Why Movies Suck Now Part One: The Myths

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Skullkid4187:
I'm glad someone else realized how liberal hollywood is and how pointless in doing that is

Hollywood was very Republican sided in the 80's, was that just as pointless as well?

SpiderJerusalem:

Skullkid4187:
I'm glad someone else realized how liberal hollywood is and how pointless in doing that is

Hollywood was very Republican sided in the 80's, was that just as pointless as well?

There was a balance

Skullkid4187:

SpiderJerusalem:

Skullkid4187:
I'm glad someone else realized how liberal hollywood is and how pointless in doing that is

Hollywood was very Republican sided in the 80's, was that just as pointless as well?

There was a balance

It was pretty much as balanced as it is today. Check out the vast majority of the action and drama films released in that time and you'll be hard pressed to find the same kind of liberal thinking in them.

I don't mind politics with my movies so long as its there in the background so i can ignore it OR its clearly marketed as a political movie. Just been watching bones and I was enjoying it right up until it started clumsily inserting its politics into episodes.... best example: mid way through the examination of a dead veteran the whole scene grinds TO A FUCKING HALT so I can recieve a lecture about how the iraq war was entirely justified because all those politicians sincerely believed wmd's existed in the country and people who disagree with the war should just shut up... now I know it's a fox show but at least try and keep it subtext... its not out of place in topical satire but in a drama like this its jarring.

As for why films these days are bad just watch the origional nightmare on elm street then the crappy remake... think "what could they have done with this film on the budget they had" and realise what a wasted opportunity the film was.

vivaldiscool:
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.

I am glad you realize that geometric presentations of politics are only simplified approximations. The problem was that your original post, which stated that the political spectrum was "in fact" a square, didn't really give this impression. If this was not the intention, great.

Of course I wouldn't write a treatise on the 4 point political scale,

Please don't it has been done to death already and the more people write about it, the more people think it can predict politics with mathematical precision.

That Big Hollywood article about Twilight that you linked to is one of the most sickening things I've ever read.

Just to elaberate on the politics point...

First off I'd like to see an actual numerical assessment of the political bias of movies rather than generalised statements. Everytime a big left wing movie comes out I tend to notice that most of the other movies around the same time have a rightish bias (with the exception of those commissioned around the time Obama was elected, but that's another story). I have yet to do a detailed statisitcal annalyse but in cultural terms we do see a lot generally right wing ideas promoted through films (action films shaping conceptions of war for example) so I suspect that all the noise about the left wing bias of films is a product of the exceptions shining brighter than the rule. Also there is the element of flack. Flack in politics/media terms is the process of attacking certaining media outlets to ensure their ideological purity. Right wing groups attack the film industry to make it feel cautious about expressing left of centre views in films. There are of course other preasures that cause left leaning films to be made but the complaints about bias in film are more or less an effort to enforce an ideological view rather than a statemetn of fact.

THe other thing I have to wonder is where is this idea that Concervative = small government, Liberal = big government drawn from? Globally concervatives are more than happy to spend large amounts on the military and legislate to influence interactions between people (no drinking, no same sex love, etc), and to my mind telling people who they can marry is big, interventionist government. Conversly you have leftist groups like anarchists who see both the governemnt and private industry as a combined system of oppression (hence why V for Vendetta was anti-government while still left wing). Liberals conversly tend to want to remove governemnt from moral decision making but are not means in favor of large governement. One most instrumental players in neo-liberal economics, that is the practice of removing goverenmental and social (but not bussiness) barriers to types of market activity was Clinton. And dosn't the alliance between the Liberal Democrats and Concervatives in Britain against the labour party kinda kill the whole dycotomy? The thing to keep in mind is that in U.S politics the two major parties agree 99% of the time, with debates forming around only what they disagree, meaning that 99% of issues are only discussed if third parties are able to raise them, as is the case with climate change and the healthcare debate.

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.

