NFT: Bill & Ted 3 Trailer

The first two came out when I was a kid. This looks awful.

In comment 14917056 robbieballs2003 said:

Quote:

The first two came out when I was a kid. This looks awful.

Same. I a big Reeves fan but never cared for Bill & Ted. Won't be seeing this but I hope it does well.

In comment 14917056 robbieballs2003 said:

Quote:

The first two came out when I was a kid. This looks awful.

Blasphemy!

first one was a fun movie.

But once again, Hollywood has to regurgitate something that shouldn't have been done.

Can't wait until Casablanca II.

Why not remake Caddyshack?

JFC.

Second one sucked. This doesn't look promising. That is one of the worst trailers I've ever seen. If that's what they put together to sell the movie, the actual film can't be very good,.

don't go see it and they won't be made. Or, just ignore movies you don't want to watch and support the many great projects that are coming out just about weekly right now.

In comment 14917074 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

don't go see it and they won't be made. Or, just ignore movies you don't want to watch and support the many great projects that are coming out just about weekly right now.

People have gotten so used to the crap they are making that they don't even know better. The "must see" movies aren't even that good. Everyone was raving about the Korean film Parasite because "it was different." It was interesting, but it really wasn't all that good.

But hey, you're right, audiences want a 10th version of Spiderman! Can't get enough of that!

keanu was pretty much considered a burnout when these movies came out and that's why it worked so well. Since then he's really established himself as a great actor and really great dude. SO now to see him go back and play one of his earliest parts again feels like somebody else is doing an impression of him.. the other guy feels completely natural because his career fell flat.

But this is directed by dean parisot who directed the great great galaxy quest. So there's hope.

or we can watch the watered down flag football NFL game that we get today. Football stinks now compared to when I was a kid, but we all still eat it up (less for me now but I still watch the Giants + big games).

Its fine that you don't like movies made today, but you generalize it to the point where I have to call it out. And when you don't like anything at all that generally means the problem is with you and not the product. Seems pretty convenient to watch movies and not like any of them - weird in fact.

"Parasite" wasn't all the good. Also fine if you didn't like it but it begs the question - what do you like? Was the last good movie you saw "Patton"?

Wyld Stallyns
@Wyld_Stallyns88
·
5h
Replying to
@BillandTed3
and
@Winter
I imagine half the movie will be Bill & Ted trying to find a phone booth and Millennials on their smartphones asking them, "What's a phone booth?"

In comment 14917089 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

or we can watch the watered down flag football NFL game that we get today. Football stinks now compared to when I was a kid, but we all still eat it up (less for me now but I still watch the Giants + big games). Its fine that you don't like movies made today, but you generalize it to the point where I have to call it out. And when you don't like anything at all that generally means the problem is with you and not the product. Seems pretty convenient to watch movies and not like any of them - weird in fact. "Parasite" wasn't all the good. Also fine if you didn't like it but it begs the question - what do you like? Was the last good movie you saw "Patton"?

UConn, I think there is a reason why older movies and shows are doing so well on streaming services. It was just a better product.

I've said many times on BBI that I think there has been a definite upswing in the quality of shows made for TV on premium services (Game of Thrones is just one example... though that said, I'm reading the books now and boy did they go off script).

What did I like recently? Joker (I'm contradicting myself now on the superhero movies, but that wasn't your typical superhero movie).

1917 and Dunkirk were well done (and different in style).

I loved Grand Budapest Hotel and Moonrise Kingdom (same folks made that).

Lincoln was done very well.

They've botched Star Wars to the point where I won't even go see them anymore. I liked Force Awakens originally until I realized I just had watched a remake of A New Hope.

I actually find myself watching old stuff. Want a messed up "old movie"... re-watch High Plains Drifter or "Full Metal Jacket". Hell, even the old crappy movies are better... I re-watched "They Live" yesterday.

two classics

Seriously... I'm not trying to be argumentative here (though I love a good argument), but look at this list and how many of these would you actually watch again?
Top 100 Movies of the 2010s so far - ( New Window )

I watch older moves as well but many don't age well. But I watch them because I liked them in the past and nostalgia usually prevails.

Its also fatigue - you've been watching movies since as long as you can remember and sooner or later when doing anything over and over again, you get tired of it. You also have more entertainment options today than you did 30 years ago.

In any case this movie does look like shit. But there's a bunch that look great that are slated for this year. Speaking of Dunkirk, Tenet is still slated for theaters and it better because its going to be epic in iMax.

In comment 14917101 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

Seriously... I'm not trying to be argumentative here (though I love a good argument), but look at this list and how many of these would you actually watch again? Top 100 Movies of the 2010s so far - ( New Window )

I've seen half the top 10 atleast twice by now, some more and I rarely watch movies multiple times - too many others I haven't seen that i need to get to.

There's actually a ton of great movies there. If you don't like any of them then I don't know what to tell you. Just watched the Social Network last week after not seeing it for a couple years, still such a quality movie. Extremely well written (Sorkin) and Directed (Fincher) - two of the best in their respective fields over the last 25 years.

In comment 14917102 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

I watch older moves as well but many don't age well. But I watch them because I liked them in the past and nostalgia usually prevails. Its also fatigue - you've been watching movies since as long as you can remember and sooner or later when doing anything over and over again, you get tired of it. You also have more entertainment options today than you did 30 years ago. In any case this movie does look like shit. But there's a bunch that look great that are slated for this year. Speaking of Dunkirk, Tenet is still slated for theaters and it better because its going to be epic in iMax.

UConn, I agree with you. Some old movies haven't aged well. I just said to my wife (I'm relaying my discussion with you to her in real time - grin) before you typed this, "Hell, I'll admit it when something I thought was good really isn't."

All I know is when I'm told, "this is a great movie that you need to see" I usually end up disappointed now. Lots of CGI...lots of explosions...remakes...sequels... very little original story-telling.

That's what I miss the most... strong plots, interesting characters, and good story telling.

The second...meh.

Ted: Remember when I asked her to the prom?
Bill: SHUT UP, TED!

of the 2010s.

As if all filmakers in Hollywood have a multi-studio meeting about what movies everyone is allowed to make.

This was a project of the original writers Matheson and Solomon. They've been hustling to get is made since 2011. After many re-writes and marketing with the help of Winters and Reeves they finally had the money to make the film they wanted and not another reboot - which is what most studios originally wanted from them.

Its not supposed to look great. Its a fun feel good comedy. Want the type of movie you like to be made? Go out there and do what these filmmakers did. Otherwise enjoy the entertainment people worked their asses off to make happen.

"All I know is when I'm told, "this is a great movie that you need to see" I usually end up disappointed now. Lots of CGI...lots of explosions...remakes...sequels... very little original story-telling."

That's a very broad brush. Most of those movies on the list outside of the scifi movies don't have any CGI at all. And I'm there with you anyway, Hollywood went CGI heavy in the 2000's because bigger was better and it sold in Asia - that's why they are still made.

Mad Max Fury Road - next to no CGI and is pretty much #1 all time for me in the action genre.

Arrival - some CGI but a brilliantly told story

Hugo - might be Scorsese's most "interesting" film. Some CGI but a very subtle, let the story unfold and used it to enhance (which was kind of the purpose of the film).

Life of Pi - heavy use of CGI but so well made. Ang Lee is a master, IMO.

Zootopia - 100% animation and one of the best animated movies ever made, IMO. Its up there with "UP" (which could have won best picture flat out in 2009).

I bring these up because they are in that top 100 and reflect when CGI is used properly. Not everything is Transformers.

The major studios respond to market demand like any other mass-consumption business. If their research says there's a market for another Bill & Ted movie, they run the numbers, figure out what they can spend on one to have a reasonable expectation of making money, and they make one. It's a product made for a market, at a price.

There are filmmakers who make films because they're creative and have something to say, but that's not what drives the sequels, franchises, etc. It's strictly business. The majors want to commoditize films as much as possible, in the sense that they want a product that can be made at a predictable price and deliver a predictable return -- on average, anyway.

