New movie trailers
- Thread starter rejenorst
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Jean-Chrysostôme Bruneteau de Sainte-Suzanne said:
IIRC this will be released on december 22, so it's a perfect way to spend X-mas.
Dystopian
If only it was the game the movie instead
but excited!!!KENNETH BRANAGH
That's a surprise. Here's hoping they don't **** it up.
Infinity Zulu War
I am enjoying those movies, so I am all for it not to die
Beny said:
It's a vicious circle. Film publishers pump massive amounts into their marketing for superhero trash, those films make lots of money by being hyped up for months, then marketing experts claim that superhero films are popular, meaning publishers pump more money into superhero films. It's the same with trends in video games, except filmgoing audiences get bored less easily.
There's also the fact that people in the developing world watch way more films than Europeans or Americans and
Movies during the last 5 years or so generally fall into these neatly summed up categories:
a)Superhero/fantasy/sci-fi bull**** that generate hype and are way too much crap even for their fanbase to defend
b)Remakes, reboots, reshoots of older movies(good or not)
c)"Indie", "intellectual", boring pieces of feces, made for hipsters(shudder.gif)
Let me put it this way: if a superhero movie(like all recent DC and Marvel stuff) makes Darkman or the Phantom look like gems of modern cinema, they are doing it wrong.
a)Superhero/fantasy/sci-fi bull**** that generate hype and are way too much crap even for their fanbase to defend
b)Remakes, reboots, reshoots of older movies(good or not)
c)"Indie", "intellectual", boring pieces of feces, made for hipsters(shudder.gif)
Let me put it this way: if a superhero movie(like all recent DC and Marvel stuff) makes Darkman or the Phantom look like gems of modern cinema, they are doing it wrong.
Beny said:
It feels like the latter right now. It's not like we can return to the 1970s with a larger number of experimental mid-budget films, because nowadays film companies are just so intent on pouring literally a billion dollars into a single film, and making it blandly appeal to everyone in China and India as well as the US and Europe.
I blame the shareholders.
d)Great films: Spotlight, Whiplash, What We Do In the Shadows, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Zero Theorem, The Big Short, and many others...Howard P. Lovecraft said:
Allow me to edit, then:
I mean, I thought it was pretty clear I was exaggerating a lot. But as for 'great films', come on! If I'd like to be bored to death, I wouldn't pay 8€ and sit through a 2 hours long ordeal. I would just buy some Melatonin.
Howard P. Lovecraft said:
I mean, I thought it was pretty clear I was exaggerating a lot. But as for 'great films', come on! If I'd like to be bored to death, I wouldn't pay 8€ and sit through a 2 hours long ordeal. I would just buy some Melatonin.
Adorno said:
All of those movies are awful and the other half of what is wrong with the film industry today. Because if you're not jerking off the "plebs" with big-budget SFX-driven movies, you're making movies like these which are either pointless biopics that are equally safe "tentpoles", this time targeted at the "intellectual" audience, explicitly designed to win Oscars, or they're ****ing **** art movies that are praised not on the basis that they are actually good films but more on how much they're superficially different from the big-budget movies.
So you criticise "big-budget SFX-driven movies" and movies for the ""intellectual" audience", and "**** art movies".
That's a wide net. Now I wonder which films slip through that net of criticism.
That's a wide net. Now I wonder which films slip through that net of criticism.
Adorno said:
I actually wasn't really criticizing "big-budget SFX-driven movies". I didn't really word it well at all but I was more trying to mock how dismissive some people seem to be of them. As for the films that slip through the net? They're movies that I enjoyed. I hated all the above movies. They're extremely ****ing boring and not even in a good way. The Big Short is essentially a dramatized documentary with famous faces, and not even the best one on the subject (Inside Job was far more informative and pretty much made the making of The Big Short moot), Spotlight is the same ****, a thoroughly pointless and hollow movie, Whiplash was extremely boring, and so on.
The problem with all the above movies, in my opinion, is that they're all soulless. Just as it is claimed that the big-budget blockbusters as formulaic and predictable, so too do all of the above movies, with the sole exception of The Zero Theorem (which was a limp effort for Terry Gilliam regardless), follow a paint-by-numbers approach to storytelling. They are all formulaic, and they make sure to tick all the right boxes and provide all the right moments for the big stars to tear up or shout or laugh or emote, they make sure to tackle their share of "issues" so their audience and their reviewers can feel a vicarious sense that something has been accomplished, but unlike the ways that this is done in a good movie, when it comes naturally through good filmmaking, it is blatantly obvious pandering, a screenplay written specifically to achieve the above.
A good movie, to me, is a movie that I enjoy, and movies that I enjoy are movies that are fun. Movies that were made not for awards season or to scoop up critical reviews, but were made for the sake of making them, because it is what the director and, occasionally, the cast and crew enjoyed. Sergio Leone movies are like this. Akira Kurosawa movies are like this. Quentin Tarantino movies are like this. These can be so-called "blockbusters" too - movies like Commando and Face/Off and Lord of the Rings and The Dark Knight are no doubt commercially-successful, but it's equally obvious that they were made to be enjoyed. I don't get that sense from any of the above drivel.