Actualy that level of exageration is part of what makes the film enjoyable, but since the film glamorizes the military from beginning to end (with a few subtile jabs early on) I find it can be viewed either way depending on perspective. If you're anti war then yes, it's so over the top it's funny, but a big military supporter (and I have seen online comments to the effect) could see it as the film to give the soldiers the glory they deserve rather than the "baby killer / murdurer" titles they got after vietnam.

it's little more Scream, a little less Scary Movie (which was a good thing).

SpiderJerusalem:
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.

Ok I hear what you're saying. Can you give some examples of countless kitchen-sink dramas in the UK, and other bland and awful films in Japan and Korea? Also, Hollywood isn't always terrible, but like I said before, the films are usually bad, just as Bollywood films are usually bad, IMO anyway.

Also don't think that I'm singling out America as making bad films. Like I said, American cinema is just as excellent as everywhere else, however Hollywood is certainly not. The article suggested that cinema was in decline, however I am challenging that as Hollywood in decline.

And while we're at it, what's the precise difference between a movie about Robin Hood and a movie about G.I. Joe, apart from the age of the material?

That is not a rhetorical question. Because here's the answer. Robin Hood isn't just five hundred-plus GI Joe because the story was compelling enough to survive five hundred years, to survive eras before tape and digital storage, to be told and retold when there was no mass communication, when people were dying en masse of the Black Plague and pop culture was the furthest thing from many minds. There is absolutely no question that the centuries before ours produced works that were considered amusing enough for their own time but have since faded into obscurity or vanished from the face of the Earth altogether. Robin Hood survived while characters and stories with less resonance did not.

If Duke, Scarlett, Snake Eyes et. al. are still being passed on and talked about in a hundred years, we can consider whether there's a reasonable comparison. But I kind've doubt it, in part because Robin Hood doesn't have to count on selling a line of toys for his survival.

sweetdude:

SpiderJerusalem:
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.

Ok I hear what you're saying. Can you give some examples of countless kitchen-sink dramas in the UK, and other bland and awful films in Japan and Korea? Also, Hollywood isn't always terrible, but like I said before, the films are usually bad, just as Bollywood films are usually bad, IMO anyway.

Also don't think that I'm singling out America as making bad films. Like I said, American cinema is just as excellent as everywhere else, however Hollywood is certainly not. The article suggested that cinema was in decline, however I am challenging that as Hollywood in decline.

Here's a list of South Korean films released in 2009:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Korean_films_of_2009

In Japan:

http://asianmediawiki.com/Category:2009_Japanese_films

UK film lists are harder to sort through, since many of them list also films that are funded and made by Hollywood - yet filmed in Britain. Both above lists don't even mention the numerous anime films that are released in theaters in both countries - nor, for that matter, the numerous live action anime features that also get releases.

Again, just because Hollywood is in the spotlight most (being the leader in terms of pop-culture distribution and worldwide entertainment), it makes the place a far more easier target to attack.

SpiderJerusalem:
Again, just because Hollywood is in the spotlight most (being the leader in terms of pop-culture distribution and worldwide entertainment), it makes the place a far more easier target to attack.

Let's agree to disagree. I personally don't see any decline in films anywhere in the world. I think that a lot of people focus on Hollywood, like you say, and that results in a perceived decline, which I don't agree with. I don't think all films are perfect outside of Hollywood, but some of the best films I've ever seen, and I've seen a fair amount, have been from America outside of Hollywood, Korea, Britain, France, Belgium and Spain, and they've come in the last 10 years. At the same time, there have been some excellent Hollywood films, such as Invictus and Hangover. I just don't believe that films are becoming worse.

I mean, look at the comments, it's all about Hollywood.

Basically, movies don't suck now.

SpiderJerusalem:

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.

Seriously? You wanna go THERE? Did you even WATCH this movie?

For one thing, it's VERY loosely based off the book of the same name. You could say that the aliens and characters have the same names, but almost nothing else is the same. Essentially what we have here is marine foot soldiers fighting giant bugs with pulse rifles. It's alot closer to an adaption of Warhammer 40k with tyranids vs space marines, but the marines have no body armor. Niel Patrick Harris doesn't lead the army. Hell, the leader is the fleet admiral, which changes several times over the course of the movie. He plays an intellegence officer with psychic powers. Seeing a military officer uniform as an SS uniform is a pretty lame comparison as well. Look back at the history of uniforms and you will see many trends re-emerge over the years.