The biggest obstacle to more risk-taking in movies is the high cost of marketing. You can make a movie cheaply nowadays, but it still costs something like $20 million to market a movie. Rule of thumb is you need to bring in 3x your costs. If you need to spend $20 million for marketing, you need $60 million in revenue to offset that, give or take. Also 3x the production budget. So your risk-taking movie, that cost maybe $5 million (cheap), needs to bring in $75 million to turn a profit. And that's a lot of revenue for a risk-taking movie.

That's one reason more and more eccentric, individual films are going right to streaming. Lower marketing costs and if the movie drives subscriptions, it can be a loss leader for the streaming service and still pay for itself in other ways.

In comment 14917108 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

of the 2010s.

Agreed. I remember when they first announced it, I scoffed at the idea - "how's a movie about facebook going to be good"?

Boy was I wrong. The back and forth between how the idea started and evolved with the private court sessions - so well done. Ohh and Trent Reznor - what a gem he's been in the movie industry.

I watched Mad Max Fury Road because of all of the glowing reviews on BBI about it.

I thought it stunk. Seriously.

I think we just have different movie tastes.

What I have read (and said here before) is that movies have changed because of the need to cater to overseas audiences, particularly in Asia. That makes sense to me. But it would also explain the blandness that I am picking up (I understand you don't agree).

debating this topic with Eric again. I am not! Walk away from the keyboard, self! Save your strength!

Predator is a cheesy, testosterone-laden, over-the-top action flick, but I would pick that any day over the last Mad Max movie.

"I ain't got time to bleed!"

How do you beat that?

I’ve been hoping one of the big streaming services would adapt They Live into a series. The movie is an all time cult classic, but I’ve always thought if they fleshed it out as a series it would be very popular.

there is no way Fury Road is better than the second Mad Max movie (Road Warrior).

it just feels like a big troll job at this point. If Fury Road stunk than I just quit.

Yeah Predator is fun to watch but when you actually think about the movie itself, its pretty stupid. But hey it was made in the 80's so it must be good.

Let me guess, Rocky 4 was better than Creed?

I quit.

In comment 14917070 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

first one was a fun movie. But once again, Hollywood has to regurgitate something that shouldn't have been done. Can't wait until Casablanca II. Why not remake Caddyshack? JFC.

You mean like this?
Link - ( New Window )

In comment 14917125 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

there is no way Fury Road is better than the second Mad Max movie (Road Warrior).

Predator is a pretty high bar to judge movies, actually. John McTiernan was a very artistic young director at that time. That and "Die Hard," both movies that elevated the genre. Really, really good films that have stood the test of time.

I agree that I'd take "The Road Warrior" over "Fury Road," but that's because The Road Warrior is another movie that sets a high bar. I think Fury Road was a fantastic film and was a bracing shot of creativity compared to the very corporate, very safe superhero franchises. Tom Hardy was a less interesting Max than Mel Gibson, but Charlize Theron almost made up for it.

I love those Marvel movies but they're mostly quite disposable. Predator, Die Hard, The Road Warrior, and yes, Fury Road, IMV all essentials.

Leo couldn't have really died, he was awesome in Wolf of Wallstreet

In comment 14917125 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

there is no way Fury Road is better than the second Mad Max movie (Road Warrior).

wow I finally found someone else that hated Fury Road. Cheeeeseball

… saying 1 and/or 2 sucked. Dead to me.

In comment 14917116 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 14917108 SFGFNCGiantsFan said: Quote: of the 2010s. Agreed. I remember when they first announced it, I scoffed at the idea - "how's a movie about facebook going to be good"? Boy was I wrong. The back and forth between how the idea started and evolved with the private court sessions - so well done. Ohh and Trent Reznor - what a gem he's been in the movie industry.

and the trailer really made it. The Creep song sang by the choir. It was just good all around.

Within 10 years, we will see...


Casablanca II: Sam's Revenge

Rocky IV... awful movie... but I love it... why?... non-stop music montages... hell, that soundtrack used to be my gym workout.

In comment 14917098 Payasdaddy said:

Quote:

two classics

Eraserhead is the biggest piece of shit movie in the history of cinema

In comment 14917149 Anakim said:

Quote:

In comment 14917098 Payasdaddy said: Quote: two classics Eraserhead is the biggest piece of shit movie in the history of cinema

Best thing about Eraserhead is you can say it's original...because no sane person could come up with such grotesque and nonsensical shit. There's no artistic value or even mindless entertainment in Eraserhead. It's a piece of shit of the highest order.

Hard to believe it's 21 years old now. It has definitely held up better than that other iconic movie from '99, The Matrix.

Fincher is just awesome. Even his worst movie (Gone Girl, IMO) is better than many directors best movies. His upcoming movie Mank should be right in Eric's wheelhouse - will it suck????

But seriously, its about the making of Citizen Kane, specifically the battles between the screenwriter and Orson Welles.

I could watch Die Hard and the Matrix (first one) any time. And folks quote from them all of the time.

I can't even remember a scene from Fury Road.

(And again, before you guys get on me about being "old man Eric", I am on record here many, many times of the years saying which modern TV shows I love...and some recent movies).

I like all of his movies that I've seen (didn't watch The Social Network because I can't stand Sorkin). I might put Panic Room below Gone Girl, but I liked them both anyway. The Game is very underrated.

As free to me on demand, so I finally got to watch Hard Eight and Blood Simple. Liked Hard Eight a lot - Anderson hadn't quite found his groove yet but you could already see where he was headed. Very stylish.

Blood Simple, I have to say I was a little disappointed. It has its moments, but on the whole it was fairly dull.

In comment 14917124 Ben in Tampa said:

Quote:

I’ve been hoping one of the big streaming services would adapt They Live into a series. The movie is an all time cult classic, but I’ve always thought if they fleshed it out as a series it would be very popular.

Bigger question is who the heck ever told John Carpenter that he was good at composing music?

His soundtracks (other than Halloween) are so bad that in a sick way, they add to the movie.

must have seen it 10-15 times. Its epic level film-making shot under come pretty ridiculous circumstances. Also up there in that regard is the Revenant - Lubezki is unreal and the primary reason for one of the best movies in film history - Children of Men.

In comment 14917070 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

first one was a fun movie. But once again, Hollywood has to regurgitate something that shouldn't have been done. Can't wait until Casablanca II. Why not remake Caddyshack? JFC.

Are you really comparing the esteem and artistic appreciation of Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure with Casablanca?

This is being done effectively as fan service. Keanu Reeves is a beloved actor fans want the nostalgia to see him re-play the character again. It's no different than a band re-uniting and making old fans happy to see them again. Plus, for some, it's nice to see Alex Winter back in a leading role after what he went through (quit acting because of the pressure of the spotlight and dealing with trauma of being molested as a child).

30 years ago when Hollywood made its seventh Police Academy movie, I'm sure people weren't concerned about what it meant for the fate of Citizen Kane.

My point is that there is no audience for "Bill and Ted 3". None. People my age (the only ones who even remember the first movie) aren't going to see it. The younger audience doesn't even know who these two guys are.

Based on the movie reviews I see on YouTube (there is a whole genre of YouTubers who cut movies apart now), very few of these reboots, remakes, sequels (after many years) do well, particularly the ones that try to make a buck off of nostalgia shows or movies. I can't tell you how many times when surfing the streaming services, my wife or I have said, "Oh my God, they remade (blank)?!" (These movies almost seem like they went straight to video sometimes they did so poorly).

Do you really think Bill and Ted 3 will be a commercial success?

but like music or sports or anything else in life, if I don't like it I just don't watch/listen/read it and move on with my day.

Why its being made doesn't even matter, its no skin of your back or mine. I'm focused on what does look good and there's quite a lot to look forward to.

you guys of some of the films/movies they remade (seriously):

Psycho
Total Recall
Point Break
The Longest Yard
Red Dawn
Ghostbusters
Conan the Barbarian
Ben-Hur
The Pink Panther
Arthur
Clash of the Titans
Death Wish
Footloose
The Mummy
Planet of the Apes
Bewitched
Land of the Lost
The Beverly Hillbillies
Wild Wild West

And many, many others. WTF?

sat in the can for a almost two years before they finally released it.

