against those just as evil.

V for Vendetta (film) certainly isn't a good case to illustrate political nebulosity. It's just a case of a Hollywood's liberals messing with excellent source material. Sure, V for Vendetta was an above-average graphic novel adaptation, and I enjoyed the film (went to see it twice, in fact). But you would be very wrong to use it as an example of political ambiguity without reading Moore's novel.

So your mad at MovieBob, the movie critic, for referencing a movie and not a graphic novel?

twm1709:

Quick: Can you think of a functional premise somehow involving a hungry, hungry hippo? Because that might be worth money right now.

Been watching robot chicken lately Bob?

Sell it to Sci-fi as a monster movie. Young, idealistic humanitarian workers in Africa + grizzled tribesman/war veteran + hungry genetically modified hippos = Saturday night creature feature. Royalties, please.

OT: I'm 18, but very few movie releases interest me. I can't stand the dumbed-down plots, the obligatory love interests (why is there ALWAYS a fucking love story crowbarred in?), and the awful character cliches just aren't for me.

Very interesting and I look forward to the next part. As for my thoughts.

Politics

This often makes the excuse round not from people with legitimate concerns, but people that would take up the big brother role and censor differing opinions if they had the chance. Most of the movie going public isn't overly concerned about the politics of a film going in. Avtar was very one dimensionaly left leaning, but it did big numbers, so big it's more likely that a lot of people put their normal inclinations to see half naked blue people in 3D. To balance it out, Starship Troopers had a one dimension pro military message I don't agree with, but I still enjoy watching the film when I'm in the mood for big bloody war action. Yeah, others find the political views they want to see. V faced not a generic big brother government, but a Bush inspired government to many people because they want to see that view (I won't get into why for fear of offending anyone, but it's safe to say that at that point, people are just looking for things to complain about.)

Boys

We talk a big game about wanting deeper films for adults, then turn Transformers 2 into a blockbuster and pretend the one dimensional philosophy lesson in the Matrix is the deepest thing around while missing the point entirley. Face ti, we're a stupid people that like to pretend we're not. Transformers 2 did how many hundreds of millions? That's a lot of teenage allownaces. We have to shoulder some of the blame for that. The fact is they are marketing to us, and we don't like what that implies. As for Tiwlight, it's a cheap romance novel pandering to basic urges. It's the female equivilant of an American Pie movie.

Originality

You know I have surprised people by telling the the Wizard of Oz was a book first (heck a series). Adaptation and sequals are stock in trade, and that isn't a bad thing. Then the nostalgia glasses set in and we forget that the stuff in MST3K was very real, and probably more representive of the average film that those chosen to be preserved. The reality is we've been oversaturated. You said about Kinght and Day that it was probably a movie you'd enjoy if you didn't see this kind of film as often as you do. That effect has hit society hard with mega cinemas, pay per view, cable, satelite, and downloads, not to mention books, TV, video games, anime,, I could go on. The reality is we've been oversaturated with fiction to the point where it is hard to impress because we've seen so much. It's no longer a treat, it's 3 meals a day. It's not like they're all bad, but we're more likely to have seen it before in some form and therefore get bored, and unfortunatly, innovation and origianlity is a lot harder to deliver on than to ask for. Then point 2 comes back to haunt s as when something unique does come along, we're too afraid to give it a try and fall back on old favorites.

Man so much of me expects one of the reasons you think movies suck today is that we are dumb enough to keep shelling out for the tripe they feed us.

@
I made this username (avatar?) just to make the same point you just made, but then I found out you beat me to it.
Shouldn't Plan 9 From Outer Space prove that there is equal suckage throughout all time periods?

Solid article.

Redd the Sock:
To balance it out, Starship Troopers had a one dimension pro military message I don't agree with, but I still enjoy watching the film when I'm in the mood for big bloody war action.

What? I thought Starship Troopers was supposed to be a spoof of the overbearing pro-military message from the original book complete with obvious propaganda and family-unfriendly morals.

Regarding Source Material:
Why are movies not held to the same creative standard as most other media? If "On The Road" was made into a movie, it may or may not be good depending on the execution. But if someone rewrote the book, it wouldn't be herladed as some fantastic masterwork.
On the same token, most covers (with a few exceptions) aren't seen as lucrative. If most bands wanted to put a cover out as THE single for their album, they would be quickly shut down by a label, no matter how many people loved the source material. Now, before people say "but rap samples all the time," it does, but sampling is not the same as a remake. There were a number of songs sampled for any Public Enemy song, but all of it was put into a different context. It's almost like saying "Big" was the same as "Castaway" because Tom Hanks was in both. In fact, the only rap covers I can think of are "Welcome To The Terrordome" by Pharoahe Monch and "Lodi Dodi" by Snoop.
But, why don't we hold movies to higher standards of creativity?

MovieBob:
Why Movies Suck Now Part One: The Myths

Movies may suck these days, but these aren't the reasons why.

Read Full Article

"Bob Chipman is a film critic and independent filmmaker. If you've heard of him before, you have officially been spending way too much time on the internet."

DAMN IT....you got me.

I REGRET NOTHING. I LIVED AS FEW MEN DARED TO DREAM.

*runs back to StumbleUpon*

RestamSalucard:

Redd the Sock:
To balance it out, Starship Troopers had a one dimension pro military message I don't agree with, but I still enjoy watching the film when I'm in the mood for big bloody war action.

What? I thought Starship Troopers was supposed to be a spoof of the overbearing pro-military message from the original book complete with obvious propaganda and family-unfriendly morals.

Yup, sounds like Redd the Sock has completely missed the hilarious anti-military, fascism mocking black comedy that Starship Troopers is. If anything it's a multi-dimensional piss take on the love for the army that certain countries have, the glorification of young beautiful people fighting the "IRAQ-NIDS" (ring a bell?) with a healthy dose of straight faced wit in the form of Neil Patrick Harris playing a leader of the army troops while wearing a SS-Officer uniform.

It's one of the best satires of the 90's, I wholeheartedly urge you to watch it again with a bit more of an open mind.

I'm glad someone else realized how liberal hollywood is and how pointless in doing that is

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here