Starship troopers 2 is at best a made for syfy original straight to dvd. It's essentially invasion of the body snatchers in space, and with a forgettable cast to boot. Starship troopers 3 returns to what made the original good, and adds the power armor suits that were in the books to make it a pretty good movie, especially after the crap that was 2.

So what makes movies suck? Back in the eighties we had no fear of making an R rated movie if the movie deserved to be rated R. Sadly these days we see more R rated comedies than action flicks. Does an R rating make a flick good? By all means, no! The thing is, you will often be watching a PG13 action flick and you will realize that it would have been good if it wasn't pandering to appease everyone in the audience. That's just not really how you should make a movie. I'd rather a movie was made with characters who made sense and fit in with the mood of the movie rather than the current likes of the audience. No, a gratuitous sex scene isn't needed, but if it actually fits with where you've placed the characters then it makes sense. Movie characters are supposed to be human, not anime protagonists who are oblivious to all feelings of those around them and never find themselves up to bat. Character interaction, dialog and mood are all necessary for a movie to become good. If those things are not believable, then only the fangirls will watch it.

gim73:

SpiderJerusalem:

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.

Seriously? You wanna go THERE? Did you even WATCH this movie?

For one thing, it's VERY loosely based off the book of the same name.

I did watch it, more than a few times, wrote a paper on it university and everything.

Also made a pretty cool observation about it: movies =/= books. Who knew?!

MovieBob:
The disease is expense: Movies cost too much to make, and take too long to turn a profit, so no one in charge of the money wants to take a risk on anything without proof-of-profitability already behind it.

I think this is the core of the whole issue. The big names are scared of putting their weight (and money!) behind something that doesn't sound like a guaranteed hit. The exact same thing is happening with videogames, perhaps even quicker and more strongly than with movies.

We get remakes, sequels, spin-offs and rip-offs by the dozen. Meanwhile, the new and potentially revolutionary ideas are largely ignored, both by the publishers and the audience. Smaller 'indie' studios work hard to fill that gap, but without the big budgets to spend on their games they never reach the level of superficial quality that AAA titles proudly present and use to draw in their customers. Even less money is available for marketing, which pretty much means they're doomed to obscurity in this day and age where marketing can make or break a title even more than actual quality does.

SpiderJerusalem:

gim73:

SpiderJerusalem:

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.

Seriously? You wanna go THERE? Did you even WATCH this movie?

For one thing, it's VERY loosely based off the book of the same name.

I did watch it, more than a few times, wrote a paper on it university and everything.

Also made a pretty cool observation about it: movies =/= books. Who knew?!

I pretty much agree with what you're saying, but the "IRAQ-NIDS" comment is just plain stupid. The term "arachnid" is an existing term, and is used to refer to the bugs' insect/spider-like appearance in both the book and the movie (they're more insect-like in the movie, but more spider-like in the book). Apart from that, the book was published in 1959, long before either of the Gulf Wars.

I honestly think that movies are starting to suck because they are trying to target everyone at once but end up making a poor movie as a result. I may be wrong but that's my guess.

Very great article, MovieBob. I especially liked all what you said about the first myth that Hollywood movies being too liberal makes them bad. It's more or less an argument made by mainly conservative minded people who often have a feud with certain liberal filmmakers/actors. Like how many conservatives hate Sean Penn, or their dislike of James Cameron due to Avatar's anti-imperalism message. Besides, there's plently of conservative minded actors and filmmakers. A handful compared to the majority of Hollywood being liberal, yes, but there are conservatives in the film industry. Jon Voight is a very conservative person, but as a liberal myself who disagree's with pretty much everything he believes, I still find the majority of his film work enjoyable.