In comment 14917170 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

My point is that there is no audience for "Bill and Ted 3". None. People my age (the only ones who even remember the first movie) aren't going to see it. The younger audience doesn't even know who these two guys are. Based on the movie reviews I see on YouTube (there is a whole genre of YouTubers who cut movies apart now), very few of these reboots, remakes, sequels (after many years) do well, particularly the ones that try to make a buck off of nostalgia shows or movies. I can't tell you how many times when surfing the streaming services, my wife or I have said, "Oh my God, they remade (blank)?!" (These movies almost seem like they went straight to video sometimes they did so poorly). Do you really think Bill and Ted 3 will be a commercial success?

I'm with Eric on this, and I have actually been looking forward to this. But, that trailer looks horrible. Not that you expect Oscar performances, but Winter and Reeves were dragging in that trailer. There was none of that charm from the first movie, including their Valley accents.

In comment 14917166 PaulBlakeTSU said:

Quote:

In comment 14917070 Eric from BBI said: Quote: first one was a fun movie. But once again, Hollywood has to regurgitate something that shouldn't have been done. Can't wait until Casablanca II. Why not remake Caddyshack? JFC. Are you really comparing the esteem and artistic appreciation of Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure with Casablanca? This is being done effectively as fan service. Keanu Reeves is a beloved actor fans want the nostalgia to see him re-play the character again. It's no different than a band re-uniting and making old fans happy to see them again. Plus, for some, it's nice to see Alex Winter back in a leading role after what he went through (quit acting because of the pressure of the spotlight and dealing with trauma of being molested as a child). 30 years ago when Hollywood made its seventh Police Academy movie, I'm sure people weren't concerned about what it meant for the fate of Citizen Kane.

Paul - I never knew what happened to Winter. He disappeared for about 15-20 years, at least as an actor. But, apparently, he's been working since 2007...nothing I've seen him in, but steady work.

In comment 14917070 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

first one was a fun movie. But once again, Hollywood has to regurgitate something that shouldn't have been done. Can't wait until Casablanca II. Why not remake Caddyshack? JFC.

Eric, it's $$$$$$$$

In comment 14917182 Matt M. said:

Quote:

In comment 14917170 Eric from BBI said: Quote: My point is that there is no audience for "Bill and Ted 3". None. People my age (the only ones who even remember the first movie) aren't going to see it. The younger audience doesn't even know who these two guys are. Based on the movie reviews I see on YouTube (there is a whole genre of YouTubers who cut movies apart now), very few of these reboots, remakes, sequels (after many years) do well, particularly the ones that try to make a buck off of nostalgia shows or movies. I can't tell you how many times when surfing the streaming services, my wife or I have said, "Oh my God, they remade (blank)?!" (These movies almost seem like they went straight to video sometimes they did so poorly). Do you really think Bill and Ted 3 will be a commercial success? I'm with Eric on this, and I have actually been looking forward to this. But, that trailer looks horrible. Not that you expect Oscar performances, but Winter and Reeves were dragging in that trailer. There was none of that charm from the first movie, including their Valley accents.

And of course the fact that there's no George Carlin in it (RIP), makes it a pass for me. Bogus...

In comment 14917170 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

My point is that there is no audience for "Bill and Ted 3". None. People my age (the only ones who even remember the first movie) aren't going to see it. The younger audience doesn't even know who these two guys are. Based on the movie reviews I see on YouTube (there is a whole genre of YouTubers who cut movies apart now), very few of these reboots, remakes, sequels (after many years) do well, particularly the ones that try to make a buck off of nostalgia shows or movies. I can't tell you how many times when surfing the streaming services, my wife or I have said, "Oh my God, they remade (blank)?!" (These movies almost seem like they went straight to video sometimes they did so poorly). Do you really think Bill and Ted 3 will be a commercial success?

If all of these reboots/sequels do so terribly financially, then why do they keep making them?

Movie studios specifically make these movies in droves because they have a built in brand recognition. And typically with how much it costs to make and market blockbuster movies, it's safer to go with movies that have established intellectual property. Or that are superhero movies with little dialogue for international audiences. Sometimes, they even re-purpose generic movie scripts to tie them into a franchise ( I believe they did this with Live Free or Die Hard which was just a run-of-the-mill action movie).


This wasn't an expensive movie to make. It's not a blockbuster. It is a small project that the writers, Keanu, and Winter have been trying to get made for a decade because they wanted to bring the characters back (certain players I'm sure were looking to make a quick buck off another gig).

It might not do big sales at the theater. But between theaters, On Demand purchases, rentals for the earlier movies, streams when it hits services, I don't think it's a sure thing to be a flop. Plus, Keanu Reeves is an international star. Who knows how well this will do in Asia which can be a big driver of these decisions. Another thing you aren't considering is that the 90s are trendy/retro for young people now as well.

Take Dumb and Dumberer. The trailer was atrocious. I couldn't even bring myself to watch it despite how much I loved the first movie. It was panned. It made reboot made $170 million on a $50 million budget.

That the trailer for this looked weak is a reflection of the final product, not on the impetus to make the film.

FWIW, I don't expect it to be a good movie. I'll see it for free at some point because I liked the first movie and like the idea of revisiting the characters, and like Keanu. The movie doesn't have to be good. It just has to be watchable enough that I get my enjoyment for seeing the characters back on screen.

In comment 14917158 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

I could watch Die Hard and the Matrix (first one) any time. And folks quote from them all of the time. I can't even remember a scene from Fury Road.

Wow, I sure can. But y'know, there's no right or wrong answer here. You didn't like the movie that much, I did, no problem.

I'm pretty sure that the bulk if not all of the movies I listed were financial failures...some of them huge financial failures.

Why? I honestly think because the people who make movies today are horrible at their jobs. They steal constantly from other people's work. It's embarrassing.

I'll give you an example. I was a fan of the first season of Stranger Things. A few weeks ago, my wife and I tried a movie called Super 8. Guess what we found out? The makers of Stranger Things obviously completely ripped off Super 8 (2011 movie). It's a complete rip off.

In comment 14917215 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

I'm pretty sure that the bulk if not all of the movies I listed were financial failures...some of them huge financial failures. Why? I honestly think because the people who make movies today are horrible at their jobs. They steal constantly from other people's work. It's embarrassing. I'll give you an example. I was a fan of the first season of Stranger Things. A few weeks ago, my wife and I tried a movie called Super 8. Guess what we found out? The makers of Stranger Things obviously completely ripped off Super 8 (2011 movie). It's a complete rip off.

Eric, that's par for the course. I had a script of mine called "Simon Sez" that was ripped off all the way to the title itself. It had been making the rounds and attracting some interest and someone decided to take it and put their name on it (with just enough changes to pass). I found out about in on vacation while reading an article on it in the LA Times. My agent just shook his head.

That's entertainment!

For those on this thread struggling to find quality film from the last decade, the last place to look is the theater blockbusters.

The studios have virtually relegated the theater to audio/visual experiences only. And why not? Everyone watches their movies at home.

There's so much quality film and television being made right now it's crazy.

Is the take from the guy who play falcon on the marvel movies on why today's movies suck. I think he nails it.
Link - ( New Window )

And as far as new movies ripping off old movies -- classics like Some Like It Hot, Airplane, Taxi Driver, Star Wars, The Big Lebowski, Alien all borrow heavily or directly from other films.

George Lucas admits he lifted major themes from the Hidden Fortress for Star Wars and then basically remade it in the Phantom Menace.

In comment 14917215 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

I'm pretty sure that the bulk if not all of the movies I listed were financial failures...some of them huge financial failures. Why? I honestly think because the people who make movies today are horrible at their jobs. They steal constantly from other people's work. It's embarrassing. I'll give you an example. I was a fan of the first season of Stranger Things. A few weeks ago, my wife and I tried a movie called Super 8. Guess what we found out? The makers of Stranger Things obviously completely ripped off Super 8 (2011 movie). It's a complete rip off.

