Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Beat me to it Jake... Plus there is Generation Kill. Now, there's something they didn't have in the Thirties: great television.
Suckers.
-
When has it ever been any different, seriously? 1939 wasn't all Gone With The Wind, Wizard of Oz, Ninotchka and Mr Smith Goes to Washington. But that's what is remembered, just as I have my doubts anyone in 2079 s going to be watching the newly restored interactive holodeck transfer of Couples Retreat with any enthusiasm.
I think you'd be hard pressed to look at the thirties as a decade, and the noughties as a decade, and conclude that we have had as many good directors or films now than they did back then. But I was more commenting on the pervasiveness of spectacles that have no aspiration to meaningful innovation - Avatar if anything is likely to be the exception there. My gripe isn't that we make a lot of superhero movies or Tolkien adaptations, it's how pedestrian they are - it's a perverse fantasy realism which I hope will die soon.
Philip has a useful list of the best of the decade in film and music.
-
Might need some examples of that.
WALL-E.
-
They are and they are not. Having sat through trailers for the Chipmunks: The Squequel twice, there still is garbage being made for the child audience.
Of course, including some of the supposedly ironic ones.
-
Meanwhile, this seems apposite.
-
Still doesn't explain why the film for the actual kids are so much more intelligent, experimental, nuanced and complex. Surely that's what you'd expect from the films that try to appeal to adult viewers as well.
-
ORLY? Does beg the question why Gone With The Wind is still the inflation-adjusted box office champ after seventy years.
Since you're talking top grossing, I'll take Gone is the Wind - and by a considerable margin - over each and every top grossing film of the noughties.
-
Yes adults will put up with a lot less spectacle. But I think that the contrary is the case, that rather than tastes infantilizing, I think children's movies have simply got a lot better.
I meant infantilising the taste of adults. Children's film have got better and better, and rarely insult anybody's intelligence. But, say X-Men, or LOTR, or the Star Wars prequels, aren't marketed for children. They are supposed to be for a general audience.
-
You can no more judge a film on its trailer than you can judge a car from an ad for the car. You've got to test-drive it, at least.
Still beg to differ. In a film which is aggressively marketed for how it looks (see also: Where the Wild Things Are) if I don't like the look (and the trailer makes it abundantly clear) I'm just not going to bother. If I hated a minute and a half of it I'm unlikely to enjoy two hours and forty minutes of it.
Some of us don't get to see 100 films a year, you know ;-)
-
Other things being equal, I disagree. If the other aspects suffered because of the spectacle, then maybe. But something being spectacular isn't really a negative. I like spectacles, anyway.
I'd enthusiastically agree, if other things were equal. But seeing as this was the decade of superhero movies and prequels (and prequels of superhero movies) it's hard not to see a direct relationship between the increase in spectacle and the infantilisation of taste.
But hey, Roland Emmerich fan here, etc.
__Performance capture just gives me the creeps.__
They gets the creeps does they, Precious? We wonders, are they crunchable, are they sweet?
That's an excellent example, Gollum made well sure that LOTR dated in about twenty minutes. It's already all but unwatchable I find.