Also, on your second myth, you of course noted that part of the problem is that the filmmakers tend to awkwardly cram unneeded extras, who happen to be usually female or a minority, so that they expect to satisfy the whole audience instead of just teenage boys. I agree with that quite a bit. It reminds me how you pointed out in your Transformers Revenege of the Fallen review, how the Hackers in the first Transformers movie served no purpose. The only purpose they served was that they were black, and they did somewhat act like sterotypes. I mean, couldn't of they instead made the President in the movie a black actor, like Billy Dee Williams? (Yeah, I know, I said Jon Voight's a decent actor, I'm just making an example.)

Still, great article Bob. Can't wait to see what you'll say what the real reasons are next week. But I'm going to make a guess is that the film industry tends to hash out unneeded sequel after sequel. Case in point, Shrek 4ever After, the Saw movies, and probably the Scream movie franchise will become this since a 4th movie is currently in the making right now.

I hate how people over-generalize when they complain about movies, at least give me a valid reason "The camera work was terrible [ala Cloverfield]", "The lead actor was bad', etc

Axolotl:

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. 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.

Juding it by an American political viepoint maybe. But judged from an Englich point of view? Anarchism has always been left wing. Always.

Watch Glen Beck, the Tea Party, and Libertarians. The anarchist right is huge in America right now.

Interesting that Michael Bay thought the transformers franchise was "stupid". He may be right. My question, though, is how he consequently managed to make it even more stupid.

DannibalG36:

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.

Except, y'know, the comic wasn't released to mass audiences by a big Hollywood studio, and wasn't what he was talking about, to wit, a movie, it was, in fact, a graphic novel.

And when you are talking about perceived political leanings in movies, it would be silly and counteractive to the point you are trying to make by bringing up a graphic novel as an example of a movie.

Moriarty70:

MovieBob:
Why Movies Suck Now Part One: The Myths

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

Read Full Article

I read your debate with "Men are pigs" woman at Big Hollywood. I decided to comment here since I don't want my online self connected any way to that site.

Speaking as a guy with an old fashioned style I have to say I was insulted. Just because I wouldn't say no to a willing and eager partner I have no respect for them and treat them as akin to a wet towel. Besides, chivalry is all about a pro-female sexual attitude. One of it's core tennant is "Ladies First".

Also, since I'm Canadian, could someone explain why abstinance education is a good idea but teaching safe sex isn't?

Safe sex isn't 100% safe. Abstinance is. Although that doesn't explain things like woodshop. By that logic we shouldn't be teaching the children how to use a bandsaw safely. We should be teaching them to stay away from the bandsaw until they are adults when they can legally chop off thier own hands.

And I am not sold on the whole remake thing. At least back in the day there was a reason for remaking a movie. They had the technology and they had good actors to fill the roles. These days we have the technology but they use good looking actors to fill the roles. Nightmare on Elm ST. remake is a great example of this. They pretty much stuck to the original but somehow fucked the entire thing up. All because they wanted to make sure everyone got their panties wet when the main characters popped up on screen.

Dangerious P. Cats:
THe other thing I have to wonder is where is this idea that Concervative = small government, Liberal = big government drawn from?

Language, for the most part. These are both words used to denote generalized amounts of any given thing: a "conservative" amount meaning very little, a "liberal" amount meaning a lot. Once upon a time, the only relevant question to ask of a politician was what they thought the role of government was - a "Conservative" would say it ought be small, a "Liberal" would say the opposite.

The whole idea of "social issues" being at the forefront of a political (as opposed to social) movement is a relatively recent development in the Western World. Ironically, it's likely a negative side-effect of an overwhelmingly POSITIVE evolution: In earlier times, social issues "didn't matter" because regardless of party-affiliation everyone who could even HOPE to attain political power was of the same basic race/gender/class and thus shared most of the same basic social outlooks.