It would probably kill you to know that a lot of famous movies in the 50s and 60s ripped off movies from the 20s and 30s.

he doesn’t, that’s why the conversation is funny. Wait until he finds out about music!

As for Hollywood and remakes, that's been going on since they began making movies. It's been said many times that the NFL is a "copycat league." Well, so is Hollywood.

Note to Eric. Casablanca has already been "remade," kind of. See the link below.

Barb Wire (1996) - ( New Window )

In comment 14917096 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

In comment 14917089 UConn4523 said: Quote: or we can watch the watered down flag football NFL game that we get today. Football stinks now compared to when I was a kid, but we all still eat it up (less for me now but I still watch the Giants + big games). Its fine that you don't like movies made today, but you generalize it to the point where I have to call it out. And when you don't like anything at all that generally means the problem is with you and not the product. Seems pretty convenient to watch movies and not like any of them - weird in fact. "Parasite" wasn't all the good. Also fine if you didn't like it but it begs the question - what do you like? Was the last good movie you saw "Patton"? UConn, I think there is a reason why older movies and shows are doing so well on streaming services. It was just a better product. I've said many times on BBI that I think there has been a definite upswing in the quality of shows made for TV on premium services (Game of Thrones is just one example... though that said, I'm reading the books now and boy did they go off script). What did I like recently? Joker (I'm contradicting myself now on the superhero movies, but that wasn't your typical superhero movie). 1917 and Dunkirk were well done (and different in style). I loved Grand Budapest Hotel and Moonrise Kingdom (same folks made that). Lincoln was done very well. They've botched Star Wars to the point where I won't even go see them anymore. I liked Force Awakens originally until I realized I just had watched a remake of A New Hope. I actually find myself watching old stuff. Want a messed up "old movie"... re-watch High Plains Drifter or "Full Metal Jacket". Hell, even the old crappy movies are better... I re-watched "They Live" yesterday.

The last 2 Star Wars movies were a big disappointment to me as well. That said, if you haven't seen The Mandalorian yet, I would get started ASAP. What a pleasant surprise that was. Makes you think JJ Abrahms was just the wrong choice for the Star Wars franchise.

I actually think movies of this past decade have been really good, I think where the industry is suffering, is in Comedies. If you compare the best comedies from the 2000-2010 to 2011 to the present, it's like night and day. All other genres tho, I think are only getting better.

In comment 14917268 GF1080 said:

Quote:

It would probably kill you to know that a lot of famous movies in the 50s and 60s ripped off movies from the 20s and 30s.

Absolutely true. However, it's a little different when virtually no one has seen those 1920-30s originals. I know the Bogart version of The Maltese Falcon wasn't the first adaptation, but I've never seen the original 1931 film. Don't know anyone else who has seen it either, so the 1941 version is the original to me. So many of the reboots/remakes/sequels of today are of films that most people know well.

Keanu Reeves is in. You just never know with him.

Speaking of good movies that came out recently, I just got the opportunity to watch Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and thought it was amazing. Pitt and Dicaprio have amazing chemistry, and the whole Manson cult thing was particularly engrossing. I really hope Tarentino keeps directing, if not, his style will be missed.

you bring up an interesting point with comedies. For me, I can't watch most of them, doesn't matter how old or new they are. I think we've changed as a society and an episodic format just works infinitely better for the Comedic genre.

And that's largely why I think some people have an issue with cinema in general - they don't want to admit it (and maybe its because they don't realize it) but their tastes, preferences, way they spend their free time has all changed. Many have a bad taste in their mouth with movies costs which also effects their judgement on quality. There's a lot of factors.

When I was a kid, even through my early 20's I can watch the same movie over and over again. Good movies, bad movies, didn't matter. I can't do that now, my attention span needs "new, untapped content".

Without a doubt there's fantastic movies being made. The variety of movies made today dwarfs that of past decades. And the creativity is still there too, there's just more crap mixed in - that's just going to happen.

Take a look at movie releases per year:

2000 - 371 in North America
2018 - 878 in North America

That tells me the demand has never been higher, but with that are going to be movies that you don't like, a lot more of them.

In comment 14917342 barens said:

Quote:

Keanu Reeves is in. You just never know with him.

I remember walking out of the theater after seeing "The Matrix" thinking who would've guessed that the biggest action movie stars heading into the new millennium would be The Fresh Prince and "Ted."

there had to be a sidebar for this thread to have 70 posts!!

In comment 14917361 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

there had to be a sidebar for this thread to have 70 posts!!

Yeah, we are all getting a lesson on how movies made today just aren't creative or well made, and are overall terrible. Its been an interesting read that's for sure.

a lesson that Caddyshack wasn't remade. I had burned Jackie Mason out of my mind, only to have it bubble to the top in a fury when I saw that post!

The Mandalorian is fantastic. My son got me watching that (and the original Clone Wars cartoons).

*******

The two movies that I thought would be garbage heading into them were Napoleon Dynamite and the first Transformers movie. Dead wrong on both.

2000 - 371 in North America
2018 - 878 in North America

That's even more disheartening because I have a hell of a time finding anything new worthwhile.

You and I just have vastly different tastes.

In comment 14917368 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

2000 - 371 in North America 2018 - 878 in North America That's even more disheartening because I have a hell of a time finding anything new worthwhile. You and I just have vastly different tastes.

I don't think this is a taste thing. You've got a stigma against most things new which I've noticed in many topics across BBI. I don't buy that you not liking anything that's come out the past 10 years is a problem with the product. Movies just don't seem to be your thing (and that's 100% fine), but that doesn't mean they suck, aren't creative or aren't well made.

If we start a video game thread we will learn about everything being better in the 80's and video games now lack any sort of creativity. Rinse repeat with music.

In comment 14917366 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

The Mandalorian is fantastic. My son got me watching that (and the original Clone Wars cartoons). ******* The two movies that I thought would be garbage heading into them were Napoleon Dynamite and the first Transformers movie. Dead wrong on both.

Napoleon Dynamite, absolutely!! Transformers?? Yeesh.

Regarding Keanu Reeves, I was at first unwilling to see the John Wick movies, but I was talked into watching them, and I'm thankful I did. They are a blast.

of the past decade or so. Up there with Fury Road and The Raid.

That's simply not true.

I'm on record as saying many, many times how much better television is as a product today.

Video games are infinitely better. There is no comparison whatsoever. If I had the games my son has, I never would have left my house.

The only other categories on BBI I've said were better in the past are (1) football, (2) music (there have actually been academic studies confirming how standard our music has become), and (3) movies.

You and I don't agree on movies so you want to label as me having some problem with "new things." Not the case. Unfortunately this is a product of the times we live in. If you don't like the resistance to your point of view, you personally attack your opponent.

In comment 14917384 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

of the past decade or so. Up there with Fury Road and The Raid.

Yeah, seemed like a movie that's just easy to write off, but ended blowing away my expectations.

In comment 14917388 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

That's simply not true. I'm on record as saying many, many times how much better television is as a product today. Video games are infinitely better. There is no comparison whatsoever. If I had the games my son has, I never would have left my house. The only other categories on BBI I've said were better in the past are (1) football, (2) music (there have actually been academic studies confirming how standard our music has become), and (3) movies. You and I don't agree on movies so you want to label as me having some problem with "new things." Not the case. Unfortunately this is a product of the times we live in. If you don't like the resistance to your point of view, you personally attack your opponent.

I'm fine with a differing point of view. There's plenty of people that disagree with me on topics, I just need to understand the why and if the why doesn't make sense, then that leads to the back and forth as you see here.

I've even said countless times that its completely fine to not like something. But you state a lot of things as fact that just isn't true. That's my gripe, and I've called you out on it. And I'm not personally attacking you, I just don't think you are making a compelling argument. Haven't called you names or gotten nasty.

To me, it was Mad Max by way of Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone.

In comment 14917388 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

The only other categories on BBI I've said were better in the past are (1) football, (2) music (there have actually been academic studies confirming how standard our music has become), and (3) movies.

There's an argument to be made that there are an equal amount of good movies being made but that:

1) there are lots more good, average and bad movies, because there are SO many more movies made

2) fewer traditional blockbuster theater releases are "good" because that model is completely different now than in 80s, 90s, 00s

If you look at Metacritic's top 100 rated movies of all time, ~30 were made after 2010.

It's also clear as day that cinematic art and talent has transitioned to the series over feature film. I think the end result is there are a bunch of great movies being made that aren't blockbusters and a bunch if great TV because the stars and film makers have transitioned there.

In comment 14917400 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 14917388 Eric from BBI said: Quote: That's simply not true. I'm on record as saying many, many times how much better television is as a product today. Video games are infinitely better. There is no comparison whatsoever. If I had the games my son has, I never would have left my house. The only other categories on BBI I've said were better in the past are (1) football, (2) music (there have actually been academic studies confirming how standard our music has become), and (3) movies. You and I don't agree on movies so you want to label as me having some problem with "new things." Not the case. Unfortunately this is a product of the times we live in. If you don't like the resistance to your point of view, you personally attack your opponent. I'm fine with a differing point of view. There's plenty of people that disagree with me on topics, I just need to understand the why and if the why doesn't make sense, then that leads to the back and forth as you see here. I've even said countless times that its completely fine to not like something. But you state a lot of things as fact that just isn't true. That's my gripe, and I've called you out on it. And I'm not personally attacking you, I just don't think you are making a compelling argument. Haven't called you names or gotten nasty.

UConn.. Go outside. He doesn't like newer movies.. who gives a shit?

Based on your e-mail, I looked at the metacritic list. Even its rankings of the old movies aren't good.

And Boyhood is the 5th best movie of all time?

This is a terrible ranking. Old, modern, whatever your taste
https://www.metacritic.com/browse/movies/score/metascore/all/filtered - ( New Window )

I don’t actually give a shit, just weird how often Eric tells us that movies suck now. It’s a debate, no harm done. And I’m bored of discussing football analytics or Daniel Jones’ grip strength.

the movie itself isn’t great but he filming of it was pretty impressive. I think that gets lost on some people, or they just don’t care how something is made which is also fine.

I happen to think part of what makes a movie good isn’t just the story being told, it’s how it was told. We’ve got film makers today doing things never before done. For as bland a story as Avatar was seeing it in IMAX 3D was one of the coolest, if not he coolest movie theater experience I’ve ever had. Cameron basically invented his own version of 3D imaging and motion. It’s pretty incredible.

In comment 14917437 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

the movie itself isn’t great but he filming of it was pretty impressive. I think that gets lost on some people, or they just don’t care how something is made which is also fine. I happen to think part of what makes a movie good isn’t just the story being told, it’s how it was told. We’ve got film makers today doing things never before done. For as bland a story as Avatar was seeing it in IMAX 3D was one of the coolest, if not he coolest movie theater experience I’ve ever had. Cameron basically invented his own version of 3D imaging and motion. It’s pretty incredible.

That's my point. Look at Avatar.... pretty to look at. Bland, formulaic story and characters. Take away the ooh and ahh cinematography and it's a crap film.

Want a great relatively recent movie? The Usual Suspects. Why? Because of the story and the characters. More of that please. Even a low budget movie can be awesome... take Swingers.

(And again, I've listed many mindless, action films that I love... even Super Hero films have their place...)

Taking me out of the equation, I suggest you try to remember the Oscar discussions on BBI that kept out of. The overwhelming opinion on the BBI Oscar threads from the last few years has been, "Meh, this isn't a great group of films." That's not me talking but tons of people on BBI. And we're talking about a group of what is supposed to be the cream of the crop films.

Eric, maybe you don't understand how Metacritic works. It's not a list of the "best."

They aggregate reviews from a really diverse set of reviewers (magazines, newpapers, bloggers, etc.) -- and come up with a score based on reviews.

It's a gauge of where critics believe a movie sits on a scale.

Boyhood getting a 100% doesn't mean anyone thinks it's the 5th best movie of all time. It means 100% of reviewers believe it's a good movie.

For someone like you who thinks movie making has tanked, it's a good tool to find good movies.

If you look down the list how many of the movies made after 2010 have you seen?

In comment 14917447 christian said:

Quote:

Eric, maybe you don't understand how Metacritic works. It's not a list of the "best." They aggregate reviews from a really diverse set of reviewers (magazines, newpapers, bloggers, etc.) -- and come up with a score based on reviews. It's a gauge of where critics believe a movie sits on a scale. Boyhood getting a 100% doesn't mean anyone thinks it's the 5th best movie of all time. It means 100% of reviewers believe it's a good movie. For someone like you who thinks movie making has tanked, it's a good tool to find good movies. If you look down the list how many of the movies made after 2010 have you seen?

But there has been a HUGE disconnect between film critics and movie fans. Scores between both have increasingly diverged in recent years.

You're really going to get pissed at me now but I would argue that critics increasingly suck at their jobs too. Maybe they are afraid to piss of the wrong people.

The technical side and the thematic side. Some people really aren't interested in movies that are visually amazing but have weak plots, or overly confusing/convoluted plots. In my opinion, that category includes some movies that people consider all time greats - 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example. I enjoy watching it because it's visually dazzling, but I think it drags quite a bit in places and I still don't really know what the hell the ending is all about. A great cast, great direction, and great cinematography can all elevate a mediocre script for me.

Some people, though, aren't that interested in the art of moviemaking and just want an engaging story.

that's what makes it incredibly fun to watch. It wasn't trying to be Citizen Cane, it was trying to put you on a theme park ride and it did just that (if you saw it in iMax 3D).

Again, you don't like that stuff and that's perfectly fine, but that isn't everything. Plenty of incredible stories being told in today's film making.

And yes I'm on the Oscar threads. If the internet and BBI existed in 1985 there would be the exact same comments. People have wildly different tastes and there are many more movies being made now, so lots more criticism and preference.

In comment 14917449 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

The technical side and the thematic side. Some people really aren't interested in movies that are visually amazing but have weak plots, or overly confusing/convoluted plots. In my opinion, that category includes some movies that people consider all time greats - 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example. I enjoy watching it because it's visually dazzling, but I think it drags quite a bit in places and I still don't really know what the hell the ending is all about. A great cast, great direction, and great cinematography can all elevate a mediocre script for me. Some people, though, aren't that interested in the art of moviemaking and just want an engaging story.

I'm in the minority on this but I actually thought 2010 was a better film.. (Of course, I'm one of those weirdos who prefers Good Fellas to the Godfather).

with great acting and story telling:

There Will Be Blood
Hell or High Water
Moonlight
12 Years a Slave
Grand Budapest Hotel
The Handmaiden (towards the top for me, its fantastic)
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon (almost 0 CGI, all wires)
Social Network
Mulholland Drive
Pan's Labrynth
City of God
Ex Machina (some CGI)
Oldboy
Prisoners


Tons more but you get the point. If you don't like any of these then I really don't know what to tell you.

In comment 14917458 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

with great acting and story telling: There Will Be Blood Hell or High Water Moonlight 12 Years a Slave Grand Budapest Hotel The Handmaiden (towards the top for me, its fantastic) Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon (almost 0 CGI, all wires) Social Network Mulholland Drive Pan's Labrynth City of God Ex Machina (some CGI) Oldboy Prisoners Tons more but you get the point. If you don't like any of these then I really don't know what to tell you.

Yeah, its our tastes. I hated Mulholland Drive. I don't get the fuss over There Will Be Blood (reminds of the fuss over English Patient which I was supposed to like too).

I will give you Grand Budapest... that's one of my top 10 favorites.

But it's so depressing and sad

In comment 14917459 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

I don't get the fuss over There Will Be Blood

Oh hell no

In comment 14917461 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

But it's so depressing and sad

Its the movie that opened me up to foreign film. Just an incredible piece of work. I'm glad to see foreign film finally getting traction in the states, so many great projects are now getting funded.