The point at which this "broke" is different for every culture, but in the United States it probably solidified after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that declared it unlawful for individual states to criminalize abortion (though there were certainly early rumblings in the Civil Rights era as well). Political "conservatives" decried the decision for putting too much power in the hands of the federal courts, holding that each state should get to make up it's own mind about such things. Religious Traditionalists who abhored the decision on theological grounds thus began to actively support the political "Right," and the two have been joined ever since - conversely, the pro-choice side and it's attendant supporters quickly took side with the "Left." Ironically, not long before that it was the other way around: Early 20th Century "conservative" thinkers were often reflexively pro-choice on individual-rights grounds (Ayn Rand, the fairy godmother of right-wing 20th Century philosophy, called it "a moral right") while most of the early Women's Rights pioneers were stridently AGAINST it.

DannibalG36:

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.

Of course V is a good choice, because, as others have said, the comic has zero bearing on the film. The two are separate entities for the purpose of the discussion.

Not a bad article, except for one little detail - the belief that movies somehow suck now, as opposed to any time in the past. From where I'm standing, the movie industry is making the same amount of money, there are just as many good and bad movies around, there are just as many good and bad actors around, there are just as many genres around... what's gone downhill, again?

Also, as far as that demographic history - I can't help but notice that it only focuses on action-style movies. What about romcoms, which have never been focused on teenage boys and which have been making big money for decades? What about the documentaries, a style that is on the rise right now? And so forth.

What are some of the things that studios do to pull in a black audience but end up being "borderline racist"?

Who cares about hollywood anyway. Theres cannes and berlin, and venice film festivals.

MovieBob:

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

Okay, take one: So there's these two little kids right? A brother and a sister. Let's say they're British. One day they find a hippo. And not just any everyday hippo. They bring it home and feed it right? But wait till you hear this right? It's hungry. And not just hungry. It's Hungry Hungry. And did I mention that this just happens to be... a secret hippo? Yeah. Voiced by the Yeah Yeah Yeah's own Karen O. Yeah. Yeah yeah yeah in fact. Now feeding this hippo is expensive right? How's a Hippo supposed to earn her keep? She can sing. Fuck yes can she sing.

Through the power of song one sassy hippo will save a marriage, teach a pair of children about the magic of life, stop a corrupt land developer and like feed the poor or something. What do you want from me? Look, we'll have a guy on a phone calling some other guy and going: "The hippo's wow man. It's Just... WOW!" Just trust me on this shit. The soundtrack alone will bring in some cash. Then we can sell off advertising rights to her favorite foods. I hear Doritos is in the market for a hippo-related project, this could be gold for us.

We'll call it: 'Hungry Hungry Hip O'. Now. I'll just need 40 million dollars and we can get started.

I think largely we suffer from the golden age reflex, where we look back with nostalgia upon the films (or music, or books, or television, or games, etc..) of our youth and just wish things could be as good now as they were then. Sometimes I try to force myself to imagine being that age now, and wondering what movies might seem like to some ten year old who didn't have the extra decades I have to get a bit bored and jaded by all that's come before.

This isn't to say that critique of modern movies isn't without merit, but if anything we suffer from a glut of what to choose from now, and because of that we can afford to be that much more selective in our criticism and praise.

The only movies I can think of that are based on theme park rides are the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, and I personally think they had huge amounts of imagination, and I think Bob has mentioned them sometimes in his reviews and I had the impression he liked them aswell.

@thenamelessloser

Sometimes the series is better than the movie, mainly because the series has more time to flesh out everything that eeds to be done and said, especially considering in Avatar: The Last Airbender there are no filler episodes. The movie sucked because not only did they try toi cram 20 episodes into a single movie, but also because the look of all the characters was almost completely wrong. But I won't go into too much detail.

Movies suck today in the same way that PC gaming is dying...

oooh this is so exciting. Now I'm realy curious about the real reasons behind movies sucking. To be honest, I have this problem, because I seriously can't find many movies unappealing. It only happened to me several times like with that 10,000 BC crap and a few other times, but normally when I pick out a film to watch, I enjoy it.

You make some good points Bob. I always hated blanket statements like those you discussed in this article. Intrigued to read next weeks :)

Way to state your own personal opinion on today's movies as a fact, Bob.

 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