If you haven't seen it yet, watch the Handmaiden. I was blown away.

coupled with the sound and cinematography and its easily in my top 5 movies ever list. I watch it atleast once per year, one of the rare movies I can watch repeatedly in a full sitting.

In comment 14917448 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

You're really going to get pissed at me now but I would argue that critics increasingly suck at their jobs too. Maybe they are afraid to piss of the wrong people.

That's why Metacritic aggregates from a variety of sources across the geographic, age, and media landscape. It's not just Hollywood elite critics.

So of these movies, how many have you seen:

- Boyhood
- Moonlight
- Roma
- Manchester-By-the-Sea
- 12 Years a Slave
- Parasite
- Children of Paradise
- Gravity
- The Social Network
- I am Not Your Negro
- Portrait of a Lady on Fire
- Zero Dark 30
- A Seperation
- Carol
- Before Midnight
- Dunkirk
- Amour
- 45 Years
- Mr. Turner
- The Irishman
- Amazing Grace
- Inside Out
- We Were Here
- Ladybird
- Carlos
- Marriage Story
- La La Land
- Faces Places
- Call Me by Your Name
- Shoplifters

In comment 14917444 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

In comment 14917437 UConn4523 said: Quote: the movie itself isn’t great but he filming of it was pretty impressive. I think that gets lost on some people, or they just don’t care how something is made which is also fine. I happen to think part of what makes a movie good isn’t just the story being told, it’s how it was told. We’ve got film makers today doing things never before done. For as bland a story as Avatar was seeing it in IMAX 3D was one of the coolest, if not he coolest movie theater experience I’ve ever had. Cameron basically invented his own version of 3D imaging and motion. It’s pretty incredible. That's my point. Look at Avatar.... pretty to look at. Bland, formulaic story and characters. Take away the ooh and ahh cinematography and it's a crap film. Want a great relatively recent movie? The Usual Suspects. Why? Because of the story and the characters. More of that please. Even a low budget movie can be awesome... take Swingers. (And again, I've listed many mindless, action films that I love... even Super Hero films have their place...) Taking me out of the equation, I suggest you try to remember the Oscar discussions on BBI that kept out of. The overwhelming opinion on the BBI Oscar threads from the last few years has been, "Meh, this isn't a great group of films." That's not me talking but tons of people on BBI. And we're talking about a group of what is supposed to be the cream of the crop films.

I agree with you as far as Avatar goes. I honestly can't even remember the plot of that movie. Always been a huge fan of James Cameron, but this one fell way flat for me.

As far as the Oscar race goes, I think you have to keep in mind that there's also a very crowded field, and I'm finding more and more lately that their selections often don't reflect mine.

where the art of his films is so impressive that it outweighs deficiencies in the story - like what I talked about earlier with Hard Eight, his first movie. It's so stylish that I didn't even care that the plot was rather thin.

There Will Be Blood absolutely doesn't fall into that category. It's damn close to perfect IMO. Incredible performances, stunningly shot, and it's a fascinating character study of a man whose iron will and determination to succeed drive him to become a monster.

You've got me there because I've only seen a ew of the movies that you listed:

Boyhood: Boring

Parasite: Started off strong. Was different and I give it that. But didn't match the hype.

Gravity: Was OK, wouldn't watch it again.

Dunkirk: Really interesting because of how they movie flowed and the use of music. I liked how everything tied in by the end. (My only criticism is it just didn't catch the scope of the battle and the immense clutter on the beaches).

The Irishman: I was going to watch this one, but people kept telling me how boring it was. I still will try it.


To be honest, I haven't heard of most of those films. I will have to try some of them soon.

Honestly, I would seek out more current movies, if the ones I do see (that were hyped) held my interest.

And before we "old man Eric" again, I've said repeatedly premium TV has really stepped up its game in terms of story-telling, acting, character development, etc. I find myself watching new TV more than new movies now.

another one that's so damn well made. Chastain's coming out party too (well, the Help was but this was her movie), she's been my favorite actress for a while now.

Barens, I agree and I have this conversation all the time with my friends. We scratch our heads a lot on the Oscar nominations and snubs. Just too much competition and the politics that goes into it.

as close to perfect as a movie gets.

I'm glad I got to see it on a big screen, it just wouldn't have been the same at home.

I think many people fit in that category. Like I said earlier, we think differently now than even just a decade ago, especially with content consumption.

Things I loved in my 20's bore me now. Doesn't mean it isn't good, i've just grown into a different preference. TV shows give constant stimulation in 30-60 minute doses and have the leeway of adding in a ton of cliffhangers and sub plots. Movies don't have that luxury - they are much harder to make as its audience is much more impatient.

In comment 14917483 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

I'm glad I got to see it on a big screen, it just wouldn't have been the same at home.

100%. Gravity looks incredible, that's why you see it and it has to be in iMax (same with Avatar which stinks at home). I didn't see either for the stories.

In comment 14917486 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

I think many people fit in that category. Like I said earlier, we think differently now than even just a decade ago, especially with content consumption. Things I loved in my 20's bore me now. Doesn't mean it isn't good, i've just grown into a different preference. TV shows give constant stimulation in 30-60 minute doses and have the leeway of adding in a ton of cliffhangers and sub plots. Movies don't have that luxury - they are much harder to make as its audience is much more impatient.

That I agree with you on. I think the patience level/attention span of audiences have changed. Hell, while more unusual, it was not uncommon to have a movie approach three hours (and sometimes more... with an intermission) in the "old days."

I found myself re-watching "Where Eagles Dare" recently and said to myself, they could have easily cut 30 minutes out of that movie.

Eric, sorry, I wasn't trying to get you. I phrased that poorly.

I used to feel the same way about movies. I think we grew up in a time where blockbusters often intersected with good movies, and the model has just completed fallen apart.

The big studio movies suck. No argument there. I turned to hunting down movies myself because I love the movies.

My view is at the top of the curve (good, smart, deep) -- there's a lot of great movies being made.

I think the area that is hurt the most is comedy. There are good serious comedies, but I don't see many great silly comedies anymore.

In comment 14917495 christian said:

Quote:

Eric, sorry, I wasn't trying to get you. I phrased that poorly. I used to feel the same way about movies. I think we grew up in a time where blockbusters often intersected with good movies, and the model has just completed fallen apart. The big studio movies suck. No argument there. I turned to hunting down movies myself because I love the movies. My view is at the top of the curve (good, smart, deep) -- there's a lot of great movies being made. I think the area that is hurt the most is comedy. There are good serious comedies, but I don't see many great silly comedies anymore.

I re-watched the six episodes of Police Squad recently. That's just silly, great stuff that they just don't make anymore. And how good was Airplane?

What I miss is the comedy star who just puts out reliably funny movies.

Leslie Nielsen, Eddie Murphy, Bill Murray, Whoopi Goldberg, Lily Tomlin.

Those era transitioned into the Chris Farley, Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, Tina Fey, Will Ferrell.

I think there is major gap in that genre right now.

slapstick is gone (good riddance IMO but that's just me) and standup is back to the forefront. A 60 minute comedy special is often funnier than the best comedies, and the performers make a ton of money doing it, so not much interest in crossing over to film.

Comedy has so many different flavors too. I've always been more partial to stuff like 40 Year Old Virgin over anything Farley.

I hated that period when it seemed like all he was doing was fucking Wes Anderson movies. God, I hate Wes Anderson.

In comment 14917455 Eric from BBI said:

Quote:

In comment 14917449 Greg from LI said: Quote: The technical side and the thematic side. Some people really aren't interested in movies that are visually amazing but have weak plots, or overly confusing/convoluted plots. In my opinion, that category includes some movies that people consider all time greats - 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example. I enjoy watching it because it's visually dazzling, but I think it drags quite a bit in places and I still don't really know what the hell the ending is all about. A great cast, great direction, and great cinematography can all elevate a mediocre script for me. Some people, though, aren't that interested in the art of moviemaking and just want an engaging story. I'm in the minority on this but I actually thought 2010 was a better film.. (Of course, I'm one of those weirdos who prefers Good Fellas to the Godfather).

OMG Eric. Good Fellas to the Godfather is defensible. 2001 to 2010 isn't. Are you kidding me?

In comment 14917522 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

slapstick is gone (good riddance IMO but that's just me) and standup is back to the forefront. A 60 minute comedy special is often funnier than the best comedies, and the performers make a ton of money doing it, so not much interest in crossing over to film. Comedy has so many different flavors too. I've always been more partial to stuff like 40 Year Old Virgin over anything Farley.

Give me more (but please NOT remakes):

Caddyshack
Blues Brothers
Airplane
King Pin
Best in Show
Better Off Dead
Big Trouble in Little China
Office Space
The Jerk
Animal House
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Trading Places
Friday
Kentucky Fried Movie

would have given us their perspective on why the Dark Knight was a terrible movie...

They're fucking movies, relax.

I still like 2001, but the ending always bugged me (and I know its supposed to). Hal was badass and when you hear his voice again in 2010, it's freaky as shit. But I don't find myself sitting down and watching that movie anymore.

I have a different way of judging movies. I grade movies as "which ones do I not get tired of watching?"

In comment 14917540 Knineteen said:

Quote:

would have given us their perspective on why the Dark Knight was a terrible movie... They're fucking movies, relax.

And its just football...

Crappy argument, we are discussing something fun, spawned by Bill & Ted.

But the Dark Knight debate is interesting. I like Begins more and feel its the better movie start to finish, but the Dark Knight is still good due to its acting and action. I did not like TDKR, however, felt like Nolan mailed it in (a director I typically like).

For me there is a place for a low mental effort comedy. Sister Act, Naked Gun, Groundhog Day (my favorite movie of all time), Date Night, Coming to America, 9 to 5, Old School, Big Daddy, etc.

I do think the money is in stand up now. Low production costs, even when you pay the talent a ton, and a huge revenue driver for the streaming services.

I debate this all the time with friends. Some view movies this way, others (like me) separate them into another category. When someone says "what are you top 5 movies" my response is always "which ones I think are the best or ones I enjoy watching the most". Big difference for me as there are a bunch of fantastic movies I don't care to watch again.

Went off a cliff in the last decade. There are 2 that I can think of that were up there(Hall Pass and Bridesmaids), but otherwise, the 80’s, 90’s and 2000/10 were far superior.

I’d even venture to say that the 2000’s was the best decade for comedy.

my favorite comedies are:

Zombieland
Spy - Jason Statham kills it
Tag - i was surprised I liked it so much
Game Night
Grand Budapest
8th Grade
The Big Sick
Chef
Lady Bird
Cabin in the Woods (not all comedy, but enough)
Central Intelligence
Dope
Scott Pilgrim

Pretty much all of them are more drama influenced, a few more slapstick.

I thought Pop Star: Never Stop Never Stopping was hilarious, and I laughed a lot during Book Smart, Sausage Party, [Cock] Blockers, Jojo Rabbit, and Good Boys.

I also really enjoyed Blindspotting (mixes very serious with funny); Always Be My Maybe, The Lego Movie, The Big Sick, What We Do in the Shadows

In comment 14917560 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

my favorite comedies are: Zombieland Spy - Jason Statham kills it Tag - i was surprised I liked it so much Game Night Grand Budapest 8th Grade The Big Sick Chef Lady Bird Cabin in the Woods (not all comedy, but enough) Central Intelligence Dope Scott Pilgrim Pretty much all of them are more drama influenced, a few more slapstick.

Zombieland and Cabin in the Woods are great!! Toeing the line on comedies(More so Cabin in the Woods).

But in the 2000’s,

Old School
Anchorman
Wedding Crashers
Step Brothers
40 year Old Virgin
Borat
Knocked Up
Superbad
Dodgeball
The Hangover


These are just off the top of my head, but really just no comparison between decades.

The most respected poll there is.
100 greatest films of all time - ( New Window )

I actually favor a lot of the 2010's stuff but admit I fall in the Dramedy category than the more traditional ones. But the 2000's was a powerhouse and I was in my Teens/Early 20's then so i definitively had a ton of fun watching them.

Interestingly Apatow is a polarizing guy but he's at the forefront of a pretty big, and successful shift in the genre. I like just about all his movies to varying degrees.

In comment 14917071 Matt M. said:

Quote:

Second one sucked. This doesn't look promising. That is one of the worst trailers I've ever seen. If that's what they put together to sell the movie, the actual film can't be very good,.

The second one sucked by and large, but even it had some inspired moments and ideas. The competition with Death was, dare I say, excellent.

In comment 14917574 Stan in LA said:

Quote:

The most respected poll there is. 100 greatest films of all time - ( New Window )

what a terrible poll that reeks of self indulgence. Only six of the top 20 movies in film history were shot in color? Give me a break.

It's also incredibly flawed

Quote:

As a qualification of what ‘greatest’ means, our invitation letter stated, “We leave that open to your interpretation. You might choose the ten films you feel are most important to film history, or the ten that represent the aesthetic pinnacles of achievement, or indeed the ten films that have had the biggest impact on your own view of cinema.”

In all cases, it is going to skew to old films. "Most important to film history" will revert back to the early days when films were just taking off and getting big because of their legacies. "Ten films that had the biggest impact on your own view of cinema" will obviously skew to old movies for two reasons: 1)people are most influenced earlier in their lives/careers. A 60 year-old cinephile isn't going to point to a movie from 2012 as one of the 10 most influential on his or her view of cinema; and 2) people are going to choose older, more class, or more obscure movies as a way to signify that they are influenced by high art and that they are "worldly."

There are more movies being made than ever before and in more countries. There is more access to making movies than ever before. There is more of a range of filmmakers, artists, and actors than ever before bringing a wider range of ideas. Not to mention that technological capabilities are greater than ever before.

The idea that good movies haven't been made post 1975, and especially post 2000 just reeks of absurdity.

In comment 14917114 81_Great_Dane said:

Quote:

The major studios respond to market demand like any other mass-consumption business. If their research says there's a market for another Bill & Ted movie, they run the numbers, figure out what they can spend on one to have a reasonable expectation of making money, and they make one. It's a product made for a market, at a price. There are filmmakers who make films because they're creative and have something to say, but that's not what drives the sequels, franchises, etc. It's strictly business. The majors want to commoditize films as much as possible, in the sense that they want a product that can be made at a predictable price and deliver a predictable return -- on average, anyway. The biggest obstacle to more risk-taking in movies is the high cost of marketing. You can make a movie cheaply nowadays, but it still costs something like $20 million to market a movie. Rule of thumb is you need to bring in 3x your costs. If you need to spend $20 million for marketing, you need $60 million in revenue to offset that, give or take. Also 3x the production budget. So your risk-taking movie, that cost maybe $5 million (cheap), needs to bring in $75 million to turn a profit. And that's a lot of revenue for a risk-taking movie. That's one reason more and more eccentric, individual films are going right to streaming. Lower marketing costs and if the movie drives subscriptions, it can be a loss leader for the streaming service and still pay for itself in other ways.

I think this nails it, IMO.

On top of that, it sure seems like the American populace is getting dumber over time. Why would anyone expect the movie industry not to follow the same track? They're selling to a dumber audience; why waste the time and money even trying to make the next Citizen Kane when it will fly over the heads of half the country anyway?

garbage list.

Gatorade, I don't think the audience is dumber, there's just enough dumb people to profit off of. There a growing number of people who are now watching foreign films (Americans hate subtitles) along with more viewers that don't want a blockbuster. That's why the small production studios are gaining more notoriety. They have had excellent scripts for a while but are now funded, and with it even some mainstream actors to help turn a profit.

Its a really tough business where 1 flop can destroy you (unlike music or writing). I respect the hell out of the people who put it all on the line to share their creative ideas and try to make a movie.

In comment 14917580 PaulBlakeTSU said:

Quote:

In comment 14917574 Stan in LA said: Quote: The most respected poll there is. 100 greatest films of all time - ( New Window ) what a terrible poll that reeks of self indulgence. Only six of the top 20 movies in film history were shot in color? Give me a break. It's also incredibly flawed...

OMG. Watch a few of those films (most of which you probably never heard of) and get back to me so you know what you're talking about.

In comment 14917597 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

garbage list.

LOL.

Put together by film critics, filmmakers, historians from around the world, but I should listen to you.

What a world.

I must be living in my own personal Twilight Zone. 2018 and 2019 were fantastic years for movies for me.

I have 4 streaming services (HBO Max, Netflix, Prime, Hulu) and am awash in great movies.

As a fan of the movies, I feel almost bad I get to watch so many great movies for so little money. And with Covid, it's been even more meaningful.

I said garbage list, nothing more. Its pretentious on many levels, just like the people writing them have a penchant to be - (film makers, writers, historians).

A true list, IMO, would separate eras just like we do with sports. What I think is "groundbreaking" now is going to be different than what was considered groundbreaking 60 years ago.

For example there's recent Westerns made today that are better, IMO, than Rio Bravo, but the genre pretty much is what it is at this point (one of my favorites I might add) and there's really not a whole lot of room to grow it.

So yeah I think that list sucks, completely fine to think otherwise.

In comment 14917615 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

I said garbage list, nothing more. Its pretentious on many levels, just like the people writing them have a penchant to be - (film makers, writers, historians). A true list, IMO, would separate eras just like we do with sports. What I think is "groundbreaking" now is going to be different than what was considered groundbreaking 60 years ago. For example there's recent Westerns made today that are better, IMO, than Rio Bravo, but the genre pretty much is what it is at this point (one of my favorites I might add) and there's really not a whole lot of room to grow it. So yeah I think that list sucks, completely fine to think otherwise.

Film is separated into main eras, silent and sound. There are sub-eras as well French New Wave, American indies, etc. But Babe Ruth is still the greatest Baseball player and great films are just that, great films. Maybe try watching a few of them so we can have a level discussion.

you fit right in with those writers. I watched some on the list, as stated earlier. Maybe read before typing next time.

It's a flawed list that asked a large swath of people to name their 10 "greatest" films largely based on their impact on the industry and on their influence on the voter.

That is going to produce lists that skew to old films for the many reasons I stated, as well as films that can signal out how sophisticated and cultured they are.

Hardly anyone in the 40-70s who are lifelong cinephiles is going to put down a film from the last 1, 5, 10, or even 20 years as having the greatest impact on them. That's just not how people act.

I've seen a number of films on that list. Of course, many I haven't seen. And I'm not discounting their quality-- just dismissing the idea that they are all so much better than anything that has been made since the end of the Cold War.

It's like reading a list of the 100 greatest athletes of all-time and seeing all of them except for a small handful from before 1975. It would be dismissed out of hand.

A 'great' film can be made tomorrow but unlike an athlete, it can't keep making itself every year to prove longevity. It has to stand the test of time as is, i.e., impact future generations. Of course, that begs the question, if nobody makes an effort to see them are they still great?

Yes, if those that do go to see them appreciate them.

Again, I compare it to painting. It skews to older art because they stood the test of time. That's just the way it is. So any list will skew older but that does not make it a 'garbage' list.

Insofar as 100 greatest athletes of all time argument, that will always skew younger because unlike art, films,novels, etc. people don't see/appreciate the Jim Thorpe's of the world easily if at all, where anyone can see a Van Gogh or a La Règle du Jeu or a read Ulysses tomorrow. Big difference.

But, for me, that can't be the only thing of value. I see a movie for the characters and story. For example, I appreciate the unique process that went in to filming Boyhood for all parties involved. But, for the life of me, I don't get all the praise for the final product. I found the film slow and boring and the acting, including the Oscar performance from Arquette, to be nothing special.

Another example being mentioned here is Avatar. I never saw that in the theater. Watching on the TV, I was not impressed at all. The movie sucked. The acting sucked. The story sucked and was heavily borrowed. In response, I always get comments about how it looked and I needed to see it on the big screen. Sorry, but I'm not seeing a movie just because it was pretty. There has to be something more there.

In contrast, I take the original Star Wars trilogy, the new trilogy, and even the two stand alone movies. The FX don't look quite as impressive on the TV as they do on the big screen. But, I still enjoy the movies because of the characters and story. The prequel trilogy is so heavily reliant on CGI that the films suck to watch on TV and the films sucked in general. Also, while the FX are not as good on TV, they still stand out as impressive. TV or big screen, the opening scene of the original Star Wars (A New Hope now) is amazing to see. It hooks you. That is just not true of anything in Avatar for me.

In comment 14917483 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

I'm glad I got to see it on a big screen, it just wouldn't have been the same at home.

Another good example. I saw this at home, which probably impacted my opinion. I walked away thinking it was meh. Had I seen it on the big screen, maybe the cinematography wins me over. But, again, I generally want more than it looks pretty, or looks cool to enjoy sitting for a movie, especially at today's prices.

if you aren't into it, then you aren't into it.

But not seeing it on the big screen, the way it was intended to be seen, is doing the movie a massive disservice. Flat out. And it didn't just "look pretty" you felt like you were inside of it, something I've never experienced before in a movie. I hope its re-released ahead of the next one so I can see it again because I refuse to watch it at home.

Again, if you are strictly story only than this doesn't apply to you but the difference here isn't subtle, Avatar in iMax was an event, at home its just something you can put on for background noise.

of what was accomplished. Sure Transformers or Godzilla might fit into that category but what went into making Avatar, Gravity, Inception, Interstellar, Fury Road, etc are only truly appreciated on that big screen.

Tenet is up next and I refuse to watch it in anything other than iMax, preferably a 70mm screen.

In comment 14917656 Stan in LA said:

Quote:

A 'great' film can be made tomorrow but unlike an athlete, it can't keep making itself every year to prove longevity. It has to stand the test of time as is, i.e., impact future generations. Of course, that begs the question, if nobody makes an effort to see them are they still great? Yes, if those that do go to see them appreciate them. Again, I compare it to painting. It skews to older art because they stood the test of time. That's just the way it is. So any list will skew older but that does not make it a 'garbage' list. Insofar as 100 greatest athletes of all time argument, that will always skew younger because unlike art, films,novels, etc. people don't see/appreciate the Jim Thorpe's of the world easily if at all, where anyone can see a Van Gogh or a La Règle du Jeu or a read Ulysses tomorrow. Big difference.

You are showing here why it's a flawed list and irrelevant for the sake of this discussion.

In the context of a discussion as to whether good movies are made anymore, you posted a link to what you called the "definitive" list, which itself is a ranking that is going to not only preclude nearly anything in the last several decades, but will skew heavily to the much, MUCH earlier decades.

A better description of what you posted would be "The 100 Most Likely Films to be in a Top 10 Most Influential List"

On top of that, as time goes on, and voters get older, their answers don't necessarily change. If a 50 year old voter has his Top 10 list of movies that had the greatest impact on film or on him. In 20 years, it's quite likely that the same 10 movies are on his list just because he is likely not going to be any more influenced in his career or perspective on film now as he will be in 20 years.

So what does that add to a conversation about whether good movies are made anymore?

That's why it's a flawed and irrelevant list. It doesn't seek to really consider modern movies.

In comment 14917671 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

of what was accomplished. Sure Transformers or Godzilla might fit into that category but what went into making Avatar, Gravity, Inception, Interstellar, Fury Road, etc are only truly appreciated on that big screen. Tenet is up next and I refuse to watch it in anything other than iMax, preferably a 70mm screen.

Interstellar, for example, I'm sure was more impactful visually on the big screen. However, even at home, it was an enjoyable movie because of the story and I think what the filmmaker was trying to do comes across in a lesser degree.

Nothing more.

Didn't harm any children or animals posting it, did it?

In comment 14917546 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

And its just football... Crappy argument, we are discussing something fun, spawned by Bill & Ted.

And the same sentiment applies to football